DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE letnik XXXII številka 83 december 2016 ISSN 0352-3608 UDK 3 SLOVENSKO SOCIOLOŠKO DRUŠTVO Fakulteta za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani Revijo izdajata Slovensko sociološko društvo in Fakulteta za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani. / Published by the Slovenian Sociological Association and the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana. Glavna urednica / Main editor: Andreja Vezovnik, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Uredniški odbor / Editorial board: Alenka Krašovec, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Alenka Švab, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Ana Tominc, Queen Margaret University Edinburgh Angelina Lucento, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow Anja Zalta, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Blaž Lenarčič, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerza na Primorskem Blaž Križnik, Graduate School of Urban Studies, Hanyang University Branislava Vičar, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Chiara Bertone, University of East Piedmont David Paternotte, Université libre de Bruxelles Dejan Jontes, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Gal Kirn, Humboldt University of Berlin Hernan Cuevas Valenzuela, Universidad Diego Portales Jana Javornik Skrbinšek, Universtiy of Leeds José Ignacio Pichardo Galán, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Judit Takács, Institute of Sociology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Karmen Šterk, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Katarina Prpić, Institute of Social Research in Zagreb Ladislav Cabada, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen Lilijana Burcar, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Ljiljana Šarić, University of Oslo Majda Pahor, Zdravstvena fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Mateja Sedmak, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerza na Primorskem Matic Kavčič, Zdravstvena fakulteta in Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Milica Antić Gaber, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Miran Lavrič, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru Miroslav Stanojević, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Mojca Pajnik, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani in Mirovni inštitut Nina Bandelj, University of California, Irvine Nükhet Sirman, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul Oliver Vodeb, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne Raffaella Ferrero Camoletto, Department of Cultures, Politics and Sexuality (DCPS), University of Turin Roman Kuhar, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani in Mirovni inštitut Sabina Mihelj, Loughborough University Sabrina P. Ramet, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Sonja Drobnič, University of Bremen Tanja Kamin, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Tanja Rener, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Thomas Luckmann, Prof. Emeritus, University of Konstanz Tjaša Žakelj, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerza na Primorskem Valentina Hlebec, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Vesna Leskošek, Fakulteta za socialno delo, Univerza v Ljubljani Zala Volčič, Pomona College, Claremont Zdenka Šadl, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani Zlatko Skrbiš, Monash University Tehnična urednica / Technical editor: Andreja Živoder andreja.zivoder@fdv.uni-lj.si Urednk recenzij knjig / Reviews editor: Marko Ribać marko.ribac@gmail.com Jezikovno svetovanje / Language editors: Nataša Hribar, Tina Verovnik, Murray Bales Bibliografska obdelava / Bibliographical classification of articles: Janez Jug Oblikovanje / Design: Tina Cotič Prelom / Text design and Typeset: Polonca Mesec Kurdija Tisk / Print: Birografika BORI, Ljubljana Naklada / Number of copies printed: 320 Naslov uredništva / Editors’ postal address: Revija Družboslovne razprave Andreja Vezovnik Fakulteta za družbene vede, Kardeljeva pl. 5, SI -10 0 0 Ljubljana Tel. /Phone: (+386) 1 5805 202 Elektronska pošta / e -mail: andreja.vezovnik@fdv.uni-lj.si Spletna stran / Internet: www.druzboslovne-razprave.org Revijo sofinancira / The Journal is sponsored by: Izid publikacije je finančno podprla Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz naslova razpisa za sofinanciranje domačih in znanstvenih periodičnih publikacij / Slovenian Book Agency. Letna naročnina (3 številke) / Annual subscription (3 issues): individualna naročnina / individual rate: 25 EUR; za organizacije / institutional rate: 50 EUR; za študente in brezposelne / students and unemployed discount rate: 16 EUR; cena posameznega izvoda / single issue rate:16 EUR. Za člane Slovenskega sociološkega društva je naročnina vključena v društveno članarino. / The annual Slovenian Sociological Association membership fee includes the journal’s annual subscription rate. Družboslovne razprave je mogoče naročiti na naslovu uredništva ali na spletni strani revije. / Subscription requests can be sent to the editors’ postal address. Če želite prekiniti naročniško razmerje, nam to sporočite najkasneje do 15. decembra. /If you decite to cancel the subscription, please write to editors' postal address by 15th of December. D r u ž bo s lov ne ra z p ra ve s o a bs t ra hi ra ne a l i i nd e k s i ra ne v / D r už bo s lov ne ra z p ra v e is a bs t rac t e d or i nd e xe d i n: C EE O L (C e n t ra l a n d Ea s t e r n E u ro p e a n O n lin e L ib ra r y), CO B I B . S I , C S A (C a m b r id g e S c ie n t ific A b s t ra c t s): • C S A Wor ld w id e Political Science A bstracts • CSA S ocial Ser v ices Abs tratcs • Sociolo gical A bstra c ts (Online), EBSCO host • Current Abst rac ts • Polit ical S cience Complet e • SocINDE X • S ocI ND E X w it h Full Tex t • TOC Premier, OCLC • S ociological Abst racts (O nline) • DOAJ (Director y of Open Access Journals) • Ulrich’s Web • De Gruyter • dLib Uredniška politika: Družboslovne razprave so revija, ki objavlja kolegialno recenzirane znanstvene članke in recenzije knjig. V recenzijski postopke sprejema članke v slovenščini in angleščini s področja sociologije, komunikologije, poltitologije in kulturologije ter tem raziskovalnim področjem bližnjih družboslovnih disciplin. Pri izboru člankov za objavo se upošteva njihova raziskovalna inovativnost ter aktualnost glede na trende v znanstveni skupnosti, v kateri je revija zasidrana. V teoretskem in metodološkem pogledu je revija pluralistično naravnana, posebno skrb pa posveča utrjevanju slovenske družboslovne terminologije. Editorial policy: Družboslovne razprave is a peer reviewed journal which publishes papers and book reviews. Contributions are invited in fields of sociology, media studies, political science, cultural studies and other studies which are close to these fields. The published contributions should display high level of research originality and address the themes which seem relevant to the scientific communities in which the journal is grounded. Both in theoretical and methodological respects the journal stands for pluralism. KAZALO TABLE OF CONTENTS TEMATSKI BLOK THEMATIC CLUSTER GUEST EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION Milica Antić Gaber THE EUROPEANISATION OF SOCIOLOGY? A BIBLIOMETRIC COMPARISON OF DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE AND ÖSTERREICHISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR SOZIOLOGIE / Evropeizacija sociologije? Bibliometrična primerjava revij Družboslovne razprave in Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie Barbara Hoenig THE DISCIPLINARY SOCIETY AND THE BIRTH OF SOCIOLOGY: A FOUCAULDIAN PERSPECTIVE / Disciplinarna družba in rojstvo sociologije: foucaultovska perspektiva Dušan Ristić, Dušan Marinković EXAMINING SOCIOLOGY’S POSITION IN AN INCREASINGLY INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMent / Raziskovanje mesta sociologije v naraščajoče interdisciplinarnem okolju Krešimir Žažar TEACHING SOCIET Y? LOOKING FOR NEW WAYS TO TEACH SOCIOLOGY IN CONTEMPORARY HUNGARY / Učeča se družba? Iskanje novih načinov poučevanja sociologije v sodobni Madžarski Péter Miskolczi, Gábor Király ČLANKI ARTICLES ORIS IZBRANIH KAZALNIKOV RETRADICIONALIZACIJE SLOVENSKE DRUŽBE / An Outline of Selected Indicators of the Retraditionalisation of Slovenian Society 7 11 29 45 63 Urban Vehovar, Jernej Tiran RECENZIJE KNJIG BOOK REVIEWS Gregor Moder: Komična ljubezen: Shakespeare, Hegel, Lacan. Ljubljana: Društvo za teoretsko psihoanalizo, 2015. Kaja Poteko 111 Michel Foucault: »Družbo je treba braniti«. Predavanja na Colle`ge de France (1975–1976). Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis, 2015. Ana Pavlič 113 Michel Foucault: Rojstvo biopolitike: kurz na Collége de France: 1978–1979. Ljubljana: Založba Krtina, 2015. Lea Kuhar 115 Anja Koletnik, Ana Grm in Martin Gramc: Vsi spoli so resnični – transspolnost, transseksualnost in cisspolna nenormativnost. Ljubljana: Društvo informacijski center Legebitra, 2016. Nina Perger 117 Ilan Pappe: The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge. London, New York: Verso. 2014. Marko Hočevar 119 IN MEMORIAM IN MEMORIAM THOMAS (TOMAŽ) LUCKMANN (14. 10. 1927–10. 5. 2016) Marko Kerševan 125 TEMATSKI BLOK THEMATIC CLUSTER Milica Antić Gaber GUEST EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION The articles published in this issue are revised versions of papers presented at the Meeting of Slovenian Sociological Association (SSA) held in November 2015 when Slovenian sociologists celebrated the SSA’s 50th anniversary together with colleagues from other sociological communities. Let me therefore briefly say a few words about the SSA and its journal Družboslovne razprave. The Slovenian Sociological Association was established in 1965, although it only took on its present formal name in 1978. From the outset, the Association has endeavoured to develop and promote sociology as both a profession and a scientific discipline. During the period of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slovenian sociologists played an important role in the then federal sociological association “Yugoslav Associa­tion for Sociology”, primarily by focusing on major issues concerning the development of Yugoslav society and issues of the professionalisation of sociology. The SSA seeks to constantly respond to current social developments and phenomena. This is also reflected in the selection of topics for the regular annual meetings and the scope of their sections in which a mix of Slovenian and international sociologists and other professionals discuss their latest research results and the most burning social issues. The Association also aims to take part and encourage public discussion on weighty issues facing society and to contribute its views on possible solutions in important decision-making processes. Every year, the SSA organises an annual conference under a different common title. The title chosen for its 50th anniversary meeting was Sociology between Producing Knowledge and Shaping Society. In the call for papers, the organisers underlined they wanted authors to reflect on the work carried out in the previous decades and thus prepare for future challenges. Through such an invitation, the organisers wished to reaffirm their commitment to a multitude of perspectives and approaches for tackling a range of standpoints and expectations con­cerning the individual and the well-being of a pluralistically structured society. The focus of the meeting held in November 2015 was on the various forms of scientific output produced and sociology’s role in co-shaping society; a society that will create the conditions not only for technological but also for social innovations; a society that will learn how to understand, respect and take from the past, but will chiefly direct its energy to the present and the future; a society not based on excluding ‘others’ and those who are ‘different’; a society whose highest value will be the individual and the common good. In the so-called International Panel, the podium was primarily opened to sociologists from other sociological communities but sociologists from Slovenia were also welcomed. The collection of the papers delivered at the meeting is now published in Družboslovne Razprave, a journal that has been publishing sociological research results since 1984. The Journal publishes original research papers addressing topics relevant to the scientific community in which the journal is grounded and correspond to global research trends in the areas of the social sciences and the humanities. The articles are published in Slovenian and English languages in the fields of sociology, media studies, political science, cultural studies and other studies that sit on the border with the above-mentioned fields. Papers in this special issue thus discuss the wide variety of topics announced in the call for papers from knowledge production in scientific journals to questions of teaching sociology in contemporary society. The paper by Barbara Bach- Hoenig – Europeanisation of Sociology? A Bibliometric Comparison of Družboslovne razprave and Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie – seeks to identify the impact of Europeanisation dynamics on the formation and develop­ment of sociology in Slovenia and Austria. The author examines in detail the two journals’ scientific production over the last three decades and compares their problem choice in research areas, topics, and the language of citations. By applying bibliometric analysis, the author concludes that society’s structural change, political transformation and European integration have all been subjected to much more research by Slovenian sociologists than among their Austrian counterparts. Apart from that, her findings indicate the Slovenian sociological community’s strong international orientation towards the Anglo-American sociology discourse, whereas their Austrian colleagues are primarily citing scholarly work published in German. The empirical results also show that Slovenian sociology as incorporated in DR has yielded very high proportions of knowledge produced in political sociology compared to a much smaller share in the Austrian journal ÖZS. This is partly due to DR’s more interdisciplinary orientation, including contributions from political science and other fields of the social sciences and the humanities. DR also much more strongly highlights the importance of European integration issues and those indicating social, economic and political change and structural transformations in general than the Austrian ÖZS. The author also finds that, as internationalisation pressure on sociological communities grows, both sociological communities are thus at a disadvantage compared to the specialised journals published in the English language. The paper by Dušan Ristić and Dušan Marinković entitled The Disciplinary Society and the Birth of Sociology: A Foucauldian Perspective is genealogical research that aims to present one of the historical ways that led to the emergence of sociology as a modern science. Following a Foucauldian analysis of power and knowledge, the authors describe how disciplinary practices in European societies during the 18th and 19th centuries and the appearance of new institutions show the rise of new discourses of their legitimisation and led to the birth of sociology. The authors conclude the social construction of knowl­edge is never exclusively one type of social practice, but connected to different spheres of society (the economy, politics, power) and is not emerging from the different settings of power relations – hence power/knowledge. Their even more intriguing conclusion is “that society has become the primary generator of discipline and normalization – through the network of social institutions and knowledge that have emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries” calls for further careful sociological examination. Krešimir Žažar’s paper Examining the Position of Sociology in an Increasingly Inter­disciplinary Environment focuses on the increasing interdisciplinarity and reflects on the need to establish sociology’s position in these relatively new circumstances. His paper addresses two important topics: the heterogeneity of sociology, and the possibility that sociology can create diverse t ypes of interdisciplinar y arrangements. The author discusses several issues in this respect: modalities of interdisciplinary conjunctions; attributes of levels at which interdisciplinary cooperation may appear; what sociology could provide to and what it may require from other disciplines; the potential advantages of participation in interdisciplinary scientific ventures, as well as their possible hazards; the preference for multidisciplinarity as a ‘softer’ variant of interdisciplinary connection and the urgency of sociology’s pertaining disciplinary uniqueness due to its capability to adequately answer a vast number of social challenges today. The author concludes the paper by advocating the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary connections of sociology with other sciences as he does not perceive any type of interdisciplinary knowledge able to compensate the possible absence of sociological expertise. Gábor Király and Péter Miskolczi’s paper entitled Teaching Society? Looking for New Ways of Teaching Sociology in Contemporary Hungary discusses several different approaches to teaching sociology. The authors refer to the issues of value-free sociology as well as Burawoy’s programme of public sociology, and connect them to the Hungarian experience. They are aware that sociology faces constant dilemmas about its possible roles of producing knowledge and shaping society and of the active role of sociology in forming society on the side of those who want to legitimise or those who change the status quo. But for the architects of today’s political power in Hungary, this function seems unnecessary. Sociology in Central and Eastern Europe – in the authors’ words – lacks credibility in the eyes of a large part of the population, and is also disliked and neglected by politics. Here the authors see an important role for the teaching of sociology whereby this problematic situation could be changed. They are convinced that especially by showing the scientific and dialogic nature of sociology to students, reflexive and critical sensitivity to the issues of knowledge production and the possibility of multiple viewpoints can be enhanced. Original scientific article UDK 316(436+497.4):[050.486:316](436+497.4)"1986/2015" Barbara Hoenig THE EUROPEANISATION OF SOCIOLOGY? A BIBLIOMETRIC COMPARISON OF DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE AND ÖSTERREICHISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR SOZIOLOGIE ABSTRACT This paper investigates the impact of Europeanisation dynamics on the formation and de­velopment of sociology in Slovenia and Austria. Compared are problem choice in research areas, topics, and the language of citations of sociological knowledge published in two sociology journals, Družboslovne razprave and Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie over a 30 -year period (1986–2015). Methodologically, the bibliometric analysis of journals was undertaken as a study entailing two distinct phases and methods of comparison. The empirical findings indicate that society’s structural change, political transformation and European integration have been subject to much more research among Slovenian sociolo­gists than among their Austrian colleagues. KEYWORDS: comparative sociology, bibliometrics, Slovenia, Austria, Europeanisation Evropeizacija sociologije? Bibliometrična primerjava revij Družboslovne razprave in Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie IZVLEČEK Pričujoči prispevek raziskuje vpliv evropeizacijske dinamike na oblikovanje in razvoj socio­logije v Sloveniji in Avstriji. Primerja izbiro problemov na različnih področjih raziskovanja, teme in jezik citiranja sociološke vednosti, ki so bili objavljeni v dveh socioloških revijah, Družboslovne razprave in Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie v zadnjih tridesetih letih (1986–2015). Metodološko gledano, je bibliometrična analiza revij izpeljana kot študija dveh različnih obdobij in metod primerjave. Empirični podatki nakazujejo, da so bile strukturne družbene spremembe, politične transformacije in evropske integracije veliko pogosteje raziskovane teme pri slovenskih sociologinjah in sociologih, kot je bil to primer med avstrijskimi kolegi in kolegicami. KLJUČNE BESEDE: primerjalna sociologija, bibliometrika, Slovenija, Avstrija, evropeizacija 1 Introduction When Slavoj Žižek reflected on the notion of the neighbour, he recognized that the term is often used ‘to serve as a test of the meaning of affiliation, membership, or com­munity insofar as the commandment seems to require a relationship or affective bond of some sort bet ween the other and the self ’ (Žižek 2005: 6). Žižek went on to ask whether that commandment ‘calls us to expand the range of our identifications or does it urge us to come closer, become answerable to, an alterity that remains radically inassimilable?’ (Žižek 2005: 7). Taking a neighbour’s view thus seems to imply acting vis-a`-vis an other’s society from a position of middle-range distance or scope, balancing between two poles: neither, on the one hand being intimately familiar as an insider with the respective com­munity, nor on the other hand qualifying as ‘the perfect stranger’, invisible, unknown, subject to the anonymity of modern societies. The notion of neighbourhood is frequently at stake when talking about European integration. Developing a neighbour’s view here may qualify as a pragmatic device for comparing two neighbouring countries and their sociological communities in terms of the social knowledge they produce. The historical formation of the social sciences and humanities has been bound to the rise of the nation state. Thus, there are reasons to assume that scholarly communities of sociologists in the neighbouring countries Slovenia and Austria rely on historically grown intellectual preferences concerning problem choice in scientific knowledge production. ‘National traditions of sociology’ (Genov 1989) refer to particular research themes or ‘foci of interest’ (Merton 1938) relevant to a respective nation state, its society and public discourse. Within the international division of labour in sociology, these research sites indicate the particular intellectual resources of a country, in terms of problem choice, theoretical ‘schools’ and methodological traditions that may become of interest to interna­tional communities as well.1 The general assumption here is that path-dependent national traditions of sociology are subject to Europeanization and more general internationaliza­tion pressures towards professionalization of the discipline; in reverse they may also be capable of feeding these dynamics towards an increasing Europeanization of research in sociology. 1. To mention an example: The Austrian Marienthal study on psychosocial effects of long-term unemployment (Jahoda et al. 1933), written by Marie Jahoda, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Hans Zeisel in the early 1930s, has been bound to locally specific historical contexts and needs, but also mirrored a political interest in a research field of international scope. All three authors emigrated in the 1930s, and the Nazi-regime prevented the reception of the study for a long time. However, the relevance of the local study’s findings for politically relevant research was an important condition for its more widespread reception in sociology after the Second World War (Nowotny 1983). This paper pursues the question whether there exists any potential impact of European integration on the professionalization of sociology as a scientific discipline and in particular on the content of knowledge produced. Which commonalities and differences in problem choice are observed when comparing the corpus of sociological knowledge generated in the two neighbouring countries? How have they evolved over the last three decades, as potential intellectual continuities, or rather indicating change in research interest instead? Can the latter causally be attributed to time-specific effects of more general dynamics of European integration and Europeanization in societies at large? These questions are analysed by investigating two leading sociological journals in Slovenia and Austria, the Družboslovne razprave (DR) and the Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (ÖZS). The research interest is in bibliometrically comparing the corpus of sociological knowledge incorporated in these journals over three decades (1986–2015). It can be assumed that intellectual continuities and changes in problem choice mirror more general internationalization pressures to which scholars accordingly adapted in their publication practices. The main research interest here, however, is how and to what extent research issues of potential ‘European concern’, as a result of Europeanization processes in knowledge production, are reflected in these two journals. Choosing Družboslovne razprave (DR) and Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (ÖZS) for investigating sociological knowledge content more in detail, is justified since both are official organs of the respective national sociological associations and thus among the most important for researchers’ communities in the two neighbour states. 2 The Many Uses of Europeanization in Science In European integration theory, a distinction is usually made between ‘neo-functionalist’ or ‘vertical’ approaches towards understanding integration on the one hand, and ‘transac­tionalist’ or ‘horizontal’ approaches on the other hand. The former are associated with the oeuvre of Ernst B. Haas (1958), who considers regional and European integration evolving as a process of supranational institution-building. In this sense, the notion of Europeaniza­tion indicates the adding of a supranational level to institutional fields that were previously mainly subject to legal and political regulations within the borders of the nation states. The analytical core of the notion of Europeanization thus entails the complex relationship of the supranational and the national level of social institutions and the social consequences of the former towards the latter (Bach 1996). Conversely, ‘transactionalists’ such as Karl W. Deutsch et al. (1957) have interpreted transnational practices of interaction across European border regions as the social foundation of integration processes. Approaches towards Europeanization developing as a bottom-up process through social practices of interaction in everyday life (Delanty and Rumford 2005) often regard the region as the central unit of restructuring European territories. In addition, public perceptions of EU ac­cessions and social scientific discourses on Europeanization often very much depend on the respective country context and its particular history of European integration. Raković recently argued that Europeanization processes can also be considered as a ‘rite of pas­sage’ of an imagined Europe, and as ‘a ritualized myth building process employed for the sake of European unity, and for the purpose of overcoming the flaws and foibles of the European existence, and aiming at survivance’ (Raković 2013: 114). How can the notion of Europeanization be fruitfully applied to the field of science and research, in particular to sociology? An interest in how European policies led to structural transformations of sociology as a scientific discipline2 needs to consider the characteristics of a scientific discipline and its process of institutionalization and profes­sionalization. In his reflection of the historical formation and development of intellectual traditions in sociology, Shils (1970) mentioned three central indicators for the existence and status of a discipline’s institutionalization. First, a discipline requires students to whom the new knowledge is taught, usually in the academic context of a university. Second, a public interest in sponsoring research done in that field of (social) science is required, articulated either by a governmental ministry or other funding institution. Third, scholars of that discipline communicate their work and scientific findings in joint publication organs such as journals recognized as specific ones for the respective discipline. Shils’ general indicators for the existence of scientific disciplines can usefully be applied to the case of sociology prior to analysing whether any Europeanization effects occurred in its process of formation and development. While the first indicator that a discipline must be taught to students is affected by institutionalizing the Bologna Reform Process in higher education, the second applies to sociologists’ participation in European research funding structures such as the Research Framework Programmes.3 In this paper, the analysis of Europeanization effects on sociology focuses on considering Shils’ third indicator, under­scoring the importance of scientific communication among scholars, when comparatively investigating two leading sociology journals located in European neighbourhoods. 3 Previous Research on Sociology Journals In the Sociology of Science, Robert K. Mer ton considered science as a social institution in which a community’s collective endeavour provides reward and reputation for scientific achievements on a meritocratic basis (Merton 1973). Based on the invention of the Social Science Citation Index in the late 1960s, the publication behaviour of ‘invisible colleges’ of scientists, communicating and networking through their work, became empirically measur­able (Price 1963). Mer ton’s former students at Columbia Universit y were among the first to apply citation analyses in order to evaluate the ‘perceived quality’ of scientific knowledge (Cole and Cole 1973). However, with good reasons there is raised the objection that in sociological studies of science the use of databases such as Thomson Reuters’ Web of Knowledge remains severely limited because of its many biases in terms of region and 2. Recall that sociologists from both countries were also active in founding the European Sociolo­gical Association, as a supranational professional association of sociologists, at the beginning of the 1990s. There can be observed a rather long history of transnational cooperation among sociologists and social sciences in Slovenia and Austria, independent from the accessions of these countries as new member states to the European Union in 1995 and in 2004 respectively. 3. For a comparative analysis of these two institutional indicators of Europeanization, see Hoenig (2009). language, still insufficiently covering knowledge produced in the social sciences, arts and humanities (Hicks 2006). Historical sociology reconstructs the enfolding of distinct journals within their respective contexts, such as Abbott’s path-breaking analysis of the Chicago School, underscoring that the development of scientific journals can be understood as part of an academic discipline’s professionalization process (Abbott 1999). Concerning bibliometric analyses on sociological journals in Slovenia and Austria, a long-term analysis of Slovene journal Teorija in Praksa has been undertaken by Kramberger and Jug (2004). Their time-sensitive analysis covered about 80 per cent of all journal articles published over four decades. In particular, they focused on the changing contri­bution of different disciplines or social scientific (sub-)fields to the in-house journal of the Faculty of Social Sciences (FDV) over time, finding a strong increase in contributions from political science. Mali (1996), Mali et al. (2010), Ferligoj et al. (2015) and Groboljšek et al. (2014) compared Slovenia’s social sciences and humanities with the natural and life sciences, in particular concerning co-authorship networks. Despite the increasing relevance of co-authorship across all disciplines, they observed divergent patterns of collaboration networks by field, such that, in contrast to natural scientists, social scientists who co-operate with colleagues from abroad are less likely to co-author papers with colleagues at home. For the social sciences in Central and East European countries, Mali (2011) more gener­ally identifies great expectations towards an anticipated breakthrough in international productivity whereas the latter can only be understood by reference to the existence or lack of institutional support and national contexts of evaluation systems of public science. The Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie has been analysed by Crothers (2000), who compared its content with sociological knowledge produced on a global scale. Par­ticular strengths of Austrian sociology were a quantitatively strong interest in the history of sociology, indicating that Austrian sociologists often work in the shadows of an illustrious past of the discipline in their country. Fleck (2001) has scrutinized the professional status of authors that have published articles in the ÖZS between 1976 and 2001. He found that among ÖZS authors the proportion of researchers outside universities steadily declined (from 24% to 3%), along with declining proportions of women (from 26% to 22%) and young researchers (from 45% to 10%). In reverse, the proportion of authors with higher status has strongly increased, including sociologists with tenure (from 12% to 61%) and guest authors affiliated to universities abroad (from 7% to 48%). Reichmann (2011) extended that analysis 10 years later with a focus on modified patterns of co-authorship indicating a changing scientific publication culture of science in general. 4 Research Design: A Bibliometric Comparison in Two Phases of Study The bibliometric comparison of Družboslovne razprave and the Österreichische Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie [Austrian Journal of Sociology] has been undertaken as a com ­parative investigation in two phases of study. In Phase One, the investigation considered the relative status of the two journals for researchers affiliated to sociology departments in the common border region Slovenia and Southern Austria. In addition, sociologists’ citation practices and language-orientation in terms of cited literature were analysed, as well as journal content in terms of problem choice, country-profiles and time-dependent effects, the latter potentially related to Europeanization. This has been undertaken in the second half of the 2000s in the context of a more encompassing examination of Europeanization processes in Slovenia and Austria. Apart from bibliometrics, historical comparative analyses of two public science sys­tems, documentary analyses of changing study curricula in light of the Bologna Reform Process, and analyses of research projects funded by the European Research Framework Programmes have been applied. In addition, more than 20 in-depth interviews were conducted with sociologists affiliated to five university departments of sociology and three external research institutes in the common border region of Slovenia and Southern Austria.4 The first phase of the bibliometric study was based on hard copy search of so­ciological publications only, including a) all publications of researchers affiliated to these five university departments who at least have received a PhD, and b) a comparison of the two journals’ content from 1986 up until 2007. In interviews with sociologists, the latter have also been asked to interpret country-specific findings of bibliometric analyses from their professional perspective. For the three departments in Slovenia (FDV Ljubljana, FF Ljubljana, Maribor), we relied on publication lists available at the national virtual bibliographical system COBISS (status: 31/12/2007). For the two Austrian university departments (Graz, Klagenfurt) publica­tion lists were available on the respective departmental webpage, some of them as full, some of them as incomplete lists.5 During the first phase of study, the two journals were only insufficiently covered by Sociological Abstracts.6 Since a solely electronic research would be incomplete and result in inadequate findings, the literature search and resulting bibliometric analyses were performed mainly by hand, taking the hard copy versions of the complete set of primary sources into account. Therefore, in a second step comparing article content of the two journals, a manual investigation of all issues of the respective journals was undertaken in the Jože Goričar library in Ljubljana and the library of the 4. The institutional sample comprised five university departments of sociology: Fakulteta za družbene vede (FDV) Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta (FF) Ljubljana, Maribor, Graz, Klagenfurt, and three external research institutes: the Mirovni Institut, the Interuniversitäres Forschungszentrum Graz (IFZ), and the Fakultät für interdisziplinäre Forschung und Fortbildung Klagenfurt (IFF). IFZ and IFF meanwhile became formally integrated in the respective universities. Findings of the comparative historical analysis and of the interviews are reported in Hoenig (2012). 5. Unfortunately, sociology in Austria does not provide an electronic database comparable to CO ­BISS. Reporting requirements at national level were introduced in the late 2000s in the context of universities’ intellectual capital reports (Wissensbilanzen) vis-a-vis the ministry, while the standardi­zation of documentary systems across universities is still rather low. 6. In 2008, the international electronic database of formerly Cambridge Sociological Abstracts (now Sociological Abstracts Proquest) was rather poor, covering comparable data for both sociology journals from 1995 up until 2001 only. Even now, Sociological Abstracts covers DR data from the year 1995 onwards only. In other words, the problem with a solely electronic research by the Sociological Abstracts database lies in its inadequacy for identifying articles published prior to 1995 (DR) and after 2001 (DR and ÖZS). University of Graz. To identify any long-term change in research content it was necessary to identif y a sufficiently broad time -window.7 Thus, the sample included original scientific articles published between 1986 and 2007, but excluded research notes and book re­views. It included 434 articles of DR and 508 articles of ÖZS, in sum 942 journal articles for Phase One (1986–2007). In Phase Two, these initial results were then complemented and compared with a comparative analysis of the two journals, as indexed in the Sociological Abstracts data­base. Coverage of Sociological Abstracts has substantively increased in the last decade, now entailing articles for both journals from 1995 up until 2015. Thus, I was able to run a follow-up study of our previous investigation, complementing long-term findings from Phase One, at the same time comparing previous data to the more recent ones, both methodologically and in terms of empirical results. In Phase Two of the study, I relied on the Sowiport Gesis electronic portal (URL sowiport.gesis.org) that is fed by several databases, among them Sociological Abstracts. Since the database does not make a distinction between scientific articles and research notes, the number of articles has been corrected manually, excluding ÖZS research notes. This decision reduced the number of articles to a quantitatively comparable sample of 659 DR articles and 664 ÖZS articles for the time-span 1995–2015 (total n = 1,323 articles). Synthesizing samples from these two phases of study, I present and discuss comparative bibliometric data on sociological knowledge published in these two journals over three decades (1986–2015). Graph 1. Distribution of DR and ÖZS articles over time, 1986–2015, in n of articles by year (n = 1,323). 7. This is also in line with Abbott’s suggestion that an intellectual paradigm in sociology on average lasts for about 25 to 30 years, corresponding to the median duration of a sociology professor’s affiliation to the university (Abbott 2001). The distribution of articles over both phases is shown in Graph 1; on average 22 articles per year were published in DR and in ÖZS respectively. The distribution over time was relatively homogeneous, except for the fact that in 1993 no DR volumes were published, and in the 1980s the number of articles was greater in ÖZS than in the following years in which research notes were introduced in a new section. Peaks in the ÖZS distribution indicate special issues that were frequently published as supplements to particular research themes from the mid-1990s up until the mid-2000s. The cognitive content of articles published in DR and ÖZS has been analysed with a focus on country-specific differences and potential changes in time from 1986 up to 2015. Journal content has been analysed by extracting a set of keywords or codes from articles’ titles and abstracts that were available in the respective vernacular and in English respectively. The set of keywords mainly derived from the classification system of the International Sociological Association’s (ISA) sociology sections (URL isa.org), using keywords mentioned in section titles as search terms. In Phase One of the study, we were also interested in empirical methods and theoretical paradigms, sociological key theorists mentioned and in the language-orientation of cited references. In Phase Two of the study, we have also taken research themes indicated by Sociological Abstracts into account, insofar as they corresponded with these previously defined ISA keywords. 5 A Transnational Case Study: Comparing the Two Sociology Journals Družboslovne raprave was founded in 1984 at the time of the awakening civil societ y in Slovenia, and was edited both by the Slovene Sociological Association SSD and the Institute of Sociology.8 Inter-disciplinary social scientific researchers dedicated the jour­nal to the Institute, which had been founded in 1959, later on the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy located in Ljubljana. The Institute has been located outside universities and therefore differed from academic sociology taught at the FDV faculty, in its exclusive focus on research. After the independence of Slovenia in 1991 the Institute was closed; half of the staff went to the FDV, half either took retirement, or remained without a job. ‘Družboslovne razprave was a heritage which they brought with them … as given from open minded sociologists not to forget that it was from the Institute’ (from an interview). After 1991, several social scientific disciplines in Slovenia founded more specialized English-speaking journals, which was also supported by a general trend of enforced qualification requirements to primarily focus on English-language journals. Since 1991, DR has been edited by the Slovenian Sociological Association and by the Faculty of the Social Sciences (FDV). Printing regularly three times a year, volumes are also available online and contain scientific articles, translations, book reviews and event reports. The journal Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie was founded in 1976. Quite similar to DR, it initially considered itself in contrast to academic sociology, so that the journal 8. This part is based on the DR website and on in-depth interviews with several sociologists affiliated to sociology departments in Slovenia. The interviews were conducted in spring 2008. for a long time was dominated by authors located at small research institutes outside the academe. The goal of the editors of these times was ‘to express the variety of theoretical and methodological positions … finding their basis in social problems occurring in this country’ (Balog and Cyba 2001: 10ff., translation added). From the 1980s onwards, a shift in focus from mainly empirical studies, done to a large extent in social policy research, towards more theory-oriented contributions in cultural studies has been observed (ibid.). According to the editors, sociology as an instrument of a rational societal reform should also have an impact on the development of the discipline as empirical, critical science (Balog and Cyba 2001: 18). Since both intentions, however, did not always merge, the section of research notes for widening the journal’s empirical scope has been introduced. On the occasion of the journal’s 25th anniversary, former editors critically reflected that not all initial missions towards strengthening a critical forum for young scholars and the more general public have been met (Balog and Cyba 2001). Edited by the board of the Austrian Sociological Association, ÖZS volumes are published four times a year and are also available online. Subject to publication are scientific articles, research notes as descriptions of current projects, introduced in the 1990s, comments on events, and book reviews. Its target groups are sociologists and scholars from neighbour disciplines. 6 Relative Importance, Journal Clusters, and Language-Orientation in Citation Practices, 1986–2008 In which journals do sociologists in Slovenia and Austria actually publish, and what is it about the relative importance of DR and ÖZS among all journals that attract sociologists as authors? Based on the universal set of journal articles9 produced by university-based sociologists in the border region, in Phase One of the study journals were identified and clustered. This led to estimating the relative domestic importance of the two sociology journals as a subset of the entire field of knowledge production in the region. Of all ar­ticles published by staff affiliated to Ljubljana FDV department, 12.6% found their way into DR (total n = 1,371), but only 4.5% of articles from Maribor department (total n = 132) and 2.1% of Ljubljana FF department (total n = 582) were published in the same journal. Compared to ÖZS, 7.1% of publications written by staff from Graz department (total n = 451) and 5.8% of Klagenfurt staff (total n = 103) were published in the same journal. Huge differences in staff numbers, availability of publication data and the higher importance of monographs and book sections for sociologists of these times, contribute to explaining remarkable differences in the absolute number of publications of Slovene versus Austrian sociology departments; relative frequencies thus are expected to give more adequate results. These journals were clustered in four groups indicating the respective intended audi­ence of readers, entailing either sociological or inter-disciplinarily oriented journals, and journals of either regional or trans-regional scope. Clusters of journals were obtained 9. The universal set included scientific and professional articles published in DR, and scientific articles, excluding research notes, published in ÖZS. by defining ‘sociological’ journals as those in which the discipline is either mentioned in the journal’s title (e.g. Soziologie, Sociologija, American Sociological Review) or on the background knowledge that these journals play a particular role in the institutionalization of sociology in the respective countries (such as Družboslovne Razprave and Teorija in Praksa). Conversely, ‘inter-disciplinary’ journals lacked these distinct features; their titles often refer to social sciences in general or to neighbouring disciplines (e.g. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaft, Časopis za kritiko znanosti). ‘Regional’ journals were identified by their place of publication in the respective country, border region, and by the vernacular language used (Slovene respectively German). ‘Trans-regional’ journals were identified by the publisher being located outside the two countries, being published in other languages than the vernacular, and showing an explicitly trans-regional orientation indicated by title keywords such as ‘European’ and ‘international’. Based on a simple frequency count of journal articles, respective results are given in Graph 2. Graph 2. Clusters of journals by university department, in relative frequencies of journal articles (n = 2,639). Data in Graph 2 show that staff of FDV was more strongly inclined towards explicit socio­logical journals (34%), whereas staff of FF (31%) and Maribor University (35%) published more in journals of multi- and inter-disciplinary scope. Graz and Klagenfurt did not very much depart in their share of publications in sociology journals (each 19%), but the former department’s staff also published much in multi-disciplinary journals (23%). Concerning geographical scope, publishing in regional journals of the vernacular was predominant among all departments (with values between 38% and 51%), whereas trans-regional journals’ share was between 9% and 20%. Klagenfurt department’s respective high share may also be a result of the early inclusion of foreign sociologists from Germany in its research staff. The most important sociology journals in a Slovene context were Teorija in praksa, Družboslovne razprave, and Nova revija, apart from the Serbian journal Çasopis Soci­ologija, located in Beograd, and the French journal Annales, while most relevant sociol­ogy journals in an Austrian context were Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie and the Kriminalsoziologische Bibliographie and the German journals Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Journal für Sozialforschung, and Soziologische Revue. (Trans-)regional journals of some importance to both Slovene and Austrian researchers were the journals Innovation and the Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, European Societies and International Sociology. In addition, I was interested in the citing practices of researchers and their respective language affiliations as readers of sociology, mirrored in citing research literature published in the national or in other languages. In identifying citations’ languages, I did not refer to languages of translations but to the anticipated original language-community of the researcher. In both journals, articles’ mean number of citations was apparently increas­ing over time, and the share of English literature cited was increasing as well. Concern­ing language-orientation, however, DR authors primarily refer to literature published in English, to a much greater extent than to any other language. Up until 2004, apart from Slovene language, DR authors also cited literature published in German, in other European languages such as French and Italian, or in additional East European languages such as post-Yugoslav languages, Russian or Hungarian. Graph 3. Articles’ citations in two journals, by language, year, and mean number of citations per article (1: 1–10 citations; 2: 11–20 citations; 3: 21–30 citations). This finding indicates a high international orientation of the Slovene sociological com­munity towards the Anglo-American sociology discourse, which might also result from the constant need of a small language community to internationalize itself. Conversely, ÖZS authors were primarily citing scholarly work published in German, although references towards literature published in English increased. Parallel to the latter, and apart from the respective national language, other European languages seem to have declined in importance among authors of both journals. 7 Country-Profiles and Time-Dependent Effects in the Corpus of Sociological Knowledge, 1986–2015 What about identifying specific ‘national traditions’ in the corpus of sociological kno­wledge published in DR and ÖZS respectively? Findings that indicate certain strengths, preferences or intellectual traditions in the respective sociological communities are given in Table 1. The fact that respective data partly depend on problem choice of journals’ special issues, does not contradict the result that there exist research themes of particular interest to a national sociological community. In addition, it has to be taken into account that similar sociological topics may be differently addressed and enfold different meanings in the respective country context. For instance, articles published in DR frequently indicate different categories of change, whereas we seldom find any use of the notion of transfor­mation; in the case of articles published in ÖZS, it seems to be the reverse. Nevertheless, it is assumed that issues of problem choice can be compared across country-contexts without too much loss of information. Table 1. Country-profiles and time-dependent effects in the corpus of sociological knowledge, by journal and decade, in absolute numbers and per cent. DR: Družboslovne razprave, ÖZS: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie. DR ÖZS Country profile / trajectory Keywords 1986– 1995 1996– 2005 2006– 2015 Total n Total % 1986– 1995 1996– 2005 2006– 2015 Total n Total % 1. STRONG PROFILE in DR Civil society 26 4 4 34 1.63 3 2 0 5 0.2 Comparative 0 6 9 15 0.72 1 0 0 1 0.04 Europe(an), including EE 30 37 29 96 4.59 14 26 25 65 2.62 Identities 6 5 10 21 1.01 8 0 0 8 0.32 Methodology 57 22 14 93 4.45 45 18 7 70 2.82 National(ism), ethnicity 5 15 6 26 1.25 3 15 10 28 1.13 Political (sociology) 74 87 64 225 10.78 28 2 59 89 3.59 Poverty, welfare, social policy 40 33 20 93 4.45 17 6 21 44 1.77 Stratification, elite 8 30 7 45 2.16 13 5 5 23 0.93 Transforma­tion, change 54 68 25 147 7.04 58 36 65 159 6.41 Quality of life 21 18 1 40 1.92 1 0 0 1 0.04 Youth 0 5 4 9 0.43 1 1 0 2 0.08 2. STRONG PROFILE in OZS Deviance, control 0 11 7 18 0.86 2 31 27 60 2.42 History (of sociology) 0 59 42 101 4.84 4 136 137 277 11.17 Migration 0 5 0 5 0.24 14 5 31 50 2.02 (Sociological) Theory 69 68 43 180 8.62 90 51 87 228 9.07 Women, gender 7 30 17 54 2.59 51 44 46 141 5.69 3. STRONG INCREASE (both) Communica­tion, know/ ledge, culture 9 50 74 133 6.37 46 137 122 305 12.26 Economics, economy 0 25 31 56 2.68 6 65 112 183 7.38 DR ÖZS Country profile / trajectory Keywords 1986– 1995 1996– 2005 2006– 2015 Total n Total % 1986– 1995 1996– 2005 2006– 2015 Total n Total % 4. WEAK INCREASE (both) Agriculture, food 0 1 4 5 0.24 3 5 7 15 0.6 Education 2 7 8 17 0.81 7 12 13 32 1.29 Environment 0 0 12 12 0.57 7 7 18 32 1.29 Language 0 10 11 21 1.01 2 5 9 16 0.65 Health 4 12 9 25 1.2 5 3 11 19 0.77 (In-)Equality 10 15 13 38 1.82 8 10 30 48 1.94 Organiza/ tion(s) 0 38 21 59 2.83 4 19 12 35 1.41 (Social) Psychology 3 14 8 25 1.2 4 4 15 23 0.93 5. DECREASE (both) Capitalism 36 11 9 56 2.68 40 26 27 93 3.75 6. INCREASE – DECREASE Age(ing), demography 5 20 13 38 1.82 5 2 5 12 0.48 Arts 2 10 10 22 1.05 6 9 6 21 0.85 Family 7 19 27 53 2.54 10 8 13 31 1.25 Religion 1 10 14 25 1.2 13 4 8 25 1.01 Science, technology 10 54 30 94 4.5 53 25 19 97 3.91 Work, labour 14 30 27 71 3.4 36 11 38 85 3.43 7. DECREASE – INCREASE Democracy 37 21 2 60 2.87 11 42 37 90 3.63 Population 3 5 0 8 0.38 0 8 10 18 0.73 Region, urban 14 9 4 27 1.29 3 6 15 24 0.97 8. SMALL N, CONTINU­OUS Law 0 5 1 6 0.29 1 4 4 9 0.36 Leisure 3 3 2 8 0.38 0 0 1 1 0.04 Sociotechnics 2 0 0 2 0.09 3 0 0 3 0.12 Sport 0 4 3 7 0.33 7 0 3 10 0.4 Terminology, conceptual 0 4 3 7 0.33 0 2 0 2 0.08 Housing 2 8 1 11 0.53 0 0 0 0 0.0 Total codes, in n 561 888 639 2088 100.00 633 792 1055 2480 100.00 Slovenian sociology incorporated in DR gave very high proportions of knowledge produced in political sociology, when compared to the Austrian journal ÖZS (10.8% vs. 3.6%). This might partly reflect DR’s more inter-disciplinary orientation, including contri­butions from political science; partly it may result from field-specific intellectual speciali­zation and the high societal relevance of corresponding problem choice. Of continuing importance in DR across all three decades are European integration (4.6% vs. 2.6%) and issues indicating social, economic and political change and structural transformations in general. The first decade in which the state of Slovenia gained independence has been characterized by a pronounced sociological interest in political change and the ‘civil society’ concept, but also in research on regional and urban development. In addition, research themes on poverty, the welfare state, and social policy issues were flourishing, apart from research on quality of life; they continued to be relevant in the second decade (1996–2005). The latter has also shown a deep interest of Slovene sociology in issues of social differentiation, stratification research and the explanation of elite-reproduction and circulation. Moreover, research on methodology and in particular comparative sociology was more pronounced in DR than in the ÖZS; the latter gains more relevance in an explicit European framework of sociological research (Haller 1990). In which sense do these foci of research reflect transition processes of Slovene society, and in which sense do they indicate increasing Europeanization of research? It can be assumed that research in the civil society concept, in social stratification and in the transition of elites may more strongly be connected to transformations of Slovene society than to the processes of Europeanization that followed from Slovenia’s independence. However, the latter has also supported a visible research interest of Slovene sociologists in topics of (East) European integration from the mid -1990s onwards, but also research on citizenship, nationalisms, and interethnic relations in particular from the 2000s onwards. The latter are seen as partly resulting from the break-up of former Yugoslavia and the catastrophic Balkan wars of the 1990s. Table 1 does not give any evidence that the interest in (East) European integration has found a comparable resonance among Austrian sociologists. Neither has the scientific community in Austria reflected on major processes of political transformation, social strati­fication, and social change. Although Austria does not share the experience of Slovenia’s rather recent stately independence and connected transition processes, the comparable lack of research on European integration in ÖZS is particularly surprising. Both Austria’s EU accession in 1995 and the Eastern enlargement almost one decade later could have initiated much more sociological research on these issues. The relative ignorance of Austrian sociologists to phenomena of civil society and social stratification in interviews has been explained by some of them by an increasing neglected interest in theorizing class inequalities in favour of differences by gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Anglophone cultural studies’ discourse, but also recent research on economic sociology, apparently attracted increasing interest in both sociological communities. So what about research topics and problem choice prominent in Austrian sociology? In ÖZS there can be observed a considerable interest in the history of sociology and also in sociological theory. Visible research in the sociology of education may indicate a rather indirect effect of Europeanization, in particular by the evolving Bologna Reform Process. In addition, high proportions of research on both gender and migration that did not find much interest among academic sociologists until recently, can be partly interpreted as a potential outcome of research funded by the EU’s Framework Programmes, and thus as an indirect consequence of the Europeanization of public science systems. 8 Conclusions: Towards a Europeanization of Sociological Knowledge? Both DR and ÖZS are national journals of the sociological communities, and they share specific characteristics, such as being broader in the range of subjects and being published in the national language. With increasing internationalization pressure on sociological communities they are thus discriminated against more specialized journals published in English language. Current changes in the social organization of the (social) sciences and in institutional requirements for qualification suggest that the publication behaviour of social scientists is also subject to cohort effects. A comparison of journal content across three decades revealed differences in intellectual traditions of sociology, depending on the respective societal conditions of the discipline as well. Cognitive continuities and change in problem choice at least partly reflect the causal effects of the Europeanization of the discipline and of science at large. It remains to be seen how and to what extent increasing processes of disintegration in the European Union will shape changing conditions of the social sciences in both member states and whether these foreshadowed transformations will attract the research interest of sociologists publishing in ÖZS and DR too. Bibliography Abbott, Andrew (1999): Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Abbott, Andrew (2001): Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bach, Maurizio (1996): A Quiet Revolution through Administrative Procedure: Bureaucratic Integra­tion Processes in the European Community. In V. Gessner, A. Hoeland and C. Varga (eds.): European Legal Cultures: 552–557. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Balog, Andreas, and Cyba, Eva (2001): Anspruch und Realität: 25 Jahre ÖZS. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26 (2): 6–24. Cole, Stephen, and Cole, Jonathan A. (1973): Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: The Uni­versity of Chicago Press. Crothers, Charles (2000): Austrian Sociology: A Case Study in the Sociology of the Production of Social Knowledge. In C. Fleck. (ed.): Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwis­senschaften. Special Issue of Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie: 267–286. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Delanty, Gerard, and Rumford, Chris (2005): Rethinking Europe: Social Theor y and the Implications of Europeanization. London: Routledge. Deutsch, Karl W., Burrell, Sidney A., Kann, Robert A., Lee, Maurice, Lichterman, Martin, Lindgren, Raymond E., Loewenheim, Francis L., and Wagenen, Richard W. van (1957): Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organizations in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ferligoj, Anuška, Kronegger, Luka, Mali, Franc, Snijders, Rom A. B., and Doreian, Patrick (2015): Sci­entific Collaboration Dynamics in a National Scientific System. Scientometrics, 104: 985–1012. Fleck, Christian (2001): Verblichene Röte auf grauem Hintergrund: Ein Vierteljahrhundert ÖZS. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26 (2): 64–76. Genov, Nikolai (ed.) (1989): National Traditions in Sociology. London: Sage. Groboljšek, Blanka, Ferligoj, Anuška, Mali, Franc, Kronegger, Luka, and Iglič, Hajdeja (2014): The Role and Significance of Scientific Collaboration of the New Emerging Sciences: The Case of Slovenia. Teorija in Praksa, 51 (5): 866–885. Haas, Ernst B. (1958): The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950–57. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Haller, Max (1990): The Challenge for Comparative Sociology in the Transformation of Europe. International Sociology, 5 (2): 183–204. Hicks, Diana (2006): The Four Literatures of Social Science. In H.M. Moed, W. Glänzel, and U. Schmoch (eds.): Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: 473–496. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hoenig, Barbara (2009): Two Neighbours, One Vision? The Impact of the European Union’s Acces­sion of Slovenia and Austria on the Development of Sociology in the Common Border Region Slovenia – Southern Austria. PhD thesis, University of Graz. Hoenig, Barbara (2012): Europeanization of Sociology: A Comparative Perspective on Slovenia and Austria. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Jahoda, Marie, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Zeisel, Hans (1933): Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Soziographischer Versuch über die Wirkungen langdauernder Arbeitslosigkeit. Leipzig: Hirzel. Kramberger, Anton, and Jug, Janez (2004): Revija Teorija in praksa – sredstvo prvotne profesion­alizacije družboslovja na Slovenskem. Teorija in praksa, 41 (1–2): 84–113. Mali, Franc (1996): Bibliometrična analiza raziskovalnih rezultatov znanstvenikov v Sloveniji. Teorija in praksa, 33 (6): 956–970. Mali, Franc (2011): Policy Issues of the International Productivity and Visibility of the Social Sciences in Central and Eastern European Countries. Sociologija i prostor, 48 (3): 415–435. Mali, Franc, Ferligoj, Anuška, and Kronegger, Luka (2010): Co-authorship Trends and Collaboration Patterns in the Slovenian Sociological Community. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1 (2): 29–50. Merton, Robert K. (1938): Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New York: Howard Fertig. Merton, Robert K (1973): The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Nowotny, Helga (1983): Marienthal and After. Local Historicity and the Road to Policy Relevance. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5 (2): 169–192. Price, Derek de Solla (1963): Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press. Raković, Slaviša (2013): European Politics of Survivance: Europeanization as a Rite of Passage. Družboslovne razprave, XXIX (72): 105–117. Reichmann, Werner (2011): 35 Jahre ÖZS – Eine quantitative Bestandsaufnahme. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 36 (3): 7–28. Shils, Edward (1970): Tradition, Ecology, and Institutionalization in the History of Sociology. Daedalus, 99: 760–825. Žižek, Slavoj, Santner, Eric L., and Reinhard, Kenneth (2005): The Neighbour: Three Inquiries in Political Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sources COBISS bibliometric database. Available from: http://www.cobiss.si (accessed 24.10.2016). International Sociological Association. Available from: http://ww w.isa.org (accessed 24.10.2016). Sowiport electronic portal. Available from: http://www.sowiport.gesis.org (accessed 24.10.2016) Own data compilations and analyses. Acknowledgements A previous version of this paper was presented at the meeting, ‘Sociology between Produc­ing Knowledge and Shaping Society’ on the 50th Anniversary of the Slovene Sociological Association on 6–7 November 2015 in Ljubljana. I am thankful to the conference audience and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful critique and comments. Author’s data Barbara Hoenig, PD Dr. Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of Education & Society, University of Luxembourg Campus Belval, Maison des Sciences Humaines 11, Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg E-mail: barbara.bach-hoenig@uni.lu Review scientific article UDK 316 -043.83:1FOUCAULT Dušan Ristić, Dušan Marinković THE DISCIPLINARY SOCIETY AND THE BIRTH OF SOCIOLOGY: A FOUCAULDIAN PERSPECTIVE ABSTRACT This paper is genealogical research that aims to present one of the historical ways that led to the emergence of sociology as a modern science. We discuss how and why this kind of genealogical research is important for explaining the emergence, transformation and regionalisation of power/knowledge. By following the arguments developed by Michel Foucault, we argue that the disciplinary practices emerging in European societies during the 18th and 19th centuries strongly influenced the upsurge of power/knowledge that would be transformed in sociology. We conclude that the appearance of the institutions – elements of what Foucault called the disciplinary society – led to the rise of new discourses of their legitimisation and to the birth of sociology. KEYWORDS: discipline, Foucault, genealogy, power/knowledge, sociology Disciplinarna družba in rojstvo sociologije: foucaultovska perspektiva IZVLEČEK Pričujoči prispevek predstavlja genealoško raziskovanje, ki ima za cilj predstaviti eno od historičnih poti, ki so vodile k nastanku sociologije kot moderne znanosti. V njem razpravlja­mo o tem, kako in zakaj je ta tip genealoškega raziskovanja pomemben za pojasnjevanje nastanka, transformacije in regionalizacije moči/vednosti. Na sledi argumentov, ki jih je razvil Michel Foucault, trdimo, da so prakse discipliniranja, ki so se pojavile v evropskih družbah v 18. in 19. stoletju, močno vplivale na pojav moči/vednosti, ki se bo transfor­mirala v sociologijo. Prispevek zaključimo s tezo, da pojav institucij – elementov tega, kar Foucault imenuje disciplinirajoča družba – vodi k vzponu novih diskurzov njihovih legitimacij in k rojstvu sociologije. KLJUČNE BESEDE: discipline, Foucault, genealogije, moč/vednost, sociologija 1 Introduction One of the most important questions that tackle the very identity of social theory and sociological knowledge is the question of its legitimization. If we aim to reveal the social aspects of the processes of legitimization, the following questions arise: What kind of knowledge are we speaking of? What (social) authority and power stands behind that knowledge? Or, in other words: Whose knowledge matters? (Weiler 2009). In the Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Alvin Gouldner wrote that: “Academic Sociology is a science of repeatedly new beginnings; which is to say, it has a strange ten­dency towards amnesia” (Gouldner 1970: 159). The lack of agreement over the meaning of social theory is constantly present in sociological discourse. As a reflexive discipline, sociology understands that “its own project is part of the social reality it studies” and that a sociological understanding of society is an integral part of what society is (McCarthy 1996: 8). Gouldner also pointed that “it is not possible to write a viable history of social theory today without creating a new intellectual genre – a genre which will be one part history, one part sociology, one part criticism, the whole encompassed in a membranous boundary permitting mutual access of facts to values and of technical analysis to cultural interests” (Gouldner 1965: 168; Calhoun 1995). Within the field of sociology, he recognized the need for questioning the problem of social change and the tendency to explain its own paths or genealogy of changes (Antonio 2005). However, it seems that sociology has lacked the analytical tools for doing it on its own. Not because of its underdevelopment, but because of the complexities of the social reality. From a different perspective, Foucault’s studies have shown that the analysis of politi­cal, economic and institutional regimes of the “production of truth” in society is possible if various regimes of discourse are explored through genealogical re-contextualization. This kind of research revealed the fact that knowledge is always tied to a technology of power: discipline, surveillance (Foucault, 1995), control (Foucault, 1998; 2006), etc., hence the importance of genealogical research. In sociology, it is primarily reflected in the fact that it can “narrow down” the problem of the general history of knowledge and transfer it from global to local level (Foucault 1984b: 90). The genealogy also aims to trace the origin of sociological knowledge by “localizing” it and in that way “protecting” us from the generalizations of the total history (Foucault, 1984d: 250). This paper addresses the importance of the genealogical research in the analysis of the histor y of sociology as a modern science1. Our aim is to explain the significance of the disciplinary practices and the rise of what Foucault (1995) called the disciplinary society for the emergence of sociological discourse. Still, we examine just one of the “genealogi­cal paths”, through the connections between disciplinary practices and their infusion in the epistemological apparatus of social sciences. In other words, we examine how insti­tutional practices and procedures – that have emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries 1. This article is based on the paper presented at the ‘Annual Meeting of the Slovenian Sociological Association 2015 – Sociology between Producing Knowledge and Shaping Society’ that was held from 6th to 7th November 2015 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. in European societies, became the modern disciplinary regime of power/knowledge and how they have influenced the emergence of the scientific discourse on society. 2 Regional character of knowledge and the genealogical project Moving through the genealogical paths of “local” European geography and a number of common fields where knowledge has been produced, we are introduced into the field of research – the field of politics and fields of power and resistance. In defining what knowledge is, we can use different concepts, due to the fact that no knowledge is shaped without a system of communication, registering, accumulation, and shifting (Foucault 1994: 389). Hence, the recognition of the fact that knowledge and power are closely related is nothing new, and it can be found in the many works from Marx to Foucault. Knowledge has the relational and regional character. It means that the changes in the processes of its legitimization “cannot be explained – at least not exclusively – in terms of the content of knowledge itself” (Weiler 2009: 3). The knowledge is never autonomous in the absolute sense. It is not independent of time, locality of space and geography, institutions and practices in which it is embedded. The regionality of knowledge considers it to be a spatial category. Knowledge is related to the context where it emerges from – regardless if its background is symbolical or territorial region. More important: “Once knowledge can be analysed in terms of region, domain, implantation, displacement, transposition, one is able to capture the process by which knowledge functions as a form of power and disseminates the effects of power” (Foucault 1980c: 69). In other words the regionaliza­tion of knowledge signifies the differences in “an administration of knowledge, a politics of knowledge”, as well as “the relations of power which pass via knowledge” (Foucault 1980c: 69). In addition, the perspective of the regionality of knowledge also points to its relationality in the sense of its different ways of interconnectedness to some context (for instance, through the practices of teaching, administration, politics, power, etc). Relationality is the characteristic feature of scientific knowledge (Latour 2007: 16). For instance, one possible genealogical line of the regionalization of (scientific) knowledge can be seen through the history of universities in Europe, since the public and anonymous knowledge have been constituted partially because of the institutionalization of universities during the 12th centur y in Western Europe. However, the other genealogical line, or the subject of our interest in this enterprise, leads us in paths of Enlightenment and the rise of the practices of disciplining knowledge in different social fields. Knowledge has been firmly connected with science for many centuries, and science converted knowledge into the “regime of the truth” by different, “local” practices and institutions – always in order to monopolize it, globalize it and universalize it. However, we should not forget that the term “knowledge” includes not just the scientific knowledge, but all the possible types of knowledge identified in past and present societies. In other words, anything that counts as knowledge (McCarthy 1996: 16). Knowledge is not just the knowledge of truth in the scientific sense of the word, but also the knowledge of sense – because it secures basic interpretative and symbolic schemes for what people call social reality. In an even more general sense, knowledge is the most immediate and yet mediated relationship between us and the world. It is the most immediate one because the world (necessarily) appears as a representation of knowledge; it is considered a me ­diator, because there is an entire symbolic system, interpretative mechanisms, concepts, interests, strategies, culture, politics, power, institutions and practices between us and the world. Knowledge is also a kind of ‘resistance’ to the unforeseen world events that do not depend on us (Marinković et al. 2014). Although these general claims about knowledge should ensure us to see knowledge everywhere and in everything, genealogy should help us to narrow down the means of its analysis. Genealogical project and the research of the regionalization of knowledge aims to explain how a certain kind of knowledge is constructed, what can pass as acceptable way of getting at reality and how knowledge claims are justified and stabilized in social practices (Livingstone 2003: 88). Regionalization in this context could be defined as a social process that includes – depending on the sphere (politics, geography, culture, economy) – different criteria for delimitation between the social practices. Regions are not exclusively geographical units, just as geography is not only the question of space. Regions of discourses in society are based upon the fragmentation and differentiations of social practices and knowledge. This is because “knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting” (Foucault 1982: 208); to separate, distribute, classify, to produce different regions of knowledge and identities or subjects in the opposite sides of this “cut­ting”. Pierre Bourdieu wrote that regional discourse is the performative discourse whose aim is to legitimize certain definition of borders (Bourdieu 1992) – not just between the territorial regions, but also between the symbolic ones. In other words, the question of the regionality of knowledge is the question of the classification or the systems of classifica­tions. Also, it is the question of division between the epistemological fields and subfields, the question of regionalization of subjects and boundaries between the sciences. They emerge, however, not as a consequence of “pure” research efforts of the scientists, but also as a consequence of the differentiation between social practices and spheres or fields of social action. 3 Enlightenment and the rise of the disciplinary society If we look back in the history of sociology, we can see that it is the Franco-German fusion. We can also see that in the period of the emergence of the sociological discourse, there were structural and social fusions – or, the mixture of de-structured aristocracy and its socio -political conser vatism on one side, and the middle class and its technical intelligence on the rise with their socio-political liberalism on the other. That is the deep dichotomous core structure of sociology and the reason why “sociology was thus at first the intellectual product of old strata that had lost their social power and of new ones that were still far from fully developed” (Gouldner 1970: 106 -107). However, when it comes to sociology, “the genealogy of knowledge must first – before it does anything else – explain the problem of the Enlightenment. It has to say what was at the time described (and was still described in the 19th and 20th century) as the progress of Enlightenment, the struggle of knowledge against ignorance, of reason against chimeras, of experience against prejudices, of reason against error, and so on” (Foucault 1998: 178). In short, genealogy and its discourse-power axis, should examine the processes of institutionalization and legitimization of knowledge. In attempt of tracing the genealogy of sociological discourse, we can notice that the 18th century and the Enlightenment were the periods of the “Great exclusion” (Foucault 1984c; 1995) and discontinuity between the two epochs or types of social order. In Gouldner’s terms, it was also the period when the “tragic vision of the world was fading away” (also see Marinković 2006; Gouldner 1976). Although we may wish to draw a dividing-line between the epochs, or between the different social orders and ontologies, the limit we are trying to set “may perhaps be no more than an arbitrary division” (Foucault 2002b: 56). Either way, we are speaking about the historical period, an archive (Foucault 2002a), and the transition and transformation of knowledge as well as the creation of the new “space” for the sociological knowledge to emerge. In other words, we are trying to detect the new ways of thinking, the era of new relationships among people and the emergence of the social as the type of the human relation, but also the way of legitimization of com­munity. Society and the knowledge on society were formed as the system of practices and the system of scientific thought that has been significantly modified, and still lasts. In the long historical period, from the emergence of Protestantism, over the Enlightenment to the revolution in France, we can see a number of important social transformations that could be sublimed in the new type of social identity, social reality and the new Weltanschauung (Marinković 2006: 67; Chriss 2002). The Enlightenment is, as Kant (1784) indicated in his famous essay “Was ist Aufklärung?”, a “way out” – or the process that releases us from the status of “immaturity”. By that term he meant “a certain state of our will that makes us accept someone else’s authority to lead us in areas where the use of reason is called for” (also see Foucault 1984c). However, this historical period also provided the strengthening of a certain type of philosophical reflection, a problematization (Foucault 1984a) of the present time and articulation of the subject. But what is more important in the context of this paper is that during the 18th century, there was a development of many different types of technical knowledge (as a consequence of the demands of the production and the prices of these knowledges) and also “the development of processes that allowed bigger, more general, or more industrial­ized knowledges, or knowledges that circulated more easily, to annex, confiscate, and take over smaller, more particular, more local, and more artisanal knowledges” (Foucault 1998: 179). At that time, in the “battle for the knowledge” and its legitimization, the State will intervene, either directly or indirectly, in four different ways. The first is by elimination or disqualification of “what might be termed useless and irreducible little knowledges that are expensive in economic terms” (Foucault 1998: 180). Then, by normalizing knowledges – clustering them together and breaking the barriers of secrecy and technological or geographical boundaries. The normalization also signified the unification or control of the “dispersed knowledges”. Third operation is hierarchical classification of knowledge while the fourth operation is derived from this one: it considers the “pyramidal centralization that allows these knowledges to be controlled, which ensures that they can be selected, and both that the content of these knowledges can be transmitted upward from the bottom, and that the overall directions and the general organizations it wishes to promote can be transmitted downward from the top” (Foucault 1998: 180). Hence, we can say that the 18th centur y was the centur y when dif ferent t ypes of knowl ­edge were disciplined and when the “internal organization of every knowledge became a discipline” – that allowed it “to eradicate false knowledge or non -knowledge” (Foucault 1998: 181). And the disciplining of knowledge led to the new way of systematization and organization of knowledge into the global field that we call science. Besides the focus on the problem of the Enlightenment, the genealogy of (sociological) knowledge should also trace the development of the other “disciplinary dispositives” of modern societies since the end of the 18th century (Foucault 1995). For instance, at the end of the 18th century, there were significant transformations in the “disciplining of space” in society. In other words, disposition of space started to serve significantly to the economical and political ends (Foucault, 1980d: 148). New spatial strategies or spatially mediated multiplication of discipline contributed to the formation of “pure community”, but also the “disciplined society” (Foucault 1995: 198). “Underlying disciplinary projects the image of the plague stands for all forms of confusion and disorder; just as the image of the leper, cut off from all human contact, underlies projects of exclu­sion” (Foucault 1995: 199). Clive Norris summarizes these two different social models of discipline and control: “Power over the plague victims is exercised by ‘differentiation’, ‘segmentation’, and ‘training’. In contrast, power over the leper is managed by enforced ‘segregation’, ‘separation’, ‘confinement’and ‘exile’ (Norris 2003: 250; see also Myers and Wilson 2014). Whilst “the leper gave rise to rituals of exclusion… the plague gave rise to disciplinary diagrams” (Foucault 1995: 231). These schémas disciplinaires “require a strict spatial partitioning, careful surveillance, detailed inspection and order” (Elden 2003: 243). This was about a disciplinary project that multiplied spatialization – an area was divided into infected and uninfected parts, as well as the towns. Parts of the town tissue were “sick”, others were not. Then we can also see the “dramaturgy of liberation” of the madman, also analyzed by Foucault. It was the differentiation of power/knowledge and the microphysics of medical­ized disciplinary practice. That was the practice of power/knowledge within the hetero­geneous spatialized forms – in hospitals, prisons, schools, army barracs, factories – with the disciplining and surveilling mechanisms that were applied to bodies. And the power/ knowledge gained its discursivity precisely through these mechanisms – as the outcome of the disciplinary practices over the objects that were separated, classified, spatially dis­tributed, medicalized (Foucault 1980e: 44). The best example and the substance of these “scattered” disciplinary techniques was the model of Panopticon developed by Jeremy Bentham (1995) and consequently, the concept of Panopticism introduced by Foucault. Panopticon “could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behaviour, to train or correct individuals” (Foucault 1995: 203). But research procedures, which were too inquisitorial, would liberate space more and more for investigative analysis. Investiga­tion would be established in opposition with research: “Such forms of analysis gave rise to sociology, psychology, psychopathology, criminology, and psychoanalysis” (Foucault 2001: 5). In all of these, we can notice the constitutive transitions in the disciplining order and the emergence of disciplinary society – through the institutions that have introduced the different types of disciplinary practices. In addition, those practices were getting more implemented in different social fields. We see the birth of different social institutions that articulate not just what Foucault called the power/knowledge, but also the positive knowledge: psychiatric clinics, hospitals, schools, modern universities, prisons, laborato­ries, etc. (Marinković 2006: 72). That is why the concept of power/knowledge reflects the permanent connection and intertwinance of power and knowledge. Aforementioned social institutions, as well as the humanistic and social sciences, got the monopoly over time i.e. power and monopoly over the legitimization of knowledge. In the processes of the general social and historical deritualization (Marinković and Ristić 2016) and rationalization of the Western societies at the end of the 18th centur y, we see the emergence of new types of discourses: legal, pedagogical, psychological, medi­cal, and psychiatric. In other words, we are witnessing the grouping of the new regions of discursive practices and knowledge/power. For a long time, different statements could be come across in Europe: on wealth (which was not yet economy), on nature (which was still not biology), on representations (which were still not philology), on the lack of clarity of madness (which was still not psychiatry), on crimes (which were still not penology and criminology) – until they were homogenised and disciplined by the spheres and institu­tions that became the authorized places for the production of the legitimate knowledge (Marinković 2012). But even before the established autonomy gave a relative permanence to discourses, they were tied to temporarity, cyclicity and periodicity of knowledge and communication as ritual practices. And just like that, by the end of the 18th century, a gloomy ceremony of punishment started disappearing along with the body exposed to public torture and execution (Foucault 1995). In parallel to these processes of the deritu ­alization of punishing the body, many practices of saying, stating, uttering and knowing were deritualized (Ristić and Marinković 2015). Finally, through the different processes of disciplinar y practices in 18th and 19th centuries – development of social institutions and disciplining the knowledge – many different objects emerged as the subjects of research. And one of them is society as the subject of sociology. These new subjects fulfilled new, regionalized and discursive spaces of knowledge creation. Therefore, the disciplining of European societies from the 18th century did not imply that individuals became more and more docile or that societies were created just out of the prisons, schools or army barracks. It meant that societies were aiming towards more rationality and control of productivity and networks of communication – Entzauberung der Welt – (Weber 2005). In these processes, we can see that different forms of power/ knowledge are transferred through the disciplines and technologies of individual discipline, working, learning, procedures of normalization, sexual behaviour – whether we speak of the production with the economical purpose or of institutions that have the important function in the organization and control of the social action. 4 Transformations and transitions of disciplinary practices into sociological discourse Overall changes and transitions in the disciplinary diagram of power signified the need to expand, fade away and diffuse the former norms of discipline that were limited to the localization and internment of the bodies in the classic prisons and military instituti­ons. In other words, more subtle forms and practices of surveillance and control needed to be implemented in the emergent field of the social. One of them is the disciplining the knowledge creation and knowledge production. As it was mentioned, from the end of the 18th century, a new social body emerged. It was the body of society. Along with this body, the new epistemological concept arose – the concept of population (Foucault 2007). Population is the multitude that lives, works and reproduces. Societ y and population were the great revelation: “What was discovered at that time – and this was one of the great discoveries of political thought at the end of the eighteenth century – was the idea of society” (Foucault 1984d: 242). In other words, it was the new body “which becomes the new principle in the nineteenth century” (Foucault 1980b: 55). The same matrices and models of discipline that had earlier been constructed over concrete, individual bodies would be applied to this new body. The trihedral measure-investigation-interrogation would be applied to the social body through the emergence and regionalization of knowledge: statistics, demography, economy, political science, sociology. Through the collective body of the population the society becomes the object of the study – of a new anatomy, mechanics, pathology and panoptics. Through the population, society becomes the object of bio-politics (Foucault 2008). This abstract phenomenon – society – finally becomes visible. That is because population has its morphology and it can be measured, investigated and interrogated. It becomes visible through the new discourses on society that emerge – the rise and development of the sciences. Discipline and Punish, History of Madness and History of Sexuality represent the genealogy of the new practices and technologies of power/knowledge, especially during the 18th and 19th centuries. These are also genealogies of new practices of disciplining (Revel 2002: 21), that took place in space and that could not be possible without different institutions and techniques developed within those institutions. Those were the ways of disciplining the multitude – new social programs of institutions at their early stage of development in Europe. They have embodied the use of technical abilities, the “games” of communication and relations of power/knowledge. They have shown how system of objective purpose can be joined as a model of articulation and model of diffusion that in certain context (school, prison, factory or clinic) gives priority to the relations of power and docility. In addition, they have showed how certain institutions were able to become the places of articulation of epistemological models and dichotomies – for instance one between the normal and pathological (Canguilhem 2013). In a certain institution (factory, clinic), priority was directed to purposeful activities, or (in schools) to the relation of communication and disciplines of teaching (Foucault 1982). If we aim to understand how those institutions and their legitimization of certain type of knowledge influenced the formation of sociological discourse, we should pay our attention to the problem of the normalization of the representations. Social representations as „normalizing judgements“ are part of the social technologies of governmentality (Foucault 2010). In other words, representations are the instruments of discipline. One of the fundamental effects of power is the social acceptance and circula ­tion of certain discourses – the ones that legitimize the social reality we are living in. The complexity of the social process of normalization is reflected in the fact that it does not imply exclusively the regime of discourses that circulates in one society (Neumann 1999), but also many different social non-discursive practices and other social technologies. Institutions always articulate and legitimize the adequate forms or rationalities that organize doings. These are actually social technologies that can be applied in many different social fields in order to achieve certain social objectives. For instance, discipli­nary technologies and the way the work is organized in economy, should contribute to greater precision, labor productivity and so on. In science, particular way of thinking and discipline contribute to a greater precision and elaboration of ideas, concepts and terms. They also contribute to the improvement and development of (scientific) knowledge. Social technologies are thus established and modified in accordance with different social norms and relationships. At the same time, they express the distribution of discipline and power/ knowledge. Social technologies are also the ways of homogenization and systematization of different spheres of social beaviour. Practices are complex assemblages of rational and irrational behaviour, but they are also the strategic and tactical freedom games (Foucault 1980a). It means that practices always contain the disproportion or the specific economy of relation of power/knowledge. They are not just the instruments of social control, but also the instruments of resistance. Discursive practices are the mean of reproduction of social technologies2 but also of their articulations (Laclau and Mouffe 2001). Programs, technologies and dispositives of social practices are not ideal types in the Weberian sense, but elements that are articulated one on another. They are as real as the institutions that stabilize them, or as the behaviour of people (Foucault 1994). The consequences of social technologies can be seen in the whole social field, but for them to emerge it is necessary that tools, or the material machineries are used by diagrams in the certain disposition (Deleuze 2006). In accordance with previous statements, the genealogy of knowledge should follow the genealogy of disciplinatory practices as the operative mechanisms and technologies 2. The notion of reproduction in this context signifies the repetitive acts or the repetition of certain social behavior and practices. It “implies continuity of a system or structure as well as human agency. More theoretically, the notion is used to bridge the well-known gap between the macro-level and the micro-level of social structure. Systems or abstract structures, such as ideologies, natural languages, and societal arrangements are thus said to be both manifested in, as well as made to persist as such through, social practices of social actors at the micro-level. A language like English is reproduced, daily and by millions of people, by its everyday use. And so are capitalist, sexist or racist ideologies“ (Van Dijk1998: 228). that are placed within the institutions, within the certain relation of power and „fix“ them into a kind of reproductive setting. Discipline is in Foucault‘s work a principle “which is itself relative and mobile; which permits construction, but within narrow confines“ (Foucault 1981: 59). It makes possible the individualization and authorization of discourse and is „defined by a domain of objects, a set of methods, a corpus of propositions considered to be true, a play of rules and definitions, of techniques and instruments“ (Foucault 1981: 59). Discipline is not just the sum of what can be said about a subject: „Medicine is not constituted by the total of what can be truthfully said about illness; botany cannot be defined by the sum of all the truths concerning plants“ (Foucault 1981: 60). Discipline is the procedure of producing the truth, but also the errors that have the positive function of renewal and progress: “Within its own limits, each discipline recognizes true and false propositions; but it pushes back a whole teratology of knowledge beyond its margins“ (Foucault 1981: 60).3 It “fixes limits for discourse by the action of an identity which takes the form of a permanent re-actuation of the rules“ (Foucault 1981: 61). In addition, disciplinary methods made “the meticulous control of the operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility” possible (Foucault 1995: 137). The historical moment of the discipline to arise, according to Foucault, was the moment when “an art of the human body was born, which was directed not only at the growth of its skills, nor at the intensification of its subjec­tion, but at the formation of a relation that in the mechanism itself makes it more obedient as it becomes more useful” (Foucault 1995: 137-138). Discipline produced the subjected, practiced and “docile” bodies. The history of the different disciplinary institutions, with all their differences would show precisely the effects of those subjections, practices and “docilit y”. What was obvious is that from 17th century onwards, mostly on the territor y of Western Europe, we could testif y of the development of the mechanisms of power that were applied in different social fields (education, punishment, production, reproduction). Hence, the importance of the genealogy of institutions is considered to be as equal as the importance of their procedures and disciplinary techniques or the differences among them (for instance, between prison discipline, hospital discipline or school discipline). These institutions created different types of inmates as the object of the inquiry and complex procedure of surveillance and punishment (Foucault 1995). As we have already mentioned, disciplinary techniques had to take into account a new phenomenon that was articulated like never before – new social body of popula­tion (Foucault 2007). Processing, controling and surveilling of a large number of people 3. Foucault use the example of Mendel: “What Mendel did was to constitute the hereditary trait as an absolutely new biological object, thanks to a kind of filtering which had never been used before: he detached the trait from the species, and from the sex which transmits it; the field in which he observed it being the infinitely open series of the generations, where it appears and disappears according to statistical regularities. This was a new object which called for new conceptual instru­ments and new theoretical foundations. Mendel spoke the truth, but he was not ‘within the truth’ of the biological discourse of his time” (Foucault 1981: 61). opened new types of problems as well as the need for the new types of knowledge – those of demography, health and other public policies, dealing with hygiene, life-span, fertility and so forth. These problems would also be of the specific interest of sociology, since its subject matter – a social body – was settled in the continuum between the individual body and the body of the population. The techniques of the discipline were not considered to be the ideal types in one mo ­ment of histor y but more as the different techniques and practices and concrete behaviours that had the purpose to serve the particular, local needs (Foucault 1980a; 1994). For instance, we can see the disciplinary connection between the Quaker theory and prison punishment, since both insisted on isolation, solitude and silence. The obligation and disci­pline of silence were installed in the prison system and a reward for good behaviour was the privilege of speech (Rusche and Kirchheimer 1939). Everything that had to be said, spoken or shaped in utterances and discourses was supposed to happen in the spaces of the investigation – this was the only acceptable place to produce the utterances. There was, namely, a deep inquisition pattern – model “ inquisitorial” (Foucault 1994: 391) – relation not only towards the body, but also towards the speech. Despite the fact that our representations were familiar with inquisition practices which use the body, those were to a great extent practices over texts and utterances. This pattern would later become part of the epistemological strategy of empirical sciences (Foucault 1994: 391). In this pattern the body and the text (Ristić and Marinković 2015) were caught in the trihedral measure-investigation-interrogation, where the measure was a mean of establis ­hing or re-establishing the order; the investigation was a mean of establishing or restoring the facts; interrogation was a mean of establishing or restoring a norm, a rule, a division, and classification (Foucault 1994:390). The Inquisition system became “one of the most significant juridical-political matrices of our knowledge” (Foucault 1994: 392). The development of society also brought “a separation of the functions of the doctor and the priest, and then a transfer of moral regulation from the church to the clinic”, which gave Turner a basis to conclude that medicine occupied “the social space left by the erosion of religion” (Turner 2002: 22). This was a new codification, or rather a re-codification of practices by the technology of separation, that is medicalized classification and rise of the medical knowledge. Since the 17th century, body became both the place and the instrument of knowledge, a place of the new epistemology of empiricism (Wolfe and Gal 2010). Primarily, medicine, anatomy and pathology found the body as a place that could “produce” a new kind of texts, utterances and discourses or the new epistemology of the social sciences. Now we can see how the disciplinary practices that have developed due to the social concepts of measure, investigation and interrogation are incorporated in the epistemo­logical apparatus of sociology. The very practice of investigation, being essentially the inquisitorial model or form, has its long history in Europe and is not eventually embedded in scientific procedures and construction of facts. What was once designed primary for practice in courts and was modified during the transition from revenge to punishment, become applied in different social institutions and practices of governmentality. It also became important in the context of the development of the system of knowledge. What once were social measures, techniques and technologies, later became the epistemological instruments, transformed into models of research in medicine, law, linguistics and in other sciences. Finally, it was articulated during the 19th centur y in the works of classic sociolo ­gists. For instance, Durkheim’s sociology appeared (as well as structural-functionalism in Parsons, or system theory) as the sociology of measure. If we considered the sociology of investigation, then we could point to whole field of empirical sociological studies and not just early, classical works. Subsequently, a good example of the sociology of interrogation would be Marxism and it’s varieties. This is to emphasize that sociology and sociological discipline emerged from the certain social needs. They are inextricably linked to some social problem. On the other side, we have tried to trace some of the aspects of the development of disciplinary soci­ety that established the new norms to individuals and societies, and accordingly, made possible the development of sociology as a modern science. However, we should not neglect the other important aspect of the development of sociology such as the fact that it had appeared (both in France and in Germany) in the context of the serious threat to the post-revolutionary constellation along with the growing risk of jeopardizing social order. One of the ideals of the era of Enlightenment was articulated through the revolutionary practice, while other was legitimized due to the development of the concept of rational scientific discourse in society. 5 Conclusion With all the changes that have led to the development of science in general, sociology in particular, as a modern discursive practice, there have been the unavoidable, constitu­tive transitions in disciplining order. This paper highlighted the most important outcomes of aforementioned processes through the emergence and development of institutions that began to produce the positive knowledge – psychiatric clinics, hospitals, schools, labora­tories, etc. (Foucault 2003). In every respect, the key elements for the broader genealogical research are given in the Foucault’s works that was only partly mentioned in this paper, not with the aim to pres­ent his arguments, but to interpret them in accordance with the question of the genealogy of sociology as a modern science – since it seems that Foucault’s analysis only indirectly tackled the question. The aim of tracing the genealogical path of disciplinary practices and the sociological discourse was to show that regionalization of knowledge was possible when the social reality became “divided” and multiplied with the help of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, it was argued that fragmentation of different practices is possible due to the knowledge creation. Since the new institutions – prisons, schools and clinics were established, new discourses of legitimization followed, and that opened the space for the emergence of sociology. Following these settings, we can conclude that social construction of knowledge is never exclusively one type of social practice – it is connected to the different spheres of society (economy, politics, power) and it is emerging out of the different settings of power relations – hence power/knowledge. There is still an open question of how far one could go in the research of the rudimentary forms of disciplining practices: all the way to the Roman legions and their regimentations, to the Benedictine monastic practices of discipline in the early Middle Ages? What is for sure, at least until our time came, is that society has become the primary generator of discipline and normalization – through the network of social institutions and knowledge that have emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries. In somewhat dif ferent forms, it lately overtook the organized social life in the Western Europe and beyond. References Antonio, Robert J (2005): For Social Theory: Alvin Gouldner’s Last Project and Beyond. In J. M. Lehmann (ed.): Social Theory as Politics in Knowledge. Current Perspectives in Social Theory: Volume 23: 71–129. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Bentham, Jeremy (1995): The Panopticon Writings. London: Verso. Bourdieu, Pierre (1989): Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard. Calhoun, Craig (1995): Critical social theory: Culture, history, and the challenge of difference. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Canguilhem, Georges (2013):Le normal et le pathologique. Paris: PUF. Chriss, James J (2002): Gouldner’s tragic vision. The Sociological Quarterly, 43: 81–96. Deleuze, Gilles (2006): Foucault.Minneapolis: University of Minnesotta Press. Elden, Stuart (2003): Plague, Panopticon, Police. Surveillance & Society, 1(3): 240–253. Foucault, Michel (1980a): La poussiere et le nuage. In M. Perrot (éd.): L’Impossible Prison, Recher­ ches sur le syste`me Pénitentiaire au XIXe sie`cle: 29–39. Paris: Éd. du Seuil. Foucault, Michel (1980b): Body/Power. In C. Gordon (ed.): Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 Michel Foucault: 55–62. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1980c): Questions on Geography. In C. Gordon (ed.):Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 Michel Foucault: 63–77. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1980d): The Eye of Power. In C. Gordon (ed.):Power/Knowledge Selected Inter­views and Other Writings 1972–1977 Michel Foucault: 146–166. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1980e): Prison Talk. In C. Gordon (ed.):Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 Michel Foucault: 37–55. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1981): The Order of Discourse. In R. Young (ed.): Untying the Text: A Post-Struc­turalist Reader: 48–79. Boston, London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Foucault, Michel (1982): The Subject and Power. In H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.): Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and Hermeneutics: 209–226. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, Michel (1984a): Polemics, Politics and Problematizations. An interview with Michel Fou­cault. In P. Rabinow (ed.): The Foucault Reader:381–390.New York: Pantheon. Foucault, Michel (1984b): Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In P. Rabinow (ed.): The Foucault Reader: 76–100. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1984c): What is Enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (ed.): The Foucault Reader: 32–50. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1984d): Space, Knowledge and Power. In P. Rabinow (ed.): The Foucault Reader: 239–256. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel (1994): Théories et institutions pénales. In D. Defert, et F. Ewald (eds.): Dits et écrits 1970–1975, Tome II: 389-393. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, Michel (1995): Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, Michel (1998): Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975–1976. New York: Picador. Foucault, Michel (2001): Truth and Juridical Forms. In J.U. Faubion (ed.): Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984: Power: 1–89. New York: The New Press. Foucault, Michel (2002a): Archaeology of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge. Foucault, Michel (2002b): The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London and New York: Routledge. Foucault, Michel (2003): The Birth of the Clinic. London and New York: Routledge. Foucault, Michel (2006): Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the College De France, 1973–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, Michel (2007): Security, Territory, Population. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Foucault, Michel (2008): The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, Michel (2010): The Government on Self and Others. Lectures at the Colle`ge de France 1982–1983. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gouldner, Alvin W. (1965): Enter Plato: Classical greece and the origins of social theory. New York: Basic Books. Gouldner, Alvin W (1970): The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York, NY: Avon. Gouldner, Alvin W (1976): The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. London: The MacMillan Press. Kant, Immanuel (1784): An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? Available from: ht tp://deakinphilosophicalsociet y.com/texts/kant/whatisenlightenment.pdf (Accessed 10.05.2016) Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal (2001): Hegemony & Socialist Strategy – Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.London and New York: Verso. Latour, Bruno (2007): The Recall of Modernity: Anthropological Approaches. Cultural Studies Review,13(1): 11–30. Livingstone, David N (2003): Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Marinković, Dušan (2006): Konstrukcija društvene realnosti u sociologiji. [Construction of Social Reality in Sociology] Novi Sad: Prometej. Marinković, Dušan (2012): Heterotopije, granice i moć: sociološki doprinos obnovi potisnutih tema. Teme, 36(4): 1467–1485. Marinković, Dušan, Šljukić, Srđan and Ristić, Dušan (2014): Od genealogije ka geo-epistemologiji: zaokret ka lokalnosti prostora, vremena i znanja. [From genealogy to geo-epistemology: A turn towards locality of space, time and knowledge] Sociološki pregled, 48(3): 333–352. Marinković, Dušan and Ristić, Dušan (2016): The Genealogy of Deritualising the Effects of Ideology in the Public Sphere. Javnost - The Public, 23(3): 221–236. McCarthy, Doyle E (1996): Knowledge as culture. New York: Routledge. Myers, Monika, and Wilson, Michael. (2014): Leprosy and the Plague: State Surveillance of Low­-Income Fathers. Surveillance & Society,12(1): 124–139. Neumann, Iver B (1999): Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identit y Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Norris, Clive (2003). From Personal to Digital: CCTV, the Panopticon and the Technological Mediation of Suspicious and Social Control. In D. Lyon (ed.): Surveillance as Social Sorting: 249–281. London: Routledge. Revel, Judith (2002): Le vocabulaire de Foucault. Paris: Ellipses. Ristić, Dušan and Marinković, Dušan (2015): Tijelo i tekst: Genealogija praksi razdvajanja. [Body and Text: Genealogy of Dividing Practices]. Filozofska istraživanja, 35(3): 389–596. Rusche, Georg, and Kirchheimer, Otto (1939). Punishment and social structure. New York: Columbia University Press. Turner, Brian S (2002): Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology. London and New York: Routledge. Van Dijk, Teun A (1998): Ideology – A Multidisciplinary Approach. London and New York: SAGE Publications. Weber, Max (2005): The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Routledge. Weiler, Hans N (2009): Whose knowledge matters? Development and the Politics of Knowledge. In T. Hanf, H.N. Weiler, and H. Dickow (eds.):Entwicklung als Beruf: 485–496. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Wolfe, Charles T., and Gal, Ofer (eds.) (2010): The Body as Object and Instrument of Knowledge: Embodied Empiricism in Early Modern Science. London and New York: Springer. Authors’ data Dušan Ristić, PhD, Docent Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad Dr Zorana Đinđića, 2, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: risticd@ff.uns.ac.rs Dušan Marinković, PhD, Full Professor Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad Dr Zorana Đinđića, 2, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: dusan.marinkovic@ff.uns.ac.rs Review scientific article UDK [316.74:316]:001.2 Krešimir Žažar EXAMINING SOCIOLOGY’S POSITION IN AN INCREASINGLY INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENT ABSTRACT The perspective of growing interdisciplinarity implies the need to establish sociology’s position within an even more ‘interdisciplinary environment’ of contemporary science. Sociology’s relationship with other sciences is intimately intertwined with several types of issues scrutinised here: a) the modalities of interdisciplinary conjunctions; b) the attributes of levels at which interdisciplinary cooperation may appear; c) what sociology can provide to and what it may require from other disciplines; and d) potential advantages of parti­cipation in interdisciplinary scientific ventures, as well as their possible hazards. Further, the preference for multidisciplinarity as a ‘softer’ variant of interdisciplinary connection is emphasised. Finally, the urgency pertaining to the disciplinary uniqueness of sociology, due to its capability to adequately answer a vast number of social challenges today, is underlined. KEY WORDS: contemporary science, disciplines, forms of interdisciplinary conjunctions, fragmentation of sociology, role of sociology Raziskovanje mesta sociologije v naraščajoče interdisciplinarnem okolju IZVLEČEK S perspektive vse večje interdisciplinarnosti se zdi nujno določiti tudi mesto sociologije v kontekstu rastočega interdisciplinarnega okolja sodobne znanosti. Odnos sociologije do drugih znanosti se nemudoma preplete s številnimi vprašanji, ki jih tu preučujemo: a) načini interdisciplinarnih povezav; b) lastnosti ravni, na katerih se lahko pojavijo interdisciplinarna sodelovanja; c) kaj sociologija lahko zagotovi in kaj lahko pričakuje od drugih disciplin; d) potencialne prednosti sodelovanja v interdisciplinarnih znanstvenih podvigih kot tudi njihove morebitne nevarnosti. Poleg tega je poudarjena prednost multidisciplinarnosti kot »mehkejše« različice interdisciplinarne povezanosti. In na koncu, poudarjena je nujnost disciplinarne enotnosti sociologije zaradi njene sposobnosti, da danes ustrezno odgovori na veliko število družbenih izzivov. KLJUČNE BESEDE: sodobne znanosti, discipline, oblike interdisciplinarnega povezovanja, fragmentacija sociologije, vloga sociologije 1 Introductory Notes The landscape of the contemporary science has increasingly been marked by interdis­ciplinarity (see, for instance, Henr y 2005; Jacobs and Frickel 2009: 45–47; Crane 2010: 170).1 Obviously, interdisciplinarity has become a certain fashion in the academic world (Burawoy 2013: 7). It has become ascendingly favoured in funding scientific research (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 660) and, particularly in some countries (like the UK) it seems to be on everyone’s agenda (Strathern 2007: 125). The depicted situation indicates tremendous expectations of interdisciplinarity that is viewed ‘as a solution to a series of contemporary problems’ (Barry et al. 2008: 21). While interdisciplinarity represents one of the major topics today, it seems that this concept is frequently taken for granted, without detailed examination of its key features, preceding presumptions and following implications. In this article the basic definition of the concept and crucial determinants of interdisciplinarity will be provided, contextual determinants of its appearance disputed, diverse types of interdisciplinary connections presented, particular flaws and obstacles related to the emergence of interdisciplinary collaborations analysed, as well as critical remarks addressed to the idea of interdisciplinarity debated. However, the basic aim of this paper is to situate sociology within the growing inter­disciplinary map of contemporary science. The relation of sociology with other sciences is tightly linked to several types of issues that will be discussed: forms of interdisciplinary connections, attributes of levels (epistemological, theoretical and methodological) at which interdisciplinary cooperation may be instituted, possible contributions and requirements of sociology regarding other disciplines and probable benefits and dangers of entering into interdisciplinary arrangements. Moreover, a general anticipation of the upcoming trends considering intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary issues of sociology will be briefly exposed. The anyhow challenging question of the relation of sociology and interdisciplinarity is even more demanding to analyse due to the highly complex nature of sociology itself. 2 Intradisciplinary Queries of Sociology Perhaps squarely uttered yet quite adequately defining scientific disciplines is the fol­lowing categorisation: they are ‘firmly established social structures for the organization of knowledge’ (Greckhamer et al. 2008 according to Crane 2010: 170). This definition highlights the institutional foundation, regularly identified with academic departments that educate new generations of students, and the epistemological foundation, i.e. theoretical 1. This article is based on the paper presented at the ‘Annual Meeting of the Slovenian Sociological Association 2015 – Sociology between Producing Knowledge and Shaping Society’ that was held from 6th to 7th November 2015 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. concepts and tools, codified language and research methods, as crucial determining pillars of any discipline (Coast et al. 2007 according to Crane 2010: 170).2 A commitment to a particular discipline ensures that certain disciplinary concepts and methods have been applied properly while other elements that are not ranked as part of a discipline are put aside (Barry et al. 2008: 20–21). Any science presumes an organized group of experts who decide about what can be considered as valid disciplinary knowledge. In the most general sense, any discipline is rooted in ‘an “assumptive world”, beliefs and practices so hallowed that they go without saying, taken completely for granted’ (Scheff 2013: 180). However, in sociology it is intensely demanding to detect such an assumptive, un­disputable world. Instead of consensus on the crucial categories of sociology, one can find ‘dissensus’ about the core of the discipline (Holmwood 2010: 649), blatant disunity, fragmentation and heterogeneity that appears at diverse axes and levels: ontological, epistemological and methodological. The diversity of sociology is articulated in numerous ways. At the most abstract level, the discipline is considered as multi-paradigmatic, or as a science consisting of diverg­ing research programmes and traditions. It is a fractured discipline (in Moody and Light 2006: 68) that suffers from a pronounced level of incoherence (Davis 1994; Holmwood 2010: 647), permanent proliferation of diverse schools of thought (in Fuller 1991: 313), that has been facing crisis (Gouldner 1970; see also Weiß 1995 according to Steinmetz and Chae 2002: 113), that has been grasped by a decomposition process (Horowitz 1994) and that is ‘irremediably interstitial’ (Abbot 2001: 6). The interstitial character of sociology betokens that it contains sets of fractal distinctions, or binar y dichotomies, which have been ramified across the whole body of the discipline (Abbot 2001: 3–33). Real­ism – nominalism, structure – agency, positivism – interpretavism are only a few pairs of a considerably more extensive list of binary oppositions that reflect the disruption within the core of sociology. Exceptional subspecialisation also contributes to the disintegration of the discipline, i.e. the dispersion into a tremendous number of particular substantial realms. Due to the enduring process of fragmentation (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 659), at the theoretical level, sociology has become the ‘discipline dominated by a highly detailed research on minute problems’ (Ritzer 1990: 11) with a bulk of over-specialized theories (Turner and Boynes 2006: 376). The scope of substantial subject matter fields is, thus, ample and among them exist strict boundaries, what implies a lack of interest for the works of sociologists specialized for other topics (Stinchcombe 1994: 283). Regarding this issue, I entirely agree with Scheff (2013: 184) that specialization must not represent an end in itself. From the viewpoint of exponents of sub-specialized fields, sociology may appear as a coherent structure, but a glance at the totality of science indicates ’disconnection and chaos’ (Moody and Light 2006: 67). The disunity of sociology is also manifested at the organizational level. According to Fuchs and Turner (1986: 148–149) this is actually the weakest point of the discipline as 2. Similarly, Fuller (1991: 302) emphasizes the importance of disciplinary boundaries since they ‘provide the structure needed for a variety of functions, ranging from the allocation of cognitive authority and material resources to the establishment of reliable access to some extra-social reality’. governing patterns of organizational control over sociological work imply its immaturity. In comparison to mature sciences marked by a single, homogenous establishment that defines the standards of all dimensions of scientific work, in sociology there is a pluralistic structure with no single group possessing a monopoly position and control ‘over the production and administration of sociological knowledge’ (Fuchs and Turner 1986: 149). The lack of central control over material, organizational and symbolic resources is perceived as the cause of incoherence and disintegration (Turner 2006). A disintegrated state of affairs goes along with the ineffectiveness of professional organizations (Stinchcombe 1994: 289). In that sense reflexive weakness is attributed to sociology, since it is not capable to be properly constituted as a social unit (Fuller 1991: 314). Additionally, the disintegration of sociology induces steady difficulties for justifying its existence (Stinchcombe 1994: 279) and makes future prospects of the discipline uncertain. This uncertainty is produced by the incapability to obtain consensus about the criteria for stratification of sociologists. Instead of unified criteria for defining excellence, within the discipline a ‘partially ordered stratifi­cation system’ (Stinchcombe 1994: 281) with multiple standards for evaluating research, training and prestige of departments is at work (Stinchcombe 1994: 281–283, 288). Alongside the denoted frictions and divisions, there is an additional tension related to the adversative conceiving of its final telos. On the one hand, sociology is viewed as stringent science about the social world, while on the opposite side there are sociologists who underline the primacy of social engagement and activism. The enormous disruption of the two contrary angles may even end in a bifurcation and cleavage of sociology as a humanistic and, on the diametric pole, narrowly scientific discipline (Turner 2006: 26). Even a brief glance at the surface of sociology unfolds that it is a highly messy, dis­ordered, fractional discipline with an amorphous identity. Finally, it can be assessed that ’sociology as a discipline exists in a state of internal interdisciplinarity’ (Holmwood 2010: 650, also 646). 3 The Basic Assumptions of Interdisciplinarity 3.1 Definitions of Interdisciplinarity An incipient preliminary remark when examining interdisciplinarity refers to a common attitude that it represents a contemporary phenomenon, what is entirely wrong. There is a long history of coexistence between interdisciplinary centres and academic departments of single disciplines (Strathern 2007: 125). Rather than conceiving interdisciplinarity as something novel, it should be interpreted as a ‘historical constant’ (Barry et al. 2008: 23). However, what is epochally new is that interdisciplinarity has turned into ‘a totalising mode of academic being’ (Strathern 2007: 125), i.e. it has been deployed into the core of the academic world, and is faced with huge expectations, as it is perceived as an instrument that should bridge science with society and economy (Barry et al. 2008: 23). A quite comprehensive definition of interdisciplinarity is provided by Rogers and oth­ers (according to Coast et al. 2007: 496) who designate it as the ‘emergence of insight and understanding of a problem domain through the integration or derivation of different concepts, methods and epistemologies from different disciplines in a novel way’. It should be stressed that interdisciplinarity appears in problem domains that cannot be properly comprehended from the angle of a single discipline. In this sense, interdisciplinarit y should be primarily seen as complementary to monodisciplinary researches, as it strives to fill knowledge gaps that single disciplines cannot accomplish (Coast et al. 2007: 496). Certainly, interdisciplinary research is not a substitution for disciplinary knowledge, but its completion, as it ‘can only enrich our understanding of the world’ (Burawoy 2013: 7). The basic intention of interdisciplinary research projects is twofold: a) they aim to produce novel knowledge, i.e. to explain a particular phenomenon under consideration, and b) they try to find a solution for a certain problem. Therefore, besides the cognitive component, interdisciplinarity also includes the practical component. The latter is particularly empha­sized, as interdisciplinarity exhibits a remarkable problem-solving orientation (Burawoy 2013: 7; Barry et al. 2008: 29-30; Jacobs and Frickel 2009: 47). Probably exactly in this attribute lies the attraction of interdisciplinarity to political actors who perceive it as an answer to numerous social challenges. 3.2 Variety of Interdisciplinary Modes Interdisciplinarity cannot be examined as a monolithic endeavour, but as a heteroge ­neous phenomenon that is shaped in a variety of disciplinary connections and manifests in multiple forms, fields, institutions, trajectories and practices (Barry et al. 2008: 21, 24, 41). One of the urgent tasks is to distinguish interdisciplinarity from the proliferating akin concepts like multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (author’s emphasis) (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 673).3 The softest form of interdisciplinary cooperation is multidisciplinarity, within which researches of t wo or more disciplines work parallel on the same issue without changing their own disciplinary frameworks, epistemologies, theories and methods (Coast et al. 2007: 499–500; Barry et al. 2008: 27; Crane 2010: 171; Strathern 2007: 124–125; Davis 2007). Multidisciplinarity may appear even entirely without a cross-disciplinary connection (Viterbo 2007). On the other side, the strongest forms of interdisciplinar y col ­laboration represent transdisciplinarity that presumes the merging of fundamental norms, epistemological assumptions, theories and methodologies of distinctive disciplines and, finally, their fusion (Coast et al. 2007: 500; Barry et al. 2008: 27; Crane 2010: 171; Strath­ern 2007: 124–125; Viterbo 2007; Steinmetz 2007: 55; Holmwood 2010: 644, 654). In such circumstances initial disciplines disappear while novel knowledge fields emerge. Such hybrid knowledge fields are designated as interdisciplines marked by ‘intentionally porous organizational, epistemological and political boundaries’ (Frickel 2004 according to Crane 2010: 171). Cultural studies, migration studies, media studies, science studies, gender studies and material culture studies are only a few examples of a dozen of such hybrid knowledge areas (see also Crane 2010). Multidisciplinarit y and transdisciplinarit y 3. In the rich body of literature about the disciplinary organization of current knowledge production the prefixes pluri-, poli-, cross-, post-, a-, anti-disciplinarity also can be found. Due to limitation of space, and since it is not of crucial importance for this paper, I will omit here a detailed clarification of subtle distinctions among the numerous terms. may be considered as two extreme poles on a wider continuum of possible interdisciplin­ary arrangements that may vary in degree and complexity (Strathern 2007: 124–125, 132). I find this gradual image of instances of interdisciplinarity completely convincing. The term interdisciplinarity is within this framework a type of neutral, ‘generic term’ (Barry et al. 2008: 28) or denominator for a whole array of possible modalities of cooperation between sciences. Burawoy (2013: 14–17) takes a somewhat different approach in identifying the types of interdisciplinarity. According to him, interdisciplinarit y ought to be clarified by answer­ing two questions: a) to whom is the knowledge addressed (whether the knowledge is for an academic or extra-academic audience), and b) what is the purpose of knowledge (is it reflexive or instrumental). Hence, by classifying the types of interdisciplinary connec­tions one should be aware, Burawoy rightly points out, of the nature of the developed knowledge and the social actors who will benefit from it. 3.3 Challenges in Implementing Interdisciplinary Work Albeit interdisciplinarity has been extensively promoted and placed into the spotlight of contemporary science, there are numerous obstacles in its accomplishing. These barri­ers can be grouped in four categories: a) epistemic, b) administrative, c) organizational, d) practical. Epistemic barriers are inevitably outcomes of the specificit y of each discipline that dif­fer in the ’incompatible styles of thought, research traditions, techniques, and language’ (Jacobs and Frickel 2009: 47) and overall sets of basic ontological, epistemological, theoretical, and methodological assumptions, as well as a variety of codified procedures. Additionally, diverse sciences may operate on a different level of abstractness and gen­erality and that could represent a setback to synchronizing the interworking. The existing administrative system is regularly not supportive to the researchers that work in interdisciplinary fields. They need to devote greater efforts to conducting more risky interdisciplinary researches (Jacobs and Frickel 2009: 47–48). The present reward and promotional system within academia favours overspecialization and remaining inside the strict specialized topics within single disciplines, which has a discouraging effect on undertaking interdisciplinary work (Wright et al. 2015: 271–272). The evaluation and assessment of interdisciplinary knowledge is a special issue. Currently, there is an obvious dominance of indirect measures, as are a number of patents and publications conveyed through the interdisciplinary research. At the same time, there is a discernible lack, or at least insufficiency, of epistemic criteria (like explanatory power or comprehensiveness) for the estimation of solely interdisciplinary work, and not assessing it through the lens of monodisciplinarity (Mansilla and Gardner 2004; Strathern 2005 according to Coast et al. 2007: 498). Yet, a transparent and satisfactory system of assessing the quality of interdisciplinary work, I would like to emphasize, still needs to be developed. Closely related to the former are difficulties that appear at the organizational level. The empirical study conducted by Garforth and Kerr (2011) indicates a certain division between different units of a university, i.e. between permanent staff employed in depart­ments and fixed-term contract staff that works in units on applied research. The latter researchers adhere considerably more to the axial premises of interdisciplinary work. However, scientists from applied research units have quite a low prestige, lack institutional recognition and work in precarious conditions at the periphery of academic structures (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 669, 671). Even though these researchers possess symbolic capital and are skilful in gaining financial capital needed for research projects, they lack academic/scientific capital, which (except in the case of the most successful individuals) very negatively affects their career path (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 671). Finally, Coast et al. (2007: 497–499) suggest practical obstacles that a researcher, willing to become a practitioner of interdisciplinarity, confronts: training, funding, rec­ognition, institutional structures, time and effort and readiness. Reaching competence in an interdisciplinary field is tremendously demanding, since it is a vexatious process that requires extensive time, lots of patience and hard work and also presumes certain individual traits as open-mindedness, curiosity and aptitude for taking risks. On the other hand, the current scientific system is designed to gauge monodisciplinary science. Despite the nominally proclaimed preferences toward interdisciplinarity, research grant committees ‘tend to favour grant proposals that build in interdisciplinarity rhetoric without necessarily delivering interdisciplinarity’ (Coast et al. 2007: 498). The exposed difficulties indicate that interdisciplinarity is an agenda that appears attractive as a written word, but that is hardly convertible in concrete research practice. 3.4 The Social Context of Increasing the Relevance of Interdisciplinarity Why has interdisciplinarity become such a favoured form of scientific endeavour nowadays? Globalization processes, expansion of technological advancement and the postmodern framework are extracted as factors that impact the ascendance of interdisci­plinarity (Riley and McCarthy 2003 according to Coast et al. 2007: 494). In addition, there has been a crucial switch in the logic of funding scientific research. Namely, diverse types of funding agencies have begun to privilege research projects at the intersections of diverse disciplines with the attitude that at these boundary areas lie productive research agendas (Coast et al. 2007: 494–495). The switch towards interdisciplinarity can be conceived as an expression of redefining the relation between society and science at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. This relation is reshaped in the requirement for science to be directly involved in solving social issues and actively contribute to economic development. In order to achi­eve the denoted demands, science should exhibit ‘the ability to break down disciplinary barriers’ (Strathern 2007: 125). By erasing the distance towards publicity, contemporary science, and universities in particular, are faced with two types of expectations: a) to provide the solution for a given social issue, and b) to convey patents and other forms of intellectual properties (Strathern 2007: 127–128). These currents are effectively articulated in the concept of MODE 2 of knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994). MODE 2 accentuates the broader social and econo­mic context within which various types of actors take part. One of the crucial features of MODE 2 is transdisciplinarity4, since problem-solving oriented knowledge that is at the forefront today requires overcoming of a single disciplinary framework (see also Gibbons et al. 1994 in Schmidt 2007: 314). The current model of generating knowledge, finally, underlines its social accountability (Gibbons et al. 1994: 7; see also Strathern 2007: 125) and highlights its orientation towards application (Gibbons et al. 1994: 4). The rise of interdisciplinarity profoundly corresponds to the upheaval in conceiving the social function of scientific institutions. The new agenda insists on the utilization of knowledge for social and economic purposes. Knowledge production organizations are expected to be an integral part of the emerging knowledge economy. Therefore, the reconfigured role of science today may be interpreted as part of a broader project of (re)­instalment of the currently dominant neoliberal socio-economic paradigm. 3.5 Advocates and Critics of Interdisciplinarity A dozen of recent austere social issues, like climate change, pandemic diseases, terro­rism, poverty, social exclusion, structural unemployment, financial and economic crisis, or the more current migration crisis, require proper solutions. Due to the complexity of these phenomena, advocates of interdisciplinarity argue that it is unlikely to expect that right answers would come from single traditional disciplines. Thus they echo the already stated attitudes about economic and overall social benefits of science in its interdisciplinar y facet. On the opposite side, critics of interdisciplinarity warn that such claims are unconvincing and the whole concept is conceived as, basically, ideologically driven. According to Schmidt (2007: 313–314, 318) interdisciplinarity is primarily a political term, situated in the hear t of current knowledge politics. Nonetheless, interdisciplinarit y has become a t ype of buzzword (author’s emphasis), frequently used by public administrators (Davis 2007). Without expressing an additional value judgement, I agree with these critical remarks.5 The current discourse on interdisciplinarity is considerably coloured with a neoliberal agenda that knowledge should be commodified and science put in service to economic (and social) development. Interdisciplinarity is here a popular catchword, a concept often used, but without precise meaning (Schmidt 2007: 313–314, 316). This holds true, I would add, not just for businesspersons and public officers, but also for academics who frequently use the concept entirely uncritically. Some commentators entirely rightly point out that insisting on interdisciplinary work may present a threat to intellectual autonomy, since such researches are regularly funded by extra-scientific actors who not rarely ignore deeper theoretical insights on a given issue, what may consequently lead to eroding standards and decrease the quality of scientific work (Puddephatt and McLaughlin, 2015: 317). 4. Gibbons et al. (1994, particularly 4–6 and 27–30) prefer transdisciplinarity as the most suitable form of interdisciplinary knowledge production activity. 5. It is mandatory to stress that I am not sceptical considering the idea of social and economic utili­zation of scientific knowledge, but I am against the primacy of pragmatic logic that might totally instrumentalize science and undermine the standards of scientific work. The reconfigured financial environment and system of funding scientific institutions compatible with MODE 2 of knowledge production that favours interdisciplinar y research could imply a negative impact on single disciplines. In such an environment sociology is particularly vulnerable, since particular thematic sub-fields of this science, marked by weak disciplinary identity, incline to be displaced out of sociology and constitute new, often applicably oriented, subject fields (Holmwood 2010). Eventually, such an institutional environment currently efficient in the UK, Holmwood expresses his concerns (2010: 652), leads to disappearance of sociology. Critics also unravel the epistemic issues with interdisciplinarity by underlining that to become an expert in a given field one has to learn during the whole lifetime (Davis 2007), so it is not realistic to expect that a specialist for two (or even more) fields will be met in one person. Quite the opposite, under the banner of interdisciplinarity a certain intellec­tual amateurism is not a rare appearance (Davis 2007). Moreover, ’it is not clear that interdisciplinarity is universally superior to traditional disciplinary research’ (Puddephatt and McLaughlin, 2015: 317). Although it holds true that the existing (mono)disciplinary framework of science is not capable of resolving numerous challenges nowadays, I am inclined to express agreement with the convincingly elaborated evinced sceptical views and critical objections addressed to interdisciplinarity. 4 Sociology and Interdisciplinarity 4.1 Modalities of Interdisciplinary Connections As there are different modalities of interdisciplinary collaboration, there are also vari­ous paths of establishing such interdisciplinary connections, as ‘researchers have been shown to find various routes into and between disciplines’ (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 660). When analysing the dynamics of development of interconnectedness among disciplines, one has to take into account the epistemic and institutional context (author’s emphasis) (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 660). By viewing the relations towards original disciplines, three ideal types of interdisci­plinarity can be distinguished: integrative-synthesis, subordination-service and agonistic­antagonistic mode (Barry et al. 2008: 28–29). The first mode presumes a productive dialogue of separate disciplines which generates (however, not necessarily) a new common knowledge field. The basic feature of the second mode is the hierarchical division of labour within which some disciplines are valued as more worthy, while others are undervalued. Such distinction of tasks and the inevitable asymmetry in the power relation may, actually, reinforce the stability of a single discipline rather than foster an epistemic change towards a new hybrid interdisciplinary knowledge field (Barry et al. 2008: 28–29). The third mode ‘is driven by an agonistic or antagonistic relation to existing forms of disciplinary knowledge and practice’ (Barry et al. 2008: 29), thus, it marks the type of establishing interdisciplinarity that emerges exactly in critical dialogue with the starting disciplines. Newly profiled interdisciplines are irreducible to initial disciplines (Barry et al. 2008: 28–29). The question that inevitably arises in this stage of our discussion is: What types of rela­tions with other disciplines may sociology enter? I suggest at least three possible types of relations considering primarily the distribution of power or the relation of dominance: interdisciplinary indifference (disciplinary isolationism), hegemonic pretensions and equal partnership. Obligator y emphasis is here placed on ‘at least’, since I do not intend to claim that some other possible types may also be identified. 4.1.1 Interdisciplinary Indifference / Disciplinary Isolationism Under this header I presume a mode within which sociology barely establishes con­nections with other sciences and entirely retains its autonomy. If they even occur, possible connections are superficial and represent minimal scientific communication in the form of reading books and articles shaped in other disciplines, or the participation in discussions at scientific meetings or in a public discourse. The apex of the connection within this mode is the possible borrowing of certain concepts or ideas and methodological procedures, initially formed in other disciplines, like biology, psychology, economics or politics, and transposing them into sociology. Take, just as an illustration, the basic premises of rational choice (theoretical) framework initially developed in economics, the concept of adaption or (natural) selection firstly elaborated in biology, ethnographical researches pioneered by anthropologists, or the method of discourse analysis originally introduced in the field of linguistics. The mentioned theoretical assertions and methodological approaches find their proponents among sociologists who adapted and applied them in a sociological manner. The reverse direction of such transfers is feasible as well. For instance, function­alism developed by Comte, Spencer and especially Durkheim was later embraced by anthropologists. Further examples of such two-directional interchanges are multiple. It is obvious that the depicted type, indeed, does not represent authentic interdisciplinarity in the strict sense. This mode, quite the contrary, strengthens the vision of science as a conglomerate of a series of distinctive disciplines. 4.1.2 Hegemonic Pretensions When sociology enters the realm of cooperation with other disciplines, it may tend to express its (presumed) superiority and entail itself as a leading (social) science. The idea of the dominant role of sociology in the hierarchy of sciences is not new and can be traced back to the early days of the discipline when already Comte proclaimed its central place among all modern sciences (Comte 2000/1896: 27–55). This motive has been since recognized as the Comtean vision of sociology as the queen of sciences (author’s emphasis) (Katunarić 2009: 202). The royal image of sociology is rooted in the idea of its capability to encompass and explain society in its totality, which can be accomplished if it hires other disciplines to fill in the gaps in the knowledge about society. The final aim is that sociology should comprise knowledge about the totality of the entire social world (Katunarić 2009: 202–203). In order to acquire the denoted objective, sociology needs to broaden ‘disciplinary boundaries outwards into fields covered by other sciences’ (Katunarić 2009: 202), which leads to the emergence of ‘intradisciplinary interdiscipli­narity’ (Faber and Scheper 1997 according to Katunarić 2009: 207). Interdisciplinarity is, conditionally speaking, present here, but it is completely enshrined in the framework of one single discipline – sociology. According to Steinmetz (2007: 52–56) in particular periods in history sociology managed to impose hegemony over other disciplines. Such circumstances occurred from 1945 until 1970s which is the phase of dominance of hegemonic positivism. This period was marked by Parsons’ imperial ambition to promote sociology as the axial social science with other disciplines as its satellites (Steinmetz 2007: 54–55). The examined type of interdisciplinary connectivity is fully compatible with the above presented subordination-service mode. Within any hierarchy, the elements at the bottom are in an unfavourable position, so in the hierarchy of sciences there is a threat for weak disciplines to be dissolved and to completely vanish (Burawoy 2013: 7). In the immensely interesting analysis based on the examination of co-citation patterns in social sciences journals, Moody and Light (2006) came to the finding that sociology is the central social science in terms of a vastly broad scope of examined topics. Yet, works of sociologists are not so frequently cited by their colleagues, as is the case with econo­mists, law scientists, psychologists, or political scientists. That indicates that sociology is a general discipline that examines a vast range of issues, evinces weak internal cohesion and has open borders for possible cooperation with other disciplines. 4.1.3 Equal Partnership There is also the possibility to establish interdisciplinary connections that would not imply an asymmetr y in power relations. The basic idea here is that each discipline conduct its own part of research task, after which the assemblage of particular researches would yield the whole mosaic of the phenomenon under scrutiny. The cooperation between disci­plines in such cases is centred on specific empirical issues that are analysed from different disciplinary angles. For instance, ethnic conflicts or processes of post-socialist transition represent complex fields of inquiry that require the interworking of economists, political scientists, historians and others without an a priori presumption of the crucial relevance of a given discipline6 (Katunarić 2009: 209–212). Other examples of such interdisciplinar y connections are quite numerous, like the issue of climate change that gathers experts from natural science disciplines, who analyse its dynamic and monitor particular parameters, and a wide span of social scientists who examine the economic, political and overall social consequences of the global warming. This mode of interdisciplinary nexus does not assume the merging of disciplines at any level, or the emergence of hybrid disciplines, i.e. interdisciplines. It is obvious that it entirely corresponds to multidisciplinarity as it was defined earlier. Within this mode, a discipline may cross the disciplinary borders, but the border remains intact and stable, and the discipline preserves its autonomy. 6. A more careful inspection reveals that this form of interdisciplinary cooperation also comprises the latent hegemonic pretensions of particular disciplines. For example, emphasizing the relevance of the rational choice theory in explaining the behaviour of social actors during the post-socialist transition, in fact, represents an attempt to promote the position of economics, to which the denoted theory is attached (Katunarić 2009: 210–212). 4.2 The Attributes of Levels at Which Interdisciplinary Cooperation May Appear Regardless of the degree of encounter of disciplines, interdisciplinary work can function at the methodological level. This may include applying the same sets of methodological procedures and particular methods and techniques by different sciences in interdisciplinary research projects. Indeed, scientific methods are rarely monopolies of a distinct discipline. Certainly, questionnaires, interviews, observation, diverse types of text analysis and many others are not exclusive methods of sociology7 as they can be found in the methodological arsenal of different sciences. In short, principally it should not be an obstacle to link diverse disciplines at the methodological level, despite the specific manner in which they can be applied in their home disciplines. A look into the past indicates that sciences have borrowed ideas, concepts and whole theories and usually adapted and refined them to their own purposes. Just to mention the idea of evolution that was imported, unfortunately not seldom with intensely negative effects, from biology. Regarding this topic, Urry (according to Holmwood 2010: 652) yet depicts sociology as a parasite discipline that imports issues and discourse initially intro ­duced in other sciences. Since it is placed in the network centre of social sciences, such position allows it to readily borrow ideas from neighbouring disciplines (Moody and Light 2006: 72–73). On the other hand, sociology has often exported its ideas, frameworks, concepts and theories (Holmwood 2010: 643, 646; Garforth and Kerr 2011: 659). This kind of intellectual interchange among sciences is quite common, and it is likely that it will be maintained in the future. These insights lead to the conclusion that it is not particularly easy to set interdisciplinary connections at the theoretical level. The most demanding task is to institute an interdisciplinary relation at the epistemological level, though one could question whether such epistemological connections are inevitable, even advisable at all. My suggestion to this dilemma is simply – no. If there is any defining feature of a particular discipline, it is the specific conceiving of the ontology of a given phenomenological realm that has been examined and a certain set of epistemological assumptions. Thus the possible adopting of the epistemology of another discipline indeed represents an essential transformation of the departing discipline. Such a process actually occurs in the case of transdisciplinarity when at the end initial disciplines cease. 4.3 What Sociology Could Provide to and What it May Require From Other Disciplines? Certainly, there is the question why sociology should enter into cooperation with other sciences, what the potential benefits are, as well as what it can offer to them. As a soci­ologist convinced in the profound relevance of the discipline, I would suggest that it can provide immensely valuable insights mainly by unfolding the social aspect of a particular 7. Quite the contrary, sociology has serious difficulties to allege its distinctiveness in the methodolo­gical field, especially in comparison to other social sciences, such as economics, psychology or anthropology (Holmwood 2010: 645). phenomenon. Namely, the broad scope of phenomena that primarily represent subject fields of other disciplines inherently possess a social component. Even phenomena that are not of direct interest to sociologists, as climate changes, GMO, diseases, urban de­sign or invention of technological devices, comprises a dimension of emphasized social relevance. Sociologists undoubtedly can reveal the social aspects of these phenomena and thus contribute to the improved understanding of issues under scrutiny of ecologists, medical scientists, architects, technology engineers etc. On the other hand, sociology may also find the knowledge developed in other fields useful. When it attempts to explain the behaviour of individual actors or groups in social environments, insights from psychology, psychiatry, economics, political science or even ethnography or historiography can represent a valuable contribution. By the same token as diverse non-sociological phenomena include social aspects, different sociological phenomena also contain aspects that are not entirely just social. Therefore, sociology undoubtedly has a rationale to establish interdisciplinary con­nections through which knowledge can flow in both directions: from sociology to other sciences and vice versa. 4.4 Advantages and Flaws of Participation in Interdisciplinary Scientific Ventures In the preceding section some arguments were provided that highlight the leverages that the logic of interdisciplinarity opens to sociology. This is intimately intertwined with the increased awareness that a vast number of phenomena in the sphere of technology, culture, sports, everyday life or medicine is immersed in society and contains a particular social dimension. From this point of view, interdisciplinarity can be comprehended as a platform that provides an extraordinary opportunity for sociology to express its social relevance and urgency. There are also some threats of the interdisciplinary work of sociologists. One of them is the possible disruption between professional or disciplinary sociology and sociology engaged with social issues, that is interdisciplinary oriented (Burawoy 2013: 10). The denoted division may take the shape of a spatial split between the Global North, inclined to the former, and the Global South, attached to interdisciplinary researches; the tenden­cy to such geographical allocation of sociological work should be restrained (Burawoy 2013: 10–11, 14). This partition corresponds to the gap between fundamental researches conducted within the traditional disciplinary environment of an academia and applied, interdisciplinary aimed, researches (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 662–668). The major con­cern related to this division is that it, since applied researches more directly depend on funding, as a final consequence can undermine the autonomy of academia by mitigating the critical inquiry of researchers (Bourdieu according to Garforth and Kerr 2011: 662). In such circumstances, proponents of disciplinarity claim that they preserve the autonomy of scientific labour, while interdisciplinarity is conceived as a danger for an academia (Garforth and Kerr 2011: 667–668; see also Barry et al. 2008: 22). Undoubtedly, this concern is entirely comprehensible, even though it is undisputable that scientists, whether they act from the disciplinary or interdisciplinary position, are not allowed to diminish the standards of scientific performance when faced by any type of external pressures. It is also important to avoid the possible interdisciplinary arrangements within which sociology would take a pro forma role, only to legitimate the ‘interdisciplinary’ character of a certain research. Sociologists ought to think carefully about the real nature of interdi­sciplinary research projects they intend to be involved into, bearing in mind the already stated proposition that interdisciplinarity is a buzzword, often used completely superficially. 4.5 Sociology between Isolated Monodisciplinarity and Radical Interdisciplinarity – Discussion on Some Key Matters Regarding the variants of interdisciplinary connections, three envisaged forms are extracted. Taking the position of interdisciplinary indifference, i.e. disciplinary isolationi­sm, may imply that sociology is a self-sufficient science. Some may object that such an argument is somehow naive as social phenomena and processes are too complex to be accurately grasped only with the analytical tools of a sole discipline. In my opinion, it is not an advisable strategy to stay confined to the borders of a single discipline, but there is also no sense in embarking in interdisciplinary projects at any price. The decision to initiate interworking with other sciences needs to be rooted on the estimation that such relation may lead to new, otherwise unreachable, insights and knowledge. There is a certain ambivalence in estimating the mode of interdisciplinarity between sociology and other disciplines labelled as hegemonic pretensions. The possible outcome of entire disciplines disappearing does not seem attractive and the overall idea of dominance of sociology over other sciences is quite controversial. From the viewpoint of sociologists, there are some advantages of the attitude of superiority of sociology in explaining and understanding the complex social world. Certainly, the comprehensive scope of socio ­logical epistemologies, theories and methodologies represents a powerful set of tools to analytically grasp a dozen of social phenomena and processes and provide quite an overall, if not entirely complete, view of them. Other disciplines gain considerably more particular insights into objects of inquiry that are of interest to sociology, as well. However, it is arguable whether sociology alone is capable of comprehending the totality of the social universe. Therefore, I would suggest that a kind of cooperation between sociology and other disciplines seems inevitable. In that sense, perhaps the most pertinent type of interworking is the egalitarian par­tnership. Specific contributions of each discipline may be treated as puzzles that taken together reveal the overall picture of an object of research. Such relation (principally) assumes equal power relations and allow to retain disciplinary distinctiveness. The depicted form of interdisciplinary interlinking was recognized as multidisciplinary. The stated proposition goes entirely along with the following claim that interdiscipli­nary connections may be accomplished at the methodological level, and can partially hold also at the theoretical level, as an exchange of ideas, concepts and other theoretical elements. However, the possible connecting of separate disciplines or the linkage at the epistemological level is somehow contradictory, even paradoxical, as it leads towards the disappearance of genuine disciplines. From the perspective of sociology, such possible transdisciplinary arrangements are not desirable and I would not advise or encourage them. Undoubtedly, sociology can offer a lot to many other sciences by revealing the social dimension of a broad scope of phenomena, particularly having in mind that numerous issues and challenges nowadays require proper answers of experts. On the other side, sociology may also benefit from the cooperation with diverse disciplines and enrich its corpus of overall knowledge. Other scientists certainly can find interest in cooperating with sociologists, as well as later regard such connections as fruitful. However, establishing interdisciplinary connections should not be taken for granted, but ought to be accurately and systematically reflected. Prior to enrolling into interdisciplinary projects, I would like to underline, practitioners of a single discipline must mandatorily carefully appraise the potential advantages, as well as identify possible threats of such projects. In the case of sociology, but also of other sciences, possible flaws are concealed in the threatening instrumentalisation, diminishing the norms of a scientific work due to external pressures, or the cleavage of a discipline into fundamental researches and applied researches. The latest issue turns us back to the considerations of some intradisciplinary tensions within the core of sociology and leads us to the attempt of anticipating some future developments. 4.6 A Note about Future Prospects An inevitable, although intensely demanding question is: Which tendencies are likely to occur in the future regarding the fragmented state of sociology and its interrelation with other sciences. When considering the heterogeneous character of the discipline, its dispersion and fragmentation, one can predict the continuation of this process. Such further specialization of the discipline and the scrutiny of narrow research questions can be conceived as a centripetal tendency. It is part of a wider process of internal dif ferentiation, ongoing in all knowledge fields. The further division of sociology into narrow empirical subfields opens the door to particular substantial sociologies to enter interdisciplinary, preferably multidisciplinary, relations with other sciences dealing with the same subject matter. However, I identify the need, and actually forecast an emergence of the opposite, centrifugal tendency that would enhance the level of integration of sociology and elevate disciplinary unity. At the core of this process there is auto-reflexivity, or the urgent demand to constantly consider the role, responsibility and challenges of sociology in contemporary societies. Besides, the centrifugal tendency within sociology may also take place at the level of internal epistemological discussion, particularly in quest of minimal common epistemic standards. By this syntagma I mean the requirement to achieve a certain consensus about the fundamental features of sociological expertise. Simply speaking, minimal common epistemic standards which I advocate represent a definition of core sociological categories as defining determinants of the discipline. It is immensely important to stipulate this core, since it may prove to be quite lucrative in the possible encounter with other disciplines as well. Hence, I am rather convinced that centripetal tendencies will be complemented by centrifugal tendencies, and that there is an exigency to achieve a proper balance bet ween the two denoted processes. 5 Concluding Remarks Albeit interdisciplinarity does not represent a contemporary innovation, in recent time we witness a raising relevance, increasing influence and also certain favouring of various interdisciplinary forms of knowledge production. In such an environment a considerable number of diverse new hybrid research fields and disciplines, as already noted, cultural studies, gender studies or migration studies, has appeared. Undoubtedly, such (inter)di­sciplines have provided worthy insights; however, it turns out that the emergence of novel disciplines contributes to the further specialization of scientific activity. Principally, any topical or substantial domain may become the subject of a new distinctive science, and such tendencies might represent just an instalment of a new logic of forming of disciplines. However, the crucial question is whether such a tendency really improves our knowled­ge about given phenomena or makes things even vaguer. New hybrid (inter)disciplines seem to be more vulnerable to external non-scientific factors and pressures, due to the fact that interdisciplinary (especially transdisciplinary) work usually represents an eclectic knowledge domain without clear epistemological standards or criteria of valorisation that is primarily directed to problem solving and is expected to contribute to economic development. Undoubtedly, pertinent criteria and epistemic evaluation measures ought to be urgently developed. When discussing the variety of forms of interdisciplinarity, it ought to be emphasized -and this is one of the crucial claims of the article - that I advocate multidisciplinarity or, in general, ‘softer’ versions of interdisciplinary connections of sociology with other sci­ences. Such types of interdisciplinary encounter do not presume the melting of crucial epistemological categories of single disciplines, and they retain disciplinary autonomy. It is extremely important to maintain the disciplinary uniqueness of sociology, as it is a sci­ence capable of providing solutions to a wide range of contemporary social issues. Letting sociology establish transdisciplinary connections would mean the ceasing of sociology and its transmutation into new forged hybrid knowledge fields. I entirely agree with Burawoy’s (2013: 13–14) stand of persisting on the relevance and urgency for disciplines, as they represent nutshells which ensure the advancement of knowledge. On the other hand, a serious trap of interdisciplinarity lies in the possible abandonment of disciplines and their substitution with the ‘superficial fusing of incompatible frameworks’ that frequently produce ‘obscure knowledge’ (Burawoy 2013: 13, 17). Thus, there is a lasting exigency for the existing of disciplines, as well as an even growing need for sociology. Moreover, it would be a demanding effort to imagine a time that would so desperately need sociology as it is the case today. References Abbott Andrew (2001): Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press. Barry, Andrew, Born, Georgina, and Weszkalnys, Gisa (2008): Logics of Interdisciplinarity, Eco­nomy and Society, 37 (1): 20–49. Burawoy, Michael (2013): Sociology and Interdisciplinarity: The Promise and the Perils. Philippine Sociological Review, 61 (1): 7–20. Coast, Ernestina E., Hampshire, Katherine R., and Randall, Sara C. (2007): Disciplining Anthropo ­logical Demography. Demographic Research, 16 (16): 493–518. Comte, Auguste (2000/1896): The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. Volume I. Kitchener: Batoche Books (London: George Bell and Sons). Crane, Diana (2010): Cultural Sociology and Other Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity in the Cultural Sciences. Sociology Compass, 4 (3): 169–179. Davis, James A. (1994): What’s Wrong with Sociology? Sociological Forum, 9 (2): 179–197. Davis, Lennard J. (2007): A Grand Unified Theory of Interdisciplinarity. Chronicle of Higher Educa­ tion, 53 (40): B9. Available from: http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Grand-Unified-Theory­-of/13328 (Accessed 24. 10. 2016.). Fuchs, Stephan, and Turner, Jonathan H. (1986): What Makes Science ‘Mature’?: Patterns of Or­ganizational Control in Scientific Production. Sociological Theory, 4 (2): 143-150. Fuller, Steve (1991): Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social Sciences. Poetics Today, 12 (12): 301–325. Garforth, Lisa, and Kerr, Anne (2011): Interdisciplinarity and the Social Sciences: Capital, Institu­tions and Autonomy. The British Journal of Sociology, 62 (4): 657–676. Gibbons, Michael, Limoges, Camille, Nowotny, Helga, Schwartzman, Simon, Scott, Peter, and Trow, Martin (1994): The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society. London – Thousand Oaks – New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Gouldner, Alvin W. (1970): The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. London – New Delhi: Heinemann. Henry, Stuart (2005): Disciplinary Hegemony Meets Interdisciplinary Ascendancy: Can Interdis­ciplinary/Integrative Studies Survive, and If So, How? Issues in Integrative Studies, 23: 1-37. Holmwood, John (2010): Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplines, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture. The British Journal of Sociology, 61 (4): 639–658. Horowitz, Irving Louis (1994): The Decomposition of Sociology. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Jerry A., and Frickel, Scott (2009): Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 43–65. Katunarić, Vjeran (2009): Building Sociological Knowledge Within and Across Disciplinary Bound­aries: Megalomania vs. Modesty? Innovation: European Journal of Social Science Research, 22 (2): 201–217. Mansilla, Veronica Boix, and Gardner, Howard (2004): Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier. An Empirical Exploration of ‘symptoms of quality’. Available from: http://www.inter­disciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/6 (Accessed 7. 10. 2015.). Moody, James, and Light, Ryan (2006): A View from Above: The Evolving Sociological Landscape. American Sociologist, 37 (2): 67–86. Puddephatt, Antony J., and McLaughlin, Neil (2015): Critical Nexus or Pluralist Discipline? Institu­ tional Ambivalence and the Future of Canadian Sociology. Canadian Review of Sociology/ Revue canadienne de sociologie, 52 (3): 310–332. Ritzer, George (1990): Metatheorizing in Sociology. Sociological Forum, 5 (1): 3–13. Scheff, Thomas (2013): Getting Unstuck: Interdisciplinarity as a New Discipline. Sociological Forum, 28 (1): 179–185. Schmidt, Jan C. (2007): Knowledge Politics of Interdisciplinarit y. Specifying the Type of Interdisci­plinarity in the NSF’s NBIC scenario. Innovation, 20 (4): 313–328. Steinmetz, George (2007): Transdisciplinarity as a Noimperial Encounter: For an Open Sociology. Thesis Eleven, 91 (1): 48–65. Steinmetz, George, and Chae, Ou-Byung (2002): Sociology in an Era of Fragmentation: From the Sociology of Knowledge to the Philosophy of Science, and Back Again. The Sociological Quarterly, 43 (1): 111–137. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1994): Disintegrated Disciplines and the Future of Sociology. Sociological Forum, 9 (2): 279–291. Strathern, Marilyn (2007): Interdisciplinarity: Some Models from the Human Sciences. Interdisci­plinary Science Reviews, 32 (2): 123–134. Turner, Jonathan H. (2006): American Sociology in Chaos: Differentiation without Integration. American Sociologist, 37 (2): 15–29. Turner, Jonathan H., and Boynes, David E. (2006): The Return of Grand Theory. In: Jonathan H. Turner (ed.): Handbook of Sociological Theory: 353–378. New York: Springer. Viterbo, Paula (2007): History of Science as Interdisciplinary Education in American Colleges: Its Origins, Advantages, and Pitfalls. Journal of Research Practice, 3 (2): Article M16. Available from: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/116/96 (Accessed 16. 5. 2016.) Wright, J. Talmadge, Embrick, David E., and Henke, Kelsey (2015): Interdisciplinarity, Post-disci­plinarity, and Anomic Specialization: Where do We Locate Sociology? Humanity & Society, 39 (3): 267–273. Author‘s data Krešimir Žažar, Postdoctoral Research/Teaching Assistant University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Sociology Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia E-mail: kzazar@ffzg.hr Original scientific article UDK 316.74:[37.016:316](439) Péter Miskolczi, Gábor Király TEACHING SOCIETY? LOOKING FOR NEW WAYS TO TEACH SOCIOLOGY IN CONTEMPORARY HUNGARY ABSTRACT Sociology’s possible roles of producing knowledge and shaping society can suggest several different approaches to teaching. In our article, we conduct a macro-level review of sociology’s role in society. We touch upon the issue of value-free sociology (stressing scientific neutrality) and then refer to Burawoy’s programme of public sociology (advocating involvement in civil society) and its criticism. We connect this with the Hungarian experience which shows that while sociology was historically involved, to various extents, in shaping society by either legitimating or challenging the status quo, nowadays this function seems to be superfluous for the architects of political power. In such a social context, even the goals of improving students’ reflexivity and critical thinking might be seen as a political act. KEYWORDS: sociology’s social role, knowledge production, shaping society, CEE socio­logy, Hungarian democracy, critical thinking, reflexivity, teaching sociology Učeča se družba? Iskanje novih načinov poučevanja sociologije v sodobni Madžarski IZVLEČEK Iz izhodiščne možnosti sociologije, da proizvaja vednost in oblikuje družbo lahko izhaja vrsta različnih pristopov k poučevanju. V našem prispevku smo opravili pregled vloge sociologije v družbi na makroravni. Dotaknili se bomo vprašanja objektivne sociologije (poudarjanje znanstvene nevtralnosti) ter referirali na Burrawoyev program javne sociolo­gije (ki zagovarja sodelovanje v civilni družbi) in njegovo kritiko. To povežemo z madžar­sko izkušnjo, ki pokaže, da se je v zgodovini sociologija do določene mere angažirala v ustvarjanju družbe ali pa tako, da je status quo zagovarjala ali ga izpodbijala, da pa je danes takšno početje arhitektom družbene moči odveč. V takšnem kontekstu so celo cilji razvijati refleksivnost in kritično mišljenje pri študentih lahko videti kot politično dejanje. KLJUČNE BESEDE: družbena vloga sociologije, proizvodnja vednosti, oblikovanje družbe, madžarska demokracija, kritično mišljenje, refleksivnost, učeča se družba 1 Introduction The aim of this article is to investigate the roles that sociology can play in society, with special attention to the Hungarian – and to a certain extent, Central-Eastern European (CEE) – experience, and then draw conclusions with regard to teaching sociology. In doing so, we also make a connection to the main theme of the November 2015 Conference of the Slovenian Sociological Association, „Sociology between producing knowledge and shaping society”1. The choice of the topic is partly based on personal motivations (reflec­tion on our professional roles and identities) and partly on external pressures (pressing questions concerning the role of sociology and the state of Hungarian democracy). We believe that these problems have not been discussed previously in this particular constel­lation. The first section of the paper investigates the role of sociology in society on a macro level. Is studying society sociology’s sole function, or can it possibly have the authority to drive social change in a particular direction? What are the possible roles sociology can take up in its relationship with society? In discussing these questions, we visit the debate on value-free sociology, then move on to the programme of public sociology and its critique. By adding the Hungarian (CEE) experience, we highlight that sociology (just as every science) cannot pretend to be completely independent from external social conditions, which also suggests that it has to commit itself to society to a certain extent. In the second part, we turn our focus to the activity of teaching sociology (Halasz and Kaufman 2008; Finkelstein 2009; Rickles et al. 2013). Based on the findings of the first part, we delineate a number of possible directions for teaching (introductory) sociology courses, and discuss the challenges that they face. We present some of the decisions that we have made in our struggles to capture, motivate and develop our student audience while being responsible scholars as well. 2 The role of sociology in society What is the purpose of sociology? Is there a single, unitary ‘sociological ethos’? What is its relation to ‘society’ at large? All important questions, the answers to which have strong implications concerning the identity and role of the individual sociologist and their everyday activity. 2.1 Can sociology be value-free? The debate on the possibility of value-free sociology concerns the problem of ‘moral statements’. Since sociology studies social life, it is inevitable that value judgements and moral issues will fall under its scope. However, it is not at all obvious whether sociology itself can present evaluative, judgemental statements as its (scientific) findings. If sociology 1. This article is based on the paper presented at the ‘Annual Meeting of the Slovenian Sociological Association 2015 – Sociology between Producing Knowledge and Shaping Society’ that was held from 6th to 7th November 2015 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. can be value-free (or, as some assert, it can be only that), then it has no grounds whatsoever to prescribe a direction for shaping society. Philip Gorski (2013) is a defendant of the value-involved position. He argues from the standpoint of ethical naturalism, which states that since human beings will flourish under certain conditions and falter under others, it is possible to tell what is ‘good’ for humans from what is ‘ bad’ for them (Gorski 2013: 543). Moreover, facts and values are not easily separated even philosophically. On the one hand, facts are often value laden, being esta ­blished with the help of ‘good’ theories or ‘the best possible’ methods, which inherently carry a value judgement. Conversely, values are also fact laden, because they have an ‘experiential basis’, and we adjust our values on the basis of facts we encounter. Therefore, science is fit to investigate values as well as facts. „The object of these investigations is [to deliver] discoverable truths about the good life and the good society” (Gorski 2013: 543, our emphasis). Even so, he does not think sociology can ‘legislate’ values or become a „Ministry of Ethical Information” (Gorski 2013: 553). In response, proponents of the value-free position assert that philosophically, facts and values are totally distinct worlds with no logical connection. The only foundation that a value-free social science needs is the mere ability to construct value-free statements, and that is perfectly possible. Confronting the idea of facts being ‘value-laden’, they agree that within the practice of social science, ‘good’ theories and methods are selected in an evaluative way. However, this value judgement is internal to science, which in no way compromises the output, which can be presented in a value-free way. What they reject are external value judgements, whereby social science evaluates the world it studies, or gives advice on how the world ‘ought’ to be (Black 2013: 767–768; Campbell 2014: 446–447). They also refer to Max Weber, who in an essay on the topic repeatedly calls „all matters of evaluation scientifically undemonstrable” (Weber 1949: 6). For them, such a value-involved social science is simply not science. Thus, what is the ethos they suggest for sociology and the sociologist? Campbell allows that scientific findings can be put to use in order to achieve an end, and that rigorous scientists, outside their scientific roles, can engage in honest and well-separated value-involved activities (echoing Weber 1949: 5). However, this dual role of the scientist might ‘confuse audiences’ and, therefore, it is best to stick to one’s „true vocation” instead of playing the „high priest of humanity” (Campbell 2014: 449–451). This debate pertains strongly to sociology’s role between producing knowledge and shaping society. The latter role seems incompatible with value-free social science, at least in the eyes of those who defend it. We will revisit the problem below and see if some ground for consensus between the positions might exist or not. 2.2 Public sociology In his 2004 American Sociological Association (ASA) Presidential Address, Michael Burawoy delivered a grandiose call For Public Sociology (Burawoy 2005a). His address and subsequent articles on the matter (Burawoy 2005b; 2007; 2009) offer a very clear and ambitious programme for sociology, in both the roles of producing knowledge and shaping society. In Burawoy’s narrative, sociology ‘responds’ to waves of market and state encroachment upon civil society. 2 By civil society, he means „organizations, associations and movements that are neither par t of the state nor par t of the economy” (Burawoy 2009: 196). Without civil society, sociology as a whole cannot exist and will disappear, as it did in Nazi and Communist regimes (Burawoy 2005a: 24; 2009: 196). Burawoy outlines four types of sociology (a ‘division of labour’), inseparable from each other even in their antagonisms. The first is professional sociology, which defines its research programmes according to its own considerations, and executes them with the utmost methodological rigour and exactness (Burawoy 2005a: 10). It produces instrumen­tal (‘factual’) knowledge for an academic (professional) audience. Burawoy repeatedly stresses the prime importance of professional sociology (Burawoy 2005a: 10; 2005b: 424; 2007: 139–140), because this is the branch that provides legitimacy and expertise for the others. Without it, all sociology could be discredited as unscientific. Next, policy sociology is „in the service of a goal defined by a client” (Burawoy 2005a: 9), instrumental knowledge aimed at an extra-academic (lay) audience. The client can be the state and private organisations alike; a general risk here is that the privately defined goal can divert the scientific process (Burawoy 2005a: 17). Then, pubic sociology „brings sociology into a conversation with publics” (Burawoy 2005a: 7), providing reflexive (‘evaluative’) knowledge to extra-academic audiences. Finally, critical sociology provides reflexive knowledge to academic audiences, and acts as some sort of ‘conscience’ of the discipline. His critical sociology is not the internal value-judgement of an other wise value ­-free sociology: it questions the very foundations of established paradigms as its duty, serving scientific progress (Burawoy 2005a: 10). The programme of public sociology is, therefore, engaging sociology and society in a dialogue. Burawoy also refers to Habermas’s (1984) notion of „communicative action” in his discussion3. He assures us that „public sociology has no intrinsic normative valence, other than the commitment to dialogue” (Burawoy 2005a: 8). He sees this activity as a must in the present time of market and state colonisation. By defending civil society, soci­ology defends „the interests of humanity” (Burawoy 2005a: 24). For him, this is seemingly self-evident since he believes that most sociologists were driven to the profession by a „passion for a better world” (Burawoy 2005a: 5). 2. We are currently witnessing an „offensive against civil society”, and the academy is subjected „to political surveillance” (Burawoy 2007: 144–145) while being financially insecure as well (Burawoy 2005a: 7). This experience is not unique to the West; in post-Socialist European countries, the free reign of the market damages civil society and the practice of sociology (Burawoy 2009: 191). 3. Habermas’s theories could also offer a strong foundation for a discussion on the role(s) of socio­logy. His model of deliberative democracy (Habermas 1996) outlines an arrangement in which the power centre is influenced by a periphery during the political decision-making process. Since the centre cannot manufacture legitimacy for and by itself, it is provided through public discourse: the opinion- and will-formation of citizens. (Public) sociology looks very much compatible with this model, playing a part in public discourse. 2.3 Critique of public sociology Burawoy’s vision of public sociology was not met with unqualified enthusiasm. Even those sharing his passion for a ‘better societ y’ do not wholly agree with him. Brint’s (2005) overall assessment is that Burawoy’s vision of public sociology is leftist and liberal. Brint reminds us that whatever passions govern the sociologist, they must always put scientific truth first, even if it contradicts their personal convictions (Brint 2005: 48–50). Similarly, Scheiring (2006) brings his experience as an ‘activist’ into his commentary. He, too, emphasises the prime importance of sticking to scientific standards, even in the most ‘public’ of activities, because prejudicial blindness or methodological weakness (bad enough in themselves) will ultimately ‘hurt the cause’ as well (Scheiring 2006). Brint finds it unlikely that public sociology would really want to engage all kinds of civil publics (such as book-reading or gardening clubs); many of these do not need re­flexive sociological knowledge. He suspects that Burawoy is concentrating on community groups that challenge the power structure (Brint 2005: 51–52). He accepts Burawoy’s fourfold division of sociological labour, however, he draws attention to the risks that the competition of these four arms pose. He would like to see professional sociology as the unquestioned structural and moral centre of the discipline (Brint 2005: 57–58). Lengyel’s (2006) remarks bear some similarity to this argument: he does not agree to have the four branches institutionalised separately. For him, it should be the same sociologist who carries out strictly scientific research, informs the pubic, teaches and gives advice, and is attentive to the grievances of civil society (Lengyel 2006: 108). Deflem (2013), writing in the American context, labels public sociology „heavily po ­liticised”, and its stance toxically ideological. Sociologists have fallen for „a radicalized sociology, under the seemingly benign heading of public sociology, simply because they do not have the intellectual skills necessary to think critically about their own activities” (Deflem 2013: 161–162, our emphasis). Marketisation also played some part in this deterioration, namely in the sphere of higher education. In short, the problem is that universities now need a high number of students to survive financially. While other (mostly natural) sciences are able to maintain their standards, sociology, being intellectually weak already, seems to succumb to these pressures, and accepts students of mediocre ability, helping them obtain a degree. For Deflem, this amounts to a „total lack of morality” and his remedy is to „make sociology unpopular” and relaunch it on much stricter scientific standards (Deflem 2013: 162–165). Overall, the debate suggests that Burawoy and his public sociology is equally committed to both activities of producing knowledge and shaping society, where the latter must be firmly founded on the former. However, he also sees the existence of a civil society as a precondition for the existence of the whole of sociology. Some of the criticism is concerned with stressing the importance of the scientific approach even more. Some of it questions Burawoy’s fondness for civil society. Finally, some of it sees the whole project of public sociology as radicalised and partisan, finding the roots of sociology’s troubles not mainly in state or market domination (i.e. wider social conditions), but rather in its own intellectual weakness. 2.4 The role of sociology: The Central-Eastern European historical experience In the review so far, we have investigated the role of sociology ‘in general’ – and while some of the views were highly abstract, some of them were obviously situated in a certain time and place. Naturally, we are most familiar with the contemporary Hungarian situa­tion concerning the role and challenges of sociology, and our analysis is centred on our country. Nevertheless, we would like to present a ‘regional’ post-socialist account of this topic. We believe that the Central-Eastern European experience will add an important new aspect to the discussion by drawing attention to the importance that wider social conditions bear not only to the (contentious) society-shaping, but also to the knowledge-producing activities of sociology. The views of CEE authors also help us to map out the similarities and differences between Western (European and American) and Central-Eastern European discourse on the roles of the discipline. Sociology’s history as an institutionalised discipline does not span a full century in Central-Eastern Europe. However, almost every country has an early 20th-century tradition, in which social scientific thinking was linked to questions of social modernisation: whether to conduct it in an ‘imported Western’ way or on the basis of national cultural resources. In Hungary, early sociology had strong links to journalism as well – informing the public on a range of issues, e.g. living conditions of the peasantry (Némedi 2009: 152–154). Sociology was established as a science following the ‘Khruschev thaw’, in the early to late 1960s, throughout the socialist bloc. Sociology’s relationship with the Socialist state power was ambivalent. It was a servant of official propaganda, strictly Marxist in its foun­dation, and ‘careful’ in its choice of research topics. However, this did not fully quench the development of a methodologically rigorous, positivist social science – one which, by uncovering ‘unfavourable truths’ about social reality, also provoked the anger of the authorities (Boyadijeva 2009: 163–165; Mucha and Keen 2009: 130–133; Némedi 157-154 :2009; Zdravomyslova 2009: 142–143). Zaslavskaia (1997), in her discussion of Russian sociology, names three functions of the field: the first one is scientific-cognitive, i.e. knowledge production, which already had its beginnings in socialist times. The possibility for the next two functions was opened up by the transition to a democratic society (with a market economy). The political function means the provision of feedback for government and assistance in „the ef fective manage ­ment of social development”. The civil function is the ‘creation of a civil societ y’ and ‘social enlightenment’ – strong words which imply activism; however, Zaslavskaia sees it fulfilled through the provision of reliable knowledge to the public sphere (Zaslavskaia 1997: 34, 37), arguably not going even so far as Burawoy does with his dialogic public sociology. In post-transition years, CEE sociologies faced a number of challenges. These seem to recur almost invariably in every country. First of all, the discipline had to renew itself, shaking off (then re-evaluating) its Marxist philosophy, updating its theoretical and method­ological standards. A successful renewal led to the pluralisation and fragmentation of the discipline at the same time (Zaslavskaia 1997: 38; Zdravomyslova 2009: 140). Second, the market economy opened up new possibilities for putting sociological knowledge to practical use. The new fields of market research, media analysis and opinion polling were often presented as ‘sociology’ in the media, creating a false impression and undermining the social status of the discipline, because these marketised activities were often seen as inaccurate, arbitrary or outright partisan (Boyadijeva 2009: 167). Third, sociology had to reevaluate its relationship to politics. While sociologists found it a ‘natural’ role for them to participate in the democratic transition with the provision of scientific knowledge, they had to accept that they were ill-prepared for it. The fact that sociology failed to foresee the collapse of socialism weakened its status as a proper science (one capable of making predictions). Moreover, the production of sociological knowledge could not keep up with the pace of the rapid social transformation, and was often unable to provide informa­tion, either for policy use, or for the purpose of keeping the public informed, undermining sociology’s status further (Boyadijeva 2009: 170–171; Némedi 160 :2009). Another possible role of sociology, described in connection with the post-socialist transition (but also applicable to its social role in general), is to provide a vocabulary of public reasoning which helps to understand social reality not only to professionals, but to the members of societ y as well. In Hungar y, sociology exercised such functions in the past (Kuczi and Becskeházi 1992; Szabari 2010). As Kuczi argues, sociology became the lingua franca of public reasoning with many ‘lay’ sociologists entering the debate (Kuczi 1991). Using Kuczi’s own words, sociology „became the language of transmission for various groups of intellectuals; physicians, teachers, engineers, public educators, editors, etc. who used the terminology of sociology in public discourse” (Kuczi 1996). To this we might add that, while supplying vocabular y in itself can be a value -free exercise, in public discourse, uses and abuses of this vocabulary will deepen the public’s confusion: is it sociology, the language of which we use, that is inherently value-involved? Observing the experience of the post-socialist transition, CEE authors draw similar conclusions to each other (Boyadijeva 2009; Mucha and Keen 2009; Zdravomyslova 2009). First, they contend that the relationship to politics is highly problematic, and that direct (personal) involvement in politics, or propagandistic misuse of scientific sociology is unacceptable (although in Russia, a certain group of sociologists want to re-establish the discipline on national-religious grounds, see Zdravomyslova 2009: 144). Nevertheless, many also hold the view that providing knowledge for policy use – in order to improve social conditions – is an acceptable and desirable role, or a natural part of sociological practice which goes without comment (Boyadijeva 2009: 172). As for Zaslavskaia’s civil function, CEE sociology looks cautious in its activism: the need for a strong civil society is spelled out (Boyadijeva 2009: 172), but sociology’s main role is seen in informing it, even by those who emphasise that the discipline has to „engage with a civic position” (Zdravomyslova 2009: 147). 2.5 The Hungarian experience: recent developments The works cited above suggest a number of roles for sociology in post-socialist countries. Besides being a science, established and professionally reproduced within the university, the roles of the ‘expert on social reality’, ‘policy advisor’, ‘educator of the people’ and ‘partner of civil society’ are all possibilities. Practically all of them require, to some degree, the functioning of a democratic country where these activities are possible. Looking at the actual political landscape of present-day Hungary, we can see that there are concerns about democracy in terms of hollowing out (declining involvement in politics) and backsliding effects (returning to semi-authoritarian practices) (Greskovits 2015). Critical voices are strong not only in relation to Hungary (Kornai 2015), but to Poland as well (Albrecht 2016). Notably (although for different reasons), concerns about weakened democracy were also part of Burawoy’s analysis (2005: 4–5), to which his public sociology was a response. It seems that political leaders in Hungary (and Poland) step away from dialogic me­chanisms of public opinion- and will-formation to create politically effective constellations and acquire more political control. Some have argued that the shift toward a ‘leader de ­mocracy’ (Körösényi 2005) can be attributed to the crises of ‘party democracy’ and the celebrity culture of the mass media (Pakulski and Körösényi 2013). Thus, it is a common phenomenon in the political sphere, not just in Hungary but in many countries. However, the Hungarian case on „national consultation on immigration and terrorism” paints a rather grim picture in relation to both the potentials of deliberative democracy and the roles of sociologists in it. According to the official reasoning, ‘national consultations’ – questionnaires sent to all Hungarian citizens – were instigated so that the government seeks the opinion of Hungarian citizens on important policy issues. Yet, in many ways those who designed these consultations did not even attempt to meet any kind of scientific and professional criteria. This is particularly true for the last national consultation „on immigra ­tion and terrorism”. According to experts in migration4, questions were formulated in a biased way (Bocskor, manuscript), additionally, the ordering of questions was misleading, connecting immigration and terrorism, and since the prime minister asked citizens to fill and send back the questionnaires, the resulting sample was skewed politically. Moreover, a billboard campaign had already commenced when the data gathering phase was still under way. These facts together show that the aim of the national consultation was not to seek but instead shape citizens’ opinion. Apart from the fact that it was particularly bad social science, as a political strategy it was quite effective and the national consultation proved to be a shrewd political tool. As official language dominated public reasoning and the media in general (Bernáth and Messing 2015; Bocskor, manuscript), everyday discussions are also structured according to the official vocabulary. 4. In an open letter sent to the prime minister, a group of social scientists requested the halting of the ’national consultation’ because the questionnaire „lacks all professional and moral considerations” (Artemisszió blog 2015, our emphasis). Further, it is also worth mentioning that in the national consultation and the follow-up campaign, we can witness elements of the magical narrative worldview – similarly to the archaic, ‘fairy tale’ type narrative structure of the official discourse in 1950s Hungary (Kuczi and Becskeházi 1992: 28–29). As an analogy to the linear chronology of events in tales (Kuczi and Becskeházi 1992: 91), at first there is ‘order and peaceful life’ (our way of European life based on Christianity and national uniformity), which is then distur­bed by an external evil (mostly Muslim migrants), which calls for an extraordinary hero (Hungarian government protecting Hungarian people) who fights the disturbance and restores balance to the universe (see also: Propp 1999). While the political effectiveness of this strategy cannot be questioned, there are several lessons to be learnt from the case. Firstly, it seems that in a relatively new democracy, the social opinion- and will-formation mechanisms of the citizenry can be ‘hijacked’ by political actors strengthening their fears and anxieties, thereby producing mass loyalty and legitimacy for specific policies. This questions the potential of civil society and public discourse shaping policies and decisions in the present. Thus, the likelihood of sociology – through engaging with civil society – being able to shape public policy (directly or even indirectly) is dwindling. Secondly, the case also demonstrates that political actors are becoming very aware of the role of interpretative frames (Goffman 1974) and the vocabulary they use (Lakoff 2014). Moreover, they also know that they must dominate the scene with their discourse in order to strategically ensure that citizens use the same vocabulary and frames for thinking and reasoning as the official discourse. This also limits the sociologist’s role as the one who elaborates and develops the vocabulary for public reasoning. Thirdly, the national consultation also tells us how politics can utilise knowledge production mechanisms for their own benefits. While the consultation was neither a real consultation based on dialogue nor a proper opinion poll, its results still aimed to present realit y – even if it is the realit y political actors want the public to see. Scientific criteria of knowledge production such as neutrality and objectivity are cynically ignored, while the whole set-up was camouflaged as a quasi-scientific research process piggy-back riding on the prestige of scientific procedures. The most painful lesson of the national consultation is that social scientists are not even required to assist in producing the knowledge that political actors want to see, but are totally bypassed in presenting the ‘true voice’ of the people. Of course, it can be argued that this was a one-off situation, but still one may ask whether social science in general and sociologists in particular still stand a chance, not even of shaping social reality, but to operate as a truth-producing enterprise, if political actors can produce their own ‘knowledge’ about the world and communicate the alleged results on billboards. After all, what could be the role of the sociologist in such a situation? Even the most value-free and purely scientific observations (namely, pointing out the appalling methodological errors amounting to manipulation) will propel them into the centre of political turmoil – in the words of C. W. Mills, „in a world of widely communicated nonsense, any statement of fact is of political and moral significance” (Mills 1959: 178). Another possibility is to remain silent, perhaps because the government’s national consultation never aimed to be published in peer-reviewed journals, and it could, theoretically, therefore fall outside the confines of scientific discourse. 2.6 Synthesis of theory and CEE experience So far, we have conducted a macro-level review in search of sociology’s role between producing knowledge and shaping society. We have summarised the findings in Figure 1, which we explain below. Figure 1: The possible roles of sociology in society, coupled with the CEE experience. SOCIETY leader democracy(Pakulski-Körösényi) First of all, we would like to highlight that sociology and society are never t wo distinct entities, since the former exists and operates within the latter, even if it often has to take the standpoint of the perfectly disinterested observer. Therefore, sociology, just as the other circles in the figure, is one of the ‘spheres’ within society. We identified a number of other spheres, and the arrows describe the relationships between them, with references to the authors cited above. It is notable that a number of connections were identified by several authors, even though they may have used different terms to explicate them. The diagram aims to spell out that not all of the relationships are legitimate in everyone’s eyes, because some of them venture beyond knowledge production and aim at shaping society. However, we would also like to highlight the possibility of a consensus between the views presented above. The knowledge producing function was not questioned by anyone, thus it looks to be a good starting point. Personal involvement in politics is ba­sically also forbidden by all. However, the figure also shows that connections to politics will exist through other avenues, e.g. by providing vocabulary for public discourse, and sociological knowledge being adopted for policy use (which could actually happen DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE, XXXII (2016), 83: 63 - 81 without sociology explicitly ‘providing’ such information; after all, scientific results, once published, are free to be used by all). We also showed the possibility of politics hijacking the pivotal truth-producing activities of sociology. The project of ‘defending civil society’ is contentious, and, as the figure shows, una­cceptable for some. However, proponents of a value-free sociology, who find this connec­tion suspicious and radical, did not discuss the type of social organisation which allows scientific activity. The Hungarian experience especially strongly reminds us that even the most ‘disinterested’ science needs a wider social environment where freedom of scientific thinking, knowledge production and dissemination are possible, and truth production is not monopolised by the market or the state (politics). When this basic freedom is at stake, all of the sciences might have to subscribe to a ‘minimal social programme’ of its defence. 3 Teaching sociology in Hungary We now turn to the sphere of the university, where sociologists engage in their research and teaching activities. This seems to be the sphere which is not going away, whether we uphold value-free science or not, agree with public sociology, participate in the public discourse, or are ignored by the political centre, the classroom audience is just as ever present as the pressure to publish. While many of the founders and headlining figures of sociology were also active as teachers, the practice of teaching currently does not seem to be at the forefront of scientific discussion within the field. This absence has been pointed out in various contexts (Davies 2010; Harley and Natalier 2013: 392). On the other hand, Teaching Sociology is a quality journal in its own right, dedicated to this very topic. Most of its articles focus on methodological innovations in teaching and on ways to improve students’ cognitive (and in its service, sometimes emotional) involvement in learning the subject5. Many of these methods aim to help students establish the connections between ‘real life’ and sociology’s body of theoretical and abstract knowledge. While showing great dedication (perhaps a value commitment in itself) to the cause of good teaching, very few of Teaching Sociology’s articles reveal explicit value involvement in their titles6 . Whether familiarising students with issues of social justice (Petray and Halbert 2013), domestic violence (Latshaw 2015), class inequality (Norris 2013) and other themes through simulation games and other methods crosses the line between facts and values, scientific and unscientific, is a fascinating question. However, the goal of the present article is not the evaluation of others but to find an acceptable modus operandi for sociology teaching with regard to the particular macro-level considerations outlined above, including the contemporary Hungarian situation. 5. Similar articles can be found from the CEE region as well, e.g. Malikova (2003) and Toshchenko (2012). 6. We realise that this is an impressionistic statement, but researching the topic more rigorously would have required a study on its own. 3.1 The situation of sociology in Hungarian higher education As we have mentioned earlier, sociology was established as an academic discipline af ter the second world war in Hungar y, more precisely in the 1960s (Némedi 2009: 155). Currently, 9 universities offer sociology as a BA programme (Hungarian Educational Office 2012), in the capital Budapest and 4 other major cities. In the last five years the number of first-year students enrolled in these programmes has risen from 300 to over 500, while roughly 100 people started sociology MA studies each year (Felvi n.d.7). Sociology teaching takes place within Humanities faculties in several universities, while some have Social Science faculties. Furthermore, thousands of students of humanities, economic and social sciences (but also engineers and medical students) will study sociology at an introductory level, either as mandatory or elective classes. Both of the present authors are actively involved in teaching sociology at two of Budapest’s universities. We hope to be intellectually fit for both the researcher and teacher roles. Currently, neither of us is involved in social activism, and we would not find the use of „the academic platform” for such activity acceptable. Having also outlined above the dire position in which sociology finds itself in the (increasingly pseudo-) democratic deci­sion- and will-formation process in contemporary Hungary, we came to realise that quite possibly the biggest ‘power’ we have in shaping society is through teaching sociology to some 400 -500 undergraduate students every year (this is the number of students who participate in our introductory classes8). So the question arises: How can we use this power responsibly? 3.2 Teaching scientific sociology One possible approach is to teach scientific professionalism. This tradition goes back to Weber, who emphasised the importance of specialised training, a strict adherence to facts and exactness even at the cost of seeming ‘boring’ to the audience, and stated that pedagogical losses result from the introduction of ‘the manner of public discussion’ into education (Weber 1949: 2–4). Elsewhere, he explicitly warns that all matters political must stay outside the lecture hall (Weber 1946: 145–147). Proponents of value-free sociology would certainly agree with him. Brint emphasises academic ‘rigour’ because it is essential to doing valid sociological research, and contends that students should find as much excitement in learning these skills as some might do in ‘changing society’ (Brint 2005: 61–62). Deflem (2013) also strongly argued for the strengthening of professional requirements in sociological curricula. Presumably, all this could be done in an elegant, value -free way. However, as we have pointed out above, even a keen eye for methodological correctness becomes a political force in situations such as the Hungarian ‘national consultation’, whereby the government seeks to produce its own knowledge through manipulation. Therefore, a strict professional 7. We obtained these numbers through an online database query. In the references, we include the URL of the database’s main page. 8. Presently, only one of us teaches specialised subfields of sociology: namely, history of sociology, sociological theory, and scientific writing. We are not active in teaching methodological courses. training becomes at once an act of defiance. However, this is not the reason for which we do not make scientific rigour the only priority in our introductory courses. Rather, it is the fact that a strict style of professional training would be at odds with the fields of study and number of our audience. Each year, roughly 300 first-year students participate in our introductory course at the Corvinus University of Budapest, out of whom roughly 70 will take part in the sociology programme (the rest of them study political scien ­ce, media and communications, and international studies). Out of those 70, not all of them will do a sociology MA, and roughly 5-10 can be expected to begin PhD studies. Then, at Budapest Business School, we have 120 -180 students of economics, management, finance and human resources a year, for whom sociology is only an elective subject. Very few of these students will become social scientists in a strict sense, and that is why we believe we should introduce them to a different cross-section of the science of sociology – one we elaborate upon in the next section. 3.3 Critical thinking and reflexivity Reflexivity and critical thinking, also strongly linked to abilities of complex reasoning and communication, are 21st-century skills (indispensable in a knowledge-based economy) that higher education generally aims to improve in students (Arum and Roksa 2011). We believe that sociology teaching can play a big part in improving these skills. Critical thinking can be defined as the ability „to evaluate, reason and question ideas and information” (Grauerholz et al. 2009, quoted in Rickles et al. 2013). It involves the evaluation of information on the basis of logical and empirical sufficiency, as well as the ability of creative argumentation. It is an exercise in rationality and logic. One of its basic requirements is the ability to apply theoretical concepts to real-world phenomena (Rickles et al. 2013: 272). Reflexivity is described by Kaufman (2013) as both „a process of being and a process of thinking”. It involves being „conscious of the lenses through which we view the world”, understanding our ‘situationality’ and ‘positionality’. Being reflexive is to gain awareness of our own categories and processes of thought, which we typically take for granted. Kaufman highlights that these operations are strongly linked to rigorous scientific methodology as well. However, the importance of reflexivity does not lie solely in methodology, but also in a wider realisation of the constrained and subjective nature of our personal worldviews (Kaufman 2013: 71). How can we improve critical thinking and reflexivity in sociology classes? First of all, by demonstrating the scientific nature of sociology: its methodological exactness and empirical basis (even if we do not require our students to become methodological experts themselves). Our students should be able to realise the similarities as well as the big differences between scientific and everyday thinking. We also familiarise them with sociology’s findings: from classics to contemporary ones. This should help them realise that while ‘naturally’ we are all ‘experts’ of the social world we live in, sociology has its own special viewpoint and body of knowledge (and is not ‘arbitrary’, as some may think). This can perhaps bring the benefit of enhancing sociology’s public image a little as well. Often, we see that sociological findings are in conflict with the preconceived worldview or values of some of our students – we take this conflict as a starting point for dialogue, not wanting to inculcate ‘the truth’ into our students, but to help them develop the abilities of reflexivity and critical thinking, both towards their own views and those of science. They can rethink the relationship of their own values to social reality, and they become aware of the processes whereby truth is produced and gains acceptance. Incidentally, this also implies criticalit y towards power (of any kind), therefore, by developing these 21st-century skills, we again find that we are not producing obedient subjects of the state. Still, this does not seem to go beyond the ‘minimal programme’ described earlier. 3.4 Dialogic teaching – Value-involved teaching? We have already touched upon the topic of dialogue above. The term was the central idea of Burawoy’s programme, and it is applicable to education as well. He calls students sociology’s „first and captive public”, suggesting that teaching falls under the auspices of public sociology. Indeed, he derides standardised courses and intensive examinations as „disciplinary techniques”. According to him, we should engage students in dialogic teaching, starting from their experience, not taking them for ‘empty vessels’ to be filled with some authoritative ‘truth’ (Burawoy 2005a: 5–9). Burawoy himself recommends service learning, a method which involves students in a project that serves a community. Arguably, this goes beyond the boundaries of value-free science. There are also a number of other educational methods that combine learning with experience (conducting local case studies, games, simulations), and might or might not be aimed at developing empathy in students – something which, according to Latshaw (2015), is „an unspoken goal of many sociology courses” (Latshaw 2015: 277). We believe that reflexivity and critical thinking are already steps in the direction of empathy – the ability to see a situation from someone else’s point of view –, and therefore this latter is not a goal in itself in our courses. Besides, the number of our students does not really permit the use of experiential methods. However, we believe in dialogue as a method. In the age of information technolo­gy, the authority of the teacher has greatly diminished and no one can possibly hold a monopoly over knowledge anymore. What is more, the university lecturer basically has to compete with a myriad forms of entertainment that the digital world provides to the young audience (Jeffries and Andrews 2014). In such a situation, we find dialogic teaching especially valuable. We strive to make this dialogue more than merely formal, allowing time for debates, and demonstrating the connections between the sociological body of knowledge and the personal experience and views of our students. Finding and articulating these connections on the spot is one of the biggest challenges but also one of the biggest thrills of the teacher’s job, and it adds an element of improvisation to each lesson, making every occasion unique. 3.5 The role of course assessment Obviously, we cannot make a person think critically and reflexively if they refuse to do so. Nevertheless, we aim to steer our students gently towards greater levels of dedication to learning sociology. Quoting John W. Moore, Eric Mazur (1997) writes that „for students, the exam is the dog and the course is the tail”, meaning that the way a course is assessed influences the way students learn it. Our assessment system consists of several elements. First, we admit that while we recognise the frustration of Deflem (2013) who writes that earning a college degree has lately become „a matter of justice” and the idea of an earned degree seems to be ridiculed, we do not consider it our duty to „sift” students. Therefore it is possible to get a pass by answering a set of multiple-choice questions, although nobody gets through without having learnt a few basics of methodology and sociological findings. However, in order to get good grades, students also have to write a short research pro­posal on a given topic as part of the exam, testing their scientific thinking. Further, active participation in lessons is rewarded with a small amount of extra points, which can also be earned by way of preparing small-scale project works throughout the semester, in which students can try their hands at writing a well-referenced, critically thought-out university paper. At Corvinus University, we also prescribe certain readings which are then tested. According to Arum and Roksa (2011: 204–205), the amount of reading and writing exer­cises correlate with the improvement of students’ skills during college years. Finally, we are determined to investigate and improve the effectiveness of our teaching practices. In accordance with the concept of the knowledge-creating school (Hargreaves 1999), we have decided to develop some research about our activities. With the use of diagrams called mind maps, we collected data from our Corvinus University students in September (before the start of the introductor y course) and December 2015 (at the end) (Miskolczi et al. 2016). We are currently undertaking data analysis, which will help us understand, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, how students view sociology prior to studying it, how the course alters their views, how much and what they learn from it. 4 Conclusion Sociology and its practitioners constantly face a dilemma about their possible roles in producing knowledge and shaping society. On the one hand, the debate may seem philosophical, concerning the worlds of facts and values. However, the stakes are already high here, because whether sociology can or should be value-free will suggest different approaches to resolve the ‘role ambiguity’ towards the social world. It is natural for every science to guard its integrity and social standing by staying methodologically rigorous and strictly neutral (almost ‘disinterested’). At the same time, scientific truth production is not a solitary activity, it involves the free exchange, discussion and criticism of findings and ideas. Therefore, we can observe that scientific activity – sociology included – is tied to a way of social organisation which allows this discourse to take place. Because of its historical trajectory, sociology in Hungary lacks credibility in the eyes of a large part of the population, and is also disliked and neglected by politics. While sociology used to play a part in public discourse throughout the decades of democrati­sation, currently the Hungarian government is carrying out large-scale ‘truth production’ exercises on its own, in the service of the logic of politics and power. Through teaching sociology to a few hundred students every year, we will inevitably come across this problematic situation. By showing the scientific and dialogic nature (which are not opposites) of sociology to our students, we can enhance their reflexive and critical sen­sitivity to issues of knowledge production and the possibilit y of multiple viewpoints – the earmarks of a ‘grown-up’ citizen. We do not demand to have a say in shaping society by communicating our personal values to students, but rather we prepare them to act as autonomous agents in a democratic society, towards the full realisation of their personal and collective potential. References Albrecht, Morgan (2016): Right Wing Trends and Xenophobia in Poland: What This Means for the Rest of Europe. Available from: http://eucenter.scrippscollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/ files/2016/03/MorganAlbrecht_PolandEUPaper.pdf (Accessed 17. 05. 2016). Artemisszió Foundation blog (2015): Migrációval foglalkozó kutatók kérése Magyarország Kormányához. Available from: http://artemisszio.blog.hu/2015/04/30/migracioval_foglal­kozo_kutatok_kerese_magyarorszag_kormanyahoz (Accessed 12. 06. 2016). Arum, Richard, and Roksa, Josipa (2011): Limited Learning on College Campuses. Society, 48 (3): 203–207. Bernáth, Gábor, and Messing, Vera (2015): Bedarálva: A menekültekkel kapcsolatos kormányzati kampány és a tőle független megszólalás terepei. Médiakutató, 16 (4): 7–17. Black, Donald (2013): On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value-free social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 64 (4): 763–780. Bocskor, Ákos (manuscript, 2016): Government-initiated anti-immigration sentiments and its impact on the mainstream media during the 2015 refugee crisis in Hungary. Boyadijeva, Pepka (2009): Shooting at a Moving Target: Rediscovering Sociology in Bulgaria. In Su­jata Patel (ed.): The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions: 163–174. London: Sage. Brint, Steven (2005): Guide for the Perplexed: On Michael Burawoy’s “Public Sociology”. The American Sociologist, 36 (3–4): 5–26. Burawoy, Michael (2005a): For Public Sociology. American Sociological Review, 70 (1): 4–28. Burawoy, Michael (2005b): Response: Public sociology: populist fad or path to renewal? The British Journal of Sociology, 56 (3): 417–432. Burawoy, Michael (2007): Open the social sciences: To whom and for what? Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 6 (3): 137–146. Burawoy, Michael (2009): Public sociology in the age of Obama. Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22 (2): 189–199. Campbell, Bradley (2014): Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Sociological Morality. Society, 51 (5): 443–451. Davies, Kim (2010): Presidential Speeches and Teaching Sociology (2009 MSSA Presidential Address). Sociological Spectrum, 30 (6): 623–638. Deflem, Mathieu (2013): The Structural Transformation of Sociology. Society, 50 (2): 156–166. Finkelstein, Marv (2009): Toward Teaching A Liberating Sociological Practicality. Challenges for Teaching, Learning and Practice. Teaching Sociology, 37 (1): 89–102. Goffman, Erving (1974): Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Harvard University Press. Gorski, Philip S. (2013): Beyond the Fact/Value Disctinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences. Society, 50 (6): 543–553. Greskovits, Béla (2015): The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East Central Europe. Global Policy, 6 (S1): 28–37. Habermas, Jürgen (1984): The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon. Habermas, Jürgen (1996): Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hargreaves, David H. (1999): The Knowledge creating School. British journal of educational studies, 47 (2): 122–144. Halasz, Judith R., and Kaufman, Peter (2008): Sociology as Pedagogy. How Ideas from the Disci­pline Can Inform Teaching and Learning. Teaching Sociology, 36 (4): 301–317. Harley, Kirsten, and Natalier, Kristin (2013): Teaching sociology – reflections on the discipline. Journal of Sociology, 49 (4): 389–396. Jeffries, Pamela R., and Andrews, David W. (2014): University Teaching 101. Coursera Online Course. Available from: https://www.coursera.org/course/univteaching101 (Accessed 22. 03. 2014). Kaufman, Peter (2013): Scribo Ergo Cogito: Reflexivity Through Writing. Teaching Sociology, 41 (1): 70–81. Kornai, János (2015): Hungary’s U-Turn: Retreating from Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 26 (3): 34–48. Körösényi, András (2005): Political Representation in Leader Democracy. Government and Oppo­ sition, 40 (3): 358–378. Kuczi, Tibor (1991): Magánnyelv – szociológia – közbeszéd. Replika, (2–3): 68–80. Kuczi, Tibor, and Becskeházi, Attila (1992): Szociológia, ideológia, közbeszéd. Szociológia és társadalmi diskurzus. Budapest: Scientia Humana. Kuczi, Tibor (1996): The split sociological mind in East-European societies. Replika (special issue): 53–57. Lakoff, George (2014): The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Latshaw, Beth A. (2015): Examining the Impact of a Domestic Violence Simulation on the Deve­lopment of Empathy in Sociology Classes. Teaching Sociology, 43 (4): 277–289. Lengyel, György (2006): A szociológia integritásáért: Hozzászólás Michael Burawoy i´rásához. Replika, (54–55): 105–112. Malikova, Nailia Ramazanovna (2003): On a Number of Innovative Methods of Teaching Socio­ logy. Russian Education and Society, 45 (9): 28–35. Mazur, Eric (1997): Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Mills, C. Wright (1959): The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Miskolczi, Péter, Király, Gábor, Kovács, Kinga, Lovas, Yvette, and Pálóczi, Bence (2016): Fogalmak mentén: hallgatói gondolattérképek alkalmazása oktatási úji´tás vizsgálatára. Prosperitas, 3 (2): 111–132. Mucha, Janusz, and Keen, Mike F. (2009): Post-Communist Democratization and the Practice of Sociology in Central and Eastern Europe. In Sujata Patel (ed.): The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions: 129–139. London: Sage. Némedi, Dénes (2009): Traditions and Ruptures in Hungarian Sociology 1900 -2000. In Sujata Patel (ed.): The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions: 152–162. London: Sage. Norris, Dawn R. (2013): Beat the Bourgeoisie A Social Class Inequality and Mobility Simulation Game. Teaching Sociology, 41 (4): 334–345. Pakulski, Jan, and Körösényi, András (2013): Toward Leader Democracy. London: Anthem Press. Petray, Theresa, and Halbert, Kelsey (2013): Teaching engagement: Reflections on sociological praxis. Journal of Sociology, 49 (4): 441–455. Propp, Vlagyimir J. (1999): A mese morfológiája. Budapest: Osiris. Rickles, Michael L., Zimmer Schneider, Rachel, Slusser, Suzanne R., Williams, Dana M., and Zipp, John F. (2013): Assessing Change in Student Critical Thinking for Introduction to Sociology Classes. Teaching Sociology, 41 (3): 271–281. Scheiring, Gábor (2006): Barbárok a nyitott kapuk előtt: A szociológia és a késő modern fordulat. Replika, (56): 217–228. Szabari, Vera (2010): Határmunkálatok a magyar szociológiában: burzsoá kontra marxista szociológia. In Kutrovátz G., Láng B., Zemplén G. (eds.): Határmunkálatok a tudományban: 101–115. Budapest: L’Harmattan. Toschenko, Zht (ed.) (2012): On the New Approach in Sociological Education (A Roundtable). Russian Education and Society, 54 (7): 39–57. Weber, Max (1946): Science as a Vocation. In. H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.): From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology: 129–156. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Weber, Max (1949): The Meaning of “Ethical Neutrality” in Sociology and Economics. In E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch (eds.): The Methodology of the Social Sciences: 1–47. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Zaslavskaia, Tatiana (1997): The Role of Sociology in Russia’s Transformation. Russian Social Science Review, 38 (6): 28–39. Zdravosmyslova, Elena (2009): What is Russian Sociological Tradition? Debates among Russian Sociologists. In Sujata Patel (ed.): The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions: 140–151. London: Sage. Sources Hungarian Educational Office (Oktatási Hivatal) (2012). Higher education statistics 2012. (Fel­sőoktatási statisztikák 2012.) Available from: http://www.oktatas.hu/felsooktatas/felsooktata­si_statisztikak/!DARI_FelsooktStat/fir/fir_stat2012/stat2012_315.xlsx (Accessed 23. 09. 2016). Felvi.hu (n.d.). Statistics of previous years in Hungarian higher education. (Elmúlt évek statisztikái.) Available from: https://www.felvi.hu/felveteli/ponthatarok_rangsorok/elmult_evek (Accessed 23. 09. 2016). Authors’ data Péter Miskolczi Assistant professor Budapest Business School; PhD student (Sociology), Corvinus University of Budapest Address: Buzogány utca 11-13., 1149 Budapest, Hungary E-mail: miskolczi.peter@uni-bge.hu Gábor Király Senior Research Fellow, Budapest Business School; Associate professor, Corvinus University of Budapest Address: Buzogány utca 11-13., 1149 Budapest, Hungary E-mail: kiraly.gabor@uni-bge.hu ČLANKI ARTICLES Izvirni znanstveni članek UDK 316.42(497.4) Urban Vehovar, Jernej Tiran ORIS IZBRANIH KAZALNIKOV RETRADICIONALIZACIJE SLOVENSKE DRUŽBE IZVLEČEK Prispevek orisuje izbrane kazalnike procesa retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe s po­udarkom na zadnjih petindvajsetih letih. Uvodoma so opredeljeni ključni pojmi, kot so tradicija, modernost in retradicionalizacija. Proces retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe temelji na slovenskem tradicionalnem preživetvenem modelu. Avtorja ocenjujeta, da ostaja slovenska družba pretirano politično integrirana na področju gospodarstva in države ter na ravni lokalne samouprave. Zelo nizka raven zaupanja v demokratične institucije skupaj z nekaterimi drugimi dejavniki utrjuje integriranost v lokalno okolje. Na socialnem področju se krepi preživetveni pomen družine in viša raven identifikacije z lokalnim okoljem. Raven socialnega kapitala je nizka. Na področju vrednotnega sistema in kulture pa prevladujejo ali se krepijo egalitarizem, avtoritarizem, »nizka kultura« ter ksenofobija. Orisani kazal­niki kažejo, da so modernizacijski trendi v Sloveniji v zadnjih 25 letih, še posebej pa po gospodarski krizi leta 2008, vsaj deloma zaustavljeni. KLJUČNE BESEDE: tradicija, modernost, retradicionalizacija, tradicionalni preživetveno­-poslovni model, družbena integracija in regulacija An Outline of Selected Indicators of the Retraditionalisation of Slovenian Society ABSTRACT The article describes selected indicators of the retraditionalisation of Slovenian society. Special attention is paid to the last 25 years. At the outset, key terms are defined, such as tradition, modernity and retraditionalisation. The Slovenian traditional subsistence model is presented as the foundation of the retraditionalisation of the country’s society. The authors claim that Slovenian society remains overly politically integrated in the area of the economy, the state, and at the level of local self-government. Since, amongst other factors, the level of trust in democratic institutions is very low, integration into the local environment is being reinforced, as is the importance of the family. The level of social capital is low. The value system and culture are dominated by egalitarianism, authoritarianism, and “low culture”, along with xenophobia. The outline of the selected indicators reveals that the trends of modernisation in Slovenia, especially in the last 25 years, have now at least partially halted. KEY WORDS: tradition, modernity, retraditionalisation, traditional subsistence-business model, social integration and regulation 1 Uvod V prispevku izhajava iz domneve, da se v Sloveniji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih srečujemo s pojavi, ki nakazujejo, da se slovenska družba retradicionalizira (prim. Vehovar 2010). Na procese retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe vplivajo dejavniki in procesi, ki izhajajo iz lokalnega in širšega okolja. Ni pa to zgolj značilnost slovenske družbe, nasprotovanje procesom modernizacije in globalizacije je namreč globalno ter se vedno bolj odraža na političnem prizorišču (npr. Inglehart in Norris 2016). V slovenskem prostoru s tem ponovno odpirava razpravo, ki je med slovenskimi sociologi in sociologinjami potekala zlasti konec 80. let prejšnjega stoletja; Bernik (1989) je tako razpravljal o »obmodernosti«, Adam (1989) o »deformirani modernizaciji«, Stanojević (1989) o »nedokončani modernosti« in Novak (1989) o »zalomu elit modernizacije«.1 Pred natančnejšo opredelitvijo tradicije, ki predstavlja točko vračanja, če želimo razpravljati o obnavljanju njenih značilnosti, tj. o retradicionalizaciji, navajava nekaj opredelitev njenega pojmovnega nasprotja, modernizacije in modernosti. Modernizacija sicer velja za osrednjo temo sociološkega raziskovanja družbenih sprememb (npr. Bernik 2014). Vendar pa opredelitev modernizacije v izhodišču ni enoznačna oz. lahko nave-demo le njene splošne značilnosti, ki jih ni mogoče brez zadržkov in težav prevajati v okolja »družb sledilk«, ki se razlikujejo od obeh okolij prvotne modernizacije, Anglije in Francije 18. stoletja (Bendix 1967). Za modernizacijo so sicer značilne tri transformacije, gospodarska, politična in socialna (prav tam). Podobno tudi Inglehart (1997) navaja, da v jedru modernizacijske teorije leži podmena, da je gospodarski razvoj povezan s koherentnimi in do določene mere predvidljivimi spremembami v kulturnem, družbenem in političnem življenju (prav tam). Tradicijo in modernost si sicer lahko predstavljamo kot nasprotna pola, vendar je razumevanje, da se medsebojno izključujeta, neutemeljeno. Ko obravnavamo procese modernizacije, moramo zato upoštevati specifične, razlikujoče se modernizacijske poti, ki ne izključujejo tradicije (Gusfield 1967). Modernizacijski procesi in ukrepi se tako ali drugače naslanjajo na obstoječe tradicionalne institucije in družbene strukture, ki jih lahko spodbujajo ali zavirajo (prav tam). V tem okviru je odnos med tradicijo in modernostjo relativen ter referenčen. Ena pogojuje in opredeljuje drugo. 1. Razprave, v katerih so uporabljeni navedeni pojmi, so bile objavljene v tematski številki Družboslov­nih razprav z naslovom Tradicija, modernost, postmodernost. Bernik (1989) v angleškem povzetku uporabi zanimiv prevod izraza »obmodernost«, namreč »submodern society«, tj. »podmoderna družba« (prav tam). Navedeno potrjujejo tudi spoznanja Ingleharta in Bakerja (2000), ki temeljijo na analizi časovne serije raziskave World Values Survey. Proces modernizacije na eni strani povzroči velike kulturne spremembe v dokaj jasni splošni smeri: industrializacija privede do prehoda od tradicionalnih k sekularno-racionalnim vrednotam, za postindustrijske družbe pa so značilne višja stopnja medosebnega zaupanja in tolerantnosti, družbena blaginja in vzpon postmaterialističnih vrednot. Na drugi strani pa tudi v moderniziranih družbah vztrajajo značilne tradicionalne vrednote, ki kažejo visoko stopnjo odpornosti – dokaz za to so kulturna območja (na primer protestantsko, pravoslavno, islamsko, konfucijansko), v katerih se proces modernizacije odvija po specifičnih poteh, v močni odvisnosti od že utečenih tirnic. Vztrajanje ali celo ponovni vzpon tradicionalnih vrednot sta še posebej izrazita v času gospodarskega nazadovanja (prav tam). Ugotovitve Ingleharta in Bakerja (2000) so skladne z Eisenstadtovimi (2000). Ei­senstadt modernizacijo opredeljuje kot »splošen trend k strukturni diferenciaciji, ki se je v velikem obsegu razvil v večini teh (zahodnih, op. a.) družb – v družinskem življenju, gospodarskih in političnih strukturah, urbanizaciji, modernem izobraževanju, množičnem komuniciranju in individualističnih usmeritvah« (prav tam: 1–2). In ker se je organiziranost v vsaki od omenjenih aren razlikovala, so se na tem temelju razvili različni institucionalni in ideološki vzorci. Opraviti imamo z multiplimi oz. več modernostmi (prav tam). Iz zgoraj navedenega je razvidno, da zavračava kongruenčen pogled na procese mo­dernizacije. Ta je prevladoval v 50. letih prejšnjega stoletja in je značilen za interpretacije Marxa, Durkheima in celo Webra, vendar je bil desetletje kasneje zavrnjen (Bendix 1967). Genov (2000) obravnava pospešene družbene spremembe, ki so se v postsocialistič­nih družbah odvijale po letu 1989, v kontekstu globalnih (modernizacijskih) trendov. Na splošno velja, da je spremembe mogoče razbrati na štirih področjih, na gospodarskem, političnem, socialnem2 in na področju kulture. Na gospodarskem področju se razširjajo ideje in institucije instrumentalnega aktivizma, tj. podjetništva in profitnega načela. Ključno vprašanje, ki zadeva to področje, je uravnoteženje instrumentalnega aktivizma z vzdržno­stjo razvoja v ekološkem in socialnem smislu. Na političnem področju, ki vključuje državni aparat na lokalni in državni ravni ter na ravni lokalne samouprave (op. a.), se srečujemo s trendom nadgrajevanja organizacijske racionalnosti, tj. s sposobnostjo diferenciranja druž­benih struktur in funkcij, ki jo spremlja družbena integracija. Temu nasprotno je delovanje birokracij in političnih elit v smeri zadovoljevanja lastnih interesov, v nasprotju z interesi skupnosti. Kar zadeva socialni sistem, je zanj značilna institucionalizacija modernih oblik individualizma, ki jo spremlja vse višja raven osebnostne avtonomije. Na drugi strani pa so posamezniki v vse večji meri prepuščeni tveganjem in negotovosti, ker njihove identitete niso več koherentne in trajne. Obenem se morajo sami integrirati v družbo. Za področje kulture je v globalnem kontekstu značilna univerzalizacija vrednotnih sistemov, denimo koncept človekovih pravic. Na drugi strani in v nasprotju z univerzalizacijo vrednot pa se krepijo partikularizmi, ki so posledica rastočega individualizma ter krepitve partiku­ 2. »Socialno« ločiva od »družbenega«. »Družbeno« zajema družbo kot celoto, »socialno« pa družbene skupine in posameznike, slednje v odnosu do družbenih skupin in družbe v širšem smislu besede (gospodarsko, politično, kulturno). larnih, religioznih in nacionalnih identitet (prav tam). Genov navaja, da so se v večini postsocialističnih družb na vseh področjih okrepili negativni trendi (prav tam). Odgovor na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri je to značilno za Slovenijo in ali so zanjo značilne kakšne posebnosti, pa zahteva podrobnejšo obravnavo. 2 Namen in izhodišča Osrednji namen prispevka je orisati stanje slovenske družbe po posameznih podsiste­mih in ugotoviti, ali se v Sloveniji dejansko srečujemo s pojavom retradicionalizacije kot stanjem ter odzivom na procese modernizacije in globalizacije. Pri obravnavi retradici­onalizacije se naslanjava na v uvodu povzete avtorje in predstavljene poudarke. Na tej osnovi opredeljujeva »tradicijo« in »modernost«. Prvič, izhajava iz orisa slovenskega tradicionalnega preživetveno-poslovnega modela, ki predstavlja specifično izhodišče in temelj procesa modernizacije (na tem mestu slediva Bendixu in Gusfieldu). Obenem pa predstavlja »tradicionalno« oz. »tradicijo«, s kakršno se srečujemo na Slovenskem. Ne trdiva pa, da tradicionalne značilnosti že same po sebi zavirajo modernizacijske procese ali modernizaciji nasprotujejo (tudi na tem mestu slediva zgoraj omenjenima avtorjema). Drugič, pri opredelitvi kriterijev modernizacije se naslanjava na opredelitev Genova, ki je v jedru evropocentrična in presega lokalne idiosinkrezije. Odmikanje od prevlade tradicionalnih značilnosti – ob hkratnem zavedanju, da to ne pomeni njihovega zanikanja – in približevanje k potezam modernosti predstavlja »modernizacijo«. Na drugi strani pa odmikanje od modernih značilnosti v smeri ohranjanja ali krepitve potez, značilnih za slovenski tradicionalni preživetveno-poslovni model, predstavlja »retradicionalizacijo«.3 In tretjič, izhajava iz predpostavke, da je slovenska družba »sledilka« in da pripada evropskemu miselnemu polju. Potemtakem smo pri orisu procesov modernizacije, ko go­vorimo o multiplih oz. več modernostih, zavezani specifični, evropocentrični opredelitvi oz. samorazumevanju na ravni identitete in delovanja (na tem mestu slediva Eisenstadtu). 3. Pojem retradicionalizacija sicer ni nov. Leroy in van Tatenhove (2000) jo opredeljujeta kot družbeni in kulturni odziv na nerešene težave v procesu modernizacije. Po Charltonu in Andrasu (2003) pa pojav vključuje nasprotovanje demokraciji, kapitalističnemu gospodarstvu in zahodni kulturi. 3 Oris slovenskega tradicionalnega preživetvenega modela in nekaterih potez retradicionalizacije na področju gospodarstva »Slovenski družbeno-poslovni sistem« (Jaklič 2009) predstavlja osnovno strukturo procesa retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe in je njen ključni dejavnik. Star je najmanj toliko kot zemljiška odveza, ki je bila na Slovenskem izvedena po letu 1848.4 O ključnem dejavniku je treba govoriti predvsem zato, ker se strukture »dolgega trajanja« spreminjajo stežka in le v obdobjih izrazitih strukturnih prelomov. Najlažje jih razberemo na področju gospodarstva. Razkrivajo jih »(konjunkturni, op. a.) cikli in medcikli, strukturne krize, za katerimi se skrivajo pravilnosti, vztrajanje sistemov, nekateri bi rekli gospodarskih civili­zacij – torej starih navad mišljenja in delovanja, odpornih okvirjev, ki težko umro, včasih v nasprotju z vso logiko« (Braudel 1958: 733).5 Zgodovini dolgega trajanja sta sorodna tudi koncept »odvisnosti od že utečenih tirnic« (ang. path dependence), ki se nanaša na razumevanje določenosti vseh družbenih procesov z lokalno zgodovino in lokalnimi na­čini, na katere so družbeni procesi že potekali v preteklosti (npr. Kalb 2002), in koncept »ukleščenosti« oz. »umeščenosti« (ang. embeddedness) (Polanyi 1944). Ta označuje vpe ­tost gospodarskih dejavnosti v družbene odnose, kajti posameznikovi ekonomski interesi niso podrejeni goli ekonomski logiki, temveč je zanj ključno vzdrževanje socialnih vezi, ki integrira skupnost v stabilno celoto.6 Zgodovino slovenskih preživetvenih praks in gospodarjenja opredeljujeta dva ključna dejavnika. Na eni strani imamo opraviti z razdrobljenostjo kmetijskih zemljišč in posledično eksistenčno ogroženostjo več kot polovice slovenskih kmetov, ki ju je povzročila zemljiška odveza v Avstrijskem cesarst vu (Vilfan 1961). Na majhnih kmetijah namreč ni bilo mogoče preživeti, zato so morali majhni kmetje in kočarji nujno poiskati dodatne preživetvene vire, na primer delo v rudnikih ali gozdovih (Grafenauer 1970).7 Na drugi strani pa je bila Slovenija nizko urbanizirana in industrializirana, zato viškov kmečkih pridelkov ni bilo mogoče prodajati meščanom niti v mestih živečemu delavstvu, ker so bile mezde delavstva na Slovenskem vse do leta 1940 nižje od preživetvenega minimuma (Dragoš 2010). Revščina s pripadajočo mentaliteto igre ničelne vsote – ali vsaj z močnimi nastavki 4. V nadaljevanju besedila bo poimenovan z besednima zvezama »(slovenski) preživetveno-poslovni model« oz. »(slovenski) tradicionalni preživetveni model«. Poudarek je na besedi »preživetveni« (v angleškem jeziku bi uporabili izraz »subsistence«), ki opozarja na sorazmerno omejenost virov in primarnost potrebe po golem preživetju, v nasprotju s podjetništvom oz. poslovnostjo (prim. Vehovar 2010 in 2012). 5. Braudel ob bok »gospodarskim konjunkturam« postavlja »družbene konjunkture«. Braudel je prepričan, da mora zgodovinska obravnava nujno vključevati tako gospodarsko kot družbeno razsežje, v enem in drugem primeru s stališča struktur dolgega trajanja (prav tam). 6. Pojmovanje, da je ekonomski interes nad interesom skupnosti, se pojavi šele s koncem fevdalizma (prav tam). 7. Črpanje iz več preživetvenih virov je značilno za vse kmečke družbe. Braudel (1989: 306) na primer navaja, da so se kmetje »zaradi stotine dopolnilnih poklicev« vedno znašli (prav tam). V času industrijske revolucije je dostopnost dodatnih preživet venih virov celo nujni pogoj preživetja (Braudel 1991). zanjo – tako vse do druge polovice 20. stoletja predstavlja pomembno preživetveno izkušnjo nekaj več kot polovice slovenskega prebivalstva. »Gospodarski vzlet« (ang. take of f ) (Rostow 1960)8 se je na Slovenskem začel šele tik pred 2. svetovno vojno (Novak 1991). Vojna je gospodarski zalet prekinila, po letu 1945 pa sta bili izvedeni specifična, usmerjena industrializacija in agrarna reforma z zemljiškim maksimumom (10 ha), ki sta kmetovanje na majhnem kosu zemlje vzpostavili kot nujno obliko kmetovanja.9 Obliko gospodarjenja, ki se je na Slovenskem razvila po 2. svetovni vojni, Jaklič imenuje »dolinsko gospodarstvo« (prim. Jaklič in Hribernik 2010), saj so »partizanski direktorji« (Jaklič 2009), ki so izhajali iz lokalnih okolij (»dolin«), omogočili polno zaposlenost posameznikov, živečih v bližini na novo zgrajenih ali prevzetih tovarn. S tem so tudi upravičili svoj vodilni položaj (prav tam). Po letu 1945 se slovenski tradicionalni preživetveni model okrepi, ko siceršnje nasla­njanje na več preživetvenih virov dopolnita industrializacija z možnostjo trajne zaposlitve in vzpostavitev sistema socialne države. S tem je bila dosežena kar se da velika razpršitev virov, ki blažijo preživetvena tveganja. Na eni strani sta to uradno gospodarstvo in usluge socialne države, ki vključuje brezplačno šolanje in zdravstvo ter zagotavlja pokojnine, na drugi strani, na neformalni ravni, pa siva ekonomija ter varovalno omrežje sorodnikov in sosedstva. Slednje vključuje ohišnico (na kmetiji pridelana hrana10 in pijača), potrošne dobrine (na primer les, ki se uporablja pri gradnji in kurjavi), vire v obliki fizičnega dela (izmenjava pomoči v obliki dela pri gradnji hiš ali delu na polju) ter denarne vire v obliki prihrankov (Vehovar 2010 in 2012). Skupno torej govorimo o štirih preživetvenih virih. Ori­sane značilnosti preživetveno-poslovnega modela pričajo o močni odvisnosti prebivalstva od lokalnega okolja in lokalnih nosilcev moči. Vzpostavljeni model že v svojem izhodišču spodbuja t vorbo močnih lokalnih identitet, obenem pa vzpostavlja model vodenja družbe, ki je v svojem jedru avtoritaren. Ne le da so lokalni voditelji zagotavljali delovna mesta za lokalno prebivalstvo, zagotavljali so tudi štipendije za tiste posameznice in posameznike, ki so nadaljevali šolanje v univerzitetnih središčih, in omogočali osebno kreditiranje (Jaklič 2009). Če je bila zavezanost lokalnemu okolju s pripadajočo identiteto in mentaliteto sprva »spontana« oz. je bila posledica nizke stopnje modernizacije, je bila po letu 1945 bistveno okrepljena v procesu specifične industrializacije. Zanimivo je, da Crowley in Stanojević (2011) ugotavljata, da predstavlja zgodovinska dediščina Slovenije, ki vključuje samoupravljanje, osnovo, na kateri je bil vzpostavljen specifičen model koordiniranega tržnega gospodarstva, ki vključuje neokorporativistične dogovore med državo, delodajalci in delojemalci. Lokalna zavezništva managerjev, 8. Izraz označuje eno od faz v gospodarskem razvoju, prehod od tradicionalnega k modernemu gospodarjenju. V tej razvojni fazi družbo usmerja ekonomski interes, in ne več tradicija, tj. načelo preživetja (prav tam). 9. V bistvu so vse agrarne reforme, ki jih je doživel slovenski kmet (od Habsburške monarhije do socialistične Jugoslavije), prispevale k drobitvi zemljišč in ohranjale eksistenčno ogroženost več kot polovice kmetov (prim. Kneževič Hočevar in Černič Istenič 2010). 10. V Sloveniji je leta 2002 lastno hrano pridelovalo kar 42,9 % gospodinjstev, kar državo uvršča v evropski vrh (Statistični urad RS 2002). političnih elit in delavstva so se v tem okviru preoblikovala v telesa koordinacije na ravni države, tj. v neokorporativistične aranžmaje (prav tam). Da se pretirana politična integriranost slovenskega gospodarstva ohranja tudi po letu 1991, je razvidno iz podatkov o »politični okuženosti« (Domadenik in dr. 2011) nad­zornikov in uprav podjetij v delni ali večinski državni lasti, kar povzroča gospodarsko in družbeno škodo. Znižuje namreč raven produktivnosti podjetij (Domadenik in dr. 2015).11 Ker imamo v Sloveniji visok delež podjetij v delni ali večinski državni lasti,12 nadzornike in uprave podjetij pa v tem primeru imenujejo politične stranke in interesne skupine, sta visoka tudi delež politično okuženih podjetij in škoda, ki je posledica politične okuženosti.13 Slovenske politične stranke skorajda popolnoma obvladujejo tudi komunalna podjetja (Ve­hovar 2015) in javne zavode, ki so neizogibno umeščeni v lokalno okolje.14 Na podlagi dostopnih podatkov je mogoče opredeliti tudi delež politično obvladanih podjetij glede na posamezne politične stranke in izračunati škodo, ki jo je povzročila vsaka od njih (Pataky 2014). Končno pa navedeno pomeni, da se izrazita politična integriranost slovenskega gospodarstva ohranja še po letu 1991, razlika pa je v tem, da si danes odgovornost zanjo in njene posledice deli več političnih strank. Navedeno se odraža tudi v izrazitem padcu konkurenčnosti Slovenije, ki ga razkrivajo mednarodne primerjalne raziskave kakovosti poslovnega okolja.15 Rezultati raziskave Letopis svetovne konkurenčnosti (World Competitiveness Yearbook 2008–2016) kažejo, da je Slovenija od leta 2008 pa do leta 2014 izgubila kar 23 mest (z 32. smo padli na 55. mesto med 60 v raziskavo vključenimi državami).16 Nezadovoljive razmere v poslovnem okolju razkriva tudi poročilo o stanju korupcije, ki ga je izdelala Komisija za preprečevanje korupcije (Ocena stanja ... 2012). 4 Prostorska organizacija družbe Temelj retradicionalizacije – preživetveno-poslovni model – in njegove simptome pogojuje tudi umeščenost v specifičen prostor, ki ima svojo tradicijo, vrednote in družbene prakse. Prostorsko organizacijo slovenske družbe zaznamuje razpršen poselitveni vzorec, 11. Da so slovenska podjetja v državni lasti upravljana slabo, je razvidno tudi iz poročil OECD (Kor­porativno upravljanje ... 2015). 12. Ta je najvišji med postsocialističnimi članicami EU (State-Owned Enterprises ... 2016). 13. Izračuni kažejo, da en politično okužen nadzornik na letni ravni zniža produktivnost podjetja za 2,25 %. V obdobju 2000–2010 je povzročena škoda znašala 1,25 milijarde evrov (Domadenik 2015, osebna komunikacija). 14. Politično obvladovanje javnih zavodov doslej ni bilo zadostno ali pa sploh ni bilo preučeno in ozaveščeno. 15. Obravnava značilnosti državnega aparata sicer spada v poglavje, v katerem so orisane razmere na področju političnega, vendar jo zaradi posledic za delovanje gospodarstva obravnavava tudi na tem mestu. 16. V letih 2015 in 2016 se je Slovenija uvrstila bolje, na 49. in 43. mesto, vendar predvsem zaradi odboja od kriznega dna in nekaterih ukrepov, povezanih s stabilizacijo gospodarskih razmer. Podrobnejši pregled podatkov pa pokaže, da se poslovna učinkovitost in pogoji poslovanja podjetij niso izboljšali. ki se kaže v prevladi majhnih, podeželskih naselij in v odsotnosti večjih urbanih središč. Slovenija ima z 49,7 % četrti najmanjši delež mestnega prebivalstva v Evropi, ki je večji samo od Liechtensteina, Bosne in Hercegovine ter Moldavije in je primerljiv s precej manj razvitimi državami, kot so na primer Indonezija, Liberija in Turkmenistan (The World Bank 2016). Na ta »urbani primanjkljaj«17 so odločilno vplivale zgodovinsko-politične okoli­ščine, kot so izrazito zamudniška industrializacija (Novak 1991), zasebna, »neformalna« gradnja enodružinskih hiš, ki je bila še posebno izrazita v 70. letih prejšnjega stoletja in prisotna tudi v večjih mestih (Kos 1993; Drozg 1999), ter politika policentričnega razvoja in integralnega razvoja podeželja, ki je ohranjala pomen manjših naselij (Kovačič 1991). Ob tem velja dodati, da število prebivalcev v mestih od 80. let prejšnjega stoletja upada zaradi preseljevanja v obmestja (Ravbar 1997), trend pa se s podobno dinamiko nadaljuje tudi v sodobnosti (Pelc 2015). Razpršen poselitveni vzorec je skozi čas v kombinaciji z drugimi dejavniki krepil navezanost na lokalno okolje; med temi dejavniki posebej izpostavljamo organiziranost lokalne samouprave, ki se kaže v visoki ravni prostorske fragmentacije oz. izrednem pove ­čanju števila občin po osamosvojitvi. To je problematično zaradi izprtja oz. »getoizacije« lokalne demokracije, ki se v svojem delovanju omejuje na lokalne zadeve brez hkratnega povezovanja v širšem prostoru (Mlinar 2003). Krepitev lokalne navezanosti je povzročila tudi že omenjena zasebna gradnja enodružinskih hiš. Hiš v tako kratkem času večinoma ni bilo mogoče zgraditi brez dela na črno ter sorodstvene in sosedske pomoči, torej dveh (neformalnih) od štirih preživetvenih virov. Odvisnost od lokalnega okolja in zavezujočo umeščenost v to okolje spodbuja tudi nizka stanovanjska mobilnost. Delež lastniških stanovanj v Sloveniji je med najvišjimi v Evropi – 91 % stanovanj je v lasti fizičnih oseb (V vsakem četrtem …, 2015). Po drugi strani je sklad javnih najemnih stanovanj marginalen, delež najemnikov pa je z 9 % med najmanjšimi v Evropi (prav tam). Takšno stanje viša cene stanovanj in najemnin (Cirman 2007; Mandič 2009) in niža že tako nizko raven prostorske mobilnosti; leta 2012 se je v drugo stanovanje preselilo samo 7,8 % prebivalstva, kar Slovenijo uvršča med najmanj mobilne države OECD (Stanovanjska problematika ... 2016). Še posebno problematičen je stanovanjski položaj slovenskih mladih. Populacija od 18 do 29 let spada med tiste mlade v Evropi, ki v največjem deležu ostajajo pod streho svojih staršev: leta 2011 je bilo takšnih kar 85 % mladih, kar je najvišji delež med državami Evropske unije, ob tem pa se je od leta 2007 ta delež povečal za kar 22 % (Eurofound 2014). To skupaj s podaljšano ekonomsko odvisnostjo od staršev vodi k vsesplošni marginalizaciji in družbeni anomiji mladih, ki so bili še konec osemdesetih glavni akterji modernizacije (Ule 2012). Opisane značilnosti prostorske organiziranosti družbe vplivajo na vedenjske in vre­dnotne značilnosti prebivalstva ter posledično spodbujajo proces retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe. Številni avtorji ugotavljajo, da so elementi tradicije in lokalnosti zelo 17. »Urbani primanjkljaj« se kaže tudi v neskladju med deležema kmečkega in mestnega prebivalst va. V primarnem sektorju (kmetijstvo, lov, gozdarstvo in ribištvo) je bilo leta 2011 zaposlenih samo 2,7 % aktivnega prebivalstva (Statistični urad RS 2011), kar je bistveno manj, kot bi pričakovali glede na visok delež na podeželju živečega prebivalstva. pomembna sestavina pri oblikovanju slovenske kulturne identitete (npr. Rotar 1985; Uršič in Hočevar 2007; Uršič 2015). Uršič in Hočevar (2007) na primeru Slovenije razpravljata o »protiurbanosti kot načinu življenja«, ki se najbolj očitno kaže v averziji do bivanja v gosteje poseljenih območjih. Z njim so povezani tudi drugi, v Sloveniji močno razširjeni pojavi, kot so domačijstvo oz. »ideologija rodu in grude« ter njena pretirana povezava z nacionalno identiteto, kulturni izolacionizem in protekcionizem ter pastoralizem oz. idealiziranje podeželskega življenja (Rotar 1985: prav tam).18 Za Slovenijo tradicionalno značilna redka in razpršena poselitev je od nekdaj vplivala tudi na obstoj družbenih in lokalnih partikularizmov: že v staroslovenski družbi je botrovala nastanku jasno definiranih skupin, med seboj nepovezanih, nepoenotenih, močno povezanih navznoter, prostorsko ločenih z velikimi območji neposeljenega sveta (Vilfan 1961; Maček 2007). Navedene lokalizme in pripadajoče vrednote omogoča ali celo krepi tudi slabo sta­nje javnega prometa v Sloveniji. Ta je zlasti od 90. let prejšnjega stoletja tako po številu prepeljanih potnikov kot po vlaganju v infrastrukturo povsem podrejen avtomobilskemu prometu (Gabrovec in Bole 2009; Kazalci okolja v Sloveniji: promet 2016). Ta se je naj­bolje prilagodil podurbaniziranemu in razpršenemu poselitvenemu sistemu, saj zagotavlja dostopnost tudi do manjših in odročnih naselij (Uršič 2006). Gre za začaran krog, saj brez odločnejših posegov države to pomeni prilagajanje sistema poselitve v smer še večje razpršenosti. 5 Politična arena ter odnos do države in njenih institucij Modernizacijo lahko obravnavamo tudi skozi družbene in politične razcepe. Eden od najpomembnejših razcepov, ki je oblikoval slovenski politični prostor v letih po osa­mosvojitvi, je kulturni razcep – zbir razcepov med sekulariziranim in nesekulariziranim, urbaniziranim in neurbaniziranim ter industrializiranim in ruralnim polom družbe –, ki ga lahko označimo tudi kot razcep med »modernim« in »tradicionalnim« (Vehovar 1996). Pričakovati je, da je z modernizacijo ta delitev skozi čas zbledela in da so jo v sodobnosti nadomestili drugi razcepi. Vendar Tiranovi izračuni (2015) kažejo, da se v zadnjem de ­setletju ta delitev spet krepi: razlike v volilnih izidih med mestnimi in podeželskimi območji od leta 2000 stalno naraščajo in so bile največje na predčasnih državnozborskih volit vah leta 2011. Na volitvah 2014 se je razcep nekoliko zmanjšal, a zgolj do referenduma o noveli Zakona o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih (2015), ko je predlog zakona v večini večjih mest prejel več kot polovično podporo, skoraj povsod na podeželju pa je bil plebiscitarno zavrnjen. Razlike med mestom in podeželjem so se v primerjavi s podobnim referendumom leta 2012 še povečale (Tiran 2016). Krepitev političnega razcepa med urbanim in ruralnim lahko pripišemo več vzpore­dnim pojavom: nerešenim razvojnim vprašanjem med mesti in podeželjem, tudi z vidika odnosa do modernizacije in globalizacije, poglabljanje političnega diskurza med urbanim 18. Po mnenju Hočevarja (2002) niti Ljubljani ni uspelo razviti razločljive urbane kulture, kar povezuje s prevladujočim kmečkim značajem slovenstva (in v Ljubljano priseljenega prebivalstva), nekdanjim prevladovanjem nemštva in malomestnostjo v vseh pogledih. in ruralnim ter njegovo izkoriščanje v politične namene (Kozorog 2012), vedno večjemu pomenu kulturno-vrednotnih razlik pri strankarskem opredeljevanju (McKee 2008) in vse manjši tolerantnosti v delu družbe. Kot pomembnejši dejavnik posebej izpostavljamo t. i. učinek sosedstva, ki deluje v smeri poenotenja volilnega vedenja na lokalni ravni (vasi, soseske ali krajevne skupnosti).19 Ljudje s svojim delovanjem, obnašanjem in družbenimi praksami oblikujejo tudi politično ideologijo prostora, ki se prenaša na posameznike, ki se v prostoru socializirajo, z njim identificirajo ter do njega razvijejo občutek lojalnosti in pripadnosti (Agnew 1987; Kropivnik 1998). Nekatere preliminarne analize kažejo, da je učinek sosedstva v Sloveniji čedalje močnejši (Tiran 2016). To lahko pojasnimo s čedalje intenzivnejšim zapiranjem prebivalstva v lokalna okolja in sorodstvena omrežja (Malnar 2012a in 2012b), krepitvijo pomena družine (Boškič in dr. 2005) in z vaškim kolektivizmom oz. prevlado kolektivnega nad individualnim (Ihan 2012; Godina 2015). Retradicionalizacijo političnega podsistema ponazarjajo tudi razlike v mehanizmih, ki oblikujejo volilne preference na državni in lokalni ravni. Na državni ravni je politični prostor čedalje bolj nestabilen: to se kaže v nenehnem nastajanju novih, marsikdaj celo »instant« političnih gibanj in strank, menjavanju oblasti in upadanju volilne udeležbe (npr. Rogelj in Tiran 2014). Povsem drugačna je slika na lokalni ravni. Volilna uspešnost županov, ki ponovno kandidirajo, se z vsakimi županskimi volit vami povečuje in je bila na lokalnih volitvah 2014 že 84,2 odstotna (Kukovič in Brezovšek 2015). Naraščajočo podporo lokalnim voditeljem spodbuja tudi razmerje moči med občinskim svetom in županom: ta je izrazito v prid župana, po čemer se Slovenija uvršča v sam vrh evropskih držav (prav tam 2015). Za Slovenijo niso značilni le družbeni (Godina 2015), temveč tudi lokalni partikularizmi, ki težijo k prevladi lokalnih interesov nad državnim. Večina od teh partikularizmov ima lastnosti sindroma NIMBY (ang. not in my backyard), ko prebivalci nasprotujejo nečemu v njihovem kraju, kar bi bilo sicer koristno za širšo družbeno skupnost. Takšnih primerov je v Sloveniji ogromno, v njihovo obravnavo se na tem mestu ne bova podrobneje spuščala. Pojavljajo se tudi številni primeri lokalnega samoorganiziranja, bodisi na ravni sosedske pomoči, krajevnih gasilskih društev v primeru naravnih nesreč, ki nadomeščajo neučinko ­vitost in počasno odzivnost države, na primer v obliki »vaških straž« v primeru družbenih konfliktov (primer Ambrus). V družbenem in političnem življenju je opazna tudi čedalje večja nastrojenost proti Ljubljani, kjer je osredotočena gospodarska, upravna in politična moč. Krepitev nasprotij med urbanim in ruralnim ter državnim in lokalnim je najverjetneje tudi posledica nezadovoljstva z demokracijo ter visoke ravni nezaupanja v Državni zbor, Vlado RS in politične stranke. Ravni nezadovoljstva in nezaupanja so bile v letu 2014 najvišje, odkar jih merimo (Politbarometer 2002–14). Stopnja zadovoljstva z demokracijo je po prelomu leta 2008, ko je prišlo do izrazitega poslabšanja že sicer nizke stopnje zadovoljstva z demokracijo in stopnje zaupanja v demokratične institucije, v letu 2014 znašala 8 %, medtem ko je istega leta zaupanje v vlado izrazilo le še 4 % anketirancev, 19. Nekatere analize (pričakovano) kažejo, da je učinek sosedst va na podeželju močnejši kot v mestu (Červ 2015). zaupanje v Državni zbor 2 % in zaupanje v politične stranke 1 % (prav tam). Krepi se tudi instrumentalen odnos do demokracije v odnosu do vsebinskega (Štebe 2012).20 Zahteva po splošni družbeni enakosti pa je povezana z avtoritarizmom (prav tam). Upravičena je domneva, da se nezadovoljstvo s politično ureditvijo na državni ravni prevaja v višjo raven avtoritarizma ter odvisnosti od lokalnega okolja, lokalnih podpornih mrež in družine. Poročilo Komisije za preprečevanje korupcije (Ocena stanja ... 2012) omogoča sklep, da imamo v Sloveniji opraviti z »ujetjem države« (ang. state capture) (Hellmann in dr. 2000), natančneje pa s sistemsko korupcijo. Za sistemsko korupcijo je značilno ujetje državnega aparata, vključno z nadzornimi in represivnimi institucijami, ujetje denarnega toka, ujetje in izprtje posameznikov, organizacij in podjetij, ujetje trga in ujetje medijev (Vehovar 2015). Tako kot na gospodarskem področju je torej za Slovenijo značilna tudi izrazita politična integriranost državnega aparata. Ponovno velja, da si državni aparat danes – v primerjavi z obdobjem pred letom 1991, ko ga je obvladovala ena sama politična stranka – deli več političnih strank. 6 Socialno področje Vrsta podatkov kaže, da se dandanes krepita identifikacija z lokalnim okoljem ter od­visnost od sosedskih skupin in sorodstva. Podatki raziskave Slovensko javno mnenje tako kažejo, da se v zadnjem desetletju in pol krepi občutek pripadnosti domačemu kraju in da upada občutek pripadnosti Sloveniji (Malnar 2012a). Od začetka 90. let preteklega stoletja se krepijo tudi vrednotenje družine (Boškič in dr. 2005) ter raven zaupanja družini in sosedom (Malnar 2012a). Krepi se tudi pomen osebnostnih v primerjavi s skupnostnimi socialnimi oz. podpornimi omrežji (Mandič in Hlebec 2005; Hlebec in dr. 2010). Rastočo identifikacijo z lokalnim okoljem in visoko raven zaupanja v družino si lahko razložimo tudi z že omenjeno visoko ravnijo nezadovoljstva z demokracijo ter nezaupa­njem v demokratične institucije. Če posamezniki ne zaupajo državi in državi pripadajočim institucijam, bodo toliko bolj zaupali lokalnemu okolju in skupinam, ki jim pripadajo.21 Oprli se bodo tudi na vire, ki jih te skupine premorejo. Zato ne preseneča, da je na Slovenskem nesorazmerno nizka tudi raven socialnega kapitala oz. »posplošenega zaupanja« (ang. generalised trust), ki se nanaša na zaupanje neznancem (prim. Iglič 2004). Raven posplo­šenega zaupanja je v obdobju nagle gospodarske rasti in naraščanja blaginje od leta 2000 do leta 2008 sicer naraščala, vendar je po tem letu močno upadla (Iglič 2014).22 20. Z instrumentalnim odnosom je mišljeno pogojno sprejemanje demokracije, ko so zadovoljene posameznikove eksistenčne zahteve, substantiven odnos pa vključuje sprejemanje demokratičnih načel, na primer sprejemanje načela enakosti pred zakonom in enakopravnosti vseh pripadnikov družbe ne glede na njihovo etnično pripadnost ali spolno usmerjenost. V zadnjem primeru gre, v skladu s teoretizacijo Genova (2000), za sprejemanje univerzalističnih vrednot. 21. Collier (1998) navaja, da nizka raven »vladnega socialnega kapitala« (government social capital) vpliva na raven »civilnodružbenega socialnega kapitala« (civil social capital). 22. Nizka je tudi v primerjavi s primerjalno kupno močjo prebivalstva, ki je v RS v primerjavi s preostalimi postsocialističnimi družbami zelo visoka. Slovenija je v okviru držav članic EU v tem primeru izrazit posebnež (Tomšič in Vehovar 2007). Preživetveno-poslovni model, ki sva ga podrobneje opisala že prej, se na ravni orga­niziranosti in značilnosti družbenih skupin prekriva z domačijskim produkcijskim načinom (Sahlins 1999). Njegove temeljne značilnosti so domačijski partikularizem, razdrobljenost družbe na majhne, vzajemno neodvisne in samostojne skupnosti, odsotnost skupne avto­ritete, medsebojna izoliranost in cepljenje domačij na manjše enote, kar se izide v redko naseljenost in razpršenost. Menjava in proizvodnja sta usmerjeni k preživetju, preživetvene zahteve so nad profitom in nad zakonitostjo.23 V družbah z domačijskim produkcijskim načinom je družina temeljna »mi skupina« – posamezniki ji pripadajo, se z njo identificirajo in so od nje preživet veno odvisni. Vezi med člani domačije so najmočnejše in najobliga­tornejše, individualne avtonomije pa skorajda ni (prav tam). Vse te značilnosti se močno ujemajo z nekaterimi že opisanimi pojavi in procesi v Sloveniji (prevlada zavezujočega socialnega kapitala, sistemska korupcija na lokalni ravni, egalitarizem, pripadnost lokal­nemu okolju ipd.). Po mnenju Godine (2015) je domačijska logika prevladujoča logika družbene organizacije na slovenskem ozemlju skozi zgodovino vse do današnjih dni.24 7 Področje kulture in vrednot Eno od osrednjih vprašanj v tem sklopu je, v kolikšni meri so vrednote, stališča in življenj­skostilne opredelitve Slovencev usklajene ali naklonjene procesom družbene modernizacije z vidika globalnega trenda univerzalizacije vrednotnih sistemov. Da je univerzalizacija človekovih pravic v Sloveniji v zadnjem času v zastoju, nazorno priča zavrnitev Zakona o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih leta 2012 ter njegove novele leta 2015. Kar zadeva toleranco do drugačnosti, se je po letu 1995 stopnja ksenofobije (netole­rantnosti do Romov, ljudi druge rase, priseljencev/tujih delavcev, muslimanov in Židov) v Sloveniji ustalila, leta 2008 pa je ponovno nekoliko narasla, in sicer na 30 %. Drugače je z življenjskostilno netolerantnostjo (do sodno kaznovanih, pijancev, narkomanov in homoseksualcev), ki je bila vseskozi višja (okrog 60 %), leta 2008 pa je upadla na 40,3 % (Kirbiš in dr. 2012). Primerjalno je problematična zlasti stopnja ksenofobije, ki je v Sloveniji višja tako od razvitih evropskih držav kot tudi od ostalih postsocialističnih držav in držav vzhodne Evrope, kar ni skladno z visoko stopnjo družbeno-ekonomske razvitosti (prav tam).25 23. Sorodne ali celo identične značilnosti opisuje Rihtman Avguštin (1984), ko analizira delovanje zadrug, tj. razširjenih družin, v 19. in na začetku 20. stoletja na področju Balkana. Tudi Rihtman Avguštin piše, da nezakonitost in tudi kraje v zadrugah niso bile sporne. V razmerju do zunanjih avtoritet (»oblasti«) je nezakonitost spadala med docela sprejemljiva dejanja (prav tam). 24. Po mnenju Godine (2015) se je domačijska logika na poseben način uveljavila tudi s samoupravlja­njem v socialistični Jugoslaviji, ki je pomenilo prenos in razširitev tradicionalne domačijske logike iz agrarnih v neagrarna, mestna in industrijska okolja. V samoupravnem socializmu domačija ni bila več kmetija, ampak tovarna ali krajevna skupnost. Tovarna je bila razumljena kot posebne vrste dom, ki je skrbel za celotno življenje delavcev in njihovih družinskih članov (poleg zaposlitve tudi za stanovanje, zdravstveno in socialno zavarovanje, pokojnine, počitnice itd.) (prav tam). 25. Dawson in Hanley (2016) kot eno od ključnih značilnosti zatona »liberalnega konsenza« v vzhodni in srednji Evropi navajata neliberalizem (illiberalism), za katerega je značilen tudi zaton družbene tolerance. Krepijo se tudi avtoritarne tendence. V zadnji raziskavi Slovensko javno mnenje (2015) je dobrih 62 % anketiranih izjavilo, da potrebujemo močnega voditelja (leta 1995 je bilo takšnih dobrih 45 %). Prav tako se vse od začetka 90. let prejšnjega stoletja krepi egalita­rizem.26 Medtem ko je konec 80. let kazalo, da se krepijo neegalitarna nagnjenja (trend je predstavljen v Vehovar 1991; Malnar 2012b), se odtlej krepi naklonjenost zmanjšanju razlik v dohodkih. Leta 2015 je kar 85 % anketiranih izjavilo, naj se razlike v dohodkih zmanjšajo (prav tam). Izhodišče egalitarnega trenda predstavlja leto 1991, svoj vrh, na katerem odtlej vztraja, pa je ta trend dosegel takoj po letu 2008. V Inglehartovi (1997) opredelitvi dveh razsežij, ki omogočata umestitev družb na kulturni zemljevid sveta, je eden od kazalcev družbene modernizacije tudi vernost; zato bi pričakovali, da se je raven vernosti v Sloveniji v zadnjih 25 letih vsaj malo zmanjšala. Javnomnenjske raziskave temu le delno pritrjujejo. Po eni strani pomen vere kot vrednote počasi, a konstantno upada: da je vera zelo pomembna vrednota, je leta 2011 menilo le dobrih 10 % prebivalstva (Malnar 2012a). Nekoliko drugačno sliko dajejo podatki o deležu vernih: čeprav je Slovenija po večini kazalnikov vernosti bližje sekulariziranim in protestantskim državam zahodne in severne Evrope (Rus in Toš 2005), družbeni pritiski na vernost pa so majhni (Flere in Klanjšek 2007), se delež vernih pri nas bistveno ne zmanjšuje. Leta 2011 je v boga verjelo 65 % Slovencev, kar je celo en odstotek več kot leta 1995. Delež katolikov se je v istem časovnem obdobju sicer zmanjšal za 6 %, a le za desetinko manj v primerjavi z letom 2005, ko je bil 65-odstoten (World Values Survey 2016). Izmed kazalnikov vernosti velja izpostaviti tudi obiskovanje cerkvenih obredov. To je sicer vedno bolj občasno, a se je število tistih, ki se jih nikoli ne udeležujejo, v zadnjih letih pomembno zmanjšalo, in sicer z 37,8 % leta 2003 (Rus in Toš 2005) na 31,4 % leta 2011 (World Values Survey 2016). Rus in Toš (2005) ugotavljata, da se Slovenija po obiskovanju cerkvenih obredov v mednarodnih primerjavah uvršča višje kot pri večini ostalih kazalnikov vernosti; enako velja za pomen t. i. prehodnih ritualov (obredi ob rojstvu, poroki, smrti), ki je primerjalno prav tako zelo visok. Avtorja tega pojava ne pripisujeta vernosti, ampak ga označujeta kot sestavino splošne kulturne prakse (prav tam). Temu lahko dodava, da je obiskovanje obredov predvsem ritual, ki kaže na integracijo v lokalno okolje in omrežja. Pomemben kazalnik stanja kulturnega podsistema je tudi kulturni okus prebivalstva, ki se najbolj izrazito manifestira skozi glasbeni okus in je hkrati pomemben pokazatelj družbenih vrednot (Shuker 1994). Glasba je na splošno zelo občutljiv barometer kulturnih dispozicij in je nekakšno znamenje »legitimne kulture«. Ljudje glasbe ne sprejemamo le kot zvok, ampak skozi asociacije z vrsto podob, identitet ter z njimi povezane vrednote, prepričanja in emocionalne želje (Negus 1992). Bourdieu (1984) trdi, da je povezava med kulturnim okusom, družbenim razredom in kulturnimi praksami zelo močna. Številne raziskave kažejo, da Slovenija kljub močni egalitarnosti pri tem ni izjema (na primer Luthar in Hafner Fink 1993; Jontes 2011; Luthar in Kurdija 2011). 26. Da so egalitarna nagnjena tesno povezana z egalitarizmom, sta pri obravnavi razmer v bivši Jugoslaviji ugotavljala že Tadić in Županov (1969). Redistribucijo dohodkov in uravnilovko lahko namreč zagotavlja le močan voditelj. Retradicionalizacijo slovenske družbe je zato mogoče obravnavati tudi skozi po ­pularnost narodno-zabavne glasbe. Čeprav natančnejši podatki ali raziskave niso na voljo, se zdi, da ta zvrst glasbe v Sloveniji doživlja ponoven razcvet in demistifikacijo, ki se med drugim kaže skozi izjemno popularnost prireditve Noč Modrijanov in velikem številu gasilskih veselic.27 Stanonik (1990) soroden fenomen folklorizma, katerega tipičen predstavnik je nekdanja izjemno obiskana ljubljanska prireditev Kmečka ohcet, razlaga s tem, da je modernizacija izzvala močno sentimentalen odnos do ljudske kulture. Tudi Uršič in Hočevar (2007: 65) veliko popularnost in številčno udeležbo na takšnih dogod­kih razumeta kot obliko nostalgije, saj ljudje zavestno ali pa nezavedno zadovoljujejo svoje potrebe po pokrajinski pripadnosti ali pa izvornem, tj. ruralnem načinu življenja« in »ohranjanje potrebe po iskanju opore za kulturno avtonomijo med domačijskimi namesto bolj urbanimi življenjskimi vzorci«.28 8 Razprava in sklep Osrednji namen prispevka je bil orisati stanje slovenske družbe na posameznih podro ­čjih in ugotoviti, ali in v kolikšni meri se slovenska družba retradicionalizira. V nadaljevanju povzemava ključne ugotovitve in jih primerjava z opažanji Genova (2000) o družbenih trendih v postsocialističnih družbah. Na gospodarskem področju vztraja visoka stopnja politične integracije, ki se od obdobja pred letom 1991 razlikuje toliko, da si podjetja v večji ali manjši lasti države namesto ene same lasti več strank. Poglavitno načelo politične integracije so politične, interesne ali osebne koristi, v nasprotju z instrumentalnim aktivizmom, ki je v svojem jedru usmerjen profitno (Genov 2000). Državna lastnina sama po sebi ni problematična, če je dobro upravljana, problematično pa je, če državna podjetja, kot se dogaja v Sloveniji, obvladujejo in izčrpavajo politične stranke. Genov (prav tam) navaja, da naj bi organizacijsko racionalnost v postsocialističnih družbah nadgradila demokratizacija, hkrati pa naj bi tudi na političnem področju prišlo do premišljenega zmanjšanja ravni politične integriranosti družbe. To se v Sloveniji tako na državni kot na lokalni ravni ni zgodilo, kar je mogoče razbrati iz raziskav, ki kažejo, da so slovenska podjetja nekonkurenčna zaradi nespodbudnega poslovnega okolja, ki ga zagotavlja država s svojim delovanjem in regulativnim okvirom. Izjemno nizki sta tudi raven zadovoljstva z demokracijo in raven zaupanja v demokratične institucije, kar spodbuja ano­mično vedenje prebivalstva, ki išče alternativne poti za zadovoljevanje svojih preživetvenih potreb. V slovenski politični areni se v zadnjem desetletju soočamo tudi z nekaterimi pojavi, v katerih lahko ravno tako prepoznamo kazalce retradicionalizacije: to sta zlasti globok politični razcep med urbanim in ruralnim, ki se še krepi, ter visoka in naraščajoča stopnja ponovne izvoljivosti županov, dodatno podprta s prevlado županov nad občinskimi sveti. 27. To opažajo številni novinarji, glasbeniki in glasbeni uredniki (glej na primer Kuralt 2016). 28. Škufca (2014) je s poglobljenimi intervjuji ugotovila, da narodno-zabavna glasba pri poslušalcih sproža precej močne občutke in sproža asociacije, kot so pripadnost, družina, dom, domačnost in domoljubje. Na socialnem področju je ključno vprašanje družbene integracije. Javnomnenjske raziskave kažejo, da se v Sloveniji v zadnjem desetletju srečujemo s krepitvijo lokalnih identitet in porastom pomena družine. Ta trend je posledica nezaupanja v državo, nizke stopnje urbanizacije in krčenja socialne države, ki vodi do tega, da se družbena integra­cija v vse večji meri odvija na lokalni ravni in da družina prevzema vse večja bremena pri blažitvi posledic tveganj, ki jim je izpostavljen posameznik (brezposelnost, bolezen, oskrba ostarelih). Raven posplošenega zaupanja je zelo nizka, kar pomeni, da se krepi zavezanost lokalnemu okolju in krvnemu sorodstvu. Slovenska družba ima po teh kriterijih številne značilnosti domačijskega produkcijskega načina, ki je sicer osrednja značilnost agrarnih, predmodernih družb. Anomične razmere na ravni države pa ne pomenijo, da imamo opraviti z izginotjem normativne in integrativne strukture družbe, pač pa se ta struktura premesti na nižjo raven njenega delovanja (Puffer 2009) oz. v tem primeru nižje ravni prevzamejo toliko večjo vlogo (prav tam). Ne gre torej za razmerje ali-ali, temveč je upravičeno sklepanje, da šibkost višje, državne ravni okrepi procese družbene regulacije in integracije na ravni lokalne skupnosti in družine. Da se v Sloveniji srečujemo s trendi retradicionalizacije, je razvidno tudi na področju kulture in vrednot. Na splošno velja, da se na globalni ravni odvija proces univerzalizacije vrednotnih sistemov, v katerega jedru se nahaja koncept univerzalnih človekovih pravic (Genov 2000). Da je univerzalizacija človekovih pravic v Sloveniji omejena, pričata za­vrnitev Zakona o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih ter njegove novele v letu 2015. Identitetni partikularizem je mogoče razbrati tudi iz sorazmerno visoke stopnje ksenofobije. O vztrajanju ruralne, predmoderne mentalitete priča tudi zelo visoka stopnja egalitarizma, ki jo spremlja skriti avtoritarizem, ki ju Genov pripisuje vrednotno-normativni labilnosti in dezorientiranosti postsocialističnih družb (prav tam). Ohranja se tudi religiozna identite­ta, pri čemer izstopata zlasti primerjalno visoki stopnji udeleževanja verskih obredov in pomena prehodnih ritualov. Posebnost, po kateri Slovenija izstopa od drugih (postsocialističnih) držav, je velika stopnja integracije v lokalno okolje, ki jo spodbuja prostorska organiziranost družbe: razpršen poselitveni vzorec s prevlado manjših, podeželskih naselij, ureditev lokalne samo­uprave, nerazvit javni prevoz in nizka stanovanjska mobilnost. Vendar ni nujno, da imajo lokalizmi zgolj negativen predznak. Po Strassoldu (1990) postane lokalnost v globalnem svetu celo pomembnejša, ob tem pa ni nujno, da v globalni družbi pride do zamenjave teritorialnih korenin z neprostorskimi sistemi interakcije. Tudi Harvey (2004) meni, da je intenzivnejše lokalno življenje eden od mogočih odzivov na postmoderno: obrat v lokalno lahko razumemo kot poskus oblikovanja razumljivega sveta znotraj neskončnih možnosti svetov. Sledeč izpeljavam Strassolda in Harveyja, bi lahko rekli, da je eden od ključnih problemov slovenske družbe porušeno ravnotežje med lokalnim, državnim in globalnim. V sklepu ponovno poudarjava, da ni nujno, da se tradicija in modernost izključujeta. Specifična oblika industrializacije v obdobju po 2. svetovni vojni, ki se je naslanjala na tra­dicionalni preživetveni model, je dvignila življenjski standard prebivalstva na sorazmerno visoko raven. Slovensko družbo je – ne glede na politično integracijo – tudi modernizirala. Ne nazadnje je mogoče tudi pozitiven odnos do samoupravljanja in uspeh neokorpora­tivizma v obdobju po letu 1991 pripisati vpetosti prebivalstva v lokalno okolje ter obstoju za lokalno okolje značilnih koalicij in preživetvenih metod. Vprašati pa se moramo, ali vztrajanje značilnosti slovenskega tradicionalnega preživetveno-poslovnega modela danes še omogoča ali pa morda zavira procese modernizacije slovenske družbe. S tem se vračamo k razpravi, ki je na straneh Družboslovnih razprav potekala konec 80. let prejšnjega stoletja. V prispevku sva obravnavala predvsem tiste kazalce, ki spodbujajo sklepanje, da se krepijo tradicionalne poteze slovenske družbe. Na drugi strani se srečujemo tudi z nekaterimi kazalci, ki kažejo nasprotno, denimo na obstoj postmaterialističnih vrednot. Odnos do dela, na primer, je še pred dobrim desetletjem nihal med moralističnim in post­materialističnim (prim. Rus in Toš 2005), medtem ko zadnji dostopni podatki (SJM 2015) nakazujejo, da se utrjuje pojmovanje, da je delo vrednota samoizražanja. Vendar je, gledano v celoti, bolj upravičen sklep, da so modernizacijski trendi v Slo­veniji v zadnjih 25 letih – še posebej pa po gospodarski krizi leta 2008 – vsaj deloma ustavljeni. Kot odziv na razmere v slovenski družbi ter gospodarske, politične in družbene spremembe, ki se odvijajo na globalni ravni, se krepijo nekatere značilnosti tradicio­nalnega, ki imajo svojo podlago v vsaj 150 let starem tradicionalnem preživetvenem modelu. Ob tem dodajava, da se nasprotovanje modernizaciji in globalizaciji krepi tako v postsocialističnih kot zahodnih družbah. Trend retradicionalizacije slovenske družbe s tega vidika ni presenetljiv, slovenska posebnost pa je predvsem poudarjena umeščenost v lokalno okolje, ki je vredna nadaljnje, še temeljitejše obravnave. Literatura Adam, Frane (1989): Deformirana modernizacija – (realni) socializem med tradicijo in moderno. Družboslovne razprave, 6 (7): 19–30. Agnew, John (1987): Place and politics. The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston, London: Allen and Unwin. Bendix, Reinhard (1967): Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9 (3): 292–346. Bernik, Ivan (1989): Socialistična družba kot »obmoderna« družba. Družboslovne razprave, 6 (7): 31–40. Bernik, Ivan (2014): Modernizacija in globalizacija. Teorija in praksa, 51 (posebna številka): 91–106. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984): Distinction. New York, London: Routledge. Braudel, Fernand (1958): Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue duree. Annales. Economies, Societes, Civilisations, 13 (4): 725–753. Braudel, Fernand (1989): Igre menjave. Materialna civilizacija, ekonomija in kapitalizem, XV.–XVIII. stoletje, knjiga I. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta. Braudel, Fernand (1991): Čas sveta. Materialna civilizacija, ekonomija in kapitalizem, XV.–XVIII. stoletje, knjiga II. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta. Cirman, Andreja (2007): Dosegljivost stanovanj v Sloveniji se slabša: kako ukrepamo? Poslovanje z nepremičninami: 18. tradicionalno strokovno srečanje. Portorož, 15. in 16. november 2007. Ljubljana: Inštitut za nepremičnine. Collier, Paul (1998): Social Capital and Poverty. Social capital Initiative Working Paper No. 4. Washington: The World Bank. Crowley, Stephen, in Stanojević, Miroslav (2011): Varieties of Capitalism, Power Resources, and Historical legacies: Explaining the Slovenian Exception. Politics & Society, 39 (2): 268–295. Červ, Alen (2015): Vpliv učinka poznanstva in sosedstva na volilno vedenje v volilnem okraju Tolmin. Dela, 44: 25–43. Dawson, James, in Hanley, Sean (2016): What‘s Wrong in East central Europe: The Fading Mirage of the »Liberal Consensus«. Journal of Democracy, 27 (1): 20–34. Domadenik, Polona, Grobelnik, Marko, Pataky, Luka, in Prašnikar, Janez (2011): Politically con­nected supervisory board members in Slovenian firms. V Janez Prašnikar et al.: The Slovenian economy: Stranded in recovery: 91–107. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance. Domadenik, Polona, Prašnikar, Janez, in Svejnar, Jan (2016): Political Connectedness, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 139: 411–428. Dragoš, Srečo (2010): Socialna politika – temelj socialne države. V Srečo Dragoš et al.: Neoso­cialna Slovenija: smo lahko socialna, obenem pa gospodarsko uspešna družba?: 163–195. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerzitetna založba Annales (Knjižnica Annales Ludus). Drozg, Vladimir (1999): Nekatere značilnosti fizične strukture slovenskih mest. Dela, 14: 195–207. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2000): Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129 (1): 1–29. Flere, Sergej, in Klanjšek, Rudi (2007): Ali je votlost značilnost vernosti na Slovenskem? Družbo­ slovne razprave, XXIII (56): 7–20. Gabrovec, Matej, in Bole, David (2009): Dnevna mobilnost v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Genov, Nikolai (2000): Global Trends and Eastern Europe Societal Transformations. International Social Science Journal, 55 (166): 539–547. Godina, Vesna V. (2015): Zablode postsocializma. Ljubljana: Beletrina. Grafenauer, Bogo (1970): Gospodarski obrat kmetije. V Pavle Blaznik in dr. (ur.): Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev – Zgodovina agrarnih panog: 619–651. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Gusfield, Joseph R. (1967): Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change. American Journal of Sociology, 72 (4): 351–362. Harvey, David (2004): The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Hellman, Joel, Jones, Geraint, in Kaufmann, Daniel (2000): Seize the State, Seize the Day. State Capture, Corruption, and Influence in Transition. Policy Research Working Paper 2444. Wa­shington: The World Bank. Hlebec, Valentina, Filipovič Hrast, Maša, in Kogovšek Tina (2010): Social networks in Slovenia: Changes During the Transition period. European Societies, 12 (5): 697–717. Hočevar, Marjan (2002): Ljubljana: konec ali začetek urbanosti? V D. Kos (ur.): Sociološke podobe Ljubljane: 25–42. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Iglič, Hajdeja (2004): Dejavniki nizke stopnje zaupanja v Sloveniji. Družboslovne razprave, XX (46/47): 149–175. Iglič, Hajdeja (2014): The crumbling or strengthening of social capital? The economic crisis’ impact on social networks and interpersonal trust in Slovenia. Družboslovne razprave, XXX (77): 7–26. Ihan, Alojz (2012): Državljanski eseji. Ljubljana: Študentska založba. Inglehart, Ronald (1997): Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Chichester: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, Ronald, in Baker, E. Wayne (2000): Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 65 (1): 19–51. Inglehart, Ronald, in Norris, Pippa (2016): Trump, Brexit, and the rise of Populism: Economic have­-nots and cultural backslash. Working Paper Series. Dostopno prek: http://econpapers.repec. org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fresearch.hks.harvard.edu%2Fpublications%2FgetFile. aspx%3FId%3D1401;h=repec:ecl:harjfk:16 -026 (11. 11. 2016). Jaklič, Marko (2009): Poslovno okolje in gospodarski razvoj. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta. Jaklič, Marko, in Hribernik, Aljaž (2010): Slovenski tradicionalni preživetveni model kot dejavnik razvojne blokade slovenske družbe. V Srečo Dragoš in dr.: Neosocialna Slovenija: smo lahko socialna, obenem pa gospodarsko uspešna družba?: 15–55. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerzitetna založba Annales (Knjižnica Annales Ludus). Kalb, Don (2002): Afterword: Globalism and Postsocialist Prospects. V C. M. Hann (ur.): Postsoci­alism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Practices in Eurasia: 317–334. London: Routledge. Katz, Richard S., in Mair, Peter (1995): Changing Models of Party Organization and Party De­mocracy. The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics, 1 (1): 5–28. Kirbiš, Andrej, Flere, Sergej, in Tavčar Kranjc, Marina (2012): Netolerantnost v Sloveniji in Evropi: primerjalna in longitudinalna analiza. Družboslovne razprave, XXVIII (70): 27–50. Kneževič Hočevar, Duška, in Černič Istenič, Majda (2010): Dom in delo na kmetijah. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Kos, Drago (1993): Racionalnost neformalnih prostorov. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Kovačič, Matija (1991): Pristop k razvoju podeželja. Sodobno kmetijstvo, 24 (3): 112–117. Kozorog, Miha (2012): Proti »urbanosti«: Ohlapno strukturirane misli o ohlapno definirani temi. V J. Repič in J. Hudales (ur.): Antropološki vidiki načinov življenja v mestih: 59–73. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. Kropivnik, Samo (1998): Slovenski volivci v geografskem, družbenem in ideološkem prostoru. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Kukovič, Simona, in Brezovšek, Marjan (2015): Institucionalni vidiki lokalnega političnega vodenja v Evropi: primerjalna analiza. Teorija in praksa, 52 (1–2): 67–82. Kuralt, Špela (2016): Noč Modrijanov: Vzporedni svet, v katerem so vsi povezani. Dostopno prek: http://www.delo.si/kultura/glasba/noc-modrijanov-vzporedni-svet-v-katerem-so-vsi-povezani. html (27. 10. 2016). Leroy, Pieter, in van Tatenhove, Jan (2000): Political modernization theory and environmental politics. V G. Spaargaren, A. P. J. Mol in F. H. Buttel (ur.): Environment and Global Modernity: 187–208. London: SAGE Publications. Luthar, Breda, in Hafner Fink, Mitja (1993): Elite med populizmom in domačijskostjo. Teorija in praksa, 30 (11/12): 1200–1214. Luthar, Breda, in Kurdija, Slavko (2011): Razred in kulturne distinkcije. Teorija in praksa, 48 (4): 982–1003. Maček, Jože (2007): Na zemlji domači. Celje: Celjska Mohorjeva družba. Malnar, Brina (2011): Trendi neenakosti v Sloveniji med statistiko in javnim mnenjem. Teorija in praksa, 48 (4): 951–967. Malnar, Brina (2012a): Rastoči lokalizem in umik v zasebnost. Slovensko javno mnenje. Blog za navdušence nad javnomnenjskimi podatki. Nedelja, 16. maj 2012. Dostopno prek: http://bri­nolina.blogspot.si/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00 -08:00&updated-max=2012­05-16T07:55:00 -07:00&max-results=10&start=8&by-date=false (23. 8. 2016). Malnar, Brina (2012b): Neenakosti v družbi: ali statistika laže? Slovensko javno mnenje. Blog za navdušence nad javnomnenjskimi podatki. Nedelja, 10. junij 2012. Dostopno prek: http:// brinolina.blogspot.si/2012/06/neenakosti-v-druzbi-ali-statistika-laze.html (10. 8. 2012). Mandič, Srna, in Hlebec, Valentina (2005): Socialno omrežje kot okvir upravljanja s kakovostjo življenja in spremembe v Sloveniji med letoma 1987 in 2002. Družboslovne razprave, XXI (21): 263–285. Mandič, Srna (2009): Stanovanjske razmere mladih. V T. Rakar in U. Boljka (ur.): Med otroštvom in odraslostjo. Analiza položaja mladih v Sloveniji 2009. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, Urad Republike Slovenije za mladino in Inštitut Republike Slovenije za socialno varstvo. McKee, Seth C. (2008): Rural Voters and the Polarization of American Presidential Elections. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41 (1): 101–108. Mlinar, Zdravko (2003): »Glokalizacija« ali getoizacija lokalne demokracije. Koper, Slovenska Istra in država. Teorija in praksa, 37 (3): 413–436. Negus, Keith (1992): Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry. London: Edward Arnold. Novak - Pešec, Mojca (1989): Zalom jugoslovanskih elit modernizacije. Družboslovne razprave, 6 (7): 41–50. Novak, Mojca (1991): Zamudniški vzorci industrializacije: Slovenija na obrobju Evrope. Maribor: Znanstveno in publicistično središče. Pataky, Luka (2014): Influential connections and firm’s success. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana: Eko­nomska fakulteta. Pelc, Stanko (2015): Mestno prebivalstvo Slovenije. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem. Polanyi, Karl (1944): The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press. Puffer, Phyllis (2009): Durkheim Did Not Say »Normlessness«: The Concept of Anomic Suicide for Introductory Sociology Courses. Southern Rural Sociology, 24 (1): 200–222. Ravbar, Marjan (1997): Slovenska mesta in obmestja v preobrazbi. Geografski zbornik, 37: 65–110. Rihtman - Avguštin, Dunja (1984): Struktura tradicijskog mišljenja. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Rogelj, Boštjan, in Tiran, Jernej (2014): Geografska analiza volilne udeležbe v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik, 84 (2): 25–43. Rostow, Walt Whitman (1960): The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rotar, Braco (1985): Risarji: učenjaki ideologije v urbanizmu in arhitekturi. Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost. Rus, Veljko, in Toš, Niko (2005): Vrednote Slovencev in Evropejcev: analiza vrednotnih orientacij Slovencev ob koncu stoletja. Ljubljana: FDV, IDV, CR JMMK. Sahlins, Marshall (1999): Ekonomika kamene dobe. Ljubljana: Založba /cf*. Shuker, Roy (1994): Understanding popular music. London, New York: Routledge. Stanojević, Miroslav (1989): Državno industrializirana družba kot nedokončana modernost. Druž­boslovne razprave, 6 (7): 51–65. Stanonik, Marija (1990): O folklorizmu na splošno. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva, 30 (1–4): 20–42. Stele, Aleš, in Žaucer, Irena (2013): O kmetijstvu doma in drugje po EU. Ljubljana: Statistični urad Re­publike Slovenije. Dostopno prek: http://www.stat.si/doc/pub/kmetijstvo_EU.pdf (1. 8. 2016). Škufca, Teja (2014): Razlogi za ponovno popularizacijo narodnozabavne glasbe: analiza občin­stva. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Štebe, Janez (2012): Support for Democracy and Meanings of Democracy: Equality and Freedom. Teorija in praksa, 49 (3): 516–543. Tadić, Darinka, in Županov, Josip (1969): Ekonomske aspiracije i društvena norma egalitarnosti. Sociologija, 11 (2): 279–305. Tiran, Jernej (2015): Urbano proti ruralnemu: (nov) razcep v slovenskem političnem prostoru? Teorija in praksa, 52 (1–2): 271–290. Tiran, Jernej (2016): Dva svetova, ki ju ne ločuje le prostor, marveč tudi vrednote. Sobotna priloga. Dostopno prek: http://www.delo.si/sobotna/dva-svetova-ki-ju-ne-locuje-le-prostor-marvec-tudi­-vrednote.html (18. 5. 2016). Tomšič, Matevž, in Vehovar, Urban (2007): Quality of Governance in European Union: Old and New Members in Comparative Perspective. V F. Adam (ur.): Social Capital and Governance. Old and New Members of the EU in Comparison: 123–149. Berlin: LIT Verlag. Ule, Mirjana (2012): Rekonstrukcija mladosti in mladine v slovenski družbi v času tranzicije. Druž­boslovne razprave, XXVIII (70): 7–25. Uršič, Matjaž (2006): Modernizacija prometa v obdobju industrijske urbanizacije – bogata zapušči­na ali breme teženj k povečevanju mobilnosti v slovenskih mestih? Urbani izziv, 17 (1–2): 18–29. Uršič, Matjaž (2015): Skriti pridih podeželja? Razrednost in »urbanost« v primeru Ljubljane in Maribora. Teorija in praksa, 52 (1–2): 236–252. Uršič, Matjaž, in Hočevar, Marjan (2007): Protiurbanost kot način življenja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Vehovar, Urban (1991): H koncu egalitarnega sindroma. Diplomsko delo. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Vehovar, Urban (1996): Družbeni razcepi in politične stranke na Slovenskem. Magistrska naloga. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Vehovar, Urban (2010): Socialna država v okolju retradicionalizirane družbe. V S. Dragoš in dr. (ur.): Neosocialna Slovenija: smo lahko socialna, obenem pa gospodarsko uspešna družba?: 197–226. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Univerzitetna založba Annales (Knjižnica Annales Ludus). Vehovar, Urban (2012): Slovenija, arhipelag obmodernosti. V J. Prunk in T. Deželan (ur.): Dvajset let slovenske države: 81–111. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave; Maribor: Aristej. Vehovar, Urban (2015): Sistemska korupcija na ravni lokalne samouprave. V S. Cerkvenik in E. Rojnik (ur.): Zbornik 5. problemske konference komunalnega gospodarstva. Rogaška Slatina, 17. in 18. september 2015: 59–68. Ljubljana: GZS, Zbornica komunalnega gospodarstva. Vilfan, Sergij (1961): Pravna zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Županov, Josip (1970): Egalitarizam i industrializam. Sociologija, 12 (1): 5–45. Viri Eurofound (2014): Living with parents by country, 2007 and 2011. Foundation Findings: Social situation of young people in Europe. Dostopno prek: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/ default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1404en.pdf (6. 11. 2016). Kazalci okolja v Sloveniji: promet. Agencija RS za okolje. Dostopno prek: http://kazalci.arso.gov. si/?data=group&group_id=4 (1. 8. 2016). Korporativno upravljanje: zagotavljanje učinkovitega upravljanja in privatizacije podjetij v državni lasti (2015): OECD. Dostopno prek: https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/slovenia-ensuring-ef­fective-management-and-privatization-of-state-owned-enterprises-SI.pdf (7. 11. 2016). Ocena stanja slovenskega poslovnega okolja z vidika sistemske korupcije (2012): Ljubljana: Ko­misija za preprečevanje korupcije. Politbarometer (2002–14). Ljubljana: CR JMMK in FDV. SJM (2015): Slovensko javno mnenje 2015. Ljubljana: CR JMMK in FDV. Stanovanjska problematika v Republiki Sloveniji. Spremljajoče gradivo k Nacionalnemu stanovanj­skemu programu (2016): Republika Slovenija, Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor. Dostopno prek: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/stanovanja/NSP_spre­mljajoce_gradivo_2015.pdf (1. 8. 2016). State-Owned Enterprises: Lessons Learned and Ways Forward in a Post-Crisis Context (2016): European Commission. European Economy Institutional Papers. Institutional Paper 031. Luxem­bourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Statistični urad RS (2002): Podatki o pridelavi lastne hrane po gospodinjstvih. Ljubljana. Statistični urad RS (2011): Podatki o zaposlenosti prebivalstva po sektorjih. Ljubljana. The World Bank (2016): Urban population (% of total). Dostopno prek: http://databank.worldbank. org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS&country= (2. 8. 2016). V vsakem četrtem naseljenem stanovanju živi samo en prebivalec. Statistični urad RS. Dostopno prek: http://www.stat.si/StatWeb/prikazi-novico?id=5983&idp=10&headerbar=8 (1. 8. 2016). World Competitiveness Yearbook (2006–16). Lausanne: Institute for Management Development. World Values Survey (Longitudinal Multiple-Wave Documentation). Dostopno prek: http://www. worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp (15. 6. 2016). SUMMARY The main goal of the article is to determine whether Slovenia is experiencing a retra­ditionalization process as a response to modernization and globalization processes. The authors present the Slovenian traditional subsistence-business model as a key structure of “longuee duree” of Slovenian society and the starting point and the basis of its mod­ernization and retraditionalization. At the outset, basic terms are defined, i.e. “tradition”, “modernity”, and “retraditionalization”, based on the writings of Bendix, Gusfield, Eisen­stadt, and Genov. The fundamental characteristic of the Slovenian traditional subsistence -business model is the redistribution of subsistence risks, i.e. funnelling funds from a larger number of subsistence sources. Even though this model is threatened today, it perseveres and still fundamentally defines Slovenian society due to the deeply-rooted subsistence-business practices; its basic characteristic, dependence on multiple sources of subsistence, were reinvigorated after 1945 in a specific process of guided industrialization, with the intro­duction of welfare state and the land reform. One of the important consequences of established subsistence practices is integration into the local environment. It is encouraged by a high share of rural population, low migratory mobility, dependence on automobile transport, and a high fragmentation level of the local government. In addition, certain specific values, identities, and social practices are also tied to society’s spatial characteristics, such as localism, pastoral life, and cultural isolation. Retraditionalization and localism are also evident in many phenomena in the political subsystem, e.g. the deepening cleavage between the city and the countryside, an expressed “neighbourhood effect” that leads to a unified voting behaviour at the local level, as well as political instability and a lower voter turnout on one hand and a growing support for the local leaders on the other. It seems evident that the local particularisms are nurtured by a high level of dissatisfaction with democracy and its corresponding institutions combined with distrust towards the state and its elites. With regards to the economic and political subsystem, another trait remains in place despite the political and economic transition that took place in 1991: a high level of political integration of both subsystems. The dominance of one political party that held monopoly over society in the pretransitional period was substituted by fragmented domination over state owned enterprises and the apparatus of state by various political parties. The consequences of the enduring political integration are lower productivity of firms, and lower competitiveness, since political control of state apparatus leads to its suboptimal performance. In general, satisfaction with democracy and trust in political parties, the government, and parliament are extremely low. We are witnessing not only pronounced localisms, but a growing dependence on family and kin that pronounce them even further. The level of social capital, i.e. the level of generalized trust is also low. Finally, traditional tenets of cultural-value dimension of Slovenian society are being strengthened as well. Egalitarian attitudes are pronounced to a very high degree, as well as authoritarianism. The religiousness of the population and the presence of “low culture” are relatively pronounced. The growing salience of “low culture” is discernible in the growing popularity of Slovenian folk music that is associated with traditional, homestead values. Also, particularistic values are being strengthened at the expense of universalistic values, which is revealed by a high level of social intolerance. It seems that Slovenian society is characterized by many elements of the domestic mode of production. The distinctive feature of Slovenia’s retraditionalization in comparison to other (post-socialist) countries is its specific form, which is visible in its expressed locality: the local identities, local particularisms, local power holders, and the dependence on local environ­ment, neighbourhood and family are all strengthened. It seems the anomic conditions at the state level largely shifted the integrative and the normative structure of society onto a lower, local level. This is not an either-or principle; rather, the weakness of the higher, state level has awakened processes of social integration and regulation that occur on the level of the local community and family. The outline of the selected indicators reveals that trends of modernization in Slovenia, especially in the last 25 years, have been at least partially halted. Podatki o avtorjih dr. Urban Vehovar, docent Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza na Primorskem Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenija urban.vehovar@guest.arnes.si dr. Jernej Tiran, znanstveni sodelavec Geografski inštitut Antona Melika, ZRC SAZU Gosposka ulica 13, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija jernej.tiran@zrc-sazu.si RECENZIJE KNJIG BOOK REVIEWS Kaja Poteko Gregor Moder: Komična ljubezen: Shakespeare, Hegel, Lacan. Ljubljana: Društvo za teoretsko psihoanalizo, 2015. 181 strani (ISBN 978 -961-6376 -67-9), 22 EUR Bruce Fink, Srećko Horvat, Mirt Komel, Alain de Botton in le stežka bi ne našli še kakšnega avtorja iz polja humanistike, ki je nedavno neposredno naslovil tematiko ljubezni ter tako ali drugače pritrdilno odgovoril na izhodiščno vprašanje Komične ljubezni: je trenutek za komedijo pravi? Če gre verjeti Lacanu, ki vse od svojih dvajsetih, kot je nekje zapisal, ni počel ničesar drugega, kot proučeval filozofe, ki so se ukvarjali z ljubeznijo, je ljubezen komično občutje. V ljubezni je nekaj, kar jo umešča v red komičnega, komedija pa je nekaj, kar je notranje, inherentno strukturi oblasti. S konceptom komične ljubezni, ki poseže v vez med seksualnostjo in politično močjo, Moder že takoj na začetku postavi temelje za izpeljavo teze, da je komedija etično nujna. Strukturirana na način, ki razkriva heterogenost, neharmoničnost, kaotičnost, neobvladljivost ali kontingentnost, ki je v središču vsakega (ne)razmerja, komična ljubezen ali specifično srečanje z drugim v točki, ki je ni moč zreducirati na subjekt, predstavlja odmik tako od ljubezni, koncipirane skozi strastno tragično-romantično perspektivo na eni strani, kot od ljubezni, ki temelji na vzajemnem spoštovanju na drugi. Resnična ljubezen, pravi Alenka Zupančič, ni ne sublimna ne vsota želje in prijateljstva. Resnična ljubezen se rodi v spregi dostopnosti in transcendentnega, pomeni ohranjanje transcen­dentnega skozi samo dostopnost, natanko ta forma pa je tista, ki je na delu v komediji na ravni svojega pojma. Dobra komedija ni tista, ki sfero univerzalnega loči od sfere konkretnega, temveč tista, kjer posamično spodnaša neko univerzalnost. Kralj, ki misli, da je kralj. Prvo poglavje, naslovljeno kot Etika falosa, si skozi razdelavo konceptov in argumentacijo priza­deva legitimirati predvsem to – zakaj komedija, zakaj danes toliko bolj, kaj je tisto, kar jo prepleta z mehanizmi politične moči in logiko seksualnosti. Avtor se pri tem opira na koncept falosa in na neki način bi začetek njegove knjige lahko razumeli kot poskus nadaljevanja Poetike, Druge knjige, na katero se Moder tudi sicer znatno sklicuje in ki jo Zupančičeva zaključi ravno s poglavjem o falosu (Apendiks (bistveni): falos). Nemara ne pretiravamo preveč, če v odsotnosti referiranja na temeljna dela, v katerih Lacan kroži okoli tistega, o čemer ni mogoče govoriti, tj. okoli ljubezni (Transfer, Še, Etika psihoanalize, Tesnoba), zapišemo tudi, da je bolj kot plod komične ljubezni Modrovo delo plod ljubezni do komičnega. Da je poudarek prej na ravni komedije kot na ljubezni, da bi samostalnik in pridevnik v naslovu morala zamenjati mesto. Pa vendar, avtorju pomanjkanja primerov komične ljubezni ne moremo očitati, četudi (ali pa prav zato, ker) se v knjigi pojavijo kasneje in lahko pot do njih osmislimo skozi retroaktivno matrico ljubezenskega srečanja – ko prispemo do njih, se zdi, kakor da je bil vsak zavoj potreben in kakor da nas je vsak novi odstavek neizbežno vodil ravno tja. Z označevalcem kastracije, ki vzpostavlja razmerje med človekom in njegovim užitkom, Mo­der tako začenja (in v izteku tudi sklene) utemeljevanje privilegiranega mesta komedije in njenih potencialnih učinkov v sferi političnega. Falos je kot označevalec manjkajočega člena v komediji vzpostavljen kot meso besede, ki je ni, utelešen v objektu predstavlja manifestacijo nečesa, kar je sicer neubesedljivo in deluje komično prek razkrivanja vrzeli v navidez harmonični celoti: komedija ima »specifično razmerje s falosom: falična je v tem pomenu, da je njena naloga razbiti ‚‘urok falosa‘‘, njena naloga je falofanija kot prikaz, da razloček ne nastopi šele v (teološko mišljenem) razmerju med neskončnostjo kraljevega političnega telesa in banalnostjo kraljevega naravnega telesa, temveč že v nezadostnosti same fantazije o tem, da je mogoče kralja misliti kot enotnost dveh substanc« (str. 176). Z drugimi besedami, komedija je strukturirana na način, ki omogoča demistificirati siceršnjo zastrtost falosa, pokazati na inherentno ne-celost človeške eksistence in sproducirati neki nenadejani smisel, presenečenje, presežno satisfakcijo, ki se vzpostavi kot cilj, onkraj cilja; kot rezultat operacije, v kateri je zadovoljitev najdena, ravno če je cilj zgrešen; kot harmonična disharmonija, ki najde satisfakcijo v spodletelosti; kot nepričakovan odgovor, ki nima svojega vprašanja. V tem kontekstu se odpre vprašanje človeške končnosti, ki jo komedija prikaže na specifičen način. Kot je nekje dejal Lacan, je tisto, kar nasmeje, pobeg življenja, in ne njegov triumf, dejstvo torej, da življenje uide vsem preprekam, (potencialno emancipatorni) eksces komičnih likov, ki nikakor ne morejo umreti ali – kot iz »občosti na delu« izpelje Zupančičeva: ne samo, da nismo neskončni, tudi končni nismo. Komični imperativ ne vodi do skladnosti, tako kot tudi komična ljubezen ni tista, kjer se vse lepo izide, temveč natanko tista, ki je je vselej preveč. Od tu naprej so nesmisli kot smisli, ki presenetijo, najprej obravnavani skozi figuro dvornega norca. V naslovitvi vprašanja o razmerju med umetnostjo in oblastjo avtor kraljevega norca umesti na mesto kraljevega falosa – norčevim nesmislom pripiše delovanje na osnovi načela »produktiv­nega niča«, ta pa se izkaže za potencialno subverzivno silo logike, ki ji norci notranje pripadajo. Specifično mesto, ki ga na strukturni ravni zasedajo dvorni norci in ki je edino mesto, od koder je možna distanca do kraljevega zakona, namreč na sebi še ni porok transformativnega učinkovanja. Smeh, ki zagotavlja distanco do ideologije, je ob hkratnem ustvarjanju pogojev, znotraj katerih nanjo svobodno pristanemo, zavajajoč in kot tak primer ideološke vpetosti par excellence. Norca na ravni svojega pojma tako najdemo šele v (falični) razsežnosti, kjer uteleša kraljevo kraljevskost, v točki, v kateri je kralj več od kralja samega. Skozi formo mita, v katerem so dvorni norci sčasoma postali uveljavljene, sprejemljive figure, oropane moči proizvajanja spodletelo uspelih učinkov, nam Moder subverzivnega norca predstavi v obliki norčevega žezla – v obliki ponazoritve ponovitve razcepa, ki ga med kraljem in kraljevskostjo uteleša že norčeva funkcija, v obliki, ki torej materia­lizira ponovitev »geste razcepa znotraj Enega« (str. 88). Lik Minijaza iz serije filmov o Austinu Powersu, nogavična lutka iz serije Parčkanje, Minidick iz Tretjega kamna od Sonca, rokav iz predstave Slava’s Snow Show, Shakespearov 20. sonet, film Nekateri so za vroče … vse to so primeri, v katerih Moder identificira in analizira sodobne modre norce in v katerih naslovi ter interpretativno razdela tisti (komični) del preveč oz. »minisebstvo« kot način komike faličnega objekta. Z analizo filma Lady Eve se naposled vrne do koncepta komične ljubezni in premisleka o transformativni moči komedije in njenih učinkov, ki so »navsezadnje lahko bistveno bolj daljnosežni in koreniti, kakor so učinki neposrednih političnih akcij« (str. 167). Norčevo dejanje, ki razkrije inherentno nezadostnost kraljevega, je v pretiravanju in natančno kot pretirano subverzivno ravno zato, ker nam v trenutku spodmakne tla pod nogami ter v tej gesti sopostavi in naredi vidni obe plati Möbiusovega traku. Dojemanje sublimnega in banalnega objekta na isti strani pa je po besedah Zupančičeve natanko formula padca v ljubezen, oblika strukture, ki med banalnim objektom in objektom želje vzpostavi minimalno razliko ter v slednji prepozna tisto razsežnost Drugega, ki jo ljubimo. In tisto, kar nenazadnje v ljubezni tudi dajemo – tisto, česar nimamo. Kakor je to nekje izvrstno artikuliral Schuster: ljubezen je stvar medsebojno kompatibilnih simptomov. Je interobjektivna igra, ki dialoško srečanje nadomesti z monološkim – tisti, ki ljubi, nisem jaz, temveč ono, in tisto, kar ljubim, nisi ti, temveč tisto v tebi, več od tebe. Via Lacan: želim si te, četudi tega ne vem; še drugače: vedeti, kaj bo naredil tvoj partner, ni dokaz ljubezni. V izpeljavi, skozi katero se giblje med dvema objektoma, ljubezen – ki zahteva ljubezen in zahteva jo Še – svojo roko ponovno iztegne proti komediji, ki se ji iz druge smeri približa prek mehanizma delovanja, ki ni mehanizem želje, temveč mehanizem gona. Ljubezen sublimacija je zato, kot zapiše Zupančičeva, natanko desublimacija, ki humanizira užitek in ki se pojavi v vrzeli med tem, kar vidimo, in tem, kar dobimo. Njen zapis, ki ljubezen še jasneje združi s komedijo in ki pravi, da se ljubezen ne konča v trenutku, ko se zmerjamo, varamo, žalimo …, temveč takrat, ko to niti malo ni več smešno, pa lahko poskusimo neposredno prenesti še na raven političnega. Sedanji slovenski premier Miro Cerar je v nekem intervjuju dejal, da si kot predsednik vlade še dovoli humor, vendar mora biti pri svoji funkciji predvsem resen – gre pač za resne stvari. Mar ne bi mogli reči, da se politika ne konča takrat, ko se začnemo šaliti, temveč tedaj, ko ves humor ni niti malo več resen? Moder bi verjetno pripomnil, da je to takrat, ko sodobni norec ostane brez svojega žezla. Ana Pavlič Michel Foucault: »Družbo je treba braniti«. Predavanja na Colle`ge de France (1975–1976). Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis, 2015. 229 strani (ISBN 978 -961-6798 -58 -7), 25 EUR Knjiga Družbo je treba braniti je nastala kot popis govorjene besede Michela Foucaulta na njegovih enajstih predavanjih na Colle`ge de France, ki so se zvrstila med 7. 1. in 17. 3. 1976. Foucault je s predavanji na Colle`ge de France sicer začel januarja 1971 v sklopu profesure, ki je bila poime­novana Zgodovina sistemov mišljenja. Teoretsko, vsebinsko in zgodovinsko lahko omenjeni sklop predavanj uvrstimo med za mnoge temeljna dela Foucaultove misli, saj so predavanja »Družbo je treba braniti« umeščena za izdajo Nadzorovanja in kaznovanja ter pred izdajo Volje do znanja. Že v svojem prvem predavanju Foucault jasno izrazi namen svoje raziskave, ko začne s predstavitvijo in opredelitvijo projekta genealogije kot protiznanosti, upora vednosti, ki je dejaven v boju zoper institucionalizacijo znanstvenega diskurza s strani oblasti in katerega namen je boj proti oblastnim učinkom znanstvenega diskurza (in kritika pretenzije po znanosti), nato pa si kmalu zastavi enega izmed ključnih vprašanj sklopa predavanj: kako (in s pomočjo katerih dispozitivov) deluje oblast? Kljub temu da že ob koncu prvega predavanja nakaže, da bo vsebina prihodnjih pravzaprav poskus neekonomske analize oblasti, analize, ki bo presegla kanonski liberalnopravno (oblast se konstituira pod pogojem pravne forme – menjalna pogodba) in marksistično analizo (oblast se konstituira prek ohranjanja produkcijskih razmerij), pri čemer je, kot vidimo, za temelj obeh analiz izbrana ekonomija. Ko nam avtor v nadaljevanju še bolj jasno prikaže temeljne koncepte, okoli katerih bo gradil vsebino predavanj, ki sledijo, nam v iskanju neekonomske analize oblasti predstavi še dve potencialni (prežvečeni in priložnostni) hipotezi, ki sta ključni za samo jedro predavanj: Reichova hipoteza oblasti, ki je zvedena na opresijo (pogodba – zatiranje) in Clausewitzevo hipotezo oblasti kot nenehno vojno, vojno z drugimi sredstvi (vojna – represija, dominacija – re­presija). Foucault se, seveda, v nadaljevanju loti razmisleka o pomenu, vplivu in delovanju vojne na delovanje oblasti. Vojna postane središče predavanj »Družbo je treba braniti«, saj se nam, kot nas opomni Foucault, zdi povsem naravno, da oblast brani družbo (str. 11–30). V drugem predavanju (14. 1. 1976) Foucault pravzaprav govori o dvojem: ko nam predstavlja pravnopolitično teorijo suverenosti (ki že od srednjega veka naprej določa legitimnost oblasti) in njene štiri zgodovinske vloge, v bistvu govori (tudi) o svojem prejšnjem raziskovanju na Colle`ge de France, katerega re­zultat je bila analiza disciplinarnih oblastnih mehanizmov, ki delujejo na telesa in na vse tisto, kar telesa delajo. To, čemur smo bili priča od 17. in v 18. stoletju, je pojav popolnoma novih oblastnih mehanizmov, ki ga ni mogoče prevesti v jezik do takrat veljavne suverenosti, je pa bil zagotovo ključen za nastanek industrijskega kapitalizma in industrijske družbe. Po petih letih ukvarjanja z disciplinami in vprašanji, »kako« preučevati oblast, je Foucault napovedal prihodnjih pet let ukvar­janja z vojno, spopadi in boji (str. 31–51). Tretje predavanje (21. 1. 1976) razkrije podrobnejši načrt take analize oblasti. Foucault namreč ponudi predlog drugačnega projekta analize oblasti, ki naj se otrese tradicionalne trojne predpostavke suverenosti (subjekt, enotnost oblasti, zakon) in naj namesto tega poudarja razmerja dominacije, z drugimi besedami to pomeni, naj nas zanima, kako se skozi odnose podrejanja proizvaja subjekte. Na tem mestu se pojavi tudi vojna. Foucault predstavi diskurz vojne kot osnove družbenih razmerij, ki ne proizvaja tradicionalnih položajev subjektov, diskurz vojne je diskurz perspektive, kjer resnica deluje kot orožje, to je diskurz, ki prekine s filozofsko tradicijo pravnih diskurzov, še več, Foucault ga označi za prvi izključno zgodovinsko­-politični diskurz na Zahodu. Za ta diskurz sta značilni mračnost in kritika, ki je za lažjo artikulacijo pomoč poiskala pri velikih mitoloških zgodbah, ki govorijo o pretekli dobi pomembnih prednikov, prihodu novega kraljestva … Foucault je rojstvo tega diskurza identificiral na dveh mestih: okrog leta 1630 naj bi se pojavil kot diskurz puritancev in revellerjev v Angliji, poleg tega pa je prisoten tudi okoli leta 1720 ob koncu kraljevanja Ludvika XIV. Okoliščine nastanka in nadaljnji potek diskurza avtor podrobno (in za zamejenost našega prostora preveč obširno) obravnava, zato na tem mestu predstavimo zgolj ključno idejo, ki iz tega sledi, to je, da je od tega časa naprej (od 17. stoletja) vojna, ki našo družbo prepreda in binarno deli na dva dela, rasna vojna, to pomeni, da je družbeno telo artikulirano v dveh rasah (str. 51–73). Od vojne do državnega rasizma pride Michel Foucault ob koncu tretjega predavanja in temu v resnici tudi posveti celotno drugo polovico knjige (oziroma predavanj). Rasna teorija je doživela prepis, ki se dogaja od začetka 19. stoletja naprej in ki v nameri definiranja razrednega boja teži po izbrisu rasnega konflikta. Ta prepis je, kot nam kaže Foucault, omogočil nastanek državnega rasizma in diskurz rasne vojne se je ob koncu 19. stoletja transformiral v rasistični diskurz, ki staro idejo »Moramo se braniti pred družbo« zamenja z »Družbo moramo braniti pred vsemi biološkimi nevarnostmi te druge rase, te pod-rase, te proti-rase, ki jo proti svoji volji sproti konstituiramo« (str. 71). Vsebina predavanj od četrtega do predzadnje­ga, desetega predavanja je posvečena dvojemu: Michel Foucault nam po eni strani predstavlja hvalnico diskurza vojne ras, zgodovinske zavesti, ki jo ta producira, ta zgodovina rasne vojne je v čistem nasprotju z zgodovino suverenosti, ki jo je Zahod poprej poznal, to je proti-zgodovina, zgodovina, ki ne utrjuje in ne opravičuje oblasti, temveč jo nenehno izziva in napada. Če nam je torej v drugi polovici knjige Foucault po eni strani prikazoval skorajšnjo revolucionarno moč dis­kurza vojne ras (poglavja/predavanja, kjer opisuje angleško in francosko izkušnjo diskurza vojne ras), nas je po drugi opozarjal na nekaj, kar bo poimenoval in dokončno pojasnil šele v zadnjem, enajstem poglavju. Ko bi diskurz vojne ras lahko dejansko postal revolucionaren, to je bilo v času 19. stoletja, smo bili priča nekemu novemu zastavku diskurza, ki ga je uvedla država. Pojasnimo: diskurz ras (v množini) je omogočal orožje za boj proti zgodovini (rimske) suverenosti, a Država je za namene ohranjanja lastne suverenosti rekodirala in obrnila to orožje v diskurz rase (rase v ednini), ki je omogočal nastanek rasizma. Če je bil čas 18. stoletja čas, ki je vojno ustoličil kot enega ključnih vidikov za analizo političnih razmerij, se moramo ob koncu (s Foucaultom) vprašati, kaj se je zgodilo v zgodovinskem diskurzu 19. stoletja, da je bila vojna izbrisana, omejena. Vloga vojne je prišla na svetlo, a bila je izrazito negativna – ne konstituira več zgodovine, temveč brani in ohranja družbo, neizogibno je torej v 19. stoletju stala ideje interne vojne, državnega rasizma, ki družbo brani pred nevarnostmi, ki se rojevajo v njej sami, v njenem lastnem telesu. Ali – če se vprašamo drugače – kakšna oblast je nastopila takrat, da je za svoj temeljni mehanizem izbrala ravno rasizem? Biooblast. Foucault poudari, da je eden izmed paradoksov biooblasti to, da ubija, kljub temu da je celotna zgodba njenega obstoja posvečena ideji podaljševanja življenja, a ravno na tem mestu se pojavi rasizem, ki poskrbi za morilsko funkcijo Države (str. 73–293). Misli zadnjega predavanja Michela Foucaulta so, kot lahko vidimo, v resnici nujen začetek novih premišljevanj. Lea Kuhar Michel Foucault: Rojstvo biopolitike: kurz na Colle`ge de France: 1978–1979. Ljubljana: Založba Krtina, 2015. 336 strani (ISBN 978 -961-260 -088 -4), 30 EUR Po propadu velikih totalitarnih režimov 20. stoletja se je večina držav prepustila kapitalističnemu produkcijskemu načinu, ki naj bi v svojem demokratično-liberalnem duhu osvobodil posameznike iz najrazličnejših ideologij in jim s tem omogočil, da postanejo »gospodarji v lastni hiši«. Na prvi pogled se nam tako zdi, da živimo v času neskončnih možnosti, ki se udejanjajo pod okriljem svobodnih odločitev. Vendar pa številne raziskave, nastale od druge polovice prejšnjega stoletja naprej, kažejo na to, da se subjekti, katerim je bila podeljena svoboda izbire, v mnogih situacijah vedejo enako kakor tisti, ki slednje niso imeli, le da svojo odločitev drugače osmislijo. Medtem ko tisti, ki so v podreditev prisiljeni, svoja dejanja zgolj racionalizirajo (npr. »storil bom to dejanje, saj je dobro za določen cilj«), akterji v liberalnodemokratičnih pogojih svojih dejanj ne spremenijo, temveč jih ponotranjijo in spremenijo v vrednoto (npr. »ker sem avtonomna in pogumna oseba, bom storil to dejanje«). Paradoks liberalnih zapovedi je v tem, da navidezna svoboda odločitve v številnih primerih hitreje kot v njihovih avtoritarnih različicah pripelje do podreditve in ponovitve storjenih dejanj. Ne samo, da je vedenje akterjev v danih razmerah enako predvidljivo, temveč je tudi veliko manj »svobodno«, kot si radi zamišljamo (Beauvois 2000). Če danes iščemo razlog za branje Foucaultovega kurza predavanj o vladnosti, ki jih je imel na Colle`ge de France v prvi polovici leta 1979, ga gotovo najdemo v želji po razumevanju danega paradoksa. Tisto, kar je resnično inovativnega v Foucaultovi razdelavi koncepta oblasti, namreč ni sam prikaz dejstva, da različnim družbenim sistemom pripadajo različna oblastna razmerja, temveč ugotovitev, da sprememba v organizaciji oblastnih razmerij ne spremeni vloge oblastnih razmerij samih. Rečeno drugače, Foucaultova analiza prikaže, kako mehanizmi oblastnih razmerij skupaj z oblastjo, ki jo ti mehanizmi proizvajajo, niso v liberalni in neoliberalni družbeni ureditvi nič manj »oblastni« kot v kakšnem drugem družbenem sistemu, spremeni se zgolj tehnika vladanja. Medtem ko je še v 17. stoletju družbena omejitev prihajala »od zunaj«, torej od suverena zakonodajalca, se v 18. stoletju pojavi »notranje uravnavanje racionalnosti vladanja« (str. 17). To preprosto pomeni, da vladanje ni več naravnano na racionalnost posameznega suverena, ki sme reči »jaz država«, temveč na racionalnost tistih, ki so vladani. S svojim geslom »kako ne vladati preveč« (str. 20) li­beralizem izvede zgolj kvaziumik s področja vladanja, saj se njegovo področje v resnici ne izniči, temveč zgolj premakne. Namesto na vsesplošno podreditev ljudstva nova oblast cilja na to, da bodo ljudje sami presodili, kako je v danih okoliščinah najbolj »racionalno« delovati. Kljub začetnim napovedim, da bo med šolskim letom govoril o biopolitiki, torej o načinu racio­nalizacije problemov, ki jih od 18. stoletja naprej praksi vladanja postavljajo »populacijski pojavi«, kot so higiena, rodnost, zdravstvo, rasa, življenjska doba ipd. (str. 290), se Foucault v svojem delu posveča predvsem genealogiji liberalizma in študijam njegovih posameznih različic – nemškega ordoliberalizma ter francoskega in ameriškega neoliberalizma. Tisto, kar je pri načinu njegovega postopanja še posebej zanimivo, je to, da se avtor liberalizma ne loti s stališča ideologije, lažne zavesti, zaslepitve množic ipd., temveč s stališča posebnega načina delovanja. Način delovanja vladnosti je torej tisti, ki postavlja okvire nove politične racionalnosti, znotraj katere se vrši biopolitika. Takšen postopek avtorja tako metodološko kot vsebinsko loči od drugega pomembnega avtorja študij neoliberalnih praks, ki je v slovenskem prevodu izšel pred leti (gl. Harvey 2012). V študijah ordoliberalizma, katerim so posvečena kar štiri od dvanajstih predavanj, Foucault vztraja na tem, da neoliberalizem ni zgolj ponovitev liberalizma in njegove laissez-faire politike iz 18. in začetka 19. stoletja. Medtem ko je stari liberalizem vztrajal na naravni danosti trga, za katerega moramo znotraj družbe samo pripraviti in zavarovati prostor, v katerem bo deloval, pa njegova povojna nemška različica opozarja, da mora država najprej vzpostaviti pravilne pogoje za to, da bo trg sploh lahko začel delovati in da bo lahko razvil ves svoj potencial. Za ordoliberalce (Franz Böhm, Walter Eucken, Hans Großmann-Doerth itn.) se vprašanje namreč ne nahaja v tem, ali obstajajo stvari, v katere imamo pravico posegati, temveč je treba zgolj ugotoviti, kako moramo posegati vanje (str. 122). Vladanje v neoliberalizmu tako ne sme posegati v učinke trga, še več, ne sme niti popravljati uničujočih učinkov, ki jih ima trg na družbo. »Posegati mora v samo družbo v njenem tkivu in globini« (str. 136). Posamezniku se nič več ne zapoveduje, kako mora delovati, temveč se mu zgolj omogoči pogoje, v katerih lahko deluje. Takšno načelo se še posebej uresniči v ameriški različici neoliberalizma (Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman itn.), kjer neoliberalne politike uvedejo ekonomske posege v vse sfere družbenega življenja. Ekonomska oblika trga se posploši na celotno družbo, ki začne delovati po modelu podjetja, v njem delujoči posameznik pa postane homo economicus, »podjetnik samega sebe« (str. 205). »Z gledišča teorije vladanja je homo economicus tisti, v katerega se ne sme vtikati. Homo economicusa se pusti delati« (str. 246). Takšen način delovanja svojo najvišjo različico doseže v teorijah človeškega kapitala. Kar je pomembno in kar je tudi Foucaultova glavna poanta, je to, da s prihodom liberalizma vladnost ne potrebuje več nadzornega telesa, saj se v celoti prenese na delovanje vsakega posameznika. To pa današnjega sistema, kot smo rekli, nič manj ne naredi za »vladnega«. Foucaultova metodologija, s katero se loti preučevanja konceptov oblastnih razmerij, ne poteka v kontinuiranem zgodovinskem ali konceptualnem zaporedju. Njegove analize skačejo med 17. in 20. stoletjem ter med različnimi analizami konceptov, kot so zakon, svoboda, interes, civilna družba ipd. Takšen postopek nas po eni strani drži v nenehni pripravljenosti, saj za nobeno predavanje ne vemo, kam nas bo predavatelj popeljal, hkrati pa na več mestih dobimo občutek, da tega niti sam ne ve. Metodo serij predavanj tako morda še najbolje ponazarja avtorjev lastni citat »kajti kakor veste, sem kot potočni rak, premikam se bočno« (str. 75). Nesistematičnost najverjetneje izhaja iz tega, da predavanja niso bila namenjena objavi. Izšla so šele posthumno, prek zapisa zvočnih posnetkov. Poleg tega je avtorjeva izčrpna obravnava neoliberalnega režima, ki v knjigi večkrat meji na fascinacijo, mnoge kritike pripeljala na idejo, da avtor sam, kot pravi Zdravko Kobe v spremni besedi, »koketira z neoliberalizmom« (str. 334). Morda je k temu prispevalo dejstvo, da se v njegovih analizah problemi izkoriščanja, neenakosti in redistribucije bogastva zakrijejo s problemom delovanja moči. Na tem mestu vidimo tudi največjo pomanjkljivost Foucaultovega dela, ki s svojim konceptualnim aparatom ponudi izredno prodorno analizo neoliberalnih praks, kar mu omogoča zelo dobro misliti, kdo, kje, kdaj in kako, ne more pa misliti zakaj. Omenjenim pomanjkljivostim navkljub ostaja tema neoliberalizma danes, 30 let kasneje, bolj aktualna kot kadarkoli, kar je zgolj eden izmed razlogov, zakaj je Foucaultovo delo nepogrešljivo branje za vse, ki želijo razumeti delovanje sodobnih oblik družbene oblasti. Literatura Beauvois, Jean-Léon (2000): Razprava o liberalni sužnosti: Analiza podrejanja. Ljubljana: Založba Krtina. Harvey, David (2012): Kratka zgodovina neoliberalizma. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. Nina Perger Anja Koletnik, Ana Grm in Martin Gramc: Vsi spoli so resnični – transspolnost, transseksualnost in cisspolna nenormativnost. Ljubljana: Društvo informacijski center Legebitra, 2016. 186 strani (ISBN 978 -961-92123 -6 -3), publikacija je brezplačna Delo Vsi spoli so resnični – transspolnost, transseksualnost in cisspolna nenormativnost je pomemben mejnik pri naslavljanju in obravnavanju naštetih tem v slovenskem prostoru. Gre za delo, ki je sicer deloma prevod publikacije Put u prostranstvo (2012), a je ustrezno in smiselno dopolnjeno ter prilagojeno glede na specifike slovenskega prostora in v določenih vsebinskih vi­dikih. Obravnavane so teme, ki so ključne za osnovno razumevanje in poznavanje transspolnosti, transseksualnosti in cisspolne nenormativnosti ter njihove heterogene in kompleksne pojavnosti. Sama postavitev in vrstni red bralko_ca vodi od spoznavanja z osnovnimi koncepti in distinkcijami, ki so temeljnega pomena za korektno razumevanje izbranih tem, od jasno vpeljane in razložene razlike med spolnim izrazom, spolno vlogo, spolom, pripisanim ob rojstvu, spolnim binarizmom, cisspolnostjo (in cisspolno normativnostjo) in družbenim spolom, pri tem pa jasno izpostavlja potrebno, a družbeno-še-ne-realizirano utemeljenost spola v samoidentifikaciji osebe, ne glede na spol, ki je osebi bil pripisan ob rojstvu, in ne glede na kontinuirane nasilne družbene pripise spola (spolnega zaznamovanja), utemeljenih v družbeno prevladujočih predpostavkah spolnega binarizma. V nadaljevanju se delo precizno loteva konceptualiziranja razlik med pojavi, s katerimi se je slovenska širša javnost v politično sprevrženi in zmanipulirani obliki (»queerseksualnosti«) prvič seznanjala šele v zadnji referendumski kampanji o noveli ZZZDR, v kateri se je tovrstne nenormativne identitete zlorabljalo v namene manipulacije in vzbujanja strahu: avtorice_ji tako strokovno utemeljeno in argumentirano pojasnijo transspolnost, transseksualnost in kvirspolnost (genderqueer), spolno nebinarnost (non-binary), bispolnost, trispolnost, spolno fluidnost, aspolnost, neutrois in identitetno pozicijo transvestitk_ov, pri tem pa določene pojavnosti konkretno prikažejo tudi z življenjskimi izkušnjami in subjektivnimi pomeni oseb, ki se identificirajo z določenimi spolno nenormativnimi identitetami. Pomemben prispevek k obravnavanju nenormativnih spolov je tudi interseksualnost, ki je v slovenskem prostoru izrazito podobravnavana. V povezavi z življenjskimi izkušnjami transspolnih in cisspolno nenormativnih oseb so v delu predstavljeni tudi določeni izsledki prve raziskave o potrebah transspolnih oseb v Sloveniji, katere podatki kažejo na visoko stopnjo diskriminiranosti, marginaliziranosti in doživljanja nasilja, medtem ko osebne pripovedi transspolnih in cisspolno nenormativnih oseb hkrati pričajo o njihovi izjemni moči, ki jim zagotavlja preživetje in življenje v družbi, ki je saturirana z razmerji moči, sedimentiranimi v cis- in heteronormativnosti. Ključni prispevek dela je – poleg neizključujočega obravnavanja transspolnosti, transseksualno­sti in cisspolne nenormativnosti – tudi izrazit depatologizirajoči pristop, ki prevladujočo medicinsko obravnavo omenjenih polj učinkovito podvrže kritiki, ob hkratni usidranosti v življenjske svetove transspolnih, transseksualnih in cisspolno nenormativnih oseb, tj. delo učinkovito razgrne ambiva­lentnost medicinskega interveniranja, ki se ne z-more izogniti patologizaciji in diagnosticiranju, hkrati pa tudi izpostavi pomen dostopa do raznolikih terapevtskih možnosti. Pri tem avtorice_ji ne ostanejo samo pri kritični analizi pomena medicinske obravnave, temveč opozorijo tudi na z njimi povezane zakonodajne pomanjkljivosti in kršitve Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah ter relativne deregulariziranosti tovrstnega področja v Sloveniji, pri čemer jasno predstavijo tudi primere dobrih praks iz nekaterih drugih držav, ki so to zakonodajno področje bolj ali manj učinkovito utemeljile na samoidentifikaciji mimo medicinskih intervencij, ki transspolnost, transseksualnost in cisspolno nenormativnost podvržejo diskurzu »motnje« in patološkosti. Pri obravnavi zakonodajnega področja se avtorice_ji tako ne ustavijo le pri kritiki, temveč nadaljujejo s predstavitvijo korakov, ki bi jih veljalo narediti v prihodnje z namenom zagotovitve enakopravne obravnave vseh oseb, ne glede na spol, spolno identiteto in/ali spolni izraz, in z namenom spoštovanja človekovih pravic. S tega vidika lahko delo obravnavamo tudi kot opomin in poziv pristojnim institucijam, ki ne mislijo in ne upoštevajo nasilja cisnormativnosti in spolnega binarizma, kot ga čutijo in živijo osebe, ki tovrstne prevladujoče družbene ureditve presegajo s tem, ko živijo v skladu z lastnim spolom in s tem razgrinjajo nasilnost pripisovanja spola ob rojstvu ter hkrati tudi ranljivost prevladujoče cisnormativne družbene ureditve. Glede na to, da je transaktivizem v Sloveniji šele izstopil iz povojev, upoštevajoč dejstvo, da je bila prva organizacija, ki se ukvarja izključno z omenjenimi družbenimi skupinami, tj. Zavod Transfeministična Iniciativa TransAkcija, ustanovljena šele pred dobrim letom, potem ko je neuradno delovala od leta 2014 naprej, pomeni tovrstno delo pomemben mejnik, tudi zaradi tega, ker se je transaktivizem v tem obdobju srečeval z mnogimi ovirami, izhajajočimi tako iz širšedružbenega življenja kot tudi znotraj LGBT+ skupnosti, v kateri ima »T« (kot tudi »B+«) pogosto le provizorično mesto, saj v njej mestoma prevladujejo interesi gejevsko-lezbičnih politik, včasih tudi na račun manj vidnih spolnih in seksualnih manjšin znotraj LGBT+ manjšine. S tem delom (in nedvomno tudi z dru­gimi projektnimi aktivnostmi in dogodki v zadnjih letih) se je transaktivizem povsem jasno usidral v slovenski prostor, v katerem opozarja na relativno nevidnost nenormativnih spolnih identitet, ki so družbeno marginalizirane, patologizirane ali celo povsem spregledane. Domet dela Vsi spoli so resnični je izjemno širok, saj se pri obravnavi vsebin avtorice_ji publikacije učinkovito izognejo strogemu teoretskemu jeziku, kar nedvomno prispeva k širšemu doseganju bralk_cev, ne da bi pri tem sama obravnava omenjenih vsebin izgubila na poglobljenosti in kompleksnosti, obenem pa delo služi tudi kot konkreten prikaz ustrezne terminologije in takšne rabe jezika, ki ni izključujoča do oseb raznolikih spolov. Publikacija je tako namenjena vsem osebam, ki se želijo bližje spoznati s transspolnostjo, trans­seksualnostjo in cisspolno nenormativnostjo, osebam, ki se identificirajo ali se želijo identificirati kot zaveznice_ki transspolnim, transseksualnim in cisspolno nenormativnim osebam v okviru politik zavezništev, osebam, ki se identificirajo z nenormativnimi spolnimi identitetami in njihovimi bližnjimi, pa tudi osebam, ki se z omenjenimi družbenimi skupinami srečujejo v svojem strokovnem polju, ter osebam, ki se z omenjenimi temami ukvarjajo na različnih praktičnih in teoretskih ravneh, vključno s feminizmi in feminističnimi praksami, katerih odnos do transspolnosti, transseksualnosti in cisspolne nenormativnosti je včasih ambivalenten, neredko pa tudi izključujoč, s čimer predstavljajo le še dodatno instanco nasilja in podaljška obstoječe cisnormativne družbene ureditve, spregledujoč dejstvo, da se različne oblike feminizmov pravzaprav borijo za skupni cilj, tj. za enakost vseh oseb, ne glede na spol, kajti: vsi spoli so resnični, kar v naslovu in v vsebini sporoča prva publikacija v slovenskem prostoru, ki heterogenost sicer družbeno homogeniziranih skupin transspolnih, trans­seksualnih in cisspolno nenormativnih oseb obravnava v vsej njihovi raznolikosti. Gre torej za delo, ki nikoli ne more priti prehitro, oziroma delo, za katerega se zdi, da – upoštevajoč zgodovinsko kontinuiranost nasilnosti cisnormativnosti in obstoječa razmerja moči – vedno pride prepozno. Literatura Put u prostranstvo (2012). Rijeka: Lezbijska organizacija »Lori«. Marko Hočevar Ilan Pappe: The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge. London, New York: Verso, 2014. 346 strani (ISBN 978 -1-84467-856 -3), 16, 99 L Ilan Pappe v knjigi The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge prevprašuje, kako Judje v Izraelu producirajo vednost o državi Izrael. Interpretacije oziroma produkcija vednosti o različnih dogodkih je tisto, kar zanima Pappeja, kajti produkcija vednosti in vednost sama imata ključen vpliv na izvajanje in legitimiranje (nad)oblasti Judov v razmerju do Palestincev. Avtor anali­zira produkcijo vednosti v akademskih krogih (s poudarkom na zgodovini in zgodovinarjih), medijih in kulturi ter spremembe, ki so se dogajale (in se še vedno dogajajo) znotraj produkcije vednosti o Izraelu med Judi v Izraelu. Knjiga je napisana izjemno pregledno, tako da ni težko slediti njeni rdeči niti skozi obdobje od leta 1948, ki je ključno za izgradnjo enotne judovske nacije (leta 1948 je bila ustanovljena država Izrael), pa vse do danes. Pappe najprej spregovori o sionizmu, ki ga na začetku knjige definira kot diskurz, in sionističnem kanonu interpretacije dogodkov po letu 1948. Drugič, avtor locira nekakšne obrise postsionizma (in ne antisionizma) v začetek 90. let prejšnjega stoletja. Postsionizem je gradil na dognanjih »novih zgodovinarjev«, ki so že ob koncu 80. let kritizirali sionistično interpretacijo dogodkov ter z lastni­mi analizami razbijali hegemonske predstave o nastanku Izraela in odnosih z Arabci. Po izbruhu druge intifade leta 2000 ter po napadih 11. septembra 2001 pa v Izraelu pride do ponovnega obrata in vznika neokonservativizma, ki uspe povezati sionizem in ortodoksne judovske skupnosti. Pappe v tem primeru govori o neosionizmu, ki pa ne temelji na novih odkritjih, temveč na drugačni interpretaciji zgodovinskih spoznanj. Skozi te tri prizme oziroma oblike in vsebine produkcije vednosti – sionizem, postsionizem in neosionizem – ter njihovo razmerje do obstoječih razmerij moči uspe avtor razgaliti rasizem in izključevanje vseh tistih, ki ne odobravajo hegemonske (neo) sionistične interpretacije zgodovine Judov. Zgodovina in zgodovinarji so imeli ključno vlogo pri nastanku in kreiranju samopodobe Izra­ela ter legitimaciji obstoja Izraela in apartheida nad Palestinci. Sionistično zgodovinopisje je po ustanovitvi Izraela postalo izraelsko zgodovinopisje o državi, ki je želelo »znanstveno« dokazati pravico Judov do lastne države v Palestini. David ben Gurion, prvi premier Izraela, je uporabil zgodovinarje, da so kreirali sliko, ki je ustrezala sionistom za utrditev oblasti v Palestini. Sionizem kot diskurz se je (re)produciral s pomočjo specifične produkcije vednosti o letu 1948 in o Izraelu. Sionistični akademiki so sionizem in Izrael razlagali kot izjemne primere modernizacije, hkrati pa so legitimnost Judov do izključevanja in etničnega čiščenja Palestincev črpali iz mitov, ki so s pomočjo sionistične produkcije vednosti postali »resnice«. Eden takih je, da je bila dežela prazna vse do konca 19. stoletja, kar tudi pomeni, da ne obstaja nobena ovira za njeno naselitev. Ob tem Pappe identificira še nekaj dodatnih mitov: mit o zmagi manjšega števila judovskih vojakov proti številčnejšemu nasprotniku v vojni leta 1948; mit o tem, da obstajata konsenz in želja Arabcev do uničenja vseh Judov. Izjemno pomemben mit, ki je omogočil narodno enotnost Judov, pa je bila trditev, da so bili Judi z vsega sveta sionisti, ki so se želeli preseliti v Izrael. V ta namen so »sioni­zirali« različne upore Judov v času nacizma, med drugim tudi upor v varšavskem getu, ki so ga vodili socialisti in komunisti ter antisionisti, ki so se združili v Bundu (General Jewish Labour Bund of Lithuania, Poland and Russia). Ti miti so postali podlaga, na katerih je zgrajen kolektivni spomin Judov. Kot odziv na sionistično produkcijo vednosti se ob koncu 80. let prejšnjega stoletja pojavi krog »novih zgodovinarjev«, med katere Pappe ob Bennyju Morrisu, ki ob prelomu tisočletja doživi ra­dikalno preobrazbo in postane sionist, Tomu Segevu, Simhu Flapanu, Aviju Shlaimu in drugih šteje tudi samega sebe. Ti zgodovinarji so pod vplivom vojne z Libanonom in prve intifade začeli kritično analizirati zgodovino in sionistične »resnice«. Šlo je, lahko bi rekli, za pisanje kontrazgodovine. S tem so bili nadaljevalci tistih »pionirjev«, ki so bili od začetka nastanka Izraela kritični do sionizma in so postavili pod vprašaj celotno mrežo sionističnih mitov. Za nove zgodovinarje je bilo jasno, da je leto 1948 za Palestince nakba in da sami niso prostovoljno zapustili lastnih domov, temveč da so bili iz njih izgnani. Kljub tem mikro premikom v akademskih krogih je sionizem kot specifičen diskurz vztrajal vse do leta 1994, ko so na srečanju zgodovinarjev prvič uporabili besedo postsionizem. V to gibanje, po Pappeju, spadajo tako antisionisti kot tudi sionisti. Sicer pa Pappe označevalec postsionizem uporablja dosledno, saj pripadniki tega gibanja samih sebe niso označevali kot antisioniste. Sio­nistični postsionisti so nekako želeli obdržati tisto »dobro« sionizma, se pravi predvsem moment in mit modernizacije, kritizirali pa so početje sionistov po letu 1967. Zaradi tega so se antisionisti otepali postsionizma, medtem ko so sionisti z veseljem sprejeli postsionizem. Pappe, sledeč tej dikciji, zase prej trdi, da je antisionist kot pa postsionist. Postsionizem, vsaj tisti akademski, ni imel cilja radikalno prelomiti s sionizmom. Pappe vztraja, da je šlo za notranjo kritiko sionizma, in izpostavi, da je v velikem številu za sionistične postsioniste sionizem postal problematičen šele po vojni leta 1967 in okupaciji palestinskih ozemelj. Vsekakor pa je prišlo do velikih premikov: pod okriljem postsionizma so se začeli zgodovinarji podrobno ukvarjati z vprašanjem britanskega mandata v Palestini (1920–1948). V tem obdobju so zaradi izjemnega zanimanja za teorijo in metodologijo začeli prevajati dela Michela Foucaulta in Marxa v hebrejščino. Prišlo je do vzpona feminizma, pa tudi do heterogenosti v metodoloških vprašanjih. Ravno tako je prišlo do demistifikacije in razkrivanja vloge, ki jo pri okupaciji in izgradnji mita o Izraelu igra spomin na holokavst. V času postsionizma so veliko pozornosti namenili vprašanju izključevanja mizrahi Judov znotraj Izraela. Za sionizem je značilno, da »spregleda« ter s tem omogoči reprodukcijo izključevanja in hierarhičnega vključevanja mizrahi Judov, ob predpostavki, da so bili ti normalizirani, da so opustili arabsko identiteto oziroma se je »znebili«. O diskriminaciji mizrahi Judov se izjemno malo govori, gre pa le za nekakšno »notranjo« preslikavo odnosa sionistov do Palestincev. Takšna kritična, a hkrati tudi ambivalentna pozicija ni bila nikoli splošno sprejeta, kaj šele hege­monska, je pa odprla vrata in možnost za emancipatorne boje tako Judov kot tudi Palestincev. Pappe nekje na prelomu tretjega tisočletja identificira vznik neosionizma ter novega obrata v produkciji vednosti in izvajanja oblasti, ki je potekalo v času druge intifade in sovpade z »začetkom boja proti terorizmu«. Avtor opozori na zgodovinsko specifičnost neosionizma – prišlo je do radikalizacije nacionalističnih in religijskih skupin. Sionizacija do tedaj antisionističnih, ortodoksnih Judov je nekaj povsem novega, če vemo, da so pred tem ortodoksni Judje nasprotovali sionizmu, pa tudi Izraelu, saj nova judovska država po njihovem mnenju ni bila božje stvarstvo. Toda po letu 2000 je veliko število rabinov postalo gorečih sionistov, s čimer sta se dodatno začela prepletati politika in religija. Rabini so pridobivali na politični moči, vplivali so na politiko in s tem na sprejemanje zakonov v Knessetu, vse skupaj pa je kulminiralo s poskusi začetka gradnje tretjega templja v Jeruzalemu. Ob tem so mizrahi Jude ponovno potisnili na margine družbenega, ekonomskega in političnega življenja, v ospredje pa je zopet prišla varnost Judov, ki omogoča nadaljevanje ločevanja med Judi in Palestinci. Kljub izjemno zanimivi analizi, ki jo ponudi Pappe, moramo izpostaviti dve težavi knjige. Prvič, obstaja kar nekaj zagat s pojmom sionizem oziroma s Pappejevim razumevanjem pojma diskurz. Na začetku Pappe jasno izpostavi, da sionizem razume enako kot Edward Said razume orientali­zem – kot diskurz – oziroma kot specifično razmerje med vednostjo in oblastjo. Ker je eden glavnih očitkov Saidu ravno nerazumevanje in »napačna« raba Foucaultovega koncepta diskurz, bi lahko Pappe več prostora namenil temu vprašanju. Po drugi strani pa v samem besedilu večkrat naletimo na opredelitev sionizma kot ideologije. Je torej sionizem diskurz ali ideologija? Če Pappe enači diskurz in ideologijo, bi si to vsekakor zaslužilo posebno teoretsko obravnavo. Drugič, manjka nekakšna analiza začetkov (političnega) sionizma ter njegovih kompleksnosti in notranjih protislovij. Bralec namreč lahko dobi občutek, da gre pri sionizmu za zelo koherentno zgodbo, kar pa ne drži. To, da je prišlo do poenotenja vseh – ali večine – Judov glede njihovih političnih aspiracij po letu 1948, je bil politični projekt in konstrukt. V začetku 20. stoletja so obsta­jali razkoli med sionisti, saj niso vsi sionisti zagovarjali vrnitve v Palestino. Na tem mestu bi lahko omenili na primer plan Uganda, ki je propadel leta 1903, a je do takrat vsaj del sionistov razmišljal onkraj vrnitve v Eretz Israel. Kljub tem pomanjkljivostim gre za izjemno kompleksno raziskavo, za refleksijo in obenem za kritiko sionizma. Jasno je, da se je avtor (tudi) s to knjigo politično pozicioniral. Gre za boj proti izključevanju, proti rasističnim praksam Izraela do Palestincev ter za razgradnjo zgodb o nacionalni enotnosti in homogenosti Judov. V luči političnih dogodkov na Bližnjem vzhodu v zadnjih stotih letih kot tudi danes lahko trdimo, da gre za neprecenljivo knjigo, ki odpira zelo neprijetna vprašanja za sioniste, hkrati pa omogoča mišljenje heterogenosti, ki obstajajo na Bližnjem vzhodu tukaj in zdaj. IN MEMORIAM IN MEMORIAM THOMAS (TOMAŽ) LUCKMANN (14. 10. 1927–10. 5. 2016) Desetega maja je v 88. letu umrl Thomas (Tomaž) Luckmann, sociolog svetovnega slovesa, rojen 14. 10. 1927 na Jesenicah in po materi (iz družine Voduškovih) slovenske ­ga rodu, častni doktor Univerze v Ljubljani (1993), častni član Slovenskega sociološkega društva, dopisni član SAZU. Odraščal je v Sloveniji, vojna leta je preživel v Avstriji, leta 1950 se je po začetnem študiju na Dunaju in Innsbrucku preselil v ZDA, kjer je na New School for Social Research končal študij sociologije in filozofije ter začel svojo akademsko kariero. Sredi šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja se je vrnil v Evropo in postal profesor za sociologijo na frankfurtski univerzi, od koder je leta 1970 prešel na novoustanovljeno univerzo v Konstanzu in tam ostal do upokojitve leta 1994. Zadnja desetletja je živel na avstrijskem Koroškem, nad Osojskim jezerom. Svetovni uspeh in preboj je doživel s knjigo Nevidna religija, 1967 (njena prva verzija je izšla v nemščini leta 1963 z naslovom Problem religije v sodobni družbi), ter z delom Družbena konstrukcija realnosti, ki ga je leta 1966 napisal skupaj s Petrom Bergerjem, prijateljem in prav tako avstrijskim izseljencem. Obe knjigi sta bili kmalu iz angleščine prevedeni v številne jezike ter sta danes klasični deli (novejše) sociologije religije in sociološke teorije. Izhodišča in spoznanja iz obeh del je Luckmann kasneje upo ­rabljal in razvijal pri raziskovanju problematike jezika, komunikacije, smisla in identitete v modernih družbah, kot lahko beremo v knjigah Sociologija jezika (1975), Modernost, pluralizem in kriza smisla (1995), Življenjski svet in družbene stvarnosti (1980), Znanje in družba (2002), Življenjski svet, identiteta in družba: spisi iz sociologije vednosti in pro­tosociologije (2007) ter številnih člankih in razpravah v znanstvenih revijah in zbornikih. Nekatera najpomembnejša dela imamo tudi v slovenskem prevodu. Družbeno konstrukcijo realnosti je leta 1988 prevedel Aleš Debeljak, spremno besedo napisal Dimitrij Rupel, Nevidna religija je v prevodu Friderika Klampferja in s spremno študijo Marka Kerševana izšla leta 1997, prevod knjige Modernost, pluralizem in kriza smisla je leta 1999 pripravil Frane Adam; Vinko Potočnik in Igor Bahovec sta leta 2007 poskrbela za obsežen izbor Luckmannovih spisov pod naslovom Družba, komunikacija, smisel, transcendenca, ki sta ga pospremila tudi z izčrpnim življenjepisom, bibliografijo, pregledom dela ter spomini na srečanja in sodelovanje. Thomas Luckmann je znanstvena dela pisal in objavljal v nemščini ali angleščini, ob predavanjih ter na konferencah in srečanjih v Sloveniji pa nas je vedno znova presenetil s svojo lepo, knjižno slovenščino. Prvič je v Sloveniji javno nastopil leta 1984 na povabilo SAZU, na mednarodnem simpoziju Znanost in vera. Od takrat je večkrat predaval na Fakulteti za družbene vede, na Filozofski fakulteti – 40 -letnici začetka rednega študija sociologije na Slovenskem – na Teološki fakulteti in ob ustanovitvi Fakultete za uporabne družbene študije v Novi Gorici; udeležil se je več strokovnih srečanj, imel intervjuje v Te ­oriji in praksi, Novi reviji in vseh slovenskih dnevnikih. Prva osebna srečanja s slovenskimi družboslovci segajo v konec šestdesetih in začetek sedemdesetih let, ko sva imela to čast in privilegij zdaj že pokojni Mišo Jezernik in jaz; za Franetom Adamom v osemdesetih letih so sledili – kot jih leta 2011 v predgovoru k Izbranim spisom Marka Kerševana Luck­mann izrecno našteje – Vinko Potočnik, Igor Bahovec, Bojan Čas, Matevž Tomšič, Darka Podmenik, Matej Makarovič … Thomas Luckmann je bil za življenja s svojo osebnostjo in delom opora ter spodbuda slovenski sociologiji, sociologom in sociologinjam različnih generacij. Ko mu izražam(o) hvaležnost za to, sem prepričan, da bo njegovo delo (p)ostalo opora, spodbuda in izziv sociološkemu in družboslovnemu mišljenju marsikomu tudi iz generacij, ki šele prihajajo. Pisal sem že, kako mi je srečanje s Thomasom Luckmannom v davnih sedemdesetih letih razširilo sociološko obzorje z vpogledom v drugačno sociologijo od tiste, ki je prevlado ­vala v takratnih teoretskih (in ideoloških) spopadih. Tokrat – ob slovesu – bi rad dodal: dolgoletna srečevanja s Tomažem (in njegovo družino) so meni in mojo družini, ženi in sinovoma, pokazala, kako lahko ob človeški pokončnosti in empatiji kljub vsem razlikam v poreklu, življenjskih poteh in izkušnjah, različnim teoretskim usmeritvam in političnim presojam nastane in obstane ne le medsebojno spoštovanje, ampak tudi prijateljstvo. Marko Kerševan