Book Reviews: Who Should Know What? Social Science, Privacy and Ethics, Ideology and Cultural Production, Injustice—The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt, Schooling in Decline, the Restructuring of Social & Political Theory, Land and the National Question in Ireland, 1858–82, Sociology and Psychology, Essays, the Jewish Intelligentsia and Russian Marxism, Fictions and Ceremonies: Representations of Popular Experience, the Social Construction of Mind: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Linguistic Philosophy, a Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1850, Museums of Madness: The Social Organization of Insanity in 19th Century England, the Social Theory of Claude Lévi-Strauss, Cities Unlimited, Thrillers: Genisis and Structure of a Popular Genre, Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory, Action Theory and the Human Condition, Contemporary Society and the Growth of Leisure, the Child and Death, Who Divorces, Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, Classes, Strata and Power

1980 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-214
Author(s):  
Robert Dingwall ◽  
David Chaney ◽  
Athar Hussain ◽  
M. D. Shipman ◽  
Diana Leat ◽  
...  

Adrian Desmond & James Moore, Darwin . London: Michael Joseph, 1991. Pp. 808, £20.00. ISBN 0-3403-3 In Britain, as in much of Europe, the early and mid-19th century was a period of great social, political and intellectual turbulence. The industrial revolution was transforming the countryside, crowding the cities and disrupting the social order at all levels. The right to govern, long assumed by the duo of church and aristocracy, was being challenged. In 1848 Europe erupted in a cluster of radicalist revolutions and, though in Britain the threat of Chartism came to nothing, radical political thinking was taking root and would culminate, as the century progressed, in the ascendancy of Liberalism and the birth of the labour movement. In philosophy and religion, freedom of thought and discussion was rampant: questions once taboo as heresy were openly discussed (in 1880 Northampton was to elect an avowed atheist as its M.P.); utopian, evangelist and spiritualist groups abounded; developments in Natural Philosophy (which we now call science) were followed with enthusiasm, not only by naturalists, but by non-scientific intellectuals and (more surprising to us today) by the press and its now widely based readership.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Sergio Barile ◽  
Cristina Simone ◽  
Antonio La Sala ◽  
Marcelo Enrique Conti

The paper investigates the complex interaction between technological innovation and norms: a crucial dynamic to facing the severe challenges of the Anthropocene.On the one hand, the sedimentation of norms acts as the genetic memory of a society. Allowing a reduction in the uncertainty of human condition and ensuring greater predictability of human interaction, the set of norms tend to activate a system of constraints that normalize and legitimate technological innovations.On the other hand, technological innovation is one of the most unpredictable and non-linear sources of change. It demands legitimization for what in the past were excluded or prohibited a priori (e.g. behaviors, ethics): this may trigger a “decoupling” process from the extant set of norms. Nevertheless, what decoupling should be legitimized? A wicked problem arises, and forking paths emerge in the socio-economic landscape.Leading the tension between new technology (source of unpredictability) and the taken-for-granted norms (source of predictability) is crucial if the aim is to linking effectiveness and efficiency to viable sustainability. While the (still dominant) cartesian approach considers norms and new technology as separate elements of the social system, system thinking enlightens the interaction between them. This helps to unveil hidden options/feedbacks in the decoupling-recoupling process between technological innovation and the evolution of norms enriching the information variety of the decision-makers (policy makers, citizens, urban planners, etc.).The dynamics that govern this dyad, however, are not linear: norms, in fact, do not have the same reactivity to absorb (recouple) the change triggered by new technologies (decoupling from the extant set of norms).Although the relevance of the issue, it has been often neglected, or at least not taken in the right consideration. Therefore, aiming to investigate this dyadic relationship, the paper focuses on the ambiguous role technology plays in enabling resilience: sometimes it acts as a resilience amplifier; sometimes it is a resilience inhibitor (and even a steel cage); sometimes it provokes an undesirable deviation from the taken-for-granted codified rules.In particular, aiming to contribute in filling this gap, and rooting in the Viable System Approach (VSA), the paper investigates why and how in some cases the interaction between technological innovation and norms leads to resistance towards change or acts as a resilience amplifier in other cases.The paper is structured as follows: after an Introduction underlying the need to understanding the increasing tension between new technology and norms, Section 2 deals with the contribution of the VSA in understanding the social systems; then, rooting in the VSA and moving from the concept of information variety, Section 3 frames the complex interplay between new technology and taken-for-granted norms as one of the most dramatic “resistance-resilience” issue of the Anthropocene era; Section 4 proposes a more comprehensive framework discussing the range “resilience-resistance-vulnerability” and presents final reflections.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Aralia Heaverly ◽  
Elisabeth Ngestirosa EWK

This study dismantles Jane Austen’s view in Pride and Prejudice novel triggered by the social systems in British society. The society influenced by the phenomena of the industrial revolution in England in the late eighteenth century revealed the social system. This study aims to find out how Jane Austen views the revolution of the industry in British society. By having the focus on the sociology of literature, this study applies Lucien Goldman’s genetic structuralism. By the dialectical method, the study found that in Austen’s view the landed gentry system and inheritance system was adopted to measure the social class among the societies. Jane Austen thought the inheritance system as the fallacious practice in the society as the economic condition motivated British parents to apply matchmaking for their children to get a better life. Jane Austen views that the industrial revolution plays an important role in forming social occupation at that time. The working-class condition leads them to work in the town, while the upper-class society tends to open some businesses by doing trade at the town. The rest group of middle class tends to work and dedicate themselves to the rich people. Finally, Jane Austen puts her view toward the society in Pride and Prejudice.Keywords: author, class, genetic structuralism, the industrial revolution, view


2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (01) ◽  
pp. 179-181
Author(s):  
Mukhtar Tahir Nabili ◽  

The article studies the structure of social management and examines the main features in detail. Sociology of management is a specific field of sociological knowledge; It studies the social bases, dynamic system, processes of management, their social functions and principles, features of management decisions, social aspects of management activities, their degree of effectiveness in organizations and society, relations in the field of management. Sociology focuses on the management of social systems, in other words, social management. Key words: Management, social structure, government, society, sociology


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam G. B. Roberts ◽  
Anna Roberts

Group size in primates is strongly correlated with brain size, but exactly what makes larger groups more ‘socially complex’ than smaller groups is still poorly understood. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) are among our closest living relatives and are excellent model species to investigate patterns of sociality and social complexity in primates, and to inform models of human social evolution. The aim of this paper is to propose new research frameworks, particularly the use of social network analysis, to examine how social structure differs in small, medium and large groups of chimpanzees and gorillas, to explore what makes larger groups more socially complex than smaller groups. Given a fission-fusion system is likely to have characterised hominins, a comparison of the social complexity involved in fission-fusion and more stable social systems is likely to provide important new insights into human social evolution


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document