K.M. Takhtarev is one of the First Professional Sociologists in Russia. To the 150th Anniversary of His Birth

Introduction. The article presents the fate and work of the famous Russian sociologist Konstantin Mikhailovich Takhtarev (1871–1925), who would have turned 150 years old in 2021. He was one of the first professional sociologists who played an important role in the institutionalization of Russian sociology. His works and other deeds are still not fully comprehended and, therefore, are insufficiently used in research and in the process of training sociologists. The article presents the main results of his work and the direction of his activities in organizing sociological knowledge in Russia.Methodology and sources. The article implements a historical and biographical approach combined with a comparative analysis of the life and scientific fate of the famous Russian sociologist K. M. Takhtarev, professor of the St Petersburg University (1911–1925). His main works and the results of his activities on the institutionalization of Russian sociology are analyzed.Results and discussion. The name of K.M. Takhtarev stands next to such names as M.M. Kovalevsky, N.I. Kareev, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, E.V. de Roberti, P.A. Sorokin, etc. His contribution to the institutionalization of Russian sociology is very significant. He was one of the first to prepare complete textbooks, created his own system of sociology (P. Sorokin), was one of the organizers of the M.M. Kovalevsky Russian Sociological Society, which confirmed the formation of the Russian sociological community. The creation of the country's first sociological institute is associated with his name. N.I. Kareev called him and P.A. Sorokin the first professional sociologists of Russia. The article shows his understanding of the subject of sociology, the basic concepts that reveal the essence of social life, its evolution, through the stages of self-sufficiency – the foundations of his theory. The significance of the systematization of sociological ideas carried out by him, which formed the basis of his system of sociology, is revealed. The role of Takhtarev in the development of genetic sociology as a sociological direction studying the dynamics of forms of society and social institutions is emphasized.Conclusion. The significance of K.M. Takhtarev's ideas for today's sociology is shown and it is argued that it is necessary to refer to his works today. The special relevance of the logic of building his own system of sociology, research experiments in the field of genetic sociology, the substantiation of social laws and the classification of social laws are emphasized.

Partha Nath Mukherji (1940–2021): The Scholar and His Scholarship

This essay is a tribute to the memory of Partha Nath Mukherji (1940–2021), the past President of the Indian Sociological Society (2004–2005). After briefly tracing his scholarly career, it provides an overview of his sociological contributions spanning almost six decades. His oeuvre covered a variety of themes and issues, both empirical and theoretical, which can be categorised under the following rubrics: social movements and social change, sociology of agrarian relations, democratic decentralisation and panchayats, nationalism and nation-building, research methodology, indigenisation of the social sciences, regional (South Asian) sociology, and the question of approach and relevance in Indian sociology.

Professor Arvind Manilal Shah: Researcher, Teacher and Institution Builder

The shock of Professor A. M. Shah’s (AMS) demise is fresh in our minds as is his memory as an interactive, alert, productive and disciplined scholar at the ripe age of 89. This article tries to summarise his enormous contribution to the discipline of sociology in India. First, it takes up his path-breaking, analytically sharp mind towards conceptual clarity to match with empirical data that questioned many prevailing assumptions. He put forth the household dimension as the processual dimension of family in India, caste division as a feature of many urban castes, besides hierarchy, which alone was assumed to characterise caste in India. Next, it looks at his brand of work with historical and contemporary empirical perspective in the areas of kinship, marriage, lineage, old age and family policy, religion and sects through his research publications. Next, it describes AMS as a simple and upright person and a dedicated teacher who enjoyed teaching and focused on clarity and understanding without fashionable jargon. His strict but compassionate and no-nonsense approach towards students contributed also to the high status of sociology in the Delhi University. This is followed by his selfless commitment to academic administration in the Delhi University and wider institution-building acumen that benefitted Indian Sociological Society among others.

Role amerických a francouzských spolupracovníků v mezinárodní strategii redakčního týmu Sociologické revue ve 30. letech

Three French sociologists (Bouglé, Duprat and Richard), as well as three sociologists from the United States (Hasek, Rouček and Sorokin), exclusively represented Western sociology in a list of nine foreign collaborators, which featured from 1933 to 1940 on the first page of the Czech periodical Sociologická revue. Duprat and Richard were evidently included in this list at a time when the Masaryk Sociological Society, whose publishing organ was the Sociologická revue, played a significant role in the resumed activities of the International Institute of Sociology. The collaboration of the three “American” sociologists was more participative. It answered the urgent need, according to the revue’s redacting team, to inform readers on the latest developments in the field from America. The names of Bouglé, and above all Sorokin, undoubtedly represented in this list a symbolic advantage for the revue’s redacting team and its international strategy.

Science and Democracy Reconsidered

To what extent is the normative commitment of STS to the democratization of science a product of the democratic contexts where it is most often produced? STS scholars have historically offered a powerful critical lens through which to understand the social construction of science, and seminal contributions in this area have outlined ways in which citizens have improved both the conduct of science and its outcomes. Yet, with few exceptions, it remains that most STS scholarship has eschewed study of more problematic cases of public engagement of science in rich, supposedly mature Western democracies, as well as examination of science-making in poorer, sometimes non-democratic contexts. How might research on problematic cases and dissimilar political contexts traditionally neglected by STS scholars push the field forward in new ways? This paper responds to themes that came out of papers from two Eastern Sociological Society Presidential Panels on Science and Technology Studies in an Era of Anti-Science. It considers implications of the normative commitment by sociologists working in the STS tradition to the democratization of science.

N.I. Kareev’s participation in the Processes of Institutionalizing Sociology in Russia

The article provides a brief overview of the scientific, organizational and pedagogical activities of the outstanding Russian historian and sociologist N.I. Kareev (1850–1931). The main focus is his participation in the processes of the initial period of institutionalizing sociology in Russia: the publication of scientific papers and textbooks on sociology. He was the first person in Russia to give a systematic course in sociology to university students, was co-opted to the Council of the Psychoneurological Institute, in which the first department of sociology was established in Russia. During Soviet times N.I. Kareev taught sociology in Petrograd at Women’s Courses. In 1918, by decision of the People’s Commissariat of Education, he was included in the list of 30 Russian professors who taught sociology at universities of Petrograd and sociological courses for sociology teachers working at secondary schools. N.I. Kareev took an active part in the formation and functioning of the sociological section at the Historical Society of St. Petersburg University and the М.М. Kovalevsky Sociological Society. In 1919, N.I. Kareev actively participated in the formation of the departments of sociology, sociological and social studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Petrograd University. But later, his activity began to receive less and less approval from the new organizers of science and education in Russia.

Weber's contribution to content analysis

The subject of this paper is Max Weber's contribution to content analysis as a sociological research procedure. Content analysis gained the legitimacy of the sociological method of research in the middle of the 20th century, and Weber occupies a significant place in its history. He used the basic idea of content analysis in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1904-1905). Weber drew conclusions about the institutionalised form of social communication in the past by studying its recorded content. He analysed the content of protestant catechisms to establish whether, in working with believers, pastors encouraged ethical attitudes conducive to the development of the capitalistic spirit. Later, at the first meeting of the German Sociological Society (1910), Weber proposed undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the content of the press, which did not receive the support of sociologists. His proposal represents the first methodologically designed attempt to give content analysis a place among sociological research procedures. The aim of this paper is to present Weber's contribution to content analysis. His contribution is considered through an analysis of the application of the basic idea of this procedure in 'The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism' and through advocating its use in speech at the first meeting of the German Sociological Society.

80th anniversary of the journal Sociološki Pregled/Serbian Sociological Review

In 2018, the journal Sociološki Pregled/Sociological Review celebrated its 80th anniversary. The first Serbian sociological journal Društveni Život/ Social Life was published in Belgrade in 1920 and 1921, and then renewed in 1930 in Novi Sad. The editor-in-chief and publisher of this journal was Mirko Kosić, a professor at the Faculty of Law in Subotica. After establishing Society for Legal Philosophy and Sociology in 1935 and Society for Sociology and Social Sciences in 1938, a new sociological journal - Sociological Review , edited by a professor from the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, Đorđe Tasić - began to be published. Thematically it covered various sociological disciplines and other social sciences for sociology is a multidisciplinary science. The work of the Sociological Society and the journal was interrupted by the II World War, in which Đorđe Tasić was killed. Other members of the Society for Sociology and Social Sciences and associates of Sociološki Pregled were no longer interested in sociology and sociological topics. Sociološki Pregled was renewed in 1961 by the Serbian Sociological Society, first as a collection of papers and then as a journal in 1964. Since then, the journal has been an active participant of scientific and academic life in this region providing an overview of current trends in sociology in the world and in our country. The intellectual elite of Serbia has participated in its publishing both directly and indirectly, both its oldest and prominent members and the youngest ones. About 200 issues of Sociološki Pregled with more than 30,000 pages were published from 1938 to 2018 and present a valuable material for sociological life and an irreplaceable information manual on decades of contemporary history of Serbia and Yugoslavia. Such a role could not have been played by any other journal. Sociološki Pregled is a theoretical journal, a manual, an informative newsletter, a reminder, a witness, an informer - all at the same time. That is why it is necessary to consider the journal in both historical and contemporary perspectives.