Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Culture and Art
Reference:

Orlova E.A. What for Do We Need Sociology of Culture?

Abstract: The subject of the research is the factors that conditioned the development of the sociology of culture. The object of the research is the concepts and definitions of culture in social studies and cultural anthropology. The author examines such aspects of the topic as overcoming disciplinary differences, special attention to the sociocultural dynamics, transfer from the subject-object interpretation of the sociocultural reality towards intersubjective one and refusal of substantialism in culture and society. Special attention is paid to the development of the contemporary sociology of culture as a response to the cognitive paradigm shift. Analysis of the contents of the concept (definition) of culture in social studies and anthropology and dynamic analysis of the changes of the matter of social studies as a result of changes in the definition of culture are analyzed. The main contribution of the research is the statement of the demand for the modern variant of the sciology of culture. The author's contribution to the topic is the analysis of the factors that determine the development of the contemporary sociology of culture. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author views the topic in terms of the cognitive paradigm shift and as part of social studies.   


Keywords:

culture, cultural anthropology, Marxism, positivism, cognitive paradigm, post-modernity, rationalism, structuralism, structural functionalism, phenomenological sociology


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Weber M. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft-Tubingen, Mohr. 1922. S. 13.
2. Ionin L .G. Sotsiologiya kul'tury. M.: Logos, 1998. S. 67; Alexander J. The Meanings of Social Life: a Cultural Sociology-N.Y., Oxford University Press. 2003. R. 123.
3. Mead G.H. Mind, Self and Society-Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1936. P. 90.
4. Crane D. The Sociology of Culture-Blackwell. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA, 1994. P. 1; Weber M. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft-Tubingen: Mohr. 1922. S. 13.
5. Raykhman Dzh. Postmodernizm v nominalistskoy sisteme koordinat // Fle-shart. 1989. ¹ 1. S. 50.
6. Welsch W. Postmoderne — Pluralitat als ethischer und politischer Welt. Köln, 1988. S. 23.
7. Frank M. Was ist Neostructuralismus-Frankfurt am. M., 1984. R. 11.
8. Smith D. Sociological theory: methods of writing patriarchy / Ed. by R.A. Wallace //Feminism and Sociological Theory-Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. P. 34.
9. Berger P., Luckman T. The Social Construction of Reality-New York: Doubleday, 1966. R. 12; Berger P., Lukman T. Sotsial'noe konstruirovanie real'nosti. Traktat po sotsiologii znaniya. M.: Medium, 1995. S. 32.
10. Kravchenko S.A. Sotsiologicheskoe teoretizirovanie, myshlenie i voobrazhenie v usloviyakh postmoderna-Elektronnyy resurs-http://www.isprras.ru/pics/File/postmodern/Kravchenko.pdf
11. Kachanov Yu.L. Prostranstvo–vremya sotsial'nogo mira v poststrukturalistskoy perspektive// Neprikosnovennyy zapas. 2010. ¹ 2(70). S. 11. http://magazines.russ./ru/nz/2/lel.html)
12. Giddens E. Devyat' tezisov o budushchem sotsiologii // THESIS. T. 1. Vyp. 1. 1993 (Elektronnyy resurs-http://www.socioline.ru/new)
13. Rorti R. Posleslovie: pragmatizm, plyuralizm i postmodernizm-1998-Elektronnyy resurs-http//www.politizdat.ru/article/51/
14. Mead G.H. Mind, Self and Society-Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1936. P. 90.
15. Mankheym K. Izbrannoe: Sotsiologiya kul'tury. M.-SPb., Universitetskaya kniga, 2000. S. 256.
16. Aleksander Dzh.S. Analiticheskie debaty: Ponimanie otnositel'noy avtonomii kul'tury // Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. T. 6, ¹ 1 2007. S. 28.