Pavel Sorokin

‘Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems and perspectives

This article discusses perspectives for the formation of a truly ‘global sociology’, implying active, open, mutually beneficial and equal interaction between sociologists from different locations, countries and cultures, in their joint efforts to comprehend, explain and improve the social world. The study is based on the conceptual scheme proposed by Burawoy, highlighting four different disciplinary practices: ‘professional sociology’, ‘policy sociology’, ‘critical sociology’ and ‘public sociology’. The formation of a ‘global sociology’ demands harmonious development and mutual enrichment between all the four ‘sociologies’, however, each of them has its own path in the global arena. The literature analysis demonstrates serious limitations in the global progression of ‘professional sociology’, while ‘policy sociology’ and ‘critical sociology’ also experience major difficulties. ‘Public sociology’, largely inspired by Burawoy, seems to be especially promising globally due to its key advantages: orientation towards non-academic audiences and a focus on the most acute social problems. However, currently this disciplinary practice has several fundamental constraints: marginality, radicalism, ideological bias and inherent conflict-orientation towards other ‘sociologies’. Drawing on John Meyer’s theory of ‘Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood’, the article proposes the project of the new ‘Global Solidarity Sociology’, which utilizes the advantages of Michael Burawoy’s project while overcoming its principal limitations.

Making Global Sociology in the Context of Neoliberal Domination: Challenges, Ideology and Possible Strategies:

This article discusses perspectives for making global sociology, which implies open and fruitful cooperation between sociologists from different locations, as well as enhancing our discipline’s positions in the field of social sciences and in extra-academic environments. Drawing on Wacquant’s ideas, we understand neoliberalism as a globally dominant approach to social regulation, combining market-oriented mechanisms in economic transactions and restrictive control apparatus based on the cultural imperative of individual responsibility, supported by the state. Intellectually rooted in European liberal tradition and supported by neoclassical economics’ conceptual frameworks, neoliberalism has shaped three interrelated challenges for global sociology: (1) Eurocentric conceptual apparatus within the discipline, (2) domination of economics over sociology in the field of social sciences, and (3) marketisation of the academic world, promoting direct ‘profitability’, and making ‘public value’ of scientific knowledge less relevant. We argue that these three challenges generate a tendency towards negative ideological unity across a significant number of sociological communities worldwide, which tend to see neoliberalism as a multifaceted common enemy. Despite being evidence-based, this emerging global ideological unity in sociology is problematic because it lacks a strong positive project. Instead of hostile attitudes towards internal and external agents affiliated with neoliberalism, the solidarity-oriented strategies may be helpful in building a truly global sociology.

Seeking for the Definition of “Culture”: Current Concerns and their Implications. A Comment on Gustav Jahoda’s Article “Critical Reflections on some Recent Definitions of “Culture’”’

This article takes as a starting point the critical analysis of attempts to define “culture”, offered by Jahoda in 2012. Basing on the observed proliferation of various, often contradicting, definitions of “culture” (for instance, trying to refer to its both internal and external aspects), Jahoda arrives at the conclusion that attempts to define the concept of “culture” are vain and useless and it is quite practicable simply to use the term without seeking to define it. We find it hard to agree with this statement. Elaborating on Jahoda reflections and drawing on the recent debates in social sciences, cultural studies and philosophy, we argue that seeking for the definition of culture is necessary in the context of contemporary development of social and humanitarian knowledge. Moreover, we claim that the debates about culture indicate the need for a large-scale methodological reorganization of the social and humanitarian sciences, in response to the novel ontological congruence between internal and external, the fundamental “ontological shift”, “reversing the poles” of the human-related reality. The human individual becomes its core element and pivot. Other “objects”, “external” in relation to the individual (for instance, social structures and institutions), undergo such massive and rapid changes that grow progressively fuzzy and sometimes even less “real”, comparing to the individual. The “inner” nature of the individual also transforms: from being “subjected” to think, act and feel according to certain external conditions, an individual becomes an Actor, who is empowered to change the environment following his purposive plans, desires and visions.

‘Global Sociology’ from a Comparative Perspective: A Multidimensional Analysis

This paper applies a comparative approach to analyze several dimensions of ‘Global Sociology’ from a normative stance based on a critical review of related discourses in sociological communities. The author reveals three major problems in intra-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and extra-academic dimensions, manifested not only in ‘factual’ (objective) characteristics but also in ‘ideological’ visions typical of academic communities and connected with a negative stance towards global neoliberalism and its various agents: first, rigid vertical stratification of the international academic field, primarily, in terms of academic publishing and working conditions; second, negative tendencies in the status positions of sociology compared to other sciences, especially economics; and third, little cooperation with policy-makers and corporate practitioners combined with an orientation to supporting various discriminated groups against dominating powers associated with neoliberalism.

Transformations in the Rural Life in Russian Belgorod Region in 2000-2013 Through 'Modernization' Theoretical Perspective: Increasing Material Well-Being, Growing Individualism and Persisting Pessimism

In the present paper we analyze transformations in the life of rural population in the Belgorod region, Russia, in the period 2000-2013 in the context of active development of large vertically integrated enterprises – agroholdings. These transformations are seen through the prism of “modernization” concept: agroholdings promote advanced agricultural technologies, professional management and modern organization of labor and thus may be considered as an important factor stimulating rural modernization in Belgorod region. The traditional understanding of “modernization” in sociology implies a progressive transition from a “pre-modern” or “traditional” to a “modern” society which means changes in many areas such as: occupational structure (including the development of entrepreneurship), material well-being (growth of living condition resulting from efficient economy), and increase in rationality and individualism. However, literature shows that the adaptation to modernization processes might be painful for the local communities and for the society in general. Hence, reflecting on both, modernization theoretical framework and literature on Russian rural development, in our analysis of transformations in Belgorod region we focus on the following aspects: firstly, material well-being and living conditions of rural population; secondly, individualism and attitudes towards achievement and economic success; thirdly, the attractiveness of private farming. Finally, we look at the general perception by the rural population of their future (from the point of view of optimism/pessimism). The research is based on the two empirical studies, conducted in the years 2000 and 2013 which utilized similar methodology in the similar 15 villages of the Belgorod region. Possibly, the most interesting empirical finding is that despite rapid growth of material well-being of the rural population, the pessimistic expectations are no less widespread in 2013 than in 2000. This illustrates the complex nature of the transformations of the rural life in Belgorod region

Problems and Perspectives in Research into the Quality of Work Life in Organisational Studies

This paper outlines major theoretical and methodological problems in Quality of Work Life (QWL) research within organisational studies and discusses possible solutions, based on extensive literature analysis. An electronic search in the Scopus database found 1,244 publications utilising the QWL concept. From this sample we selected 387 papers dealing directly with QWL and compiled a final set of publications for detailed review. The literature analysis revealed the absence of a clear and concrete understanding of QWL, various (and often incomplete) approaches to QWL content and indicators and interference between QWL and other concepts such as ‘job satisfaction’, which all resulted in a general confusion about the notion in academic discussions. As a possible solution, we suggested distinguishing clearly and including the following in the single integrative research instrument: 1) an aggregate subjective QWL measurement tool and 2) an aggregate objective QWL measurement tool. Finally, we present arguments for a new understanding of QWL, combining subjective and objective measures in the context of a general integration between ‘working conditions’ and ‘needs satisfaction’ approaches.

Quality of Work Life as Methodological Framework in Organizational Studies: State of the Art and Perspectives for the Future Research

The main goal of the present paper is to conduct theoretical and methodological analysis of the current state of the art in the field of QWL studies and to outline perspectives for the future research of the QWL in managerial and organizational research. 716 publications listed in the Web of Science utilizing the QWL concept were selected at the initial stage and 420 papers were included in the final set of publications for analysis. The literature examination revealed the absence of the clear and concrete definition of QWL, various (and often incomplete) approaches to QWL content and indicators, interference of QWL with other concepts like job satisfaction which all resulted in general confusion in academic discussions about the notion. We argue that it is necessary to elaborate a new model for QWL assessment which would combine subjective and objective measures in the context of the general framework of needs satisfaction approach. We hope to contribute to the current discussions by suggesting our own version of classification of employee needs in the QWL framework elaborated basing on previous research by other authors.