Scientific Journal "Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing"
LATEST PRINTED ISSUE
LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS
Agents of social change in a crisis society: variants of problematization and contours of conceptual framework of research
stmm. 2020 (4): 111-132
DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2020.04.111
LIUBOV BEVZENKO,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovyhna St., Kyiv, 01021)
lbevzenko@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-1937
In view of the permanent crisis of the social situation in our country, the question of agents of social change acting in these crisis moments is actualized. Two variants of scientific problematization of this issue are proposed. The first is on the platform of the theoretical vision of social change, proposed by P. Sztompka, which provides a descriptive and ascertaining study of the movements, leaders, ideas and revolutions which change our society. The second option addresses the dilemma of agents and structure, which has been debated for many years in the search for a compromise between micro- and macro-deterministic models of social change. It is emphasized that the terms social transformation, transition, and crisis are not identical; namely, the crisis is characterized by unpredictable consequences of social changes. The search for theoretical micro-macro-compromise for the situation of social crisis is suggested to be searched within the paradigm combination — the paradigm of complexity, the paradigm of practices and network theory. Social changes are specified by a change in the institutional order, which is analytically divided into formal (organizational) and informal (self- organizational) constituents. Тhe difference between the manifestations of agency within these institutional constituents is emphasized. The conceptual series and outline of a possible conceptual scheme of the study of the problem are proposed.
Keywords: social order, social change, social crisis, formal and informal social institutions, organizational and self-organizational mechanisms of social change, agents of social change
References
Alexander, J. (1999). The paradoxes of civil society. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 1, 27–41. [=Александер 1999]
Alexander, J., Smith, P. (2004). The Strong program in Cultural Sociology. Elements of Structural Hermeneutics. New York: Oxford.
Arshinov, V., Budanov, V. (2017). Systems and networks in the context of the complexity paradigm. [In Russian]. Voprosy Fiulosofii, 1, 50–62. [= Аршинов, Буданов 2017]
Bevzenko, L. (2002). Social self-organization. The synergistic paradigm: opportunities for social interpretations. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2002]
Bevzenko, L. (2005). Social self-organization in the theory and practice of the Maidan. [In Russian]. Totallogy-XXI (twelfth issue). Post-Non-Classical Studies (pp. 41–78). Kyiv: CSO, NAS of Ukraine. [=Бевзенко 2005]
Bevzenko, L. (2008). Lifestyles of a transitional society. [InRussian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2008]
Bevzenko, L. (2018). Integrative concept of social tension — methodology, conceptual scheme, pragmatics. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 3, 43–74; 4, 73–104. [= Бевзенко 2018]
Bevzenko, L. (2019). Volunteer movement in Ukraine as a form of civic activity - conceptual foundations of scientific consideration. [In Ukrainian]. In: O. Reznik (Ed.), Sociological dimensions of civil society in Ukraine (pp. 220–228). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2019]
Bourdieu, P. (2005). Social space: fields and practices. [In Russian]. St. Petersburg: Aletheia; Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology. [= Бурдье 2005]
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Structure, habit, practice. [In Russian]. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 1 (2). 40–58. [= Бурдье 1998]
Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
Capra, F., Luisi, P. (2014). The Newtonian world-machine. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511895555.004
Cleveland, J. (1994). Complexity theory. Basic concepts and application to systems thinking. Innovation for Communities. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/johncleveland/complexit...
El-Ghalayini, Y. (2017). Complexity Theory: A New Way to Look at New Public Management. Network and Complex Systems. 7 (1), 6–10. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ab4e/4d086b3b661c...
Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: a new way to look at organizational change. Administration Quarterly; 29 (3), 350–382.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (pp. 22–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
Habermas, Ju. (2001). Involvement of the Other. Essays on Political Theory. [In Russian]. St. Petersburg. [= Хабермас 2001]
Huizinga, J. (1997). Homo Ludens. “The Man Playing”: Articles on the History of Culture. [In Russian]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsia. [= Хейзинга 1997]
Kapsamun, I. (2020). Lawyer and volunteer Hennadii Druzenko — on the new rules of the game for the country. [In Ukrainian]. Day, January 23. [= Капсамун 2020]
Klijn, E. (2008). Complexity Theory and public administration: What’s new? Public Management Review, 10(3), 299–317.
Klijn, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F. (2014). Complexity in governance network theory. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1 (1), 61–70.
Latour, B. (2014). Reassembling of the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. [In Russian]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics. [= Латур 2014]
Levada, Yu. (1993). Game structures in social action systems. [In Russian]. In: Articles on Sociology (pp. 99–122). Moscow: MacArthur Foundation. [= Левада 1993]
Mainzer, K. (1997). Complexity and self-organization. The emergence of new science and culture at the turn of the century. [In Russian]. Voprosy filosofii, 3, 48–61. [= Mainzer 1997]
Mainzer, K. (2009). Complex System Thinking: Matter, Mind, Humanity. New Synthesis. [In Russian]. Moscow: LIBROCOM. [= Mainzer 2009]
Newman, M.E.J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256. Retrieved from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/courses/2004/cscs535/review.pdf
Nikolis, G., Prigogine, I. (1990). Cognition of the Complex. [In Russian]. Moscow: Mir. [= Николис, Пригожин 1990]
North, D. (1997). Institutions, Institutional Changes and the Functioning of the Economy. [In Russian]. Moscow: Nachala. [= Норт 1997]
Patnam, R., Leonard, R., Nanetti, R. (2001). Creating Democracy. Traditions of Civic Activity in Modern Italy. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Osnovy. [= Патнам, Леонарді, Нанетті 2001]
Parsons, T. (2000). On the Structure of Social Action. [In Russian]. Moscow: Akademichnyi Proekt. [= Парсонс 2000]
Simon, G. (2008). Complexity structure in the developing world. [In Russian]. In: Computers, Brain, Cognition: The Successes of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 21–28). Moscow: Nauka. [= Саймон 2008]
Stepanenko, V. (2006). Civil society as a discourse and social normative order in J. Alexander’s sociology. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 5–23. [= Степаненко 2006]
Sztompka, P. (1996). Sociology of Social Change. [In Russian]. Moscow: Aspect Press. [= Штомпка 1996]
Volkov, V. (1998). “Following the rule” as a sociological problem. [In Russain]. Sociological Journal, 3 (4), 156–170. [= Волков 1998]
Volkov, V. Kharkhordin, O. (2008). Practice theory. [In Russain]. St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg. [= Волков, Хархордин 2008]
Weber, M. (1990). Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. [In Russian]. Moscow: Progress. [= Вебер 1990]
Zaslavskaya, T. (2002). On social factors of divergence of formal legal norms and real practice. [In Russian]. In: Where is Russia going? Formal institutes and real practices (pp. 11–22). Moscow: MVHSEN. [= Заславская 2002]
Zlobina, O. (2014). Emotional component of social transformations (on the example of the becoming of Maidan). [In Ukrainian]. In: Social Dimensions of Society: A Collection of Scientific Works, 6 (17), 314–326. [= Злобіна 2014]
Zlobina, O. (2016). Social transformations in the emotional dimension: from methodological issues to methodological decisions. [In Ukrainian]. Bulletin of the V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series: Sociological studies of modern society: methodology, theory, methods, 36, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-6521-2019-42-02 [=Злобіна 2016]
Received 15.01.2020
Agents of social change in a crisis society: variants of problematization and contours of conceptual framework of research
stmm. 2020 (4): 111-132
DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2020.04.111
LIUBOV BEVZENKO,
Doctor of Social Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovyhna St., Kyiv, 01021)
lbevzenko@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-1937
In view of the permanent crisis of the social situation in our country, the question of agents of social change acting in these crisis moments is actualized. Two variants of scientific problematization of this issue are proposed. The first is on the platform of the theoretical vision of social change, proposed by P. Sztompka, which provides a descriptive and ascertaining study of the movements, leaders, ideas and revolutions which change our society. The second option addresses the dilemma of agents and structure, which has been debated for many years in the search for a compromise between micro- and macro-deterministic models of social change. It is emphasized that the terms social transformation, transition, and crisis are not identical; namely, the crisis is characterized by unpredictable consequences of social changes. The search for theoretical micro-macro-compromise for the situation of social crisis is suggested to be searched within the paradigm combination — the paradigm of complexity, the paradigm of practices and network theory. Social changes are specified by a change in the institutional order, which is analytically divided into formal (organizational) and informal (self- organizational) constituents. Тhe difference between the manifestations of agency within these institutional constituents is emphasized. The conceptual series and outline of a possible conceptual scheme of the study of the problem are proposed.
Keywords: social order, social change, social crisis, formal and informal social institutions, organizational and self-organizational mechanisms of social change, agents of social change
References
Alexander, J. (1999). The paradoxes of civil society. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 1, 27–41. [=Александер 1999]
Alexander, J., Smith, P. (2004). The Strong program in Cultural Sociology. Elements of Structural Hermeneutics. New York: Oxford.
Arshinov, V., Budanov, V. (2017). Systems and networks in the context of the complexity paradigm. [In Russian]. Voprosy Fiulosofii, 1, 50–62. [= Аршинов, Буданов 2017]
Bevzenko, L. (2002). Social self-organization. The synergistic paradigm: opportunities for social interpretations. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2002]
Bevzenko, L. (2005). Social self-organization in the theory and practice of the Maidan. [In Russian]. Totallogy-XXI (twelfth issue). Post-Non-Classical Studies (pp. 41–78). Kyiv: CSO, NAS of Ukraine. [=Бевзенко 2005]
Bevzenko, L. (2008). Lifestyles of a transitional society. [InRussian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2008]
Bevzenko, L. (2018). Integrative concept of social tension — methodology, conceptual scheme, pragmatics. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 3, 43–74; 4, 73–104. [= Бевзенко 2018]
Bevzenko, L. (2019). Volunteer movement in Ukraine as a form of civic activity - conceptual foundations of scientific consideration. [In Ukrainian]. In: O. Reznik (Ed.), Sociological dimensions of civil society in Ukraine (pp. 220–228). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Бевзенко 2019]
Bourdieu, P. (2005). Social space: fields and practices. [In Russian]. St. Petersburg: Aletheia; Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology. [= Бурдье 2005]
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Structure, habit, practice. [In Russian]. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 1 (2). 40–58. [= Бурдье 1998]
Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
Capra, F., Luisi, P. (2014). The Newtonian world-machine. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511895555.004
Cleveland, J. (1994). Complexity theory. Basic concepts and application to systems thinking. Innovation for Communities. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/johncleveland/complexit...
El-Ghalayini, Y. (2017). Complexity Theory: A New Way to Look at New Public Management. Network and Complex Systems. 7 (1), 6–10. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ab4e/4d086b3b661c...
Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: a new way to look at organizational change. Administration Quarterly; 29 (3), 350–382.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (pp. 22–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
Habermas, Ju. (2001). Involvement of the Other. Essays on Political Theory. [In Russian]. St. Petersburg. [= Хабермас 2001]
Huizinga, J. (1997). Homo Ludens. “The Man Playing”: Articles on the History of Culture. [In Russian]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsia. [= Хейзинга 1997]
Kapsamun, I. (2020). Lawyer and volunteer Hennadii Druzenko — on the new rules of the game for the country. [In Ukrainian]. Day, January 23. [= Капсамун 2020]
Klijn, E. (2008). Complexity Theory and public administration: What’s new? Public Management Review, 10(3), 299–317.
Klijn, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F. (2014). Complexity in governance network theory. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1 (1), 61–70.
Latour, B. (2014). Reassembling of the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. [In Russian]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics. [= Латур 2014]
Levada, Yu. (1993). Game structures in social action systems. [In Russian]. In: Articles on Sociology (pp. 99–122). Moscow: MacArthur Foundation. [= Левада 1993]
Mainzer, K. (1997). Complexity and self-organization. The emergence of new science and culture at the turn of the century. [In Russian]. Voprosy filosofii, 3, 48–61. [= Mainzer 1997]
Mainzer, K. (2009). Complex System Thinking: Matter, Mind, Humanity. New Synthesis. [In Russian]. Moscow: LIBROCOM. [= Mainzer 2009]
Newman, M.E.J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256. Retrieved from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/courses/2004/cscs535/review.pdf
Nikolis, G., Prigogine, I. (1990). Cognition of the Complex. [In Russian]. Moscow: Mir. [= Николис, Пригожин 1990]
North, D. (1997). Institutions, Institutional Changes and the Functioning of the Economy. [In Russian]. Moscow: Nachala. [= Норт 1997]
Patnam, R., Leonard, R., Nanetti, R. (2001). Creating Democracy. Traditions of Civic Activity in Modern Italy. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Osnovy. [= Патнам, Леонарді, Нанетті 2001]
Parsons, T. (2000). On the Structure of Social Action. [In Russian]. Moscow: Akademichnyi Proekt. [= Парсонс 2000]
Simon, G. (2008). Complexity structure in the developing world. [In Russian]. In: Computers, Brain, Cognition: The Successes of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 21–28). Moscow: Nauka. [= Саймон 2008]
Stepanenko, V. (2006). Civil society as a discourse and social normative order in J. Alexander’s sociology. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 5–23. [= Степаненко 2006]
Sztompka, P. (1996). Sociology of Social Change. [In Russian]. Moscow: Aspect Press. [= Штомпка 1996]
Volkov, V. (1998). “Following the rule” as a sociological problem. [In Russain]. Sociological Journal, 3 (4), 156–170. [= Волков 1998]
Volkov, V. Kharkhordin, O. (2008). Practice theory. [In Russain]. St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg. [= Волков, Хархордин 2008]
Weber, M. (1990). Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. [In Russian]. Moscow: Progress. [= Вебер 1990]
Zaslavskaya, T. (2002). On social factors of divergence of formal legal norms and real practice. [In Russian]. In: Where is Russia going? Formal institutes and real practices (pp. 11–22). Moscow: MVHSEN. [= Заславская 2002]
Zlobina, O. (2014). Emotional component of social transformations (on the example of the becoming of Maidan). [In Ukrainian]. In: Social Dimensions of Society: A Collection of Scientific Works, 6 (17), 314–326. [= Злобіна 2014]
Zlobina, O. (2016). Social transformations in the emotional dimension: from methodological issues to methodological decisions. [In Ukrainian]. Bulletin of the V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series: Sociological studies of modern society: methodology, theory, methods, 36, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-6521-2019-42-02 [=Злобіна 2016]
Received 15.01.2020
LATEST PRINTED ISSUE
LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS