Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 16

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  system theory
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
In political and philosophical terms public relations and society appear to be at odds with each other. Public relations as the representative of individual interests is opposed to the general wellbeing of society. The contradictions between PR and society should form the basis for an analysis of the relationship between PR and society from a system theory perspective (Luhmann, 1996). In the course of the examination one can differentiate between three levels of PR and society: (1) PR as part of society: in this regard the question will be what PR does for society. (2) Society in the PR environment: at this level the question will be how organisations regard society and how PR constructs societal models. (3) The entirety of PR sees itself as being apart from society: in a dynamic perspective the question here will be how the refl exive expectations change the relationship between PR and its environment.
EN
Since the turn of the 1960s, Talcott Parsons’ social thought has met with criticism that his image of society is conservative inasmuch as he places consensus and systematic concept formation over and above conflict and ‘sociological imagination’. The hidden agenda in this criticism is political: the charges are that Parsons supposedly disavows democracy in his implicit or explicit knowledge aim, and that his sociology presumably makes society function even at the expense of freedom of the individual. Here the author argues that these accusations cannot stand if archival materials such as lecture notes, correspondence, and unpublished memoranda are taken into account. She claims that Parsons in his sociology conceptualised society from the standpoint of the real world of the day, including the major historical confrontations from the 1930s to the end of the 1970s. The first such scenario and the earliest confrontation that his work faced was in the era of the New Deal and the Second World War as the Anglo-Saxon democracies fought the racist imperialism of Nazi Germany; his ‘middle phase’ from the 1950s to the mid-1960s coincides with the Cold War at its height, the standoff between the capitalist United States and the communist Soviet Union; and his ‘late oeuvre’ has yet another agenda, namely the Watergate Affair, but also the struggle for racial equality and university reform in the United States. In his theoretical positions and in his opposition to his critics, Parsons defended liberal democracy against the powerful social and intellectual forces that put it to the test.
EN
Certain aspects of object qualities, characteristics of living organisms and system theory (in relation to Roman Ingarden's concept) are discussed. The basis of cybernetics, thermodynamics and theory of information are presented as an introduction to the analysis of material constants of the content of the idea. Difficulties related to the description of the idea of man, resulting from the existence of ”borderline cases” in the human population are discussed. A hypthetical set of material constants of the content of the idea is proposed.
EN
Faulstich Werner, Teoria systemu społecznego obiegu literatury [Theory of the Social System of Literature Circulation]. „Przestrzenie Teorii” 32. Poznań 2019, Adam Mickiewicz University Press, pp. 435–451. ISSN 1644-6763. DOI 10.14746/pt.2019.32.24. The main hypothesis of literature circulation in a theory system can be formulated as follows: literature circulation is an inextricable element of literature, while literature constitutes an integral part of literature circulation. To provide evidence to this supposition, it is necessary to draw from the definition of a system proposed by Helmut Wilke in his Systemtheorie (1982). The social circulation of literature demands the emergence of a series of subsystems which, as part of the system, are characterised by their own factors, relations and ways of organisation. The most important category, enabling us to tell the difference between various subsystems of the literature circulation, is the medium. It goes without saying that any kind of literature is passed on via a particular kind of medium, i.e. the novel through the medium of the book, radio drama through the medium of radio, the feature film through the medium of film, stage drama through the medium of theatre, etc. It is impossible to separate “Literature” from “Circulation”. As a consequence, the history of literature is neither a pure history of a particularpiece or utopia (the latter being the approach of the idealistic literary studies), nor pure history of media (technology) as a part of a general history of communication and society (which is the journalism approach). Instead, it clearly separates itself from both, i.e. as a history of a mediated utopia.
PL
Artykuł krytykuje ograniczenie stosowania terminu zarządzanie tylko w znaczeniu zarządzania w ujęciu globalizacji gospodarczej. Zaproponowano tutaj nowatorskie rozumienie tego pojęcia jako specyficznego systemu rozwiązywania problemów koordynacyjnych w organizacjach. Termin „zarządzanie” rozwijany jest w kontekście teorii organizacyjnej Niklasa Luhmanna. Pojęcie „zarządzanie” konceptualizowane jest w znaczeniu struktur programowych, sposobów komunikacji, osób i miejsc.
EN
The following article covers critical views on limitations in use of the term ‘management’ only to management in economic globalization. An innovative meaning of the mentioned term as a specific system of solutions regarding coordination issues in organizations was proposed. The term “management” is discussed in the context of Niklas Luhmann’s organization theory. The term “management” is defined in the meaning of programme structures, manners of communication, individuals and places.
EN
This study focuses on one of the basic questions of Luhmann’s social theory relating to the description of modernity, namely, on the characteristics of subsystems and, even more specifically, it is aimed at gaining new recognitions concerning the relationships between subsystems. To do this, the study starts with sporadic comments in Luhmann’s late work indicating historical and current inequalities between functional subsystems that are characterised in essence by a coordinating structure. Supplementing these recognitions by new arguments, the study concludes that besides the horizontal relationships, a variety of hierarchic (vertical) organisation forms also develop under the conditions ofmodernity. The dynamic of the subsystems is also affected by external irritations of unequal weights and frequencies of occurrence which, though not necessarily overwriting the autopoiesis of the various subsystems, definitely influences the importance of the various subsystems in the process of social communication. The other part of the study points out-by analysing the organisation’s system level among other aspects-that vertical segmentation is a characteristic of the entirety of sociality besides the horizontal structure. Consequently, the study concludes that the description of modernity in Luhmann’s social theory is in need of some adjustment.
EN
This paper contains an analysis of the possible forms and functions of religious sensemaking in modern society. Based on the thesis of desecularisation the author discusses the changes caused in the relationship between individual and religion by the altering system of social relationships, along with a more detailed analysis of the relationship between social exclusion and religious sensemaking. The author argues that owing to the complex nature of modernity people’s uncertainty absorption mechanisms prefer distinction schemes that apply clear sensemaking distinctions which remain stable over a longer period of time. The author finds that the key role of religious communication lies in that it can more effectively shape the identities of people than other social mechanisms, in the sense that it can offer an experience of certainty. The author discusses the situation of social exclusion as a particular area of religious sensemaking when the person’s fundamentally positive self-evaluation that has developed in the existing sensemaking situation reflecting on the individual himself can no longer be or can hardly be maintained any longer.
EN
While Florian Znaniecki’s work is best known through his joint work with William I. Thomas on The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, his most important work deals with the methodology and substance of sociology of culture, based on three origins: systems theory, the identification of cultural science along the Vico-Axiom (his culturalism), and his cultural realism. Of the major sources of specific sociology of culture, he analyses in The Method of Sociology (1934) as a system approach, types of cultural and sociological data, existing methodological tendencies and the development of analytic induction which means a conglomerate of logic principles and a principle based on exception rather than the rule of insight. His final work Cultural Sciences (1952) is an attempt to include data and their interpretation from a set of cultural sciences, whereby the functionality of sociology as a cultural specialty is increasing the sociologists specialize in the comparative studies of other cultural sciences.
EN
If late modern literary production is structured by any principles rendering order to the otherwise nebular character of the process, this is the idea of intertextuality that paves the way for the dissolution of well entrenched structures, literary conventions and institutionalized canons. By fostering and facilitating the erosion of boundaries between elite and popular culture, mechanisms of intertextuality show that literature is not only a fixed collection of texts, but also a dynamic social system including structured practices of production and reception together with their institutional, cultural and technological determinants. The paper aims to provide a sociologically-oriented model of intertextual relations taking place within the social system of literature. In this context, circulation, dissemination, and recycling of literary motifs is viewed from a perspective of morphogenetic processes which result in the structural elaboration and systemic change due to the mobilization of social, cultural, and economic capitals in an effort to alter pre-existent practices of signification. Consequently, literature is discussed as an intertextual system in statu nascendi, a sphere of social practices that knows no sense of institutional boundaries or structural constraints.
PL
Nauki o bezpieczeństwie wykorzystują liczne kategorie, które są właściwe innym dyscyplinom, nadając im znaczenie związane z różnymi wymiarami bezpieczeństwa. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie kategorii systemu jako użytecznej w badaniach bez-pieczeństwa. Należy tu zwrócić uwagę nie tylko na teorię systemów czy analizę systemową jako metodę badawczą, ale również na funkcjonującą w literaturze kategorię systemu bezpie-czeństwa. System bezpieczeństwa jest jednym z typów systemów społecznych. Wykorzysty-wanie podejścia systemowego nie jest jednak adekwatne do analizy wszystkich problemów z zakresu nauk o bezpieczeństwie.
EN
Security studies, as one of the social sciences, use a number of categories that are relevant to other disciplines, giving them a meaning related to different dimensions of securi-ty. The purpose of this article is to describe the category of system as useful for research in security studies. It should be noted not only on systems theory and systems analysis as a method of research, but also on the functioning in the literature category of security system. The security system is one of the types of social systems. Using a systemic approach, howev-er, is not adequate to analyze all the problems of the security.
EN
The article analyzes a particular type of discourse produced by the political system: the discourse onthe legal psychoactive substances market in Poland. The Luhmann’s system theory forms the theoretical foundation for the research. The main concepts of the system theory are presented and the attempt is made to suggest how discourse analytical methods can be applied to studyingLuhmann’s systems. The research material comprises the drug policy related statements of politicians and officialsthat appeared in press and parliamentary stenographic records as well as relevant legal documents. The material comes from the period between August 2008 and August 2009 when an amendment to the drug act was drafted and passed. The conclusion stemming from the analysis is that the concept “drug” is most crucially determining the political system’s discourse on psychoactive substances. The interpretations and uses of the concept “drug” as well as the ways, in which these uses make the concept an efficient mechanism of the complexity reduction, are studied.
PL
W tekście prezentowane są wyniki analizy dyskursu generowanego przez system polity- ki, który dotyczy polskiego rynku sklepów sprzedających legalne substancje psychoaktywne – tzw. „dopalacze”. Teoretycznym zapleczem artykułu jest teoria systemowa Niklasa Luh- manna. Przedstawione są główne pojęcia teorii systemowej oraz wskazuje się, jak metody związane z analizą dyskursu mogą być użyte do badania luhmannowskich systemów. Anali- zie poddano wypowiedzi polityków i urzędników, z artykułów prasowych oraz stenogramów z posiedzeń Sejmu i Senatu, a także akty prawne związane z polityką narkotykową. Badane są materiały od sierpnia 2008 do sierpnia 2009 – przeprowadzono wówczas nowelizację usta- wy o przeciwdziałaniu narkomanii, mającą utrudnić działanie sklepom z „dopalaczami”. Na podstawie przeprowadzonej analizy sformułowana zostaje teza, że elementem, który najistot- niej determinuje dyskurs systemu polityki na temat substancji psychoaktywnych jest pojęcie „narkotyku”. W tekście wskazuje się, w jaki sposób jest ono rozumiane i używane oraz jak taki sposób użycia czyni zeń efektywny mechanizm redukcji złożoności.
EN
The article concerns identity dilemmas of political sociology and its role in political research. Political institutions and process are intimately related to sociological phenomena. The relationship between sociology and political science has long traditions. Classic sociologists – Max Weber, Karl Marx – were also creators of political science. It is difficult to determine boundaries between social and political phenomena and boundaries between study of society and study of politics. The problem of boundaries is particularly intense in the case of subarea like political sociology, which exists within or between the two disciplines which have formed it: political science and sociology. The primary goal of political sociology is to analyze power and politics and how they operate in social life. Traditionally, political sociology has been concerned with the relations between society and the state, and traditional political sociology takes the modern nation-state as the center of political activity. The main problem of political sociology is lack of consensus on the subject of study and different interpretations of the objects of study by sociologist and political scientist. In this article, the author tries to answer the question, what is the role of political sociology in the knowledge structure concerning politics. Studies that cross the boundaries between sociology and political science help to enhance our understanding of both politics and society.
PL
O odrębności poszczególnych dyscyplin w ramach nauki decyduje ich specyficzny przedmiot i metody badawcze. Nierzadko spotyka się jednak dyscypliny, których przedmiot badań pokrywa się bądź też jest trudny do rozgraniczenia. Nauka o ludzkim społeczeństwie, jego powstaniu, rozwoju, przekształceniach łączy w sobie wiele względnie samodzielnych, ale także powiązanych ze sobą gałęzi wiedzy. Zjawiska ze sfery polityki z uwagi na swoją wielowymiarowość wykraczają poza ścisłe granice jednej tylko dziedziny. Dlatego też we współczesnym obrazie rozwoju nauk o polityce obserwuje się odchodzenie od tradycyjnych wąskodyscyplinarnych ujęć na rzecz tzw. ujęć integracyjnych, interdyscyplinarnych. Jednym z takich ujęć jest socjologia polityki, która ma “łączyć” badania politologiczne i socjologiczne. Z uwagi na wieloznaczność podmiotową i przedmiotową, a także nieostre granice pomiędzy naukami społecznymi, socjologia polityki należy do dyscyplin niepoddających się łatwym definicjom i uogólnieniom. W artykule autor podjął rozważania dotyczące tożsamości badawczej socjologii polityki oraz nad jej rolą i miejscem w systemie wiedzy o polityce.
13
Content available remote

Socjologiczne opętanie

63%
PL
W artykule podejmuje się dyskusję z tezą o wyparciu myślenia o szatanie z nowożytnej nauki, filozofii i teologii. Obecność figury szatana w socjologii najdobitniej dochodzi do głosu w rozważaniach Maxa Webera na temat procesu racjonalizacji i wykształcania się „sfer życia”. Autor przedstawia główne tezy Niklasa Luhmanna, dotyczące autonomii podsystemu religii we współczesnym funkcjonalnie zróżnicowanym społeczeństwie, jako rewizję weberowskiej teorii zróżnicowania społecznego, odwołującej się do motywacji aktorów społecznych. Przy tej okazji wskazany jest diaboliczny charakter oświeceniowej socjologii oraz luhmannowski postulat jego przezwyciężenia, wyrażający się w rezygnacji z krytycznej roli socjologii i moralizowania rzeczywistości społecznej.
EN
In the paper the proposition on the repression of the awareness of the existence of the devil from modern social science, philosophy and theology is discussed. The figure of devil is prominent in Max Weber’s description of rationalization and differentiation process of autonomic „spheres of life”. The author presents Niklas Luhmann’s characteristics of autonomy of religion subsystem in modern functional differentiated society as a revision of social differentiation theory based on actors’ motivations presented by Weber. In this perspective the demonic features of enlightenment sociology are indicated as well as Luhmann’s desiderata of its overcoming: abandonment of critical stance practiced by sociology and resignation from moralization of social reality.
EN
The aim of this paper is to analyse the role played by the category of system in the early books of David Bordwell. They have exerted an enormous influence on the understanding of film aesthetics, but little space has been devoted to their methodological background, including the category of system. In Film Art: An Introduction (1979), all elements of film form have a systemic character, which is visible in the chapter titles, such as “Form as System” or “Narration as a Formal System”. In The Classical Hollywood Cinema, the film aesthetics is based on systems of narrative logic, time and space. In Narration in the Fiction Film, the systems of syuzhet and style are foregrounded. Bordwell’s fascination with systems is rooted undoubtedly in their popularity in the 1970s. But do Bordwellian notions really fulfil the criteria of system theory, especially in its newer version, with such notions as chaos, feedback loop, self-regulation and others? Perhaps even Bordwell himself is not certain of that, since the word “system” disappears from recent editions of Film Art: An Introduction.
PL
Celem artykułu jest przeanalizowanie roli, jaką kategoria systemu odgrywała we wczesnych książkach Davida Bordwella. Miały one ogromny wpływ na postrzeganie estetyki kina na całym świecie, ale niewiele miejsca poświęcono ich zapleczu metodologicznemu. Kategoria systemu do tego zaplecza należy. Wydaje się, że w książce Film Art: An Introduction (1979) charakter systemowy mają wszystkie elementy formy filmowej, co widać choćby w tytułach rozdziałów: „Form as System”, „Narration as a Formal System”, „Style as Formal System”. W książce The Classical Hollywood Cinema estetyka filmu opiera się na trzech systemach: logiki narracyjnej, czasu i przestrzeni; charakter systemowy mają też relacje między tymi trzema systemami. Natomiast narracja filmowa, scharakteryzowana w Narration in the Fiction Film, składa się z dwóch systemów: sjużetu i stylu. Niewątpliwie fascynacja Bordwella kategorią systemu wynika z popularności tej kategorii wzbudzonej przez książkę Ludwiga von Bertalanffy’ego General System Theory (1968). Czy jednak rzeczywiście Bordwellowskie kategorie spełniają kryteria systemowości, zwłaszcza w ich nowszym ujęciu? Być może sam Bordwell ma co do tego wątpliwości, skoro słowo „system” znika z późniejszych wydań Film Art: An Introduction. [artykuł opublikowany w języku angielskim jako: The Category of System in David Bordwell’s Concept of Film Aesthetics]
Roczniki Kulturoznawcze
|
2015
|
vol. 6
|
issue 4
17-36
PL
W artykule został podjęty problem możliwości zastosowania rozwiązań teoretyczno-metodologicznych z dziedziny cybernetyki do badań nad zjawiskami kultury. Według postawionej hipotezy badawczej uzupełnienie teorii badań systemowych i metodologii rosyjskiej szkoły tartusko- moskiewskiej o koncepcję cybernetycznego modelu systemów autonomicznych Mariana Mazura pozwoli, po pierwsze, precyzyjnie ustalić granice kultury, po drugie – określić przynależność poszczególnych jej elementów do ściśle określonych modułów na podstawie pełnionych przez nie funkcji i, po trzecie, ustalić charakter interakcji systemu kulturowego z innymi systemami w tym politycznym, społecznym, ekonomicznym. W dalszej perspektywie badawczej należałoby sprawdzić praktyczną przydatność modelu do badania zjawisk kultury poprzez studia przypadków.
EN
In the paper the problem of possibilities to apply some of the theoretico-methodological conclusions from the field of cybernetics to investigating the problems of culture has been studied. According to the proposed hypothesis, the theory of system approach and the methodology that was worked out by the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics combined with the concepts and methodology of the cybernetic model of autonomous systems by Marian Mazur will allow the researchers first of all, to determine where exactly the borders of a culture are; secondly, to group the elements of a culture into modules according to their functions and, finally, to recognize the type of interactions between the cultural system and the other systems such as: political, social, economical etc. In the further research perspective, thorough studies over the specific cases of cultural phenomena is necessary to verify the possibilities of application the new methodological tool on practice.
PL
Wiele spośród sformułowanych na terenie nauk społecznych teorii zostało zaadaptowane na potrzeby pedagogiki społecznej (pracy socjalnej). Niektóre, z grona intensywnie dyskutowanych i ocenianych teorii są wciąż aktywnie stosowane, wprowadzane do praktyki. Wśród nich możemy wymienić pedagogikę reformy, teorie nabudowane na krytyce kapitalizmu, feminizmu, ale także w praktyce stosowane są takie modele jak terapia systematyczna czy rodzinna, jak też orientacja na przestrzeń społeczną. Artykuł prezentowany Czytelnikowi zawiera zarówno przegląd teorii ostatnich dekad, jak i uwagi skłaniające do ich krytycznej oceny. Dyskusja prezentowana w tekście, skupia się na praktycznych implikacjach zróżnicowania teoretycznego pedagogiki społecznej, autor analizuje niektóre, ważne problemy dotyczące tworzenia teorii tej dyscypliny oraz problematyzuje epistemologiczne próby przygotowania jednej, fundamentalnej i unifikującej teorii w pedagogice społecznej.
EN
A plenitude of theories were formulated in the social science, many of them adapted for social pedagogy. Some of the most intensely discussed and still actively used are shortly introduced and evaluated, among them reform pedagogy, theories based on critique of capitalism, feminism, but also practically applied models like systematic and family therapy as well as orientation to social space. Thus an overview on theory construction of the last decades as well as some hints to critical reflections are presented to the reader. The discussion focuses on practical implications of theoretical diversity, on some central validity problems in theory construction and problematizes epistemological attempts for just one fundamental and unifying theory in social pedagogy.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.