O sociologické imaginaci

Tomáš Kobes


This article discusses the controversy of the sociological imagination as it was developed by Charles Wright Mills and its relevance for the current epistemology of social science. His notion of the sociological imagination has several problems due to the unreflected general prejudice distinguishing between structure and subjectivity, which creates from sociology a kind of social metaphysics. As a result, social context is conceptualised as an unproblematic domain used for the rationalisation of an actor’s behaviour and knowledge, and the sociological imagination gives the sociologist an absolute critical position which situates him paradoxically in the name of justice and freedom against humanity.

Klíčová slova

sociological imagination; Mills; social metaphysics; social criticism

Plný Text:

mobi EPUB


Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

BALON, Jan. 2009. „Ambivalentní odkaz Millsovy Sociologické imaginace.“ Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 45(5): 1055–1072.

BECK, Ulrich. 2007. „The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails.“ Theory, Culture & Society 24(7–8): 286–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764070240072505

BELL, David. 2001. „Culture and Religion.“ Pp. 78–104 in W. DOYLE (ed.). Old Regime France, 1648–1788. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BINNS, David. 1977. Beyond the Sociology of Conflict. London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15791-4

BOURDIEU, Pierre. 2003. „Participant Objectivation.“ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9(2): 281–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00150

BROWNE, Ken. 2011. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.

BURAWOY, Michael. 2005. „2004 ASA Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.“ American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102

BURAWOY, Michael. 2008. „Open Letter to C. Wright Mills.“ Antipode 40(3): 365–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00602.x

DALY, Mary. 2005. „Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice.“ Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 12(3): 433–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023

DENZIN, Norman K. 1989. „Re-Reading the Sociological Imagination.“ The American Sociologist 20(3): 278–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02697833

DENZIN, Norman K. 1990. „Presidential Address On The Sociological Imagination Revisited.“ The Sociological Quarterly 31(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1990.tb00314.x

ECO, Umberto. 1995. „Ur-Fascism.“ The New York Review of Books. Cit. 9. 5. 2018 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/).

FERRANTE, Joan. 2010. Seeing Sociology: An Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.

FERRIS, Kerry a Jill STEIN. 2009. The Real World: An Introduction to Sociology. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

FEYERABEND, Paul. 1993. Against Method. London: Verso.

FOWLER, Roger. 1996. „On Critical Linguistics.“ Pp. 3–14 in Carmen Rosa CALDAS-COULTHARD a Malcolm COULTHARD (eds.). Texts and Practices: Reading in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

GIACOMINI, Mita. 2004. „Interdisciplinarity in Health Service Research: Dreams and Nightmares, Maladies and Remedies.“ Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 9(3): 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819041403222

GIDDENS, Anthony. 2013. Sociologie. Praha: Argo.

GOULDNER, A. Ward. 1971. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.

GOULDNER, A. Ward. 1973. For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books.

GROSS, Neil. 2007. „Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Twentieth-Century American Sociology.“ Pp. 183–224 in Craig CALHOUN (ed.). Sociology in America. A History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226090962.003.0006

HACKING, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

HAMPLOVÁ, Dana. 2011. „Náboženství a pohlaví: Proč jsou ženy zbožnější než muži?“ Sociologický časopis 47(2): 297–323.

HARDING, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

HARDING, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

HANISCH, Carol, Caty SCARBROUGH, Ti-Grace ATKINSON a Kathie SARACHILD. 2013. „Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of Gender.“ Cit. 25. 5. 2018 (https://feministuk.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/forbidden-discourse-the-silencing-of-feminist-criticism-of-gender/).

HARVEY, Lee. 1982. „The Use and Abuse of Kuhnian Paradigm in Sociology of Knowledge.“ Sociology 16(1): 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038582016001009

JASANOFF, Sheila. 2012. „Genealogies of STS.“ Social Studies of Science 42(3): 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712440174

KATZ, Cindi. 2001. „Response: Disciplining Interdisciplinarity.“ Feminist Studies 27(2): 519–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178777

KELLER, F. Evelyn, F. 1995. Reflections On Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

KUHN, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011

KUHN, Thomas. 1997. Struktura vědeckých revolucí. Praha: OIKOYMENH.

KUHN, Thomas. 1970. „Reflections on my Critics.“ Pp. 231–278 in Imre LAKATOS a Alan MUSGRAVE (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LATOUR, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

LATOUR, Bruno. 2002. „The Promises of Constructivism.“ Pp. 27–46 in Dod IHDE a Evans SELINGER (eds.). Chasing Technology. Matrix of Materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

LATOUR, Bruno. 2003. Nikdy sme neboli moderní. Bratislava: Kaligram.

LATOUR, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LUŽNÝ, Dušan. 2014. „Kulturní paměť jako koncept sociálních věd.“ Studia philosophica 61(2): 3–18.

LUŽNÝ, Dušan a Jan VÁNĚ. 2017. „Koncept kolektivní paměti – základní východiska a závěry.“ Historický časopis 65(4): 577–590.

LYND, Robert S. 1970 (pův. vyd. 1939). Knowledge for What?: The Place of Social Science in American Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

MARTINS, Herminio 1972. „The Kuhnian Revolution and Its Implications for Sociology.“ Pp. 13–58 in Thomas J. NOSSITER, Albert H. HANSON a Stein ROKKAN (eds.). Imagination and Precision in the Social Sciences: Essays in Memory of Peter Nettl. London: Faber & Faber.

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1939. „Language, Logic and Culture.“ American Sociological Review 4 (5): 670–680. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083575

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1940a. „Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive.“ American Sociological Review 5(6): 904–913. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084524

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1940b. „Methodological Consequences of the Sociology of Knowledge.“ American Journal of Sociology 46(3): 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/218649

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1948. The New Men of Power: America’s Labor Leaders. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

MILLS, C. Wright. 1951. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MILLS, Charles Wright. 1966. Mocenská elita. Praha: Orbis.

MILLS, Charles Wright. 2008. Sociologická imaginace. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.

MOL, Anmemarie a John LAW. 1994. „Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology.“ Social Studies of Science 24(4): 641–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400402

PERDUE, Katharine. 2003. „Imagination.“ Cit. 7. 1. 2019 (http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/imagination.htm).

ROSENBERG, Justin. 1994. „The International Imagination: IR Theory and ‚Classic Social Analysis.‘“ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23(1): 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298940230010601

SEIDMAN, Steven. 2013. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

SUNDERLIN, William D. 2003. Ideology, Social Theory, and the Environment. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

ŠOTOLA, Jaroslav. 2018. „Gender je i pro křesťany.“ Cit. 7. 1. 2019 (http://www.christnet.eu/clanky/6159/gender_je_i_pro_krestany.url).

TISCHLER, Henry. 2006. Introduction to Sociology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

URRY, John. 1973. „Thomas Kuhn as Sociologist of Knowledge.“ The British Journal of Sociology 24(4): 462–473. https://doi.org/10.2307/589735