首页> 外文期刊>Mokslo ir Technikos Raida: Evolution of Science and Technology >Change in the Soviet Authorities’ Attitude towards Sociology in Lithuania (1960–1989)
【24h】

Change in the Soviet Authorities’ Attitude towards Sociology in Lithuania (1960–1989)

机译:苏联当局对立陶宛社会学态度的变化(1960–1989年)

获取原文
           

摘要

Two principal reasons stimulated the Soviet authorities to draw attention to sociology and grant it the right (though limited) to exist. The first reason was introducing a course on the fundamentals of Scientific Communism based on practice, and therefore it was necessary to do sociological research in order to form its basis. The second reason was the need for the management of scientific society the implementation of which was impossible without sociological researches. For the purpose of turning sociological researches to reality, the Soviet authorities took certain measures. Sociological research centres were established in scientific research institutes and higher schools. At a later stage, sociological services were founded in enterprises, institutions and organizations. For coordinating sociological research activities, the following sociological research control centres were established: the Council coordinating sociological researches in the higher school of the Republic and the Republican Social Economic Planning Coordination Council. The control of sociological researches was based on their restriction and not permitted to overstep the ideological limits of that time. Sociological research centres and sociological services performed a number of sociological researches. Most of work was done in the field of production and work sociology. Such issues as the specificity of work contents, the influence of engineering progress, the number of staff members training them for production activities, employees‘ satisfaction of working procedure, wages and views, the attitude towards work, moral and social psychological climate in the group, etc. were investigated. Researches into work sociology were often of the applied nature, however, at the same time, they contributed to the development of academic sociology. Academic works on sociology were published and conferences were held. Since 1970, after forming the concept of social planning, the range of sociological work was expanded. Apart from activities at work, social, cultural and daily pursuits were started to be registered and described. The situation of the social structure was also analyzed and investigation into family sociology was carried out. Research activities performed by the youth accounted for quite a large part of sociological work. Notwithstanding the fact that the newly reborn sociology broadened and enlivened social science, it did not succeed in making itself entirely free from the clutches of the ideology of that time. Sociology had to observe methodological orientation being in compliance with Marxism-Leninism views. Such popular ideologies peculiar to the problems of social research as emphasis on the cult of work and the rejection of many values (e.g. religion) were considered as ‘bourgeois’, i.e. unacceptable, and thus not suitable for research. Many painful to the nation processes, namely the consequences of private property liquidation and deportations, the specificity of social psychological climate under the conditions of totalitarianism were not described. Sociology lacked pluralism; it could not fully fulfil the function of society self-knowledge. The human being was engaged in sociology only in the context of economic development aimed at creating socialism. There were no investigations into a number of important parameters for social psychological distances between classes and strata. Social theories and specific analyses did not reveal vertical shadow differentiation between the members of the contemporary society. The manner of living of the sub-culture representatives placed on the lowest stages of the social structure as well as immigrants was treated poorly. Researching lacked the humanist approach, a deeper revelation of meanings and theoretical soundness. Despite these restrictions, at present, there is a possibility of conducting real research on the society and related processes thus joining the community of sociologists worldwide. Article in Lithuanian
机译:主要原因有两个,这促使苏联当局提请社会学注意并赋予它生存的权利(尽管有限)。第一个原因是在实践的基础上开设了一门关于科学共产主义基础知识的课程,因此有必要进行社会学研究以形成其基础。第二个原因是需要管理科学社会,没有社会学研究就不可能实施。为了使社会学研究变为现实,苏联当局采取了某些措施。在科研机构和高等学校建立了社会学研究中心。后来,在企业,机构和组织中建立了社会学服务。为了协调社会学研究活动,建立了以下社会学研究控制中心:共和国高级中学的社会学研究理事会和共和党社会经济计划协调理事会。对社会学研究的控制是基于它们的限制,不允许超越当时的意识形态极限。社会学研究中心和社会学服务部门进行了许多社会学研究。大部分工作是在生产和工作社会学领域完成的。工作内容的特殊性,工程进度的影响,对他们进行生产活动培训的员工人数,员工对工作程序的满意程度,工资和看法,工作态度,道德和社会心理氛围等问题等等进行了调查。对工作社会学的研究通常具有应用性质,但同时也为学术社会学的发展做出了贡献。发表了社会学方面的学术著作并举行了会议。自1970年以来,在形成了社会计划的概念之后,社会学工作的范围得以扩大。除了工作之外,还开始记录和描述社交,文化和日常活动。还分析了社会结构的状况,并对家庭社会学进行了调查。青年人进行的研究活动在社会学工作中占了很大一部分。尽管新近诞生的社会学拓宽了社会科学并使之活跃,但它并没有使自己完全摆脱当时意识形态的束缚。社会学必须观察与马克思列宁主义观点相一致的方法论取向。社会研究问题特有的普遍意识形态,如强调工作崇拜和对许多价值观(例如宗教)的排斥,被认为是“资产阶级”,即不可接受,因此不适合研究。没有描述许多困扰国家进程的事情,即私有财产清算和驱逐出境的后果,极权主义条件下社会心理气候的特殊性。社会学缺乏多元性。它不能充分实现社会自我认识的功能。人类仅在旨在建立社会主义的经济发展背景下从事社会学研究。对于阶级与阶层之间的社会心理距离,许多重要参数尚未进行调查。社会理论和具体分析并未揭示当代社会成员之间的纵向阴影差异。处于社会结构最底层的亚文化代表以及移民的生活方式受到了恶劣的对待。研究缺乏人文主义的方法,对意义和理论上的深刻启示更为深刻。尽管有这些限制,目前,仍可能对社会和相关过程进行真正的研究,从而加入全世界的社会学家社区。立陶宛语文章

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号