Abstract
The present study demonstrates that the path of the “organic public sociology” (proposed by Michael Burowoy in his famous call of the 2004) as the dominating mode of sociological practice in the national context can be menacing with the serious pitfalls manifested in broad historical perspective. We reveal the four pitfalls basing on the analysis of the Russian experience through the last 150 years. First, the over-politicization and ideological biasness of sociological activities; second, the “personal sacrifice” of sociologist as a romanticized practice, potentially harmful for the discipline; third, the difficulties of the professional sociology institutionalization; fourth, the deprivation of the policy sociology development. Analyzing the history of Russian sociology in the context of the current international discussions, we give particular reference to the idea of the “Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood” elaborated by John Meyer. We suggest the mode of communication between sociology and society, which, in our view, could be helpful for improving their interactions in various local, national and global contexts in the XXIst century. This mode escapes the political emphasis and ideological claims but rather concentrates on the more fundamental ethical issues. It also tries to overcome the limitations of the contemporary professional mainstream (instead of idealizing it). Finally, it presents itself to the publics in the understandable way, while remaining properly scientifically validated (however, avoiding the exaggerated accent on the statistical procedures and fitishization of the natural science’ principles (“numerology” and “quantofrenia”)). The public activities of the prominent sociologist Pitirim Sorokin in the American period of his career are a good example of this approach to the interactions with society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, the meeting of the 2004 was so far the largest in the history of American Sociological Association and the relating article by Burawoy was cited more than 360 times in Scopus-listed sources by 16 April 2015. Interestingly, in the years 2010–2013 the number of cites has been steadily growing (from 27 in the 2010 up to 58 in the 2013).
Alexander Radishev (1749–1802) – originated from the noble family and along with a group of young aristocrats was sent to the University of Leipzig, Germany, where he got acquainted with progressive European social thought. After returning to homeland he published the famous “A journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow”, in which he criticized the unjust social order and pointed to the severe hardships of peasants suffering from serfdom (see more Lossky (1951).
Denis Fonvisin (1745–1792) – Russian writer, educated in Moscow university, suggested the introduction of the”fundamental laws” limiting the power of monarchs and reforming the serfdom (see more Spector 2005).
Pavel Fedotov (1815–1853) – the famous Russian artist, the founder of the “critical realism” in the Russian painting tradition. In his works, he demonstrated the dramatic social unjustness in the life of ordinary Russian people (Sarabianov 1990). The critical emphasis of his paintings reflected the concerns of the Russian society in the 1840s. He wrote, “My fame, which I made by the exhibition of my works, was not a thunder but a buzzing of a mosquito, because at this time the strongest thunder was really the thunder on the West… Everybody rich by origination hided their bags, like hairs would pin back their ears, with fear of the dissemination of the ideas of communism (Sarabianov 1990: 5).
Nikolai Stankevich (1813–1840) founded his circle in the 1830, inspired by the ideas of German philosophy. This circle united the young intellectuals, like Belinsky, Aksakov and others who later became the leaders of the Russian liberation movement (Kamensky 1980).
The circle of Mikhail Petrashevsky shaped in 1840s. It engaged Russian intellectuals seeking freedom for the peasants and democratic political transformations (Dolinin 1987). The famous Russian writer and philosopher Feodor Dostoevsky (see Mochulsky 1971) in his younger years actively engaged in the Petrashevsky circle, which resulted in exile to Siberia where he spent four years.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881) – the internationally acknowledged Russian writer, celebrated for his deep psychological analysis and broad philosophical considerations of the individual feelings and ethical concerns under various social circumstances (his most famous novels are: “The crime and the punishment”, “Idiot”, “Demons”, “Karamasov brothers”). Mochulsky (1971). Dostoevsky: His life and work. Princeton University Press.
Nicolay Chernyshevsky (1828–1889) – the famous Russian writer, the author of the novel “What should be done” promoting materialistic visions of the human life with humanistic and optimistic interpretation of the revolutionary ideas (Paperno 1988).
“Perestroika” (directly translated as “restructuring”, “rearrangement” or “rebuilding”) was the general title for the policy of fundamental economic and governmental reforms initiated by the head of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, in the mid-1980s and lasting until early 1990s (Simon 2010). The word “perestroika” remains largely used in Russian everyday culture indicating the painful transition from soviet regime to multiparty political system and market economy.
The Russian prominent and internationally acknowledged writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) brightly illustrates the prevalence of the socialistic ideas in the Russian society of the second half of the XIXth century in his famous novel “Demons”, which takes place in the Russian provincial town of the 1870s. When Stepan Trophimovich, an educated intellectual (one of the key characters of the novel) tells his friend, that he is scared of being persecuted by the officials for having the prohibited socialistic literature at home, the latter replies that it is ridiculous because everybody in the town has this literature (Dostoevsky 1994, Part 2, Chapter 9).
Pyotr Kropotkin and Michail Bakunin were ideologists of the Russian anarchism. Bakunin (1814–1876) openly called for destruction of the state, and argued that capitalism is incompatible with the individual freedom. He actively participated in civil revolts all over Europe in the 1840-60s. Kropotkin (1842–1924) rejected the private property rights, the state legitimacy, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat (popular among revolutioners). He called for building the society on the solidarity principles. Both (Bakunin and Kropotkin) were imprisoned but managed to escape and emigrate to the West (in the 1861 and 1876 respectively).
Maxim Kovalevsky – the internationally acknowledged Russian sociologist and expert in law. (Kovalevsky 1938)
Alexander Chayanov (1888–1939) – the internationally acknowledged scholar in the field of peasant studies (Harrison 1979). He analyzed the basic differences between capitalistic rural production and traditional social organization of Russian peasantry. Chayanov pointed to the necessity of greater space for the individual initiative and competition in the rural cooperation (Durrenberger 1984).
Nikolai Kondratiev (1892–1938) – the author of the theory of “Big Economic Cycles” (Louçã 1999) which links the macroeconomic long-term cyclic development with the social transformations (this theory still gets credit in the international sociology (see, for example, Wallerstein (2000))). In his youth, Kondratiev served as personal secretary to the famous Russian sociologist Maxim Kovalevsky. In the 1920s, he was actively engaged in the policymaking in the field of rural economic and social development.
Nikolai Danilevsky (1822–1885) – focused on the analysis of Russia as a certain “culturally-historical type”, he believed Europe to the major treat for Russia and criticized the ideas of Russian society’s modernization basing on western standards (Danilevsky 1962).
Nikolai Berdyaev (1974–1948) and Sergey Bulgakov (1871–1944) prominent Russian social thinkers and philosophers who grounded their ideas in the idealistic approach and religious considerations (Berdyaev 1944).
Eugeniy De Roberty (1843–1915) – the Russian sociologist of positivistic views, who was largely criticized by the proponents of “subjective method”, Lavrov and Michailovsky. His writings were materialistic and anti-religious (Golosenko 1978).
References
Adorjan, M. C. (2013). Igniting constructionist imaginations: social constructionism’s absence and potential contribution to public sociology. The American Sociologist, 44(1), 1–22.
Alford, R. R. (1998). The craft of inquiry: theories, methods, evidence. Oxford University Press.
Back, L. (2012). Live sociology: social research and its futures. The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 18–39.
Batygin, G. (1998). Continuity of Russian sociological tradition. In V.A. Yadov (Ed.) Sociology in Russia, Moscow. (in Russian)
Batygin, G.S. (2001). The letter to B.M. Firsov in Firsov, B.(2001). History of soviet sociology in 1950–1980: lections. Saint-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Batygin, G.S. (2005). “Social scientists” in the times of crisis. In Social sciences in the post-soviet Russia. Moscow. (in Russian)
Belfer, E. (1978). Zemlya vs. volya—from narodnichestvo to Marxism∗. Europe-Asia Studies, 30(3), 297–312.
Berdyaev, N. (1944). Freedom and the spirit. Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press.
Boronoev, A.O. & Ermakovich U.M. (1996). Kovalevsky M.M. and institutionalization of sociology in Russia. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 8, 120–126. (in Russian)
Brady, D. (2004). Why public sociology may fail. Social Forces, 82(4), 1629–1638.
Braithwaite, J. (2005). For public social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 345–353.
Brook, P., & Darlington, R. (2013). Partisan, scholarly and active: arguments for an organic public sociology of work. Work, Employment and Society, 27(2), 232–243.
Browder, R. P., & Kerensky, A. F. (Eds.). (1961). The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: Documents (Vol. 27). Stanford University Press.
Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.
Burawoy, M. (2009). Public sociology in the age of Obama 1. Innovation–The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22(2), 189–199.
Burawoy, M. (2014). Introduction: sociology as a combat sport. Current Sociology, 62(2), 140–155.
Burbank, J. (1986). Intelligentsia and revolution. Oxford University Press.
Chase-Dunn, C. (2005). Global public social science. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 121–132.
Christensen, T. (2013). No path to paradise: deconstructing the promise of public sociology. The American Sociologist, 44(1), 23–41.
Clair, J. M., Clark, C., Hinote, B. P., Robinson, C. O., & Wasserman, J. A. (2007). Developing, integrating, and perpetuating new ways of applying sociology to health, medicine, policy, and everyday life. Social Science & Medicine, 64(1), 248–258.
Crompton, R. (2008). Forty years of sociology: some comments. Sociology, 42(6), 1218–1227.
D'Agostino, A. (1977). Marxism and the Russian anarchists. Germinal Press.
Danilevsky, N. (1962). The Slav role in world civilization. In The mind of modern Russia: historical and political thought of Russia’s great age. New York: Harper & Row.
Davis, H., & Erofeev, S. (2011). Reframing society and culture in Post-Soviet Russia. Comparative Sociology, 10(5), 710–734.
Davydov, A. Y. (2013). The power in the times of NEP: the softening of the dictatorship. Theory and Practice of the Social Development, 11.
Desai, P. (2014). Perestroika in perspective: the design and dilemmas of soviet reform. Princeton University Press.
Dimke, D.V. (2012). Classic without classics: Social and cultural origins of soviet sociology style. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 6, 97–106. (in Russian)
Dolinin, A. S. (1987). Dostoevsky among the members of the petrashevsky circle. Russian Studies in Literature, 23(3), 137–177.
Dostoevsky, F. (1994). Demons (translation). Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage, 1994), 419.
Durrenberger, E. P. (1984). Chayanov, peasants, and economic anthropology. Inc: Academic Press.
Efendiev A. G., Sorokin P. S. & Balabanova E. S. (2015). Crisis in russian sociology: main problems and thematic deadlocks. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 9, 36–49. (in Russian)
Efremenko, D., & Evseeva, Y. (2012). Studies of social solidarity in Russia: tradition and modern trends. The American Sociologist, 43(4), 349–365.
Erlihman, V.V. (2004). The loss of population in the XXth century. Moscow — ISBN 5-93165-107-1. (in Russian)
Firsov, B. (2001). History of soviet sociology in 1950–1980: lections. Saint-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Fürst, J. (2013). Where did all the normal people go?: another look at the soviet 1970s. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 14(3), 621–640.
Gabriel, J., Harding, J., Hodgkinson, P., Kelly, L., & Khan, A. (2009). Public sociology: working at the interstices. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 309–331.
Gane, N. (2011). Measure, value and the current crises of sociology. The Sociological Review, 59(s2), 151–173.
Goldman, W. Z. (2007). Terror and democracy in the age of Stalin. The social dynamics of repression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golosenko, I.A. (1978). The process of institutionalization of bourgeois sociology in Russia in the late XIXth-early XXth century. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 2, 170–179. (in Russian)
Golovin, N. N. (1931). The Russian Army in World War I. Shoe String Pr Inc. (in Russian)
Gutnov, D.A. (2001). Russian Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris 1901–1906. History and Historians, 1. (in Russian)
Harrison, M. (1979). Chayanov and the Marxists. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 7(1), 86–100.
Holmwood, J. (2007). Sociology as public discourse and professional practice: A critique of Michael Burawoy*. Sociological Theory, 25(1), 46–66.
Inglis, C. (2005). Comments on Michael burawoy’s ASA presidential address. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 383–386.
Jeffries, V. (2005). Pitirim a. Sorokin’s integralism and public sociology. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 66–87.
Kamensky Z.A. (1980). Moscow circle of philosophers. Moscow. P. 327. (in Russian)
Kelly, B., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Public sociology and the democratization of technology: drawing on user-led research to achieve mutual education. The American Sociologist, 44(1), 42–53.
Kovalevsky, M.M. (1910) Sociology. Volume 1. Saint-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Kovalevsky, E. (1938). Maxim Kovalevsky. The Slavonic and East European Review, 678-686.
Lavrov, P. (1965). Historical letters. Philosophy and sociology (2). Moscow. (in Russian)
Lee, C. K., & Shen, Y. (2009). China the paradox and possibility of a public sociology of labor. Work and Occupations, 36(2), 110–125.
Lenin, V.I. (1941). New economic movements in the life of peasants. Omnibus edition, Vol. 1, p.3–58. (in Russian)
Lieven, D. C. (1983). Russia and the origins of the first world war. Macmillan.
Lipsitz, G. (2008). Breaking the chains and steering the ship: how activism can help change teaching and scholarship. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 88–111). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lossky, N. O. (1951). History of Russian philosophy. New York: International Universities Press.
Louçã, F. (1999). Nikolai Kondratiev and the early consensus and dissensions about history and statistics. History of Political economy, 31(1), 169–205.
Makarov V.G. & Hristoforov V.S. (2003). Passengers of the “philosophical ship”. The questions of philosophy (7), 113–137. (in Russian)
Martindale, D. (1975). Prominent sociologists since world war. H. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
McKie, L., & Ryan, L. (2012). Introduction to E-special: exploring trends and challenges in sociological research. Sociology, 46(6), 1–7.
McLaughlin, N. (2005). Canada’s impossible science: historical and institutional origins of the coming crisis in Anglo-Canadian sociology. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 30(1), 1–40.
McLaughlin, N., Kowalchuk, L., & Turcotte, K. (2005). Why sociology does not need to be saved: analytic reflections on public sociologies. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 133–151.
Medushevsky, A.N. (2010). Constitutional projects in Russia in XVIII-early XXth century. Moscow. p. 640. (in Russian)
Mendez, J. B. (2008). Globalizing scholar activism: opportunities and dilemmas through a feminist lens. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 136–163). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.
Miller, M. A. (1986). The Russian revolutionary émigrés, 1825–1870 (No. 2). Johns Hopkins Univ Pr.
Mironenko, I. & Sorokin, P. (2015). Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and the contemporary methodological crisis. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 8(4), 35--45. doi:10.11621/pir.2015.0403.
Misztal, B. A. (2009). A Nobel trinity: jane Addams, Emily Greene Balch and Alva Myrdal. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 332–353.
Mochulsky, K. (1971). Dostoevsky: his life and work. Princeton University Press.
Morton, M., Dolgon, C., Maher, T., & Pennell, J. (2012). Civic engagement and public sociology two “movements” in search of a mission. Journal of Applied Social Science, 6(1), 5–30.
Nabudere, D. W. (2008). Research, activism, and knowledge production. In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship (pp. 62–87). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nichols, L. T. (2005). Editor’s introduction: a conversation about “public sociology”. The American Sociologist, 36(3), 3–4.
Nichols, L. T. (2009a). Public sociology: problematics, publicity, and possibilities. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 233–234.
Nichols, L. T. (2009b). Burawoy’s holistic sociology and Sorokin’s integralism: a conversation of ideas. Handbook of Public sociology, 27-46.
Nichols, L. T. (2012). Sorokin as lifelong Russian intellectual: the enactment of an historically rooted sensibility. The American Sociologist, 43(4), 374–405.
Nielsen, F. (2004). The vacant “we”: remarks on public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1619–1627.
Noy, D. (2007). Principles for organic public sociology: reflections on publicly engaged research in the San Francisco homeless policy. Societies Without Borders, 2(2), 260–272.
Osipov, G. (2004). Renaissance of Russian sociology (1960–1990): historical review. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 3, 24–30. (in Russian)
Osipov, G. (2009). Russian sociology: Past and present. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 3, 8–14. (in Russian)
Pantin, I.K., Plimak, E.G., & Horos V.G. (1986). Revolutionary tradition in Russia: 1783–1883. Moscow. Mysl. (in Russian)
Paperno, I. (1988). Chernyshevsky and the age of realism: a study in the semiotics of behavior. Stanford University Press.
Petrov, N., Lipman, M., & Hale, H. E. (2014). Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin. Post-Soviet Affairs, 30(1), 1–26.
Prokhorov, A. (2014). The thaw: soviet society and culture during the 1950s and 1960s. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 8(3), 241–242.
Radaev, V. (2013). Russian sociology in search for its identity. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 7, 3–17. (in Russian)
Raeff, M. (1966). The Decembrist Movement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Rees, E. A. (1987). State control in soviet Russia: the rise and fall of the workers' and peasants' inspectorate, 1920–34. Macmillan Press.
Revers, M. (2009). Sociologists in the press. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 272–288.
Rodríguez-Garavito, C. (2014). Amphibious sociology: dilemmas and possibilities of public sociology in a multimedia world. Current Sociology, 62(2), 156–167.
Romanovsky, N. (2012). The quality of sociological knowledge (editor’s comments). Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 5, 39–47. (in Russian)
Rusanov, N. (1907). P.L. Lavrov (essay about his life and activities), Byuloe (2). (in Russian)
Rutland, P. (2013). Neoliberalism and the Russian transition. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2), 332–362.
Sarabianov, D. V. (1990). Pavel Andreevich Fedotov. The painter of the RSFSR, p. 176, ISBN: 5–7370-0213-6. (in Russian)
Saunders, D. (2014). Russia in the age of reaction and reform 1801–1881. Routledge.
Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
Shanin, T. (1986). Russia, 1905–07: revolution as a moment of truth. The roots of otherness: Russia's turn of the century. Volume 2, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Shortall, S. (2013). Sociology, knowledge and evidence in rural policy making. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(3), 265–271.
Shrum, W., & Castle, L. (2014). “Visionary” sociology: diversions of public sociology and audiovisual solutions. The American Sociologist, 45(4), 412–431.
Sigelman, L. (2010). Terminological interchange between sociology and political science. Social Science Quarterly, 91(4), 883–905.
Simon, R. (2010). Passive revolution, perestroika, and the emergence of the new Russia. Capital & Class, 34(3), 429–448.
Sogomonov, A.U. (1989). P.A. Sorokin and M.M. Kovalevsky. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 3. (in Russian)
Sokolov, M. (2011). Labor markets, stratification and careers in soviet sociology. Economic sociology, 12(4), 37–72. (in Russian)
Sorokin, P.A. (1914) [1912]. Leo Tolstoy as a Philosopher. English Translation by L. T. Nichols. In B. V. Johnston (ed), Pitirim A. Sorokin: On the Practice of Sociology (pp 133–150). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sorokin, P. A. (1954) The letter to Mother Olowienka, http://cliffstreet.org/index.php/theories
Sorokin, P. A. (1956). The American sex revolution. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
Sorokin, P. A. (1962). Social and cultural dynamics (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1964). The basic trends of our times. College & University Press.
Sorokin, P. (2015). The Russian Sociological Tradition from the XIXth Century until the Present: Key Features and Possible Value for Current Discussions. The American Sociologist, 46(3), 341–355.
Sorokin, P. (2016). ‘Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems and perspectives. Current Sociology, 64(1), 41–59.
Sorokin, P. A., & Lunden, W. A. (1959). Power and morality. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
Spector, I. (2005). The golden age of Russian literature. Kessinger Publishing.
Sprague, J., & Laube, H. (2009). Institutional barriers to doing public sociology: experiences of feminists in the academy. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 249–271.
Stacey, J. (2004). Marital suitors court social science spin-sters: the unwittingly conservative effects of public sociology. Social Problems, 51(10), 131–145.
Stanziani, A. (2008). Serfs, slaves, or wage earners? The legal status of labour in Russia from a comparative perspective, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Journal of Global History, 3(2), 183–202.
Sundar, N. (2014). In times of civil war: on being a schizophrenic (public) sociologist. Current Sociology, 62(2), 168–180.
Svendsen, G. T., & Svendsen, G. L. H. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social capital: the troika of sociology, political science and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Temkina, A., & Zdravomyslova, E. (2014). Gender’s crooked path: feminism confronts Russian patriarchy. Current Sociology, 62(2), 253–270.
Timasheff, N. (1966). The sociological theories of Maksim M. Kovalevsky. In A. Simirenko (Ed.), Soviet sociology. Historical antecedents and current appraisals (pp. 83–99). Chicago: Quadrangle books.
Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.
Tolstova, U. (2013). Has the efficiency of sociological research in Russia increased in the last 100 years? Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 7, 59–69. (in Russian)
Toshchenko, Zh.T. (2013). New trends in the development of Russian sociology. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 4, 3–13. (in Russian)
Townsley, E. (2014). Science, expertise and profession in the post–normal discipline. The American Sociologist, 46(1), 18–28.
Trigilia, C. (2007). Unbalanced growth why is economic sociology stronger in theory than in policies? Current Sociology, 55(1), 59–74.
Troitsky, N.A. (1997). Russia in the XIXth century. Lectures. Moscow. (in Russian)
Turner, B. S. (2006). British sociology and public intellectuals: consumer society and imperial decline. The British journal of sociology, 57(2), 169–188.
Turner, J. H. (2005). Is public sociology such a good idea? The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 27–45.
Turner, S. (2007). Public sociology and democratic theory. Sociology, 41(5), 785–798.
Vagner, V.A. (1913). M.M. Kovalevsky The scholar, the public figure and the citizen. New ideas in sociology (1). Saint-Petersburg. (in Russian)
Vilenskaya, E. (1979). N.K. Mikhailovsky and his ideological role in narodnichestvo movement of 70- beginning of 80-s of XIX century. Moscow. (in Russian)
von Holdt, K. (2014). Critical engagement in fields of power: cycles of sociological activism in post-apartheid South Africa. Current Sociology, 62(2), 181-196.
Walicki, A. (2010). Milestones and Russian intellectual history. Studies in East European Thought, 62(1), 101–107.
Wallerstein, I. (2000). Globalization or the age of transition? A long-term view of the trajectory of the world-system. International Sociology, 15(2), 249–265.
Wieviorka, M. (2014). Sociology’s interventions: engaging the media and politics while remaining a social scientist. Current Sociology, 62(2), 243–252. doi:10.1177/0011392113515562.
Yadov, V. and Grathoff R. (1994). Introduction. Proceedings of the Simposium of Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology (pp. 3–5). Moscow. (in Russian)
Yudkevich, M. (2014). The Russian university: recovery and rehabilitation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1463–1474.
Zafirovski, M. (2014). Rational choice requiem: the decline of an economic paradigm and its implications for sociology. The American Sociologist, 45(4), 432–452.
Zayanchkovsky, P. (1954). Serfdom abolishment in Russia. Moscow, 292. (in Russian)
Zayanchkovsky, P. (1970). Russian autocracy in the end of the XIXth century: political reaction of the 80s-90s. Moscow. Mysl. (in Russian)
Zdravomyslova, E. (2008). Make way for professional sociology!'Public sociology in the Russian context. Current Sociology, 56(3), 405–414.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sorokin, P. Vision and Mission of Sociology: Learning from the Russian Historical Experience. Am Soc 48, 135–171 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-016-9303-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-016-9303-3