Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis

In the article the author gives a brief analysis of relations between Elias' civilisation theory and Weber's sociological legacy. The author analyses Elias' positive reviews of some theoretical constructions of Weber (concept of domination), but also his criticism of others (Weber...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology 2007-09-01
Series:Социологический журнал
Online Access:http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/959/submission/proof/959-61-1781-1-10-20150319.pdf
_version_ 1819079911025934336
collection DOAJ
description In the article the author gives a brief analysis of relations between Elias' civilisation theory and Weber's sociological legacy. The author analyses Elias' positive reviews of some theoretical constructions of Weber (concept of domination), but also his criticism of others (Weber's nominalism, overestimation of religion's role in civilizing process, activity-theoretical ground of sociology). The goal of work lies in studying the main controversial question — the problem of individualization. The article covers issues which are in favour of Weber's theory, his predictions on further progress of alienation process. Particular attention is paid to the Elias' conception which corrects some flaws of the social theory of famous scholar and enriches it. Elias postulates the extension of qualitative individualization, that his predecessors couldn't imagine.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T19:36:30Z
format Article
id doaj.art-571bea809c56483ba8e0576b4ca9c5a7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1562-2495
language Russian
last_indexed 2024-12-21T19:36:30Z
publishDate 2007-09-01
publisher Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
record_format Article
series Социологический журнал
spelling doaj.art-571bea809c56483ba8e0576b4ca9c5a72022-12-21T18:52:36ZrusRussian Academy of Sciences, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied SociologyСоциологический журнал1562-24952007-09-01133108123959Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysisIn the article the author gives a brief analysis of relations between Elias' civilisation theory and Weber's sociological legacy. The author analyses Elias' positive reviews of some theoretical constructions of Weber (concept of domination), but also his criticism of others (Weber's nominalism, overestimation of religion's role in civilizing process, activity-theoretical ground of sociology). The goal of work lies in studying the main controversial question — the problem of individualization. The article covers issues which are in favour of Weber's theory, his predictions on further progress of alienation process. Particular attention is paid to the Elias' conception which corrects some flaws of the social theory of famous scholar and enriches it. Elias postulates the extension of qualitative individualization, that his predecessors couldn't imagine.http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/959/submission/proof/959-61-1781-1-10-20150319.pdf
spellingShingle Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
Социологический журнал
title Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
title_full Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
title_fullStr Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
title_full_unstemmed Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
title_short Problem of individualisation in Max Weber’s and Norbert Elias’s sociology: Comparative analysis
title_sort problem of individualisation in max weber s and norbert elias s sociology comparative analysis
url http://jour.fnisc.ru/upload/journals/1/articles/959/submission/proof/959-61-1781-1-10-20150319.pdf