Порівняльна історична соціологія імперій Айзенштадта

dc.citation.epage24
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.spage19
dc.citation.volume3
dc.contributor.affiliationНаціональний університет “Львівська політехніка”
dc.contributor.authorКукарцев, Олег
dc.contributor.authorKukartsev, Oleh
dc.coverage.placenameLviv
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-05T08:03:44Z
dc.date.available2018-09-05T08:03:44Z
dc.date.created2017-10-25
dc.date.issued2017-10-25
dc.description.abstractДосліджено внесок Айзенштадта у розвиток порівняльної історичної соціології імперій. У центрі уваги є праця ізраїльського вченого “Політичні системи імперій: піднесення та падіння історичних бюрократичних суспільств”. Розкрито особливості його типології політичних систем. Визначено вплив структурного функціоналізму на теорію та методологію дослідження імперій Айзенштадта.
dc.description.abstractThe contribution of Eisenstadt to the development of comparative historical sociology of empires is researched. The work of Israeli scientist ‘The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical Bureaucratic Societies’ is on the focus. The main goal of the research is to disclose the content of theoretical positions and the specifics of the methodology of this work. It is clarified that Eisenstadt gave social science a valuable conceptual and methodological arsenal for understanding meaningful features, the history of the formation, development and dissolution of empires. The scholar focused on the systemic nature of the imperial regimes, the different social structures and institutions that characterized them, as well as the social processes that their rulers supported to preserve the systemic boundaries of their states. It was showed that to achieve his goal, Eisenstadt used a specific methodology – a comparative analysis of the substantial qualities of social structures, institutions and patterned social actions that develop within the social system and determine it. Following this methodology, the researcher proposed an original typology of historical political systems. Among the types he has selected, the main subject of the analysis in the book is ‘centralized historical bureaucratic empires’, a characteristic feature of which is the institutionalization of autonomous political power, as well as the deliberate development of ‘free-floating resources’, which encourages social differentiation on a large scale. The Eisenstadt’s work significantly influenced the historical macrosociological studies of the empires of contemporary authors. Analyzing his scientific achievements, we obtain essential information about the theoretical and methodological means of studying empires and they can open up new perspectives for the comparative history of empires.
dc.format.extent19-24
dc.format.pages6
dc.identifier.citationКукарцев О. Порівняльна історична соціологія імперій Айзенштадта / Олег Кукарцев // Humanitarian Vision. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 3. — No 2. — P. 19–24.
dc.identifier.citationenKukartsev O. Eisenstadt’s comparative and historical sociology of empires / Oleh Kukartsev // Humanitarian Vision. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 3. — No 2. — P. 19–24.
dc.identifier.urihttps://ena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/42596
dc.language.isouk
dc.publisherLviv Politechnic Publishing House
dc.relation.ispartofHumanitarian Vision, 2 (3), 2017
dc.relation.referencesБаталов, А. (2004). “Исторические бюрократические
dc.relation.referencesимперии” в теории Ш. Эйзенштадта и их трансформация в
dc.relation.references“модернизированное общество”. Вісник Харківського
dc.relation.referencesнаціонального університету імені В. Н. Каразіна, сер.
dc.relation.referencesФілософія. Філософські перипетії, 638, 49–56.
dc.relation.referencesКутуєв, П. (2007). Порівняльно-історична соціологія
dc.relation.referencesмодернізації: теоретизування Ш. Ейзенштадта. Соціальна
dc.relation.referencesпсихологія: Український науково-практичний журнал, 4,17–26.
dc.relation.referencesAbrams, P. (1982). Historical Sociology. Ithaca, New
dc.relation.referencesYork: Cornell University Press.
dc.relation.referencesEisenstadt, S. (1963). The Political Systems of Empires:
dc.relation.referencesThe Rise and Fall of the Historical Bureaucratic Societies. New
dc.relation.referencesYork: Free Press of Glencoe.
dc.relation.referencesGiesen, B., −uber D. (2005). Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. In
dc.relation.referencesG. Ritzer (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Vol. 1, 233–234. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
dc.relation.referencesHamilton G. (1984). Configurations in History: The
dc.relation.referencesHistorical Sociology of S. N. Eisenstadt. In T. Skocpol (Ed.),
dc.relation.referencesVision and Method in Historical Sociology, 85–128. New York
dc.relation.referencesand Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.relation.referencesMarangudakis M. (2012). Multiple Modernities and the
dc.relation.referencesTheory of Indeterminacy: On the development and theoretical
dc.relation.referencesfoundations of the historical sociology of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt.
dc.relation.referencesProtoSociology, Vol. 29: China’s Modernization II, 7–28.
dc.relation.referencesTucker A. (2004). Our Knowledge of the Past: A
dc.relation.referencesPhilosophy of Historiography. New York: Cambridge
dc.relation.referencesUniversity Press
dc.relation.referencesWeerdt H. D. (2016). Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and the
dc.relation.referencesComparative Political History of Pre-Eighteenth-Century
dc.relation.referencesEmpires. Asian Review of World Histories, 4, 1, 133–162.
dc.relation.referencesenAbrams P. (1982). Historical Sociology. Ithaca, New
dc.relation.referencesenYork: Cornell University Press.
dc.relation.referencesenBatalov A. A. (2004). “The Historical Bureaucrat
dc.relation.referencesenImperia” in the Sh. Eisenstadt’s Theory and their
dc.relation.referencesenTransformation into “Modern Society”. [In Russian]. Herald of
dc.relation.referencesenKharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin, Seria:
dc.relation.referencesenPhilosophy. Philosophical Debates, 638, 49–56.
dc.relation.referencesenEisenstadt S. N. (1963). The Political Systems of
dc.relation.referencesenEmpires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical Bureaucratic
dc.relation.referencesenSocieties. New York: Free Press of Glencoe Kutuiev, P. (2007). Comparative and Historical
dc.relation.referencesenSociology of Modernization: Eisenstadt’s Theorization.[In
dc.relation.referencesenUkrainian]. Social Psychology: Ukrainian Scientific and
dc.relation.referencesenPractical Journal, 4, 17–26.
dc.relation.referencesenGiesen, B., −uber, D. (2005). Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.
dc.relation.referencesenIn G. Ritzer (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 1, 233–234.
dc.relation.referencesenThousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
dc.relation.referencesenHamilton G. (1984). Configurations in History: The
dc.relation.referencesenHistorical Sociology of S. N. Eisenstadt. In T. Skocpol (Ed.),
dc.relation.referencesenVision and Method in Historical Sociology, 85–128. New York
dc.relation.referencesenand Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.relation.referencesenMarangudakis M. (2012). Multiple Modernities
dc.relation.referencesenand the Theory of Indeterminacy: On the development and
dc.relation.referencesentheoretical foundations of the historical sociology of
dc.relation.referencesenShmuel N. Eisenstadt. ProtoSociology, Vol. 29: China’s
dc.relation.referencesenModernization II, 7–28.
dc.relation.referencesenTucker A. (2004). Our Knowledge of the Past: A
dc.relation.referencesenPhilosophy of Historiography. New York: Cambridge
dc.relation.referencesenUniversity Press.
dc.relation.referencesenWeerdt H. D. (2016). Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and the
dc.relation.referencesenComparative Political History of Pre-Eighteenth-Century
dc.relation.referencesenEmpires. Asian Review of World Histories, 4, 1, 133–162.
dc.rights.holder© Національний університет "Львівська політехніка", 2017
dc.rights.holder© Кукарцев О., 2017
dc.subjectАйзенштадт
dc.subjectімперія
dc.subjectполітична система
dc.subjectцентралізація
dc.subjectсоціальна диференціація
dc.subjectресурси влади
dc.subjectструктурний функціоналізм
dc.subjectпорівняльна історична соціологія
dc.subjectEisenstadt
dc.subjectempire
dc.subjectpolitical system
dc.subjectcentralization
dc.subjectsocial differentiation
dc.subjectresources of power
dc.subjectstructural functionalism
dc.subjectcomparative historical sociology
dc.subject.udc32.001
dc.subject.udc321
dc.subject.udc327.2
dc.titleПорівняльна історична соціологія імперій Айзенштадта
dc.title.alternativeEisenstadt’s comparative and historical sociology of empires
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2017v3n2_Kukartsev_O-Eisenstadts_comparative_19-24.pdf
Size:
547.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2017v3n2_Kukartsev_O-Eisenstadts_comparative_19-24__COVER.png
Size:
404.82 KB
Format:
Portable Network Graphics

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.97 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description: