Search results

The aim of the article is to analyze the process of creating spatial value. The object of the analysis concerns the riverside areas of the city of Poznan. The study focuses on spontaneous practices that are outside the legal regulations, thanks to less-visited places which have gained popularity among residents and disciplinary techniques introduced by government officials in response to such activities.

At the theoretical level, the study is primarily based on Florian Znaniecki's spatial value concept and Michel Foucault's concept of power. The empirical research study includes quantitative (questionnaire-based interviews) and qualitative methods (expert interviews and content analysis).

Identification of the method of creating spatial value which does not require direct financial outlays; determination of disciplinary techniques used by government officials ultimately led to a reduction in the spatial value.

The article reveals the hidden mechanisms of functioning of the authority that defends itself against the reduction of its powers. It is an alternate way of analyzing and interpreting organizational changes in urban space to the one promoted by the Poznan authorities. The results can be used in various ways. Researchers representing the critical trend of urban research can interpret the process of creating spatial value by residents in terms of community, resistance and alternates to the actions of the authorities. From this point of view, the research study is interventional and exposing in nature. On the other hand, for city decision makers allowing the possibility to consume alcohol in a given area can be an effective, low-cost way of revitalizing it. Research can also be useful in assessing the effectiveness of particular disciplinary techniques by public officers.

My main point is that the 1920s Chicago School got its scholastic or school-like quality primarily from its notion of what a human being is, from its social psychology, and only secondarily from its sociology. These sociologists developed the novel idea that humans are constituted by symbolic or cultural elements, not biological forces or instincts. They applied Franz Boas's discovery of culture to human nature and the self. In particular, they showed that ethnic groups and their subcultures are not biologically determined or driven by fixed instincts. In the 1910s and 1920s, the Americanization movement held that ethnic groups could be ranked on how intelligent, how criminal, and therefore how fit for democracy they were. This powerful movement, the extreme wing of which was lead by the Northern Ku Klux Klan, advocated different levels of citizenship for different ethnic groups. The Chicago sociologists spear-headed the idea that humans have a universal nature, are all the same ontologically, and therefore all the same morally and legally. In this way, they strengthened the foundations of civil liberties. The Chicago professors advanced their position in a quiet, low-keyed manner, the avoidance of open political controversy being the academic style of the time. Their position was nevertheless quite potent and effective. The actual sociology of the school, also quite important, was largely an expression of the democratic social psychology. In addition, the sociology was dignified and elevated by the moral capital of their theory of human nature.

In constructing a model of interaction among ethnic groups in multicultural societies we adopt a humanistic sociological perspective. This is the name given to that orientation in sociology which in Poland and the United States has been associated with the names of Florian Znaniecki, William I. Thomas and Robert M. MacIver. This school has emphasised the need ‘to accept human values and activities as facts, just as human agents themselves accept them’ (1), and stressed the need to interpret all social and cultural activities from the standpoint of the actors themselves, and not merely that of the outside observer.

Social theory contains contributions related to the processes of semiosis. Between the subjective experience of intentional meanings and objectivized structure of meanings there is a sphere of meaningful interactions and collective actions. Arguments are presented that it is possible to integrate symbolic interactionist orientation and Durkheimian tradition in the study of social symbolism in the perspective of collective action approach and pragmatism. That allows going beyond the cognitive limitations inherited from phenomenological view on symbolism as manifested in the concepts of P. Berger and T. Luckmann about the social construction of reality. A model for a multidimensional analysis of social symbolism and its functions is proposed.

The purpose of this essay is twofold: (i) identification of the shared premises of the structuration and morphogenesis theories which have remained indifferent to or openly at odds with each other, while highlighting at the same time the specific elements of these two models which are better elaborated in one than the other; and (ii) demonstration of the benefits of social theory testing on the eventful historical analysis.

I first comparatively examine the main premises and guiding concepts of the two models in question, point out their basic affinities, and note different emphases. Next, different components and phases of the (re)constitution over time of societal structure(s) and human agency posited by the structuration/morphogenesis model are illustrated and “tested” through the historical account of the initiation and spread of migration of Polish peasants to America at the turn of the twentieth century and the subsequent impact of this movement on the sender and receiver societies.

First, the demonstration of a close theoretical affinity of the structuration and morphogenesis models which provides the grounds for an intellectual exchange between their proponents. Second, derived from the historical analysis of Poles’ migration process, the identification of specific concepts informing the structuration/morphogenesis model which need further refinement. The third, most general finding-qua-contribution is a demonstration of the benefit for social theorizing from the historical, that is, time- and place-sensitive conceptualization and analysis of the examined phenomena.

Classic urban ethnography has often viewed urbanization and the urban condition as pathological and the city as disorganized, with urban areas producing problems to be solved through the managerial control of urban space. This chapter presents an alternative view, introducing an Interaction Order approach within urban ethnography. This way of studying culture builds on the work of Emile Durkheim (1893), W. E. B. Du Bois (1903), Harold Garfinkel (1967), Erving Goffman (1983), and Anne Rawls (1987). Interaction Orders are shared rules and expectations that members of a group use to coordinate their daily social relations and sense-making, which take the form of taken-for-granted practices that are specific to a place and its circumstances. The power of this social order, which is constructed by the interactions among participants themselves, renders outsiders’ interventions counterproductive. Understanding local interaction orders enables ethnographers to interpret problems differently and imagine solutions that work with local culture.

This chapter gives one version of the recent history of evaluation case study. It looks back over the emergence of case study as a sociological method, developed in the early years of the 20th Century and celebrated and elaborated by the Chicago School of urban sociology at Chicago University, starting throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Some of the basic methods, including constant comparison, were generated at that time. Only partly influenced by this methodological movement, an alliance between an Illinois-based team in the United States and a team at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom recast the case method as a key tool for the evaluation of social and educational programmes.

This chapter challenges and augments the received view of the history of symbolic interaction at the University of Chicago. The history of the discipline’s development at the University of Chicago between 1889 and 1935 is well-known, especially the work of George Herbert Mead and John Dewey, sometimes called “the Chicago school of sociology” or symbolic interaction. But the Hull-House school of sociology, led by Jane Addams, is largely unknown. In this chapter I explore her founding role in feminist symbolic interaction. Her perspective analyzes micro, meso, and macro levels of theory and practice. Feminist symbolic interaction is structural, political, rational, and emotional, and employs abstract and specific models for action. Addams led a wide network of people, including sociologists, her neighbors, and other citizens, who implemented and institutionalized their shared visions. Addams led many controversial social movements, including the international peace movement, recognized in 1931 by the Nobel Peace Prize. “Feminist symbolic interaction” expands the scope of symbolic interaction by being more action-oriented, more political, and more focused on a successful social change model than the traditional approach to this theory. In addition, many new sociologists are added to the lists of important historical figures.