NAMEH-YE OLUM-E EJTEMAI
Year:2008 | Volume:16 | Issue:33|Papers Count:9

There are discussions and debates recently surfacing that leads some readers with the impression that a ‘new sociology of knowledge’ has been formed which is not only different from the classic sociology of knowledge but is in contradiction to it. The present paper explains the major ideas and lines of thought in the course of sociology of knowledge along with the diversified interpretations and emphases - including those regarding culture. Then, the article outlines the historical chain of theoretical changes and developments in and around the sociology of knowledge which lead to the interpretations and emphases basic to the ‘new’ sociology of knowledge. It is shown, at the end, that these discussions were neither ignored nor isolated in the course of formation and development of sociology of knowledge.

Age as a culturally partitioning category, disciplines citizens in age groups and it raises power relations in society. I have called this the ‘vivifier’ function of age groups. The ‘youth’ as one of the age periods, constitutes a disputed field of definitions, representation, and identification. The writers of this essay, having glanced through the dominant discourses concerning the youth and discourse analysis of policy-making institutions, attempt to answer the question that in identifying the Iranians, the discourse of cultural policy is based on what approaches? The indication of discourse approaches which are discussed in this essay should be seen as a chronology of the youth discourses. This essay shows that the cultural policy discourse has a tendency towards a dual approach consisting of: the problem-driven and the possibility-driven to the youth issue as reflected in the available and sensible statements. Such reasoning indirectly points to the causes why the social programs have been rather unsuccessful in attracting the youth’s participation.

The establishing of large industrial complexes and initiating industrial development without a regard for their social and cultural implications can lead to harmful unintended consequences. Describing the situation in Assaluyeh district before and after installing of industrial units, this article shows the negative consequences that follow an approach to industrialization that neglects social considerations. The development project in Assaluyeh is a case in point which has encountered the sustainable development of the district with obstacles. The article has the conceptual framework of ‘social effect analysis’. This is a survey study which uses qualitative methods in two statistical societies: of indigenous inhabitants of Assaluyeh, and that of non-native workers. The findings indicate that serious pathologies have occurred at different social and cultural levels, and that considering the most cases which have come under investigation, the district faces acute problems. The study further shows that adoption of a social and cultural approach, and intra-sector programming can prevent such problems.

This article initially probes the history of land exploitation systems in the Karkhe dam watershed basin. It then proceeds to examine the relation between social capital and development from theoretical point of view. In this survey study, a sample population of 375 families, in 49 villages, is studied in various land exploitation systems, measured by the indexes of social capital. The two systems of peasant family farming and cooperatives production, from collective’s activities point of view such as social participation, innovativeness, cooperation, tendencies to collective cooperation, are examined. The results show that participation, norms of reciprocity, innovativeness, and efficiency in cooperative systems are significantly higher than those present in the peasant family farming.

In Iran’s academia and public sphere, a great deal of confusion exists concerning the adoption and application of sociological theories. On the one hand, sociological theories constitute the core of the discipline of sociology and thus any sociology student and sociologist needs to benefit from these sociological theories in order to utilize sociology. On the other hand, however, considering the multiplicity and diversity of these theories has resulted in considerable confusion, leading some to the false conclusion that all sociological theories are ‘sociological ideologies’. This paper attempts to propose a four-layered classification of sociological theories (normal theories, macro theories, sociological schools, and contemporary strands of thought) in order to argue for the ‘usefulness’ of sociological theories and to clear up some of confusion in utilization of these theories. The nature of discussions in this paper, therefore, is of the kind of ‘meta theory’. The last part of the paper classifies the students’ dissertations in Iran under two categories and attempts to answer why most theoretical frameworks in students’ dissertations are not helpful.

Individualism and collectivism are among determining attitudes which play a fundamental role in the analysis of our actions and social dispositions. This article deals with the concept of social dilemma as a new concept applied to the topic of individualism and collectivism. Social dilemma is a special kind of conflict between the individual and collective interests. If the individual, regardless of others choices, opts for the self interest as the best choice, and if the majority of the individuals opt for self interest, then there would be a situation where everyone is worse off, as compared to a situation where cooperation was adopted. The social dilemma is located in rational choice theory and can be examined through game theory and decision theory. Social dilemma can be defined from two different stand points: internal and external costs, and the prisoners’ dilemma. The most important types of social dilemma are common resources and public goods. In this article examples of social dilemma and its definitions are presented. In addition we offer a clear definition which can help us in the analysis of individualistic and collectivist trends in an actual society. The final part includes samples of researches that have applied this concept in social analysis successfully.

This paper deals with the theoretical analysis of development as one of the most important issues of development in Iran. We believe that the pioneers of modernity, in general, and development managers, in particular, have, explicitly or implicitly, considered modernization school in development. Thus, here first the theoretical rudiments and methodology of this school will be critically discussed. Then, we introduce our Habermas-oriented theoretical framework. According to this framework, we find out, that, the most important problem of development in Iran stems from placing too much emphasis on imported hardware to the neglect of software (the socio-political and cultural development). A selection as such, has caused the domination of ‘system’ over ‘life-world’, and its harmful effects such as increase in social crimes and injuries.