Braslavskiy R.G. Sociological tradition of civilizational analysis. In: Civilizational diversity of the modern world: [monograph]

Abstract

The chapter presents an analytical reconstruction of the emergence of the civilizational approach in the context of the intellectual and institutional history of sociology. Three waves of civilizational analysis are distinguished, coinciding with three stages of sociology's disciplinary development: pre-disciplinary, disciplinary and postdisciplinary. The first wave includes the formation of the unitary-linear concept of civilization in the mid-18th century, its reception in early sociology, and its final marginalization at the end of the 19th century with sociology's entry into the classical period. The beginning of the second wave falls on the first two decades of the 20th century, marked by the development of pluralistic theory and comparative history of civilizations in the work of M. Weber and E. Durkheim with M. Moss. It continues in the interwar period, when, with the general decline of sociology's interest in macrohistorical topics, N. Elias and P. A. Sorokin created their theories of civilizational dynamics, and culminates in the critical reception of the metahistorical theory of local civilizations in the postwar two and a half decades. The third wave, which continues at present, is given impetus by the civilizational turn in the mid-1970s initiated by B. Nelson and S. Eisenstadt.  Translated with DeepL.com (free version) The chapter presents an analytical reconstruction of the emergence of the civilizational approach in the context of the intellectual and institutional history of sociology. Three waves of civilizational analysis are distinguished, coinciding with three stages of sociology's disciplinary development: pre-disciplinary, disciplinary and postdisciplinary. The first wave includes the formation of the unitary-linear concept of civilization in the mid-18th century, its reception in early sociology, and its final marginalization at the end of the 19th century with sociology's entry into the classical period. The beginning of the second wave falls on the first two decades of the 20th century, marked by the development of pluralistic theory and comparative history of civilizations in the work of M. Weber and E. Durkheim with M. Moss. It continues in the interwar period, when, with the general decline of sociology's interest in macrohistorical topics, N. Elias and P. A. Sorokin created their theories of civilizational dynamics, and culminates in the critical reception of the metahistorical theory of local civilizations in the postwar two and a half decades. The third wave, which continues at present, is given impetus by the civilizational turn in the mid-1970s initiated by B. Nelson and S. Eisenstadt. It combines the tendency for civilizational analysis to be rooted in the sociological tradition with aspirations to renew and consolidate its research program, represented by four main models: process, configurational, interactive and relational. Й. Arnason carried out the most ambitious project of theoretical integration in the field of civilizational analysis on the basis of the concept of mutual constitution of culture and power. The division of the pluralistic approach into metahistorical and sociological directions is no less important than its opposition to the unitary approach. The wave-like dynamics of the formation of the sociological tradition of civilizational analysis, including intermittent phases of marginalization and actualization, demonstrates in historical perspective the structural ambivalence of its position in the disciplinary field of social sciences.

Content (in russ)