Why are the institutional injustice and the lack of fairness omnipresent in Serbia? A pragmatic assessment of plural orders of worth

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Sociologija Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2298/soc2102236j
Stefan Janković, Milena Toković
{"title":"Why are the institutional injustice and the lack of fairness omnipresent in Serbia? A pragmatic assessment of plural orders of worth","authors":"Stefan Janković, Milena Toković","doi":"10.2298/soc2102236j","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent results from Round 9 of the European Social Survey (ESS) indicate that Serbia differs from other European countries in terms of justice and fairness. Whereas the Serbian people?s dissatisfaction relating to unjust income distribution, unfair employment chances and political institutions may not be surprising, these findings still raise a dozen questions. Situated within contemporary discussions on normativity in sociology and survey methodology, this paper aims to reassess the moral grammar of these judgments. By endorsing tenets of pragmatic sociology and its principal aim to recognize the plural modes of valuation and criticism and reflective capacities of social actors to judge and evaluate, this paper develops around few major points. First, we underline how most major approaches to axiology remain stuck in a co-determinist framework, thereby renewing a number of dualisms. Instead, we opt for a relational approach and further present how the theoretical model of Boltanski and Thev?not enables the locating of different assessments of worth. After setting our methodological framework against the ?externalist? epistemology, we explore our key assumption that the above-mentioned high rates come as a problem of a feasible ?truce? between the domestic regime and the civic polity, ruled by proclaimed legality, representativeness and impersonal character. We trace the problem of incorporating multiple arrangements as a problem of generality, by relating these to two layers of information acquired through the ESS. One involves the analysis of the domestic polity covering the household situation in terms of organization and unveiling the specific worth given to care and protection. Another layer is derived from regression analysis which affirms that the absence of fairness in civic polity correlates with a higher degree of worth given to the domestic one, but also that the latter situation depicts a deeper ontological puzzle about making a mild transition to the assumed ?horizontality? of civic matters.","PeriodicalId":43515,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/soc2102236j","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent results from Round 9 of the European Social Survey (ESS) indicate that Serbia differs from other European countries in terms of justice and fairness. Whereas the Serbian people?s dissatisfaction relating to unjust income distribution, unfair employment chances and political institutions may not be surprising, these findings still raise a dozen questions. Situated within contemporary discussions on normativity in sociology and survey methodology, this paper aims to reassess the moral grammar of these judgments. By endorsing tenets of pragmatic sociology and its principal aim to recognize the plural modes of valuation and criticism and reflective capacities of social actors to judge and evaluate, this paper develops around few major points. First, we underline how most major approaches to axiology remain stuck in a co-determinist framework, thereby renewing a number of dualisms. Instead, we opt for a relational approach and further present how the theoretical model of Boltanski and Thev?not enables the locating of different assessments of worth. After setting our methodological framework against the ?externalist? epistemology, we explore our key assumption that the above-mentioned high rates come as a problem of a feasible ?truce? between the domestic regime and the civic polity, ruled by proclaimed legality, representativeness and impersonal character. We trace the problem of incorporating multiple arrangements as a problem of generality, by relating these to two layers of information acquired through the ESS. One involves the analysis of the domestic polity covering the household situation in terms of organization and unveiling the specific worth given to care and protection. Another layer is derived from regression analysis which affirms that the absence of fairness in civic polity correlates with a higher degree of worth given to the domestic one, but also that the latter situation depicts a deeper ontological puzzle about making a mild transition to the assumed ?horizontality? of civic matters.
为什么制度上的不公正和缺乏公平在塞尔维亚无处不在?对价值的复数次序的实用评价
欧洲社会调查(ESS)第9轮最近的结果表明,塞尔维亚在正义和公平方面不同于其他欧洲国家。而塞尔维亚人呢?尽管人们对不公平的收入分配、不公平的就业机会和政治制度的不满可能并不令人惊讶,但这些发现仍然引发了一系列问题。在当代关于社会学和调查方法论的规范性讨论中,本文旨在重新评估这些判断的道德语法。通过赞同实用社会学的原则及其主要目的,即认识到评价和批评的多元模式以及社会行动者判断和评估的反思能力,本文围绕几个要点展开。首先,我们强调价值论的大多数主要方法仍然停留在共同决定论的框架中,从而更新了一些二元论。相反,我们选择了一种关系的方法,并进一步提出了Boltanski和Thev?不允许定位不同的价值评估。在建立了我们的方法论框架来反对“外在主义”之后。在认识论上,我们探讨了我们的关键假设,即上述高比率是一个可行的休战问题。介于国内政权和公民政体之间,由宣告的合法性、代表性和非个人特征所统治。我们通过将多重安排与通过ESS获得的两层信息联系起来,将合并多重安排的问题作为一般性问题来跟踪。一是分析从组织方面涵盖家庭情况的国内政策,并揭示给予照顾和保护的具体价值。另一层来自回归分析,它确认公民政治中公平的缺失与给予国内政治更高程度的价值相关,但后一种情况也描绘了一个更深层次的本体论难题,即如何向假设的“水平”过渡?公民事务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociologija
Sociologija SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
40 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信