社会必须重组吗?B.拉图尔与P.布迪厄之间的破碎争端

Arūnas Poviliūnas
{"title":"社会必须重组吗?B.拉图尔与P.布迪厄之间的破碎争端","authors":"Arūnas Poviliūnas","doi":"10.15388/socmintvei.2020.2.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the conflict between two prominent French sociologists P. Bourdieu and B. Latour. It attempts to answer a question to what extent this conflict reflects the paradigmatic break of sociology. The study of the conflict concludes with the statement that the attempts of B. Latour and his allies to “reassemble the social” and institutionalize Actor-Network-Theory resulted in the critical movement of the Science Technology Studies (STS). However, STS does not succeed to become the paradigmatic break of the path of sociology.","PeriodicalId":33062,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Must the Social be Reassembled? Broken Dispute between B. Latour and P. Bourdieu\",\"authors\":\"Arūnas Poviliūnas\",\"doi\":\"10.15388/socmintvei.2020.2.26\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article analyses the conflict between two prominent French sociologists P. Bourdieu and B. Latour. It attempts to answer a question to what extent this conflict reflects the paradigmatic break of sociology. The study of the conflict concludes with the statement that the attempts of B. Latour and his allies to “reassemble the social” and institutionalize Actor-Network-Theory resulted in the critical movement of the Science Technology Studies (STS). However, STS does not succeed to become the paradigmatic break of the path of sociology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15388/socmintvei.2020.2.26\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologija Mintis ir Veiksmas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/socmintvei.2020.2.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了法国两位著名社会学家布迪厄和拉图尔之间的冲突。它试图回答一个问题,这种冲突在多大程度上反映了社会学的范式断裂。对这一冲突的研究得出结论,拉图尔及其盟友试图“重组社会”并将行动者网络理论制度化,导致了科学技术研究(STS)的批判运动。然而,STS并没有成功地成为社会学路径的范式突破。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Must the Social be Reassembled? Broken Dispute between B. Latour and P. Bourdieu
The article analyses the conflict between two prominent French sociologists P. Bourdieu and B. Latour. It attempts to answer a question to what extent this conflict reflects the paradigmatic break of sociology. The study of the conflict concludes with the statement that the attempts of B. Latour and his allies to “reassemble the social” and institutionalize Actor-Network-Theory resulted in the critical movement of the Science Technology Studies (STS). However, STS does not succeed to become the paradigmatic break of the path of sociology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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