Other topics: book chapters

KONOPÁSEK, Z. & ŘÍHA, C. (2023 - in press): Letáčky [Leaflets]. In: E. Fulínová & A. Kvíčalová, ed: Antropocennosti: Malý průvodce antropocénem [Matters of Anthropocene: A small guide to the Anthropocene]. Praha: Academia. Pp. ??-??

::::

POKORNÝ, P. & KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2020): We are all in the thick of it: A dialogue about climate change science, politics and activism. In: A. Vondra, ed: Must environmentalism be alarmist? Searching for realistic answers. Brno: Books & Pipes. Pp. 27-69

::::

Two colleagues, paleoecologist and sociologist, talk about broader contexts of scientific doubting about contemporary climate policies.

POKORNÝ, P. & KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2020): Lítáme v tom: Dialog o klimatu na pomezí vědy, politiky a aktivismu [We're in: Climate dialogue at the edge of science, politics, and activism]. In: A. Vondra, ed: Musí být ekologie alarmistická? Hledání realistických odpovědí [Does ecology have to be alarmist? Finding realistic answers]. Brno: Books & Pipes. Pp. 67-105

::::

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2020): Antropocén: Více než jeden, méně než dva [Anthropocene: More than one, less than many]. In: P. Pokorný & D. Storch, eds: Antropocén. Praha: Academia. Pp. 32-50

::::

BARTLOVÁ, M. / BÍLEK, P. / KONOPÁSEK, Z. / REIFOVÁ, I. (2017): Diskuze o interdiciplinárních přístupech k normalizaci [Discussion on interdisciplinary approaches toward normalization]. In: K. Činátl, J. Mervart & J. Najbert, eds: Podoby česko-slovenské normalizace: Dějiny v diskusi [Forms of Czech-Slovak normalization: History debated]. Praha: ÚSTR/NLN. Pp. 81-101

::::

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2010): Věda, každodenní skutečnost a "přirozený svět" [Science, everyday life and the concept of life-world]. In: B. Velický, K. Trlifajová & P. Kouba, eds.: Spor o přirozený svět [A controversy over the life-world]. Praha: Filosofia. Pp. 173-196

::::

In this paper I discuss the concept of life-world from two specific sociological perspectives: from the perspective of contemporary science and technology studies (STS) and from the viewpoint of classical social constructivism. It is explained, first, why STS have only a weak links to and do not develop the Husserlian critique of science (from the perspective of life-world). Second, I try to elucidate why the phenomenologically inspired idea of social construction of reality is, in fact, transcending and abandoning the original notion of the life-world. It is argued that the concept of life-world does not refer to a livable reality, but rather to a highly abstract idea that is not of much help when answering the basic questions of the two sociological fields, i.e., what is the specific nature of scientific work and how scientific facts are produced; and how everyday reality is constructed.

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2007): The language metaphor in sociology - two different trajectories. In: A. Wittwer, E. Kut, V. Pliska & G. Folkers, eds.: Approaching scientific knowledge: Metaphors and models. Zurich: Collegium Helveticum. Pp. 35-42

::::

The metaphor of language is an influential sociological metaphor. It is, as Brown would put it, a root metaphor, since it functions as a widespread, often implicit general frame for imagining, observing and understanding social structures and processes. Further, for many sociologists, "social phenomena" are not like language, but they are language. Seeing reality as language, however, can mean very different things for sociologists and can even have conflicting theoretical and methodological consequences. For some, the language metaphor necessarily leads to a significant and fatal reduction: only small parts of the world, (directly related to) texts and linguistic exchanges, are taken as sociologically relevant, while the rest is omitted and put aside. For others, however, the same metaphor, taken seriously and consistently, implies a different move: our understanding of how language operates and what kind of entity it is, extended beyond the realm of the spoken or written world and applied to virtually any phenomena of the empirically observable world. Here, the reality is not reduced to texts, but recognized as textual. By outlining and explaining these two conflicting approaches I would like to emphasize interpretative flexibility of key metaphors in scientific thought.

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2000): Reflexive autobiographies: Interpreting the East - understanding the West. In: Z. Konopásek, ed.: Our lives as database: Doing a sociology of ourselves - Czech social transitions in autobiographical research dialogues. Praha: Karolinum (Charles University Press). Pp. 281-298

::::

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (2000): Grandma sociology (reconsidered). In: Z. Konopásek, ed.: Our lives as database: Doing a sociology of ourselves - Czech social transitions in autobiographical research dialogues. Praha: Karolinum (Charles University Press). Pp. 137-172

::::

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (1999): Sociologie babičkou (po dvou letech) [Grandma sociology: Two years after]. In: Z. Konopásek, ed.: Otevřená minulost: autobiografická sociologie státního socialismu. Praha: Karolinum. Pp. 217-251

::::

KONOPÁSEK, Z. (1991): Rodina a výzkum sociální struktury [Family and research on the social structure]. In: J. Alan & P. Machonin and others: Jak se rodí sociologický výzkum: K problémům výzkumu transformace sociální struktury československé společnosti. Praha: Universita Karlova. pp. 166-171

::::

Random picture

See Photogallery for more...

Closest events/performances

Nothing planed now...

See Events for more...