Studie je věnována roz- manitým sociologizujícím, a později přímo i sociologickým způsobům, kterými v minulosti byla a dodnes je věda uchopována. Do sociologie se věda jako výzkumný předmět dostává spolu s osvícenskou ideou pokroku, na kterou v první polovině 19. století navazuje Auguste Comte. Teprve sociologie 20. století se však zbavila „historicismu", kterým byla sociologie nejen Comtova, ale samozřejmě i Marxova určována. Od 30. let minulého století (Merton) se pak věda stává zvláštním sociologickým tématem, které bude s postupujícím časem nabývat na síle (až po nedávný bloorovský a latourovský obrat). V samostatné části se pak prof. Petrusek věnuje fenoménem zpochybňování vědy, který spojuje s proměnami samotných našich společností. Svoji studii uzavírá zamyšlením se nad sociologickou metateorií., This study focuses on various forms of sociological accounts and understandings of science. It demonstrates that as an explanatory topic science enters the field of sociology together with the Enlightenment's idea of progress, which is then followed up by Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. However, it had taken many decades before sociologists were able to free themselves of " historicist" ways of thinking, which can easily be traced in Comte's and Marx's writings. Since the 1930s, science has become a distinct research topic within sociology (with Robert K. Merton as a leading figure) that is nowadays more and more in the centre of systematic disciplinary interest (with David Bloor or Bruno Latour as leading figures). In the final parts, the author inquires into the arguments against science and associates these arguments with the transformations of societies. Also the role of sociological metatheory is aligned with the prospects of socio- logical accounts of science., and Miloslav Petrusek.
This paper examines the social origins of the members of the Premonstratensian Canonry at Strahov, Prague, in the last quarter of the 18th and the second quarter of the 19th centuries. In the introduction we outline changes in the composition of the community in the period under discussion (a decline in the number of canons in the late 18th C and its causes; changes in their activities both within the order and in the public sphere). The main focus of the study is two surveys into the social origins of individual Premonstratensians covering the intake of novices in the periods 1750-1763 and 1804-1816, in which we assume they would attain the peak of their monastic career after 20-25 years spent with the order. Our main source was the confirmation of baptism of individual candidates, records of which for the years in question are relatively intact in the Strahov archive; these were supplemented by research in the relevant registries. An analysis of the data showed that the majority of novices at Strahov monastery were young men with an urban background, whereby there is a clearly perceptible shift from the elite urban classes in the first sample to more artisan circles, as well as a higher proportion of privileged boys from small provincial towns, in the second. Surprisingly, in the early years of the 19th century we no longer find the sons of officials employed in patrimonial (i.e. estate) administration. However, a broader chronological sample would be necessary to confirm that this was indeed a long‐term trend. Neither was it confirmed that more young men of rural origin were interested in joining a monastery, as we had assumed, not even those from the Strahov estates. This shift was not to happen till far later in the century., Hedvika Kuchařová., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy