a1_The prosopographical (collective biographical) study set out in this article is based on data published in the Who’s Who of Contemporary Czech Sociology and Related Disciplines (2011). Due to the fact that Czech sociologists rarely retire, this intellectual sub-group is comprised of both veteran researchers born during the interwar period and their younger colleagues. Czech sociologists are mostly men, although this gender imbalance has declined. The demographics explain to some extent why the prosopography of Czech sociologists and the workings of the academic community in general are still profoundly influenced by the discontinuous and occasionally turbulent development of Czech sociology under the communist regime (1948-89); and its former ideological concerns and power interventions. This study shows that (a) sociologists often marry other sociologists, (b) a majority of Czech sociologists were born in university cities: places where they completed all of their academic education and thereafter embarked on a career and settled down. Unsurprisingly, there is a relatively low level of career movement among Czech sociologists: a trend which has only recently begun to change with increased opportunities for mobility through foreign fellowships. The academic interests of Czech sociologists are broad: tens of dozens of scholars are active in 45 subfields of research, and 10 other related academic disciplines. However, half of all Czech sociologists works in 8 sub-disciplines, including (in descending order) political sociology, gender studies, empirical research, social stratification, theoretical sociology, economic sociology, sociology of religion, and sociological methodology. One third of sociologists simultaneously work for two employers. Nevertheless, the community has not been overly active in terms of publications., a2_Every sixth sociologist has yet to publish a book; and half of them, including the holders of the very highest degrees have only one to three books to their names. The writing of the younger scholars is slightly more extensive, but this may well be the result of a “sampling error” and they – as well as other scholars today – prefer to write their own books or participate in edited proceedings to undertaking academic translations., Zdeněk R. Nešpor., and Obsahuje bibliografii
The aim of the present article is to shed light on the background of the analytical frame that nas been developped by the author himself and his colleague L. Thévenot in De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. It has been conceived as an instrument to be applied in the analysis of the critical operations (critism and justification in situations of confiict) carried out by the actors in their everyday life. Yet the position of the sociologist and therefore of his work is challenged at the same time. The critical actor and the "classical" sociologist that pretend to have access to a more genuine reality than ordinary people have and that thus assume a critical position, appear to be much closer to each other than it is usually believed. In order to make the analysis of the ciritcal operations possiible, this position of the "classical" sociologist must be abandoned. This is how our critical societies, in which actors are endowed with critical ressources and use them quasi-permanently, can be grasped as an object of sociological analysis. The author thn examines the conditions of possibility of such a sociology of criticism and the socilogist´s new position he is conducted hereafter to occupy., Luc Boltanski., and Obsahuje použitou literaturu