Małgorzata Kołodziejczak
Teoria Polityki, Nr 2/2018, 2018, s. 131 - 144
https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.18.007.8442W artykule przedstawiono koncepcję „wyobraźni politologicznej” jako specyfi cznej predyspozycji badawczej, pozwalającej badaczowi na szerszy i bardziej pogłębiony ogląd rzeczywistości politycznej. Wskazując na możliwe pułapki w myśleniu o tej kategorii (nieuzasadnione utożsamianie z „fantazją” lub bezpośrednia implementacja na grunt politologiczny koncepcji Charlesa Wrighta Millsa), autorka ukazuje dwoistą naturę tejże predyspozycji. Chociaż pozostaje ona w trwałym związku z dwoma odmiennymi wymiarami rzeczywistości: z porządkiem realnym oraz porządkiem poznania, jej podstawowy wektor oddziaływania skierowany jest w stronę poznawania, a nie kreowania realnej rzeczywistości. Ma więc ona charakter quasi-heurystyczny, jednak jej posiadanie nie ewokuje konkretnej postawy badawczej. Ta bowiem uzależniona jest zarówno od zakresu owej wyobraźni (jakie składowe zawiera: historycyzm, dialektyczność, współczynnik antropologiczny, krytyczny), jak i od jej intensywności (określającej gotowość do ingerencji badacza w świat społeczno-polityczny).
Between Order: About Transgenicness of Politological Imagination
Abstract: The paper presents the conception of “politological imagination” as a specifical scientific tool allowing to search political world in a more effective manner. Indicating possible errors in the thinking of political categories (it is mistaken to confuse the term “imagination” and “fantasy” or implement Mills’s sociological imagination theory), the author emphasisies ambiguous nature of that presupposition. Politological imagination is related to different dimensions of reality: real order of reality and cognitive order, but the main focus will remain on cognitive aspect, not creation of political world. It has a quasi-heuristic dimension, but it does not implicate a specific research base. It is dependent on the scope of imagination (it includes historicism, dialectics, anthropological and critical factors) and its strength (it is related to the researcher’s interference in the socio-political world).
Małgorzata Kołodziejczak
Zeszyty Prasoznawcze, Tom 57, Numer 1 (217), 2014, s. 1 - 21
https://doi.org/10.4467/2299-6362PZ.14.001.2136The aim of this paper is to present and discuss theoretical background for media events studies that have been conducted since the 1980s. The paper collects all major perspectives and studies in order to provide a complete picture of a theoretical approach to research on the media events. First, the paper reviews concepts developed by E. Durkheim and so called neodurkheimists, including E. Rothenbuhler and W. Shils. These concepts provided the background and led to a deeper understanding and an explanation of symbolic dimensions of social relations, contemporary ceremonies, rituals (including political ones), and the role of the media in creating the social and political reality. One of Durkheim’s fundamental concepts distinguishing sacrum and profanum provided the background for a concept of media events developed by E. Katz and D. Dayan. While the classic version of this concept included just three main types of the media events (conquest, coronation, and contest), the more recent one is extended and includes six types. Based on the empirical studies conducted by T. Liebes, E. Rothenbuhler, and G. Weimann (to name just some of the scholars), three more types have been added, namely: coercion, disaster, and war. They share a disruptive character (instead if integrative one) and they describe relations between the organizers of an event, media organizations, and the audience in a different manner than the classic version of the concept. For this reason, the idea of including them into a classic concept seems to be criticized by some scholars, including E. Rothenbuhler. Instead, he proposes that a concept of ritual communication as a broader frame for studies on media events should be used.