For Zygmunt Bauman, “sociologizing makes sense only in as far as it helps humanity” and “sociology is first and foremost a moral enterprise,”
“To think sociologically can render us more sensitive and tolerant of diversity. Thus to think sociologically means to understand a little more fully the people around us in terms of their hopes and desires and their worries and concerns (Bauman & May, 2001).”
It would be hoped that his writings and work written about him would be made available through the Creative Commons License 3.5, preferred by academics in 2008. Unfortunately so much of what is really useful to robust conversations in civil society, foundational texts and articles such as Bauman’s are restricted to those with access codes to the deep internet, the dark place of open source and Web 2.0+. Many of the services of the Deep Internet operate within the private sector model as user-pay. Others are restricted to those who are members of exclusive academic associations, the insular knowledge elite, who also operate with obligatory membership fees.
to be continued . . . add notes from EndNote
The following is an excerpt from the exclusive Deep Internet, the less accessible internet restricted to members through a user-pay service:
“Zygmunt Bauman is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the Universities of Leeds and Warsaw and has written some of the more influential modern books on sociology.
Baumans thinking is mainly influenced by what he refers to as the big triad of influences. This triad includes: Antonio Gramsci, Georg Simmel and Bauman’s wife, Janina. Bauman explains the triad as follows: “Gramsci told me what, Simmel how, and Janina what for” (Beilharz, 2001).
Bauman perceives Gramsci’s work as an antidote to the determinism of so much Marxisant thought. Simmel provides Bauman with the methods, whilst Janina has taught him that, sociologizing makes sense only in as far as it helps humanity.
This last quotation gives us a strong clue as to Bauman’s general approach to sociology.
Bauman was born in Poznan, Poland in 1925.
He completed his graduate studies – with an MA in social sciences – and in 1954 became a lecturer in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Warsaw. He was influenced by the work of his teachers Stanislaw Ossowski and Julian Hochfeld.
In 1971 Bauman came to Britain where he took up a position as a lecturer eventually becoming Professor of Sociology at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire. Today he is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the Universities of Leeds and Warsaw. “
(Source: http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk) now? www.sociologyonline.com
Anthony Giddens described Zygmunt Bauman as: ‘the theorist of postmodernity�he has developed a position with which everyone has to reckon’” (www.sociologyonline.com).”
“While heading the Department of Sociology at Leeds, Bauman brought great qualities of intellectual leadership. “From the start he saw his task as one of inspiring students, and among his academic colleagues promoting a collegial atmosphere in which new academic projects were welcomed and free and open discussion encouraged in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and understanding” (www.leeds.ac.uk). Since his retirement, Bauman and his reputation has continued to benefit sociology at Leeds.”
Webliography and Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor. Inspired Bauman.http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1987. Legislators and Interpreters. Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt(1988) Freedom Open University Press
Bauman, Zygmunt (1993) Postmodern Ethics Blackwell
Bauman, Zygmunt (1995) Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality Blackwell
Bauman, Zygmunt (1997) Postmodernity and Its Discontents Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt (1998)a Globalization Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt (1998)b Work, consumerism and the new poor Open University Press
Bauman, Zygmunt (1999) In Search of Politics Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt (2001)a Liquid Modernity Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt (2001)b The Individualized Society Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt; & Tester, K (2001) Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman Polity
Bauman, Zygmunt & May, T (2001) Thinking Sociologically Blackwell
Beck, Ulrich. 2002. “The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies.” Theory, Culture and Society. 19:1-2
Beilharz, P (ed) (2001) The Bauman Reader Blackwell
Berger, P ([1964]1974) Invitation to Sociology Viking
Carveth, Donald L. 1984. “Psychoanalysis and Social Theory: The Hobbesian Problem Revisted.” Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought. 7:1: 43-98.http://www.yorku.ca/dcarveth/social.htm
Castoriadis, Cornelius. Inspired Bauman
Gordon, Avery. 1997. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press
Gramsci, Antonio. Inspired Bauman
Krzemien. Microsociology: Symbolic-Interaction
Lemert, C (1995) Sociology: After the Crisis Westview
Levinas, Emmanuel. Inspired Bauman
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. “The Bureaucratic Ethos.” The Sociological Imagination. New York. Oxford University Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York. Oxford University Press.
Simmel, Georg. Inspired Bauman
Smith, D (1999) Zygmunt Bauman: Prophet of Postmodernity Polity
Tester, K (1997) Moral Culture Sage
Weber, Max. Inspired Bauman
Wolff, Janet. 1999. “Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture” href=”http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue1/wolff/wolff.html” target=”_blank”>Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture.”
Bauman & May, 2001
Filed under: Ethical turn, Teaching Learning and Research, postmodernity, sociological imagination, sociology | Tagged: Anthony Giddens, postmodern, postmodernity, sociology, University of Leeds, Zygmunt Bauman









August Comte vs Zygmunt Bauman
The Religion of Humanity vs Analysis of anything that is “believed” via a “sociologizing” process for the good of humanity.
What an amazing topic for an ongoing robust conversation! Do you have three sources to feed into such a discussion? What are your own thoughts on this? Fundamentally the dichotomy is situated in the realm of legitimacy of knowledge claims pitting religion (and a loose folksonomy or tag cloud of faith-belief-ideology-subjectivity ???) against science (with a tag cloud of evidence-based facts, research, questions-objectivity-???). Where does “humanism” fit in this conversation? Who decides what is “good” or “bad” for humanity? (the universal values question)? How inclusive is the “we” of a concept such as “humanity”? Is it only a “secular humanism”? How does Bauman’s more recent research (for example into 20th century genocide) refine, develop and/or contradict Comte’s theories historically situated at a time when the complexities of xenophobia, racism, cultural diversities and the shrinking globe were not profoundly acknowledged?