Search

The article presents a note to contributors to "The British Journal of Sociology." The aim of the journal is to provide a medium for the publication of original papers covering the entire span of sociological thought and research. The editor is particularly keen to publish work on current developments in research and analysis. All contributions, correspondence and books for review should be addressed to The British Journal of Sociology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Papers submitted for publication are normally read by at least two assessors as well as by one of the editors. The editor's decision will be final. A decision of an article will usually be sent to authors within four months of submission, however, whilst every effort will be made to follow this practice, it should be understood that there may be circumstances where this will be difficult to guarantee. Articles submitted to the journal should be an original piece of work, not been published before and not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form.

This article provides guidelines for contributors to the journal. Its aim is to provide a medium for the publication of original papers covering the entire span of sociological thought and research. The editor is particularly keen to publish work on current developments in research and analysis. Articles submitted to the journal should be an original piece of work, not been published before and not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form.

This paper takes issue with the way in which the individualization thesis– in which it is assumed that close relationships have become tenuous and fragile– has become so dominant in‘new’ sociological theorizing about family life. Although others have criticized this thesis, in this paper the main criticism derives from empirical research findings carried out with members of transnational families living in Britain whose values and practices do not fit easily with ideas of individualization. It is argued that we need a much more complex and less linear notion of how families change across generations and in time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper re-conceptualizes the relationship between Ferguson's life and work by locating him in his biographical and geographical context for the purposes of better understanding his proto-sociological writings. Ferguson's work is relatively unknown outside limited sets of literature and current representations of the link between his life and work risk misplacing him as both Scotsman and sociologist. The popular portrayal suggests there is a strong connection between his Highland background and his famous book An Essay on the History of Civil Society. It will be argued that this claim reproduces the social construction of space in Scottish society and is based on stereotypical views of his birthplace and upbringing. Ferguson did not construct an autobiographical narrative to offer his own understanding of the link between his life and work. This reflects the strengths and weaknesses of sociology as it was developing in the eighteenth century. The ‘self’ was not recognized as an object of intention or symbolic construction. Ferguson's writings analysed modernity as it was emerging in eighteenth-century Lowland Scotland and contrary to common opinion, there was no self-identity as a Highlander to shape his understanding of that social process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Émile Durkheim's analysis of historical attitudes of societies toward suicide led him to claim that (1) the social disapproval of suicidal conduct increased constantly from ancient times to the present; (2) such increased disapproval was generated by the growing emphasis put on the dignity and sacredness of the individual; (3) the condemnation of suicidal conduct was therefore essentially moral, and it expressed the strong reaction of the collective conscience against offenses to the cult of the individual. In this study we show that Durkheim's interpretation of the historical evidence is erroneous: not increasing condemnation of suicide, but rather tolerance or mild aversion is the typical social response to suicide. Also, when confronted with the historical evidence, Durkheim's claim that increased disapproval of suicide accompanied increased consideration for the dignity of the individual is shown to be unfounded. Our argument develops in four steps. First, we survey the historical evidence on views of suicidal conduct from classical times to the nineteenth-century; second, we present the moral statistics literature on suicide which flourished during Durkheim's lifetime; third, we analyze Durkheim's own theory of anomic suicide. In the conclusion we propose an alternative interpretation of the historical evidence on attitudes on suicide, and a different framework in which to highlight their significance in contemporary society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]