Конфликт в польском экологическом дискурсе: попытка конверсационного анализа

In this article the author tries to explain a nature of conflict within the Polish ecological
 discourse. The major four groups of amateurs and professionals were the subject of
 consideration: professional ecologists, the participants of environmental social move
 ment, fore...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг
Datum:2005
1. Verfasser: Ранцев-Сикора, Д.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:Russisch
Veröffentlicht: Iнститут соціології НАН України 2005
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/90127
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Назва журналу:Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Zitieren:Конфликт в польском экологическом дискурсе: попытка конверсационного анализа / Д. Ранцев-Сикора // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. — 2005. — № 2. — С. 70–84. — Бібліогр.: 20 назв. — рос.

Institution

Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In this article the author tries to explain a nature of conflict within the Polish ecological
 discourse. The major four groups of amateurs and professionals were the subject of
 consideration: professional ecologists, the participants of environmental social move
 ment, forest rangers and licensed hunters. The author analyzes selected publications
 from 8 journals for the years 1992–2001. The main problems analyzed were such:
 group identities, conversational styles — conflict behavior. The research resulted in a
 description of group cultures, which are characteristics of different cultural systems:
 feudalism (hunters), Enlighenment (professional ecologists), industrialism (forest
 rangers) and postindustrialism (environmental social movement). The conclusion
 was that cultural differences between discourse participants are essential thus effective communication between them seems doubtful.
ISSN:1563-4426