How to search?
advanced search

Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Keywords
  • Date

Search results

Number of results: 4
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:

Kulturowe, ideologiczne i społeczne źródła anarchii w gospodarce przestrzennej w Polsce

Marek Dutkowski
Studia KPZK | 2018 | tom 183 Teoretyczne i aplikacyjne wyzwania współczesnej geografii społeczno-ekonomicznej
Keywords spatial management anarchy culture ideology social divisions
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Cultural, ideological and social sources of anarchy in spatial management in Poland. The article is an individual statement about the state of the steering sphere of spatial management in Poland. The author puts forward the thesis that for years there has been anarchy in it, which deepened in the period of systemic transformation. Despite the established legal framework of spatial management, consistent with European standards and the existence of spatial planning institutions at local, regional and national level, manifestations of anarchy are widely visible. This is an important, though not the only, reason for the widely observed and repeatedly documented disorder and even spatial chaos in the material sphere of spatial management in Poland. The sources of this anarchy are sought in a specific Polish culture, ideologies professed by professionals related to spatial management, and in old and new social divisions.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Marek Dutkowski

Beyond the Norm of Monogamy – Consensual Non-monogamy as an Example of a ‘Post-modern’ Relationship?

Magdalena Lipnicka
Studia Socjologiczne | 2023 | No 3 | 159-178 | DOI: 10.24425/sts.2023.147165
Keywords consensual non-monogamy postmodernity semantics of love relational anarchy
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Postmodern society is a society in the process of changing value systems and norms, increasing diversity, and individualisation, also in the area of intimate relationships. Contemporary consensual non-monogamy seems to be one example of this changing outlook. The article seeks to answer the questions as to how non-monogamous people identify themselves, what the motivations for entering such relationships they have, and what features of a new approach to relationships this type of relationship demonstrates. The theoretical framework of the article is based, among others, on Giddens’ and Prandini’s theoretical proposals as well as on Luhmann’s ‘semantics of love’. The text presents the results of the qualitative research consisting of 15 in-depth interviews. Its key findings are that in motivating their commitment to such relationships, respondents very often refer to self-discovery and to the choice to be consciously ‘non-normative’. They also demonstrate many features of a new approach to relationships, specifically, relational anarchy.
Go to article

Bibliography

1. Anapol, Deborah. 2013. Poliamoria. Warszawa: Czarna Owca.
2. Baczkowska, Ewelina. 2020. Intymność jako poszukiwanie siebie. Konsensualna niemonogamia a akceptacja siebie oraz partnera W: M. Bieńsko, M. Rosochacka-Gmitrzak, E. Wideł, red. Obraz życia rodzinnego i intymnego. Warszawa: UW.
3. Balzarini, Rhonda N., Christoffer Dharma, Amy Muise, Taylor Kohut. 2019. Eroticism Versus Nurturance How Eroticism and Nurturance Differs in Polyamorous and Monogamous Relationships. Social Psychology, 50, 3: 185–200. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000378.
4. Barker, Meg, Darren Langdrige. 2010. Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 6: 748–772. DOI: 10.1177/1363460710384645.
5. Barker, Meg. 2011. Monogamies and non-monogamies – A response to: ‘The challenge of monogamy: Bringing it out of the closet and into the treatment room’ by Marianne Brandon. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26: 281–287.
6. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2003. Razem. Osobno. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
7. Beck, Ulrich, Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8. Cardoso, Daniel, Patricia M. Pascoal, Francisco Hertel Maiochi, 2021. Defining Polyamory: A Thematic Analysis of Lay People’s Definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50: 1239–1252.
9. Conley, Terri D., Amy Moors, Jes Matsick, Ali Ziegler. 2013. The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually nonmonogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13: 1–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
10. Fairbrother, Nichole, Trevor Hart, Malcolm Fairbrother. 2019. Open relationship prevalence, characteristics, and correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. J. Sex Res., 56: 695–704.
11. Ferrer, Jorge N. 2018. Beyond the non/monogamy system: fluidity, hybridity, and transcendence in intimate relationships, Psychology & Sexuality, 9, 1: 3–20.
12. Gallup. 2022. LGBT Rights, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx (14.10.2022).
13. Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The transformation of intimacy Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
14. Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Przemiany intymności. Seksualność, miłość i erotyzm we współczesnych społeczeństwach. Przekład Alina Szulżycka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
15. Gobbi, Paula. 2013. A model of voluntary childlessness. Journal of Population Economics, 26, 3: 963–982.
16. Grunt-Mejer, Katarzyna. 2014. Od monogamii do poliamorii: społeczny odbiór związków niemononormatywnych. Studia Socjologiczne, 4, 215: 159–181.
17. Härkönen, Juho. 2014. Divorce: Trends, Patterns, Causes and Consequences. In: J. Treas, J. Scott, M. Richards, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 303–22.
18. Haupert, Margaret L., Amy Moors, Amanda Gesselman, Justin Garcia. 2017. Estimates and correlates of engagement in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Curr. Sex. Health Rep., 9: 155–165.
19. Horsten, Joost, Pluk de Liefde. 2017. Hoeveel polyamoristenzijn er In Nederland en Vlaanderen? https://www.plukdeliefde.nl/onderzoek/hoeveel-polyamoristen-zijn-er/ (25.10.2022).
20. Rubin, Jennifer D. et al. 2022. On the Margins: Considering Diversity Among Consensually Non-Monogamous Relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 1: 7–8.
21. Jordan, Lorien S., Cathy Grogan, Bertranna Muruthi, Maria Bermúdez. 2016. Polyamory: Experiences of Power from Without, from Within, and in Between. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16, 1: 1–19.
22. Klesse, Christian 2011. Notions of love in polyamory—elements in a discourse on multiple loving. Laboratorium, 3, 2: 4–25.
23. Levine, Ethan C., Debby Herbenick, Omar Martinez, Tsung-Chieh Fu, Brian Dodge. 2018. Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among US adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 5: 1439–1450.
24. Liefbroer, Aart C., Anne-Rigt Poortman, Judith A. Seltzer. 2015. Why do intimate partners live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32: 251–286.
25. Luhmann, Niklas. 2003. Semantyka miłości. O kodowaniu intymności. Przekład Jerzy Łoziński. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
26. Lynn, Jamieson 1999. Intimacy transformer? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’. Sociology, 33, 3: 477–494.
27. Malinowski, Bronisław 2001. The Sexual Lives of Savages in North Western Malanesia. Taylor & Francis.
28. Manley, Melissa H., Lisa M. Diamond, Sari M. van Anders. 2015. Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 2: 168–180. DOI: 10.1037/sgd0000098.
29. Michalczak, Katarzyna. 2014. Związki intymne i rodzinne konstruowane poza normą monogamii. Praca doktorska. Warszawa 2014. https://depotuw.ceon.pl/handle/item/1138 (18.10.2022).
30. Mitchell, Melissa E., Kim Bartholomew, Rebecca J. Cobb. 2014. Need Fulfillment in Polyamorous Relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 3: 329–339. DOI : 10.1080/00224499.2012.742998.
31. Moors, Amy C., Amanda Gesselman, Justin Garcia. 2021. Desire, Familiarity, and Engagement in Polyamory: Results From a National Sample of Single Adults in the United States. Front. Psychol, 12: 619–640. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619640.
32. Moors, Amy C., Jes Matsick, Heath Schechinger. 2017. Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships. European Psychologist, 22: 55–71.
33. Morrison, Todd Graham, Dylan Beaulieu, Melanie Brockman, Cormac Ó Beaglaoich. 2013. A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 4, 1: 75–91. DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2011.631571.
34. Paprzycka, Emilia, Edyta Mianowska. 2019. Płeć i związki intymne – strukturalne uwarunkowania trwałości pary intymnej. Dyskursy Młodych Andragogów, 20: 441–455.
35. Pasteels, Inge, Vicky Lyssens-Danneboom, , Dimitri Mortelmans.. 2017. A Life Course Perspective on Living Apart Together: Meaning and Incidence Across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 130, 2: 799–817.
36. Prandini, Riccardo. 2019. Experimental love, or love as the sum total of deviations from its modern principles, Sociologia e Politiche Sociali, 22, 30: 25–54.
37. Ritchie, Ani, Meg Barker. 2006. ‘There Aren’t Words for What We Do or How We Feel So We Have To Make Them Up’: Constructing Polyamorous Languages in a Culture of Compulsory Monogamy. Sexualities, 9, 5: 584–601. DOI: 10.1177/1363460706069987.
38. Rubel, Alicia N., Tyler Burleigh. 2015. Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. Journal Of Sex Research, 52, 9: 961–982. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.942722.
39. Rubel, Alicia N., Tyler Burleigh. 2020. Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities, 23, 1–2: 3–27. DOI: 10.1177/1363460718 779781.
40. Rubin, Jennifer D., Amy Moors, Jes Matsick, Ali Ziegler, Terri Conley. 2014. On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal für Psychologie, 22, 1: 19–37.
41. Sandbakken, Ella M., Anita Skrautvol, Ole Jacob Madsen. 2022. ‘It’s my definition of a relationship, even though it doesn’t fit yours’: living in polyamorous relationships in a mononormative culture. Psychology & Sexuality, 13, 4: 1054–1067.
42. Schmidt, Filip. 2005. Para, mieszkanie, małżeństwo. Dynamika związków intymnych na tle przemian historycznych i współczesnych dyskusji o procesach indywidualizacji. Warszawa: Wyd. UMK.
43. Schmidt, Filip. 2015. Nieczyste relacje ambiwalencje i napięcia w dzisiejszych związkach intymnych – krytyczna analiza koncepcji Anthony’ego Giddensa. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, 1: 121–146.
44. Séguin, Léa J., Martin Blais, Marie-France Goyer, Barry Adam, Francine Lavoie, Carl Rodrigue, Celine Magontier. 2017. Examining relationship quality across three types of relationship agreements. Sexualities, 20, 1–2: 86–104. DOI: 10.1177/1363460716649337.
45. Senthilmurugan, Aranee, Samantha Joel. 2022. Let’s Not See Other People: Quality of Alternatives and Willingness to Engage in Consensual Non-Monogamy. Western Undergraduate Psychology Journal, 10, 1: 1–12.
46. Træen, Bente, Frode Thuen. 2021. Non-consensual and Consensual Non-monogamy in Norway, International Journal of Sexual Health, 34, 1: 65–80. DOI: 10.1080/19317611.2021.1947931.
47. Tweedy, Ann E. 2011. Polyamory as a sexual orientation. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 79: 1461–1515.
48. Vilkin, Ellora, Richard Sprott. 2021. Consensual Non‑Monogamy Among Kink‑Identified Adults: Characteristics, Relationship Experiences, and Unique Motivations for Polyamory and Open Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50: 1521–1536.
49. Wang, Cheng-Tong Lir, Evan Schofer. 2018. Coming Out of the Penumbras: World Culture and Cross-National Variation in Divorce Rates. Social Forces, 97, 2: 675–704.
50. Weaver, Bryan R., Fiona Woollard. 2008 Marriage and the Norm of Monogamy. Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, 91, 3-4: 506–522.
51. Wieteska, Magda. 2018. Marriage vs cohabitation – an alternative or opposite? An attempt to define cohabitation in opposition to marriage. Journal of Education, Culture & Society, 1: 27–35.
52. Wood, Jessica, Carm De Santis, Serge Desmarais, Robin Milhausen. 2021. Motivations for Engaging in Consensually Non‑Monogamous Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50: 1253–1272.
53. Żadkowska, Magdalena, Ewa Banaszak. 2002. Miłość i rodzina. Czy badania francuskich socjologów i socjolożek pomagają zrozumieć zmiany dziejące się w Polsce. Fabrica Societatis, 3: 8–17.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Magdalena Lipnicka
1
ORCID: ORCID
  1. Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II

A Land of Impossibility. J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on a (Post)Modern Destabilization of Ethos

Ks. Jerzy Szymik
Studia Nauk Teologicznych PAN | 2014 | Tom 9 | 159-177 | DOI: 10.24425/snt.2014.112778
Keywords Biible faith post-modernity ethos relativism consumerism sense drug addiction anarchy creation metanoia
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Interpreting the Gospel parable of the Prodigal Son and the Loving Father (Luke 15:11–32), J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI shows the essence of the biggest problems of modern (particularly Western) society. The younger son’s journey to remote places, far from his father, symbolizes the fundamental gap between the present and God, which - although promising a happy and independent life – turns out to debase him. Blind questioning of the existing order (including the order of Creation!), an apotheosis of variability and a priori assumption of the new-over-the-old superiority, inevitably lead to confusion, with relativism becoming a “moral” reference and criterion for every action. Finally: bitterness and a protest generating violence, emptiness looking for satisfaction in drug-induced ecstasy, men seen as destroyers and enemies of nature. The only solution is a spiritual battle and metanoia – a return to the Father.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ks. Jerzy Szymik

Roger Scruton: consistent but surprising

Jacek Hołówka
Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2020 | No 1 | 63-80 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2020.132971
Keywords conservatism anarchy socialism transcendental mind first-person desire liberalism third-person desire liberalism first-person autonomy liberalism third-person autonomy liberalism
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Roger Scruton repudiates the idea that civil liberty is a natural and unconditionally desirable state of citizenry, while subjection is something degrading and unnatural. He characterizes the conservative political system as a ‘rule by institutions’ supported by a theory of nature and a theory describing the functioning of institutions. National politics results from operations of social and political institutions which have grown out of traditional arrangements, respect raison d’État, and are governed by offices. The author argues that this is a sound interpretation of essential political arrangements, if it can solve the problem of political reconstruction after a period of decline or disintegration. As a matter of fact Scruton offers such a solution in his analysis of various forms of liberalism, one of which he seems to identify with conservatism.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jacek Hołówka
ORCID: ORCID

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more