834707445

Whcreas 2upanov accepted the remarks madę by Josip Obradorić, with sonie reservation$ and explanations, he reacted strongly against those by Vojin Milić, declaring that Milić had read morę into the text than was written there. Żupanov defended his view that the scientific and technological revolution could not be identified with industrialism, just as culture could not be confined within the framework of the scientific and technological revolution.

Żupanov pointed out that equality and ineąuality could be viowed from various angles. The problem was whether or not to accept an egalitarian distribution of income, and this problem was nowhere in the paper identified with the problem of the distribution of personal income. With reference to the criticism of the aversion to private entrepreneurs, 2upanov cited the fact that Yugoslavia passed a law stat-ing that certain fixed assets should be used at 50 per cent capacity (lorries owned by private haulers), stating that no comment was necessary. In reply to the criticism on managers, 2upanov said that he was against political managers but in favour of professionalization and managerial rcsponsibility. In reference to the criticism in respect to anti-intellectualism, 2upanov stated that he never asserted that there was a causal link between egalitarianism and anti-intelectualism but rather a functional one. Anti-intellectualism in egalitarian societies was indisput-able. 2upanov felt that it was important to ask how to achieve a faster development and an industrialism that is different from that in the West. 2upanov strongly re-jected any suggestion of there being any political views in his paper, emphasizing that he was motivated exclusively by scientific conccrns and certainly not by any conservative ideas.

There seem to be substantial reasons for establishing a critical distance from both these fundamental points of view. I have in mind here primarily the posi-tivist-functionalist orientation. 2upanov's paper clearly demonstrates that this posi-tion is very open to criticism, both from within and from without. There is no doubt that the thesis on egalitarianism as a dominant value in Yugoslav society is highly doubtful. It would be a strange dominant value that was under attack by a number of eminent political leaders and writers! What kind of dominant social value is it when young people advocate eauality are derogatorily called »our Chinese«? And 2upanov quotes from this pamphlet in exienso. On the other hand, 2upanov pins on the norms of equality characteristics that they do not have. Thus, for example, in footnote 53 talks about the pressure exerted on doctors not to examine a patient who has no medical insurance or the money to pay for this exa-mination. If egalitarianism were a dominant value, such a patient would certainly be examined, because medical institutions would be equally accessible to alt.

It is convenient to present just one morę remark here. No matter how hard a positivist-functionalistically oriented sociology tries to appear neutral in its value-judgements and ideologically unbiased, it is impossible to avoid the impression that is an excellent instrument for all forces seeking to retain the social status quo. It is comparatively casy to show that this orientation cssentially indicates a conser-vative (and prospective) ideology. 2upanov prefaces his paper with the words of Andrej Hlavek: »The demand for the right to work or the demand for remunera-tion according to needs reflect not so much the need and desire for a job and work as a desire for concealed unemployment and income without work«. Is this really true? Must we denounce the unemployed in this country for wanting »something for nothing«? It would not be a bad idea to ask the hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav workers who have gone abroad, most often compelled by economic ne-cessity, to become highly productive labour in the advanced industrial countries, what they thought about unemployment.

On the other hand, a critical aloofness would be called for, and is even impc-rative, from the critical-humanist orientation as well. The principles of humanism can have a wide variety of interpretations, so that it would be good to show what they really mean. If, for example, we look at what Zaga PeSić-Golubović means by social control, then we sec that it is the same thing, only a little different. It could not be asserted that the situation in this country’s cultural life would become radi-cally better if professionals became members of the cultural councils. It is far morę important to know what they would do, and what they could accomplish in certain social mileu and conditions. The humanist-critical principles to guide such pc°plj would have to be defined morę closely. The sociologists of this orientation should give greater attention to critical analysis of concrete social events and to efforts to clarify and give meaning to social facts. A critical survey of the social system as a system would be indispensable, but it seems that for the most part they are not prepared for such an undertaking.

Boiidar JAKSIC