This paper argues for the need of a sociology of grace, based on a sociology of the
Renaissance, central – among others – for understanding the modern condition. Such an
approach takes its point of departure in Max Weber’s comparative study of the rise of world
religions and his concept of charismatic power, yet goes beyond Weber in emphasising the significance
of a series of renascences, culminating in the European Renaissance starting from the
Duecento. The paper starts with a short linguistic and historical background analysis. The linguistic
study reveals that terms related to «grace» have three distinct meanings: theological (the
power and mercy of God), aesthetic (the power of graceful beauty), and socio-anthropological
(charity and gift relations). The historical analysis goes back to the axial age hypothesis but
argues that – as the three great monotheistic world religions, redefined as «religions of grace» –
each developed outside the time horizon of the axial age, this period, though an extremely
important moment of liminal crisis, cannot be considered as the «centre» of world history.
Emphasis is placed, instead, on the more or less parallel emergence of ancient Judaism and
Minoan culture, each based on epiphany experiences, one male and the other female, thus
establishing two distinct and unique traditions of grace. European culture, rooted in
Christianity, is based on the attempt to forge a unity between these two traditions; a unity that
always remained precarious and in need of constant renewals, in the forms of reforms and
renascences. The most important such period of renewal was the Italian Renaissance, which
started in the Duecento, combining «rebirth» and reform, and ending in the liminal crisis
around 1500. Central for this project was an attempt to unify the three meanings of grace. The
failure of the Renaissance as a project led to its fragmentation into Protestant predestination
(Weber), court society etiquette (Elias) and the disciplinary institutions of the modern state
(Foucault); or the rise of modernity. The argument implies that the crisis produced by modern
nihilism can only be ended by a return to the spirit of the Renaissance project.
The article questions the increasing subjectiveness of the concept of health in contemporary
globalised societies, wondering whether it can actually be considered the outcome of a new centrality of the person or it must be regarded as a particular aspect of the wider process of individualisation
typical of the late modernity. Particularly, the changing concept of health is
analysed by applying the theoretical tri-dimensional model of individualisation proposed by
Beck on the background of the so-called «risk society» or «uncertainty society» in order to
highlight the intrinsic ambivalence of the subjectiveness of health between an healthism-oriented
hedonist narcissism typical of our performative and medicalised societies (Parsons) and an
actual new autonomy of the person as part of a more general «accountable freedom».
During last decades in the European countries, some relevant changes in the labour market
happened with the increase of unstable and atypical jobs. The increasing diffusion of flexible
forms of employment has also shaped the perspective on the systems of employment-related
guarantees and other forms of social protections. These transformations has been critical for
those welfare systems soundly built on salary-employment and thus largely based on employment-
related social benefits. In this complex and diversified context some of the traditional
inequalities linked to the labour market have worsen. This article explores the relation between
the new forms of job and the concept of citizenship. In particular it put the focus on the relations
between job instability and the social rights access.
The aim of this paper is to show the various ways in which the concept of social capital is
used through a critical analysis of the scientific literature. The analysis of the concept has to end
by showing its pronounced ambiguity. In literature can be found two definitions of the concept
which are difficult to reconcile. One definition considers social capital as a property of the
social system, the other as an individual property. Apart from these fundamental differences,
the number of factors which are dealt with as social capital is so vast that one legitimately
doubts whether it is possible to create a theory of social capital. Even in light of empirical
observations, there is a great variety of operationalization which can not be reconciled. Social
capital seems to be more a metaphor than a concept and what constitutes social capital, rather
than being defined abstractly, can and, in fact, is defined each time in relation to specific contexts
and the subjects being examined.
Essay presents some theoretical roots of the unexpected consequences of learning on the
basis of phenomenology and sociological literature. In this review who learns is the social
researcher. Learning from the unexpected means to be led by exceptional, counterfactual, invisible, paradoxical, […] data, that is, what the research design cannot plan. It suggests a double
way to the unanticipated learning outcomes: to generate learning from past experiences (thinking-
the-action), and to generate a new perspective to understand learning along with the
process of building knowledge (thinking the thoughts). Essay conclusion is that every time the
actor/researcher leads to modify his knowledge and cognitive logics, the analysis of unanticipated
outcomes operates as an instrument of social and cultural change.