Aboutdr. Cristina Carpinelli Expertise Cristina Carpinelli is a politolog. She deals with research works, from economic and social point of view, concerning Central-Est Europe (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland), South-Est Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, balkan Countries), Russia and all Former Soviet Union Countries. Recently, She has also become an expert on gender issues in Countries mentioned above. She can't answer the questions relative to other geo-economic and political areas or about other questions outside her competence/knowledge. She lives and works in Milan (Italy).
Experience Cristina Carpinelli wrote many articles and essays on the Ussr and on the transition of the Fsu from a planned economic system to a free market one. She wrote also some books. Now, She is collaborating with some magazines/reviews (The Calendar of People, Slavia, Cassandra, Marxism today ecc.).
Organizations She is a member of Scientific Committee of Cespi (International Problems Study Center) of Milan (Italy)- www.cespi-ong.org. She is also a fixed collaborator of the Italian Monthly Magazine "Noidonne" (Wewomen) and a editorial staff member of "Gramsci oggi" (Gramsci today) magazine on-line.
Publications “Soviet society in the years of the perestrojka”, New Authors, Milan 1991; "Women and family in Soviet Russia", F. Angeli, Milan 1998; "Identities in Transition: Fsu Countries after the Collapse of Real Socialism", Cespi, February 2004; "Women and poverty in Russia under El’cin administration (the era of liberal transition)", F. Angeli, Milan 2004; "The contradictions of real socialism in Soviet Union" in 'Marxism Today' n.2/2007; "The Russia in pieces" (Achab, Verona 2008); Forthcoming book: "The Enlargement of Europe to the Eastern European Countries" (2010).
Education/Credentials Cristina Carpinelli graduated during the academic year 1983/84 with the thesis "The process of demografic ageing of the population in Soviet Union" - State University of Milan - Faculty of Political Sciences (Statistics Department). The thesis of degree was elaborated in the Ussr, at the State University Lomonosov of Moscow.
For a more detailed professional profile of Cristina Carpinelli, you can connected to: http://www.beepworld.it/members/criliberoit/curriculumenglish.htm
Question Why are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim considered to be Structuralists?
Answer For Durkheim, society is a living independent being. The social phenomena must be analyzed with a holistic view, not individually but as part of a whole, the same way as for the biological study of a living organism. Therefore, the society is more than the sum of its parts (that is the individuals). For this reason, Durkheim developed the idea of the solidaristic function exercised by the division of labor seen as the distribution of social roles. Each has need of goods supplied by those who have a job other than their own. But Durkheim not only can be considered a structuralist (of positivist and historical perspective tradition), but also a precursor of the structural-functionalism, since he leads every phenomenon to the function and role that they carry within society.
Marx also agrees with Durkheim that social science should focus on the structural supra-individual dimension (analysis of modes of production of a society, analysis of its social classes, etc.). The same superstructure (culture, politics, literature, etc.) is the reflection of the economic structure of society (its mode of production, its relations among social classes). So he can be considered as Durkheim a structuralist. Of course, in K. Marx, the engine of the dynamics of society is the labor force and the struggle between social classes for the conquest of political and economic power. In his mind, studying the nature of society means scientifically analyze its social and economic laws. And it is not a study end in itself, since it allows him (Marx) to predict what will be the future of social change that is necessary and inevitable. His doctrine is historicist and in some respects deterministic. On the contrary, for Durkheim the dynamics of society is represented by the division of social labor. The last one unites people, creates a dependency among them. Studying the nature of society means, therefore, analyze the mechanisms of the division of social labor. Of course, the division of labor does not create conflicts and social tensions among people. Indeed, it is a powerful factor of integration and social cohesion. In his interpretation of society that transforms itself from society, where there is a mechanical solidarity to one where there is an organic solidarity, Durkheim also may be considered in some respects a historicist. But the two thinkers were in deep disagreement as far as concerns the nature of action on which social structures are based. As we have seen, for Durkheim, the action is performed on the basis of social integration. For Marx the action is performed on the basis of class antagonism and struggle, engines of social change. In the first is enhanced the cohesive aspect, in the second the conflictual (dialectical) one of the society. Hi, Cristina.
