The paper deals with the relationship between Emile Durkheim´s sociology and the contractualist tradition of political philosophy, represented here pricipally by Thomas Hobbles. Its aim is to show that Giddens´s strict rejection of Parsons´s claim according to which Durkheim has reopened in his work the "Hobbes´s problem of order", should not be accepted as such, because it´s radicality hides that what is the value in Parsons´s thesis. As we argue, Parsons has the merit of noticing that Hobbes and Spencer, who - in respect of their social philosophies - are usually seen as opposed, appear to be close to each other when they are considered by Durkheim as to the conception of the society their philosophies yield. Yet Durkheim´s sociology is an endeavour to conceive the society independently of the state, and thus, inversely, to emancipate the state from the society, so that it can be entrusted with a different function other than the guarantor of the social order. and Jan Maršálek.
This contribution deals with identity as it is specifically defined by Taylor as a dialogical entity, and with the inadequate conditions that are provided in liberal societies for its formation, and of the indispensable presence of significant others in this process. The second part is devoted to the analysis of a the characteristic features of liberal societies. In the third part the author turns to the disharmonies between the demands on the creation of identity and the conditions provided by liberal areas. Demonstrations are provided at the universal level as well as at the level of concrete problems - individualism, moral relativism, the dominance of instrumental reason, the lack of respect. In conclusion the author summarises her findings and confirms the stated hypothesis on the contemporary conditions of liberal societies which hinders the formation of the modern identity of man., Bojana Ladrová., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii