translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The striking electoral success of the Ataka party in 2005 and 2009 challenges the scholarly analysis and the political decision-making alike. Do really extreme right wing ideology and policies have fertile ground in Bulgaria? If yes, why is this the case and to what extent? Combining historical and social-structural approaches, the author concludes that the appearance of the Ataka party and its success have been well prepared by the specifics of the post-communist transformation in the country. But the future presence of organizationally isolated extreme right nationalism on the Bulgarian political scene should not be taken for granted. All major political formations have already included nationalist rhetoric in their platforms. Therefore, in a variety of forms radical nationalism will stay on the Bulgarian political scene like in most other Eastern European societies.

No abstract

No abstract

This article is a continuation of the debate on the paradigmatic foundations of sociology. The argument reads that any negligence towards the rising number of would-be sociological paradigms stands as counter-productive to sociological theorizing and empirical research. The guiding idea here is that while sociology is a multi-paradigmatic discipline, efforts should still be made to develop paradigmatic syntheses. The suggested direction for resolving this task includes building up an integrative paradigmatic model and discussing its content and applications. The core of this model is the broadly defined concept of social interaction at micro, meso and macro levels of social structures and processes. The suggested paradigm has the capacity to efficiently mediate in overcoming dilemmas regarding sociological knowledge by integrating structural and historical approaches as well as balancing the explanatory potential of material factors and ideas. In this way, prospects will open up for the development and application of explanatory models in addition to quality middle-range theories.