The pluralization of family forms within a few generations has shattered the unified theoretical framework of the family, as single-parent families, blended families, childless couples, and visiting partnerships are difficult to fit into traditional family typologies. These changes have resulted in the acceleration of specialization and interdisciplinarity within family sociology, a trend already characteristic of the development of other disciplines. At the same time, a current feature of the discipline is that family sociology often appears indirectly in sociological literature, with the family increasingly becoming a repository for general sociological-theoretical reflections, as well as methodological and conceptual ones. At the micro level, the family has become a privileged space for the construction of personal identity, while at the macro level, it serves as a key illustration of social changes. Family socialization, the development of trust, intimate relationships, love, and sexuality have become central elements in many contemporary theories.

Key focus points: domestic and international trends, interpretations, specific research and subdisciplines within family sociology, reflections on late modernity theories, and subdiscipline research.

Solidarity, which is mostly considered in a positive sense, increasingly appears in public discourse and social science literature, while the possibilities for collective actions are becoming more and more restricted and concentrated in certain areas. As the meaning of solidarity itself becomes increasingly problematic, complex, and contradictory, numerous communities, organizations, and movements make efforts to operate individual and communal solidarity, thereby creating various forms of collective action associated with solidarity (including some that are dysfunctional from a social perspective). The research focus provides an opportunity to track the contemporary transformations of solidarity and to map the possibilities of collective action.

The problem is especially peculiar because western academic models found their ways into a „socialist social science” throughout a decade which had to be adequate to the most dissimilar model coming from the Soviet Union. The disintegration of sociology itself and its reorganisation was also a result of a soviet decision. This meant the establishment of institutional and power conformation adapted from the Soviet Union as well as the burdensome presence of the ideology determining social thinking. While Hungarian sociology was influenced by the forbidden, tolerated or encouraged status of soviet sociology, it was (also) affected by western models due to its peculiar social medium and its cultural traditions. In the adaptation of such models strategic considerations played a great role on behalf of reformers as well as those in academic power.  After the democratic transformation in Hungary western theories and models became more available, topics could be studied easier, and the field – as many predicted – became more professional, a group of sociologist formed who would (also) be involved in the western scientific market. Hungarian and Eastern European peculiarities – like the transformation of the public sphere, questioning the knowledge accumulated earlier – made the (identity) crisis of international sociology even more complex. The sociology in Hungary in the 90s was burdened by anomalies in science policy and science management as well as a (theoretical and practical) crisis of professional identity. In the meanwhile the earlier system of research financing transformed completely. Given the circumstances, it comes as no surprise that the problem of adaptation is treated ambivalently in the academic discourse.

The more focusing on body in public policy results more empirical researches based on the theories of biopolitics. That makes possible broader, interdisciplinary theoretical dissertations and concrete researches of all-day, health, identity etc., respectively.