The paper is devoted to the deportation and stay in Western Siberia of deportees from the Baltic republics. That deportation (summer, 1941) made the deportees the second (after the Polish) large ethnic special contingent during the Second World War period. The deportation operation was positioned by the Soviet leadership as a “cleansing” of the newly annexed territories from the anti-Soviet, criminal and socially dangerous elements, i.e. it was conducted on a social rather than ethnic basis. Perhaps this “dual” approach predetermined the peculiarity of the operation and its difference from the previous one. In particular, in view of the “increased social danger” of the contingent, the most rigid exile settlement regime was introduced until 1952. The paper analyzes the main documents regulating the process of forced relocation, status, regime, supply, and employment of exiled settlers and other aspects of their stay in Siberia. The author comes to the conclusion that deportations from the Baltic and Moldavian republics were not planned in advance. The decision to conduct them arose to some extent spontaneously, after a memorandum from the People's Commissar of State Security of the Lithuanian SSR, P.A. Gladkov (we would remind you that the Resolution on Deportation from the republics of the Baltic States and Moldova has not been found yet and, very likely, did not exist at all). Therefore, the regulation of the status of this category of deportees was not sufficiently worked out. In this regard, local authorities in Siberia did not always understand what they had to do, and often they simply disclaimed all responsibility for the matters related to the situation with deportees in special settlements. A special part of the paper is the analysis of a very original source - discontinued archival and investigatory cases (AIC), which were instigated on special settlers as the result of their criminal prosecution. The paper gives a profound analysis of the case No. 19707 as an example, which describes a special case from the lives of exiled settlers (deported to the Altai Territory) who organized an “illegal” literary circle and published a handwritten journal “Home Sickness”.
The article discusses the relationship of the need for privacy with the development of the individualism. The right to privacy as the autonomy of the self first appeared in Western European culture basing on the idea of individualism. Privacy protects an individual from the unwanted interference of society and the state. The realization of the right to privacy depends on the social environment - the norms and customs of society. The process of individualization took place as a result of the transition from the traditional society to the modern society, which gave a person both the right and the duty to make decisions regarding his own life. An individual received a chance to become the creator of his own destiny, which had previously been socially predetermined. The development of privacy and individualism requires an appropriate sociocultural foundation that emerged during the evolutionary process, which originated in the High Middle Ages and accelerated during the transition to the New Age. Individualization is associated with the development of the inner world as the basis of subjectivity, which was particularly influenced by the Catholic confession, which prompted the analysis of one's own spiritual motives and the teachings of Protestantism with its idea of personal responsibility. The reflection of the growth of the individuality of consciousness is reflected in the art of portrait and self-portrait, depicting a human face in its originality. Increased interest in one’s own self, in one’s own emotional life, is expressed in introspection, analysis of one’s own feelings and motives, as evidenced by the growing number of autobiographical sources. The growing literacy of the population led to the popularity of literary and philosophical societies, which discussions created a platform for bourgeois publicity. Industrialization, which entailed the separation of the place of work and home, served to create a home as a closed private space and a nuclear family as one of the most important values of bourgeois society. Individualization brought for a person both new chances in the form of the right to self-determination and self-development, as well as certain risks and contradictions: the fear of loneliness, the feeling of being thrown out into the world, the need to make an independent choice and solely responsible for its consequences.
Abstract The paper deals in detail with the biographies of three women representing three consecutive generations in computing and programming. All the three have firm personalities and work with commitment and perseverance towards the objectives set in their academic career development. They have displayed a high level of competence and ability to strategize in various social, political and economic situations. In addition to reconstructing the biographies of these three scholars on the basis of documents, we have done some research (using the microanalytical strategy) to determine how general and specific gender imperatives have influenced their view of the world and life quality. The general gender imperatives derive from the patriarchal or feminist picture of the world, and specific gender imperatives become apparent in problem situations related to career, self-realization, double standards, etc. All the three women are/were affiliated with Soviet/Russian Academy of Science, have a degree in mathematics and computation and specialize in programming.
Sociological methodology has accumulated a rich arsenal of methods for the study of reality. However, the study of human life requires specific methodological constructs and updated research strategies. Despite the fact that there is a demand for a comprehensive study of man, sociology has not formed a research approach adequate to modern human problems. The very problem of studying a person looks far from his actual needs and does not answer his vital questions. The author, analyzing the possibilities of the objectivistic paradigm, comes to the conclusion about its limitations in questions of the study of human life. At the same time, the interpretive paradigm looks half-hearted and can not comprehend the depth of the social being of the individual. The author believes that sociology can answer the actual questions of a person, studying it in the context of cultural centrism and human-centrism. This methodology is based on the principles of interdisciplinary approach and hybridization, combining the methodological potential of micro- and macro-approaches. The main research strategies are: “to listen and understand", to use a processual approach, without losing sight of the uniqueness as well as the related reference points, which under certain circumstances can significantly influence social processes. The task of modern sociology is to be closer to a human. This means that science should answer his/her questions and protect his/her "life worlds" from the false goals imposed on people by institutions, and integrate the elements of social consulting into research models