Ideas and Ideals

In the article the author raises the problem of social disadaptation of a modern man referring to the ideas of German existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers. A rigid view of the world (Jasper’s metaphor of the “shell”) is seen as a basic reason for a man’s resistance and suffering in the face of changes. Philosophical significance of the phenomenon is ambivalent, since constructing the shell out of routine life, long-standing values, emotional and behavioral scenarios of a man, it also contributes to one of the subconscious defense mechanisms preventing pain and blocking out the uncertainty of the outside world. The article discusses how the inner rigidity is formed, as well as how it can be overcome as a phenomenon that obstructs the expression of life both on the individual and interpersonal level. The a superindividual challenge, introduced by Jaspers to describe and point to a superindividual challenge to undergo a profound transformation of personality, is analyzed in the modern historical and cultural context. The author argues that it is possible to loosen the shell not only when forced or when an existential crises requires it, but also through a conscious effort towards personal development. Thereby, the importance of further development of Karl Jasper’s philosophical ideas is justified in terms of “soft” limit situations. Namely, travelling, experiencing alterity in communication with the other, as well as encountering information that describes a blocked-out aspect of reality. The author concludes that the shortcut to increasing vitality goes through one’s conscious effort to loosen the rigidity and requires experiencing what one resists the most or what is being avoided due to its emotional intensity. Personal responsibility for encountering the uncertainty of life will let one achieve higher awareness, deeper feelings and more active engagement in the world. In keeping with Karl Jasper’s ideas, the author claims that the unlimited windows of opportunities open up if man puts enough effort to unlock his potential through an alchemic transformation of one’s own taboos, restrictions and conditioning.

The social situation of the Russian and aboriginal women in Siberia in the XVII and beginning of the XVIII centuries is covered in the domestic historical literature rather poorly. One can hardly name any more or less bright works devoted to this issue but the article by N.N. Ogloblin. This article was published in 1890. Since that time the approaches to the issue have been changed. In modern historiography, the problem of social understanding of gender differences is viewed through the prism of gender theory. The feminist approach shows that the privileged position of men in society, which is called “patriarchy”, is provided not only by institutions, direct violence, etc., but also deeply embedded in the language speech practices that determine the place of women in the social structure. The author considers specific historical material showing the position of women reflected in nicknames, hidden ratings, stinging proverbs and sayings, rumors and interpretations. Analyzing the practice of real relations, it often turned out that women were completely powerless, even deprived of the right to dispose their own destinies and their own bodies. The situation was even worse with the aboriginal women, who experienced double and triple oppression. The position of the Russian women of the privileged classes could have been somewhat better, she might have had not only more resources, but also rights.

Women were often used as tools for male activities, they were dealing with difficult negotiations or carring out men’s will to control other women and their actions.

A single article can’t embrace the complex and multidimensional world of gender relations in Siberia in the XVII century. It requires further studies.

The article raises the question of the relationship of social study and social action. It is noted that at present, sociality is understood differently than during the formation of social sciences. This is not about social laws, but about non-linear processes that are described using a systematic approach and synergetics. In this case, a social technician relies on knowledge gained in the course of studying sociality, reconstructing a specific history of sociality, and social trends of today. The author sets the task to characterize the relationship between social characteristics identified by social researchers, such as economics, state, society, power, masses, culture. He shows that sociality can be represented as consisting of three areas. The first distinguishes three main subsystems: the state, society and the economy, and the state was the constituent element. In the second anthropological sphere, the author identifies a new European personality, communities, masses, society, understood no longer as in the first sphere, but in anthropological terms. Individuals and communities in the anthropological sphere, as a rule, operate in two modes - normative and parasitic (rent-building, the use of social structures for other purposes). In the third area, encompassing the other two, sociality is seen as a popular phenomenon. The point is that the state and society are not one, there are many of them, and they enter into various difficult relationships (struggle for territory and resources, competition, helping each other, exchanges of various kinds, etc.). The main processes of sociality are distinguished and characterized: globalization and modernization, the implementation of social schemes and concepts, the processes of “post” and “counter”, the process of setting and solving problems (“challenges” and “answers” ​​to them). In the last part of the work, the author's version of the reconstruction of a concrete history of sociality, as well as social trends of the present, is proposed.

The article discusses some features of the formation of the political and intellectual elite of Russia associated with the awareness of the civilizational characteristics of Russian society. Based on the experience of researching this topic by the domestic and foreign thinkers, the author raises a problematic question of whether Russia can be considered as one of the examples of a civilizational structure. Civilizations are very broad geopolitical associations, which form in their existence the corresponding elite strata. The text draws attention to the characteristics of the elites, their role in society. The elites of society are heterogeneous; they arise in different social strata. The elite appears as an informal association of such groups. The author points out the importance of the existence of political and intellectual elites, whose mutual support creates the necessary correspondence between worldviews and practical actions in society. The author draws attention to the ethical characteristics of elite groups, in particular, to the relationship of individual morality with the awareness and fulfillment of public duty imposed on elites by their position in the society. The author agrees with the opinion of V.O. Klyuchevsky, who pointed to the particularities of the formation of state consciousness of the princely elite of the period of Kievan Rus. It is not an ethnic consciousness, it begins with an understanding of the territorial community of lands and the people living on it, united by princely power. In the feudal period, the role of the intellectual elite with necessity was played by the Orthodox clergy, who turned not only to the formation of personal morality of people, but also to understanding the ideology of the Moscow state. The historically inevitable transition to the industrial stage of development required the formation of secular consciousness and a new elite capable of its development. The author points out the important role of historical consciousness as an ethical basis for intra-elite harmony and for the consensus of society and the elite. Under these conditions, a contradiction arises in the Russian elite between attempts to comprehend their own civilizational identity and orientation toward a Western model of development. The author points to the unresolved nature of this contradiction and its influence on the modern history of Russia.

The article raises the problem of a methodologically correct variable description of sociocultural transformations models as the basis for effective models regulating the corresponding processes. In the paradigmatic field of sociocultural research, there is a whole range of interpretations of the sociocultural approach put forward in connection with the analysis of the socio-cultural dynamics and sociocultural transformations of various world regions. On the basis of highlighting various interpretations of the sociocultural approach, the authors explicate different models of sociocultural transformations. The importance of the methodological heritage of P.A Sorokin for the analysis of this process is emphasized. The authors offer their vision of this prominent Russian-American sociologist’s research on the description of sociocultural transformations, and an assessment of its possible use in relation to contemporary Russia.

According to the authors, in the terminology of P.A. Sorokin pre-revolutionary Russian and Soviet cultures should be identified as ideational cultures that developed in the paradigm of Orthodoxy and its reformation. The history of Russia can be viewed as a series of successive and growing tides of ideational culture that were occasionally held back by the temporary rise of sensual culture. The post-Soviet period is viewed as a controversial process of planting sensual culture. In the future, another tide of ideational culture is possible.

It is concluded that in the diagnosis of the sociocultural dynamics of modern Russia, it is possible to use various interpretations that provide an empirically-specific description of the course of sociocultural transformations. The use of competing methodological interpretations and model typologies can provide a diverse and panoramic analysis of sociocultural dynamics, which is an important theoretical prerequisite for determining the optimal models for its regulation at different levels of social organization in the perspective of sociocultural integration of Russia. Taking into account its wide regional and ethnocultural diversity, it is possible to implement various phase models of sociocultural transformations depending on the type of region, characteristics of the ethnocultural and ethno-confessional landscape.

Research in the field of the human capital gained frontal character in domestic science. This research takes place in methodology too. In the process of development the calculate-formula of human capital has been steadily complicating since 1960, incorporating new indicators. Even this very complication has become the subject of discussions in the expert community, not to mention the need, justifiability and technological effectiveness of calculation of separate components of “the human development index”. The cross-disciplinary nature of human capital research has become the result of such complication. Sociologists, psychologists, experts in the field of IT developments, and others joined the discussion. The methodological basis of research and expert dialogue also extend respectively. For example, one can hear the opinions about the need to use qualitative methods for research of the human capital.

Multi–paradigm investigations become more and more obvious. While economists-libertarians were fiddling with macroeconomic indicators of education and income and extrapolated the results to a single person as a carrier of special capital, the speculative methodological nature of such procedures still could have remained in the shadow. But the more sophisticated the toy is, the easier it is to break it. It turned out that human capital has a complex structure. And the question about the core of human capital and its structural components depends on the system of axiomatic installations and terminology. That is to say, it depends on the paradigm consideration of the subject. The Marxist paradigm (the alternative to the libertarian one) was prior, historically speaking. The concepts of patrimonial essence of a person and workforce were introduced into scientific use one century prior to pioneers of the human capital research.

In my opinion, the greatest intrigue in a cross-paradigm polylogue is created by a vitalist paradigm. At least, exactly here it is possible to find the answer to the question, most inconvenient for the theory of human capital: if the intensity of educational practices and capitalization of a person are in a direct proportion, then how one can explain a notorious “syndrome of a mediocre pupil”? The article considers the importance of a motivation factor of passionarity in various paradigmal transcriptions.

The article considers assimilation problems in the USSR and the Russian Federation through the prism of interethnic marriages peculiarities in the country. But was that assimilation into the Russian society or the supranational model of the Soviet society? The article considers the concept of “peoples’ friendship”, since it was the basis of interethnic marriages and how the concept was embodied in reality in the USSR. The author considers the role of assimilation processes concerning those Russians, who lived in the Union Republics and often entered into interethnic marriages. The article also analyses and compares the relations of partners in interethnic marriages in contemporary Russia as well as the results of opinion polls. The author also considers the strategies of interrelations of interethnic couples identified by various researchers. She presents the data of the conducted sociological survey among students of Russian universities in several cities. The aim of the survey was to study the acceptance-rejection ratio of interethnic marriage in the context of spontaneous formation of the sociocultural scenario of interethnic relations in the country. The author comes to the conclusion that nowadays in the minds of Russians there are no value dominants that assert the significance of interethnic marriages, as it was in the USSR; that is, there are no ethno-cultural prerequisites for entering into ethnically mixed marriages. However, certain models of actions still remain, which make the interaction of representatives of different nations easier at the everyday level and, thus, they contribute to the formation of ethnically mixed marriages. It means that there are ethno-psychological prerequisites for interethnic marriages. Therefore, is it possible to say that the assimilation processes in Russia have stopped? Though interethnic marriages today are sometimes perceived with anxiety, their share among all marriages in Russia almost has not decreased compared to the RSFSR level. However, interethnic marriages no longer exist in the context of interethnic relations, but in the context of interpersonal relations. The environment of large Russian cities is sometimes characterized by ethnically indifferent social structure almost homogeneous at the behavioral level.

Practice of community organizing is consistently associated with the idea of grassroots democracy. It is assumed that such democratic structures, independent of the state administration, will become instruments of direct participation of people in social and economic development of their living environment. Ideologists and practitioners of community organizing in the United States proceed from the fact that the improvement of urban environment is a political issue, and presence of depressed areas is the result of uneven distribution of resources at each level: federation– state – county – city. Therefore, community organizing involves endowing local communities with political subjectivity, teaching them collective tactics of putting pressure on the state administration in order to force it to listen to demands put forward by the community.

An analysis of key models of community organizing in the United States undertaken in the article shows that this approach does not eliminate the dependence of local civil communities on the state as the main agent of social and economic assistance. Communities remain a “service environment”, which significantly narrows the social base of community organizing. Community organizing methods have proven to be effective in bringing together low-income urban groups. Moreover, in the case of ACORN, it was possible to unite local communities into a single centralized network capable of being a conduit for the “left” agenda of expanding the “trusteeship” obligations of the state towards the poorest stratum of society. However, singling out the low-income strata as the target segment and locking the ideals of the welfare state deprives the community organizing of the opportunity to become a universal model for development of grassroots democracy.

  Electoral culture in modern Russian society is associated with a critical transformation of social and cultural values that form a democratic political consciousness. The focus is on the socio-cultural practice of free will of a person in society – its genesis and forms of manifestation in a society of stateless type. The authors come to the following conclusions: electoral practices were inherent to the archaic people and it is possible to consider the starting point of evolution of electoral culture of mankind from those times; the electoral culture of a stateless society is a mixed type of culture, the basis of which is the coordinated cooperative nature of the subjects acting as equal ones in social status; in a stateless type of society, the indicators of human freedom, personal autonomy of a person are higher than in the state, and the degree of alienation of a person from power and society is much less; self-organization of a stateless society included a number of elements – self-government and self-control, mechanisms of self-regulation and self-testing, which indicate a sufficiently high level of electoral culture in stateless societies, in which a “custom” can be interpreted as a legal rule or a proto-law.