Ideas and Ideals

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

Public intellectuals, using their position in the media, social networks, universities, expert groups and think tanks, are an infl uential force for social change. The article analyzes the experience of American conservative intellectuals and their think tanks, which have played an important role in the public consciousness of the American nation and in politics over the past half century. The article discusses four interrelated topics. The fi rst is the role of intellectuals in modern politics, using the conservative movement and its relationship with the Republican Party and elected authorities as an example. The second topic is the reasons for the protest of a number of conservative public intellectuals against Trump (Never Trump, Resist Trump), its ideological, stylistic, personal and material motives. The article analyzes the crisis and the following splitting of the conservative movement into several directions, including the emergence of a new direction – populist conservatism. The top-down, elitist brand of politics that dominated the United States for many years – both under Republican and Democratic administrations - has led to a decrease in public trust in social institutions controlled by the elites. There is a need for leaders who could fi nd a common language and understanding with society and voters. As a result, populism is on the rise in the United States, i.e., politicians directly addressing the people, their needs and interests, over the heads of the elites and their institutions. The third topic is the forms and practices of infl uence of the populist wing of the conservative movement on the ideology and program of the Republican Party, its attempts to cooperate with the Trump administration, other government bodies, the MAGA movement and its social base. The new direction of conservatism has multiplied its experience of “soft” infl uence on the presidential administration and Congress by developing its proposals, in particular, “Project 2025” as a mandate from voters to change the course of the country and rebuild political structures. “Project 2025” also addresses the social base of conservative movement and the independent voter. The fourth topic is the change in positions of “never-Trumpists” in Trump’s second term and the lessons of their resistance. The author draws conclusions from the case of “non-Trumpism” and points out the innovations of conservative intellectuals in their interaction with the authorities.

The author proposes a hypothesis of two types of mechanisms of social self-organization: its launch and maintenance of structural integrity. These are two fundamentally different mechanisms. Social self-organization requires four mandatory conditions: (1) a set of interacting elements (individuals), homogeneous in origin and creating, due to their common habitat, a behavioral population system; (2) the obligatory identification of a pacemaker in the population, which “captures” the activity rhythms of other individuals, which is a condition for the emergence of heterogeneities in behavioral activity; (3) the lifetime of a population system must be significantly longer than the lifetime of an individual element; (4) the homogeneity of individuals and the complexity of their behavior in a long-existing population create conditions for functional subordination (heterarchy, in general sense).

The behavioral mechanism of self-organization in populations with complex behavior of individuals is reciprocal altruism. Altruism presupposes a hereditarily determined ability for sacrifi cial behavior. Its natural basis is the universal phenomenon of individual recognition and preference. The author examines four sociological concepts of self-organization, in which altruism is presented as a mechanism of self-organization: Ibn Khaldun, E. Durkheim, P.A. Kropotkin and P.A. Sorokin.

The mechanism for maintaining an already formed structure is different in nature; it is aimed at continuously ensuring solidarity. This is a “Game” that is implemented in two forms – competition (game) and performance (play). Game is not a specifically human attribute of social life. The content of the “game” satisfies the basic conditions of self-organization. The “game” has three important attributes: (1) isolation of the playing space and temporary organization; (2) the immutability and binding nature of the rules that set the order of actions and form a special ethos and ritual; (3) the game determines the emergence of associations that strive to survive and spread. The associations are based on altruistic behavior. The expansion of the game leads to the creation of male “alliances”; their forms are the basis of solidarity.

Digital transformations of the social system, observed by researchers in its various fi elds, make it relevant to study network phenomena that are related to the problems of modern Russian society. “Iamamother” is a vivid example of those; we view it as a symptom of devaluation of motherhood. The latter takes different forms, including virtual ones, and passes from different actors. For a more detailed analysis we identify the levels at which the importance of the very fact of giving birth and raising children is questioned and a specifi c woman in the role of a mother is downgraded; we also consider the relationship of this process with network mechanisms. Devaluation at the personal level is analyzed from the perspective of Jungian research: a number of scenarios for diminishing the maternal principle are presented. To identify the characteristic features of devaluation of motherhood at the interpersonal level, we examine the situation from the standpoint of social constructionist theory and of the concept of epistemic injustice. The emergence of “Iamamother” phenomenon is analyzed as a case of inverted hermeneutic injustice which requires identifi cation, acting at present as a simulacrum having no valid grounds for conceptualization. As a result of the study of the network level that embraces judgmental statements of Internet users, in particular members of thematic virtual communities, we present the main types of content devoted to the issue of “Iamamother”. Several types of actors come out as a result of the qualitative content analysis of the commentary background from a relevant source. Summing up the outcomes of the study, we state a lack of tolerance in the discursive space of “Iamamother” phenomenon and put forward an alternative defi nition of the concept: this is an attributed deictic statement about oneself by a female individual who has a child / children, which determines her actions; it is an interpellated identity that differs from the traditional, normative image of motherhood in Russia. As an element of the dominant discourse this sign reinforces and spreads negative ideas of society about certain models of maternal behavior, which leads to devaluation of motherhood in general.

The article is devoted to the study of the doctrine of society and the social ideal in the French personalism of Jean Lacroix and Emmanuel Mounier and in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The research is carried out through a comparative analysis of the socio-philosophical, ethical, as well as religious-philosophical foundations of French personalism and Kantian philosophy.

The socio-philosophical concept underlying both the personalist and Kantian teachings on society is an integral synthesis of two ideas. First of all, this is the idea of the value of human personality itself. Secondly, this is the idea of the relationship between the personality form of human existence and his social format of existence. Based on this concept, personalist philosophers proclaim the principle of ‘immersiveness’ as an effective way of social development, which consists in improving forms of interpersonal communication based on cultivating the ideals of active love (‘involvement’), social solidarity and mutual responsibility of all members of society. In Kant’s philosophy, the antagonistic principle of ‘unsociable sociability’ is proclaimed as the main way of social development, based on the idea of the creative role of social contradictions and efforts to overcome them.

Both the personalists and Kant have two ideological principles at the heart of the doctrine of the social ideal. First of all, this is the principle of the direct influence of the moral improvement of each personality on the level of social development of society as a whole. Secondly, it is the principle of reliance on the religious and philosophical foundations of social progress. The idea of the moral development of members of society is enriched by the religious and philosophical foundations of social progress and acquires the necessary semantic depth in this combination. However, if the personalists choose spiritual communion with the personal divine being of the Holy Trinity as the religious and philosophical basis of social progress, then for Kant the religious and philosophical basis of social progress is the concept of moral religion developed by him, based on the principles of autonomous ethics.

Russian scientist N.Y. Danilevsky, in his fundamental work “Russia and Europe,” outlined his views on the phenomenon of humanity. The article, based on comparison, presents two different understandings, two different readings of the historiosophical thoughts of the famous scientist. One of the key aspects of the disagreement is highlighted which is the interpretation of the doctrine of cultural and historical types, the main positions are outlined from which the opponent is invited to consider in more detail the ideas expressed by the author of “Russia and Europe”. As a methodological principle of the study, the authors propose to use the known principle of unity in multiplicity, which allows us to find an approach to explaining real concepts, including the concept of personality, regardless of its scale.

The followers, scientists, well-known and novice researchers advocated Danilevsky’s conclusions throughout the existence of the book “Russia and Europe” – and this is more than 150 years, that evidences, on the one hand, about the relevance and significance of the problems seen by the domestic thinker, especially for Russia, historical fate of which was a real concern for Danilevsky. And on the other hand, it is necessary to recognize the high degree of the subjectivity of the nature of the socio-humanitarian sphere of knowledge. Danilevsky’s civilizational approach to the history of humanity has always been preventing the collective opponent in the person of V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky and, in this particular case in the person of Russian diaspora philosopher S.A. Levitsky, from building their own scientifi c theory about the universal goodness. The article suggests a hidden reason, probably not fully realized by Levitsky himself, for such a subjective understanding of Danilevsky’s work – created by Levitsky the theory of Russian solidarism, embraced, to quote Levitsky himself, by the “pathos of universality.” Being in pathos, it is difficult to maintain the ability to objectively hear the views of other person.

The authors have the additional motive for writing this article due the concern caused by the fact that Levitsky, working as a university tutor, shares his thoughts about Danilevsky as a thinker in the galaxy of Russian philosophers, about his role in the history of Russian philosophy with students, giving lectures on Russian literature and philosophy. Moreover, he publishes his subjective interpretation of Danilevsky’s views as part of a collection of essays on the history of Russian philosophy as a textbook.

The 21st century has been marked by a surge of breakthrough digital technologies – global digital transformation has a significant impact on various aspects of human life, including social relationships. In the modern world, we are increasingly faced with a tendency to lose the value of individuality and spirituality in the pursuit of material success and digital technologies. In this context, it becomes especially important to preserve the conditions for the development of subjectivity as a key anthropological quality of becoming a full-fl edged personality. The manifestation of subjectivity in the digital environment is becoming increasingly important due to the lack of understanding of the factors that may hinder its development and manifestation, as well as the consequences of the transformation of subjectivity under the influence of ongoing changes. Modern man finds himself in a hybrid digital environment, where the real and virtual worlds are intertwined, which can lead to fragmentation of personality and alienation of subjectivity. The influence of “big data”, artificial intelligence technologies and algorithmic capitalism creates a threat to human freedom, individuality and autonomy. The integration of such technologies into the educational process requires special attention and a balance between innovation and preservation of the traditional educational system.  The emergence of LLM (large language model) based personal assistants announced by global corporations can potentially lead to the disappearance of the self (subjectivity, agency) as a result of interactions with artificial intelligence, in which individual consciousness will be subject to regular influence (manipulation) by a digital agent.

Based on the materials of a sociological survey, the article presents a study of the factors of readiness of graduates of pedagogical training areas of colleges and universities to work in their specialty. The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze the factors influencing the readiness of college and university graduates who have mastered pedagogical programs to work in their specialty in general education schools. To achieve this goal, a study of professional readiness based on a sociological approach was conducted. The results made it possible to divide the respondents into 3 groups: with a high degree of readiness, an average degree of readiness and a low degree of readiness to work in their specialty. The results of the study showed that slightly more than half of graduates of pedagogical fi elds have a high degree of readiness and plan to immediately get a job in their specialty. The revealed patterns allowed us to conclude that the willingness to work in a specialty is significantly influenced by three significant factors: the economic factor manifested in relation to wages; the level of professional competence, as well as the factor of professional vocation. Among them, factors have been identified that positively or negatively affect graduates, depending on their level of readiness. For example, graduates with a high degree of readiness to work in their specialty generally rated their professional competencies more highly than graduates with low and medium levels of readiness to work in their specialty. A low level of competence development was revealed among those young people who entered pedagogical training courses not by vocation, and, conversely, a high level among those who came to study by vocation. The low level of readiness to work in the specialty is expressed in the intention to change the vector of the professional and educational trajectory. The limitations of the study are the pilot nature of the implemented project. The prospects of the research are the possibility of conducting a comparative analysis between graduates of colleges and universities and the opportunity to complement the regular monitoring studies conducted by the VolRC RAS in the social sphere.

In the context of recent international events, issues of national identity have once again appeared on the agenda, which for the fi rst time clearly sounded in the domestic humanitarian discourse since the middle of the XIX century. The events of the last ten years have clearly shown that Russia, having experienced multifactorial external infl uences, is not а part of the Western or Eastern cultural and geographical worlds, but has its own ‘civilizational face’ and its own tasks in world history. In order to rationalize and systematically comprehend the basic categories of national identity, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of such concepts as ‘Russian civilization’, ‘Eurasian civilization’, ‘Russian world’.

To avoid extremes and modern temptations in their assessment, the methodology of such study must be based primarily on the position of such Russian thinkers as N.A. Berdyaev, K.N. Leontiev, N.S. Trubetskoy. They rightly noted that autocratic Russian imperialism and cosmopolitanism are opposed to both true patriotism and genuine humanity.  The infringed in the past Russian national identity is subjected today to nationalist temptations and threats of ideological excesses, which is refl ected in the extremely broad interpretation of the concept of the ‘Russian world’. The article gives the author’s assessment of this concept, which is based on the ethnocultural understanding of the Russian world. The necessity of overcoming its identifi cation, on the one hand, with the Eurasian civilization or the Eurasian cultural and geographical world, and on the other hand, with the civilization of Russia, is substantiated.  In the spiritual aspect, the Russian world is devoid of geographical, political, ethnocultural and linguistic ties, refl ecting the primordial human right to freely acquire one’s spiritual identity. But such self-identifi cation should be purely voluntary, especially in a multinational Russia. The civilization of Russia, in addition to the Russian world (or Russian subcivilization), also includes the Turkic, Mongolian and Ugro-Finnish ethno-cultural worlds (subcivilizations) from the standpoint of classical Eurasianism.

In the context of recent international events, issues of national identity have once again appeared on the agenda, which for the fi rst time clearly sounded in the domestic humanitarian discourse since the middle of the XIX century. The events of the last ten years have clearly shown that Russia, having experienced multifactorial external infl uences, is not а part of the Western or Eastern cultural and geographical worlds, but has its own ‘civilizational face’ and its own tasks in world history. In order to rationalize and systematically comprehend the basic categories of national identity, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of such concepts as ‘Russian civilization’, ‘Eurasian civilization’, ‘Russian world’.

To avoid extremes and modern temptations in their assessment, the methodology of such study must be based primarily on the position of such Russian thinkers as N.A. Berdyaev, K.N. Leontiev, N.S. Trubetskoy. They rightly noted that autocratic Russian imperialism and cosmopolitanism are opposed to both true patriotism and genuine humanity.  The infringed in the past Russian national identity is subjected today to nationalist temptations and threats of ideological excesses, which is refl ected in the extremely broad interpretation of the concept of the ‘Russian world’. The article gives the author’s assessment of this concept, which is based on the ethnocultural understanding of the Russian world. The necessity of overcoming its identifi cation, on the one hand, with the Eurasian civilization or the Eurasian cultural and geographical world, and on the other hand, with the civilization of Russia, is substantiated.  In the spiritual aspect, the Russian world is devoid of geographical, political, ethnocultural and linguistic ties, refl ecting the primordial human right to freely acquire one’s spiritual identity. But such self-identifi cation should be purely voluntary, especially in a multinational Russia. The civilization of Russia, in addition to the Russian world (or Russian subcivilization), also includes the Turkic, Mongolian and Ugro-Finnish ethno-cultural worlds (subcivilizations) from the standpoint of classical Eurasianism.

The article examines the origin of the concepts of ‘politarism’ and its derivatives ‘political mode of production’, ‘political society’, which are quite often used in the Russian domestic socio-historical and socio-philosophical literature. It is shown that the immediate predecessor of this concept was the ‘Asian mode of production’ and its various analogues (‘Eastern despotism’, ‘the era of Asian kings’ etc.) in the works of K. Marx, which remained mainly in manuscript form. The fi rst discussion around the Asian mode of production (AMP), which unfolded in the USSR in the 1920s, although it was suppressed by harsh administrative methods, nevertheless brought a signifi cant revival to the Soviet social philosophy, which was already under the powerful pressure of the dogmas of the ‘historical materialism’ and the so-called fi ve-term scheme of socio-economic formations. A second similar discussion, which took place in the 1950s and 1960s, also played such a role, prompting, among other things, a signifi cant part of professional orientalists to large-scale and conceptual socio-historical generalizations. The activities and works of the recently deceased professor Yu. I. Semenov, whose name is directly related to the appearance of the term ‘politarism’ in Soviet and then Russian social philosophy, are specially considered. Y.I. Semenov’s original historiosophical concept, created and developed by its author in the conditions of his conscious opposition to the aggressive ideological environment and administrative dictate, has become a valuable component of the conceptual and scientifi c understanding of the historical process, retaining its heuristic signifi cance to this day. The concepts used by Y.I. Semenov and, in general, his very approach to understanding social and political reality deserve attention as one of the versions of non-dogmatic, creative Marxism, which occupies a noticeable niche in modern domestic and foreign academic discourse.