Ideas and Ideals

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.

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.

The article analyzes the problem of the relationship of two historical phenomena, which largely determined the appearance of an entire century and infl uenced the development of subsequent forms of culture. With the undoubted scientist orientation of positivism and Bonapartism in the middle and second half of the 19th century, the question of their kinship remains debatable. The author of the article opposes the hypothesis of the direct determining infl uence of positivism on Bonapartism. In order to substantiate this statement, the article considers the works of Louis Bonaparte, directly related to natural science topics. The work which was dedicated to sugar production in France essentially has political goals. Written by a political prisoner, it is directly polemical to government decisions made in France. Louis Bonaparte calls for focusing on the common interests of the country, taking into account the needs of producers, consumers and residents of the colonies of France. He gives a detailed description of the process of obtaining sugar from beets, mentions the introduced technical innovations. Political independence, in his opinion, requires the preservation and development of sugar production in the country. In his essay on the project for the construction of a canal connecting the Pacifi c Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean, he gives various considerations about the need for such an enterprise. In this work, Louis Bonaparte operates various geographical data, also seeks to show his acquaintance with hydraulics. He emphasizes the political importance of the project, as well as its commercial attractiveness. With positivism, the position of Louis Bonaparte brings together the idea of  progress, the call to rely in public life on science that has a practical application, criticism of speculative theories. He diverges from the ancestor of positivism in assessing the role of religion and republican institutions. Louis Bonaparte did not share the theory of the three stages of Comte and his encyclopedic law. Positivism and Bonapartism as special historical phenomena of one century have some related features, but do not fl ow from one another.

The article substantiates the distinction between social and sociality as two levels of social ontology. The concept of the invariant of sociality is introduced to denote the ability of a set of active agents of natural or artifi cial origin to form a stable homogeneous or heterogeneous unity by orienting each agent to the coordination and coordination of interactions. The analysis of the polemics between J. Habermas and K. Popper regarding the explanation of the mode of emergence of symbolic objects that are part of intersubjective life worlds allowed the author to clarify the peculiarities of interactions in digital communications. If the life world of an individual is constructed for him in the space of the technosystem, and is not a product of the cultural tradition of practices of a certain community, then the content of symbolic formations necessary for interactions with other individuals also arises in the information space organized and fi lled with the technosystem. The conditions of the possible transition of society to a post-social state are considered. According to the author, post-sociality emerges as a format of patterns of interactions between individuals in interactions with imaginary Others. These patterns are objectifi ed symbolic formations and are incorporated into the practices of interactions with the Other in three parallel spaces: a) in the space of direct interpersonal interactions, b) in the space of network interactions mediated by patterns of virtual origin, and c) in the space imposed by network platforms in the form of ‘digital twins’. These three spaces in the intersubjective life world are now being formed as regulators of the behavior of individuals not only in the interhuman, but also in the space of inseparable connection with the digital technosystem.

The article discusses one of the possible trajectories of global development leading to humane orders through the growth of authority and infl uence of international law and international courts. The well-known aggravation of confl ict in the fi rst decades of the current century has already led to polarization, the logical conclusion of which could be a new period of the Cold War. Two camps are being formed again, each of them including several centers. Variants of names are discussed and arguments in favor of choosing the pair ‘The World of Rules’ and ‘The World of Traditions’ are given. Humanistic development presupposes the prevention of wars, which is possible only if confl icts are resolved on the basis of law and the priority of judicial decisions, backed by the solidarity of the leading powers. The highest barrier to this is the commitment of the strongest states to maintain the fullest possible sovereignty in their foreign and domestic policies. Not only authoritarian regimes but also liberal democracies are not ready for any limitation of their sovereignty. A deep worldview gap in the attitude of politicians, experts, and societies to the future in terms of war and peace is revealed. The imperative to expand consciousness and language to overcome this gap, to include these centers in the legal world order, for the subsequent involvement of the global Limitrophe, i.e. a multitude of non-aligned states, is substantiated. It is shown that Immanuel Kant’s bold political ideas were only partially realized in the 20th century. Kant’s insights about the humanistic meaning of history through the achievement of ‘lawfulness’ primarily in interstate relations remain relevant and require their realization.

Since the 19th century, one of the main areas of dispute in the framework of social philosophy concerns the role of spiritual factors, psychology and culture in the development of society in general and in the formation of capitalism in particular. To overcome disagreements, it is necessary to understand what is the real role of spiritual factors (the spirit of capitalism) in the formation and functioning of the system of rational capitalism. The initial methodological premise of the study is that a multifactorial approach to historical explanation is required, in particular to explain the phenomenon of the emergence of capitalism. The emergence of rational capitalism is not so much a manifestation of the iron law of history as the result of a unique constellation of social factors. Most of these factors are of a material (in the sociological sense of the word) nature. Nevertheless, we can confi dently say that the formation of the spirit of capitalism was one of the necessary factors in the formation of a system of rational capitalism. The spirit of capitalism is a combination of culture, ideology and the prevailing psychological mood that motivate economic agents to act according to the principles of a market economy, to strive for enrichment, but not by any methods, but only those that contribute to the formation of a rational capitalist system, productive and capable of sustainable self-development. The spirit of capitalism does not exist initially and is not formed automatically by the capitalist system in the course of its functioning. In particular, its formation and maintenance require a certain ideological activity of the humanitarian intelligentsia.

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.

The article deals with the history of the birth of the United States, presented in the form of the so-called “American Project (AP).” The creation of the United States has never been conceived in the form of any one document, plan or program of action, which may be called “a project”. The main reason that the experience of creating a new nation-country is conceptualized as a project is the intention of politicians and consultants to transmit this experience to another country. AP refers to state and political institutions and traditions embedded in the history of the country, principles and rights enshrined in fundamental documents, primarily the Constitution. The article details the understanding of AP, focusing on the social nature of this project, its characteristics and the history of its implementation. The design and redesign of states after revolutions, independence or the collapse of empires has become a mass phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries. A list of Russian projects is provided that compare Russia with America, look back at the American experience and draw lessons from it. The article analyzes the characteristics of AP, which make up its genome and can be used in the creation of new states: a) value-oriented project (“city on a hill”, natural rights of citizens); b) the formula of a republic (self-government) over a vast territory; c) moral and legal justifi cation for the necessity and legality of leaving the empire, where the rights of citizens are violated; d) sovereignty, divided according to the Constitution between the state and federal levels, the priority of society over the state; e) a system of checks and balances of different branches of government; f) built-in adjustment and development mechanism; g) compliance of the project with the subject of its implementation, his experience and ideals; i) two parallel and interconnected processes: the construction of a sovereign state and the construction of a new nation. The last characteristic is described in detail – the formation of a new nation in the process of creating the United States. Also analyzed attempts to compromise AP by protest movements and replace it with new state projects.The article deals with the history of the birth of the United States, presented in the form of the so-called “American Project (AP).” The creation of the United States has never been conceived in the form of any one document, plan or program of action, which may be called “a project”. The main reason that the experience of creating a new nation-country is conceptualized as a project is the intention of politicians and consultants to transmit this experience to another country. AP refers to state and political institutions and traditions embedded in the history of the country, principles and rights enshrined in fundamental documents, primarily the Constitution. The article details the understanding of AP, focusing on the social nature of this project, its characteristics and the history of its implementation. The design and redesign of states after revolutions, independence or the collapse of empires has become a mass phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries. A list of Russian projects is provided that compare Russia with America, look back at the American experience and draw lessons from it. The article analyzes the characteristics of AP, which make up its genome and can be used in the creation of new states: a) value-oriented project (“city on a hill”, natural rights of citizens); b) the formula of a republic (self-government) over a vast territory; c) moral and legal justifi cation for the necessity and legality of leaving the empire, where the rights of citizens are violated; d) sovereignty, divided according to the Constitution between the state and federal levels, the priority of society over the state; e) a system of checks and balances of different branches of government; f) built-in adjustment and development mechanism; g) compliance of the project with the subject of its implementation, his experience and ideals; i) two parallel and interconnected processes: the construction of a sovereign state and the construction of a new nation. The last characteristic is described in detail – the formation of a new nation in the process of creating the United States. Also analyzed attempts to compromise AP by protest movements and replace it with new state projects.