.jpg)
|
Translations
|
|
6–10
|
The explosion of publishing activity in the 1990-s brought to life a great amount of texts of classic and contemporary authors. Their number is so impressive that the distinction between «value and garbage» could be made possible only five or even ten years later. The overview makes an attempt of mapping the space of modern book publishing in the humanities as exemplified by a specific book series that is «Alexander Pogorelsky’s University Library». |
|
|
24–29
|
The works of a British sociologist of science and technology, Professor of the University of Lancaster John Law, are practically unknown to a Russian reader. However, presently John Law is recognized as a theorist (working in the framework of actor-network theory) and at the same time as an eminent researcher in the domain of «Science and technology studies». This brief article is a preface of the first Russian language publication of J. Law’s fundamental oeuvre «Objects and Spaces». |
Summaries
|
|
54–57
|
In the paper the conceptual map of processes of globalization of historical capitalism is presented. Policy of capitalist expansion for last five hundred years is explained. Five rules of geographical processes of capitalist globalization are defined. |
|
|
58–62
|
In the paper the causes of centralization and decentralization of ancient societies are considered. As an analytical resource the theory of diminishing marginal returns of Joseph Tainter is involved. The basic indicators of processes of centralization and decentralization are growth of the population and increase or reduction of quantity of cities. |
|
|
63–68
|
In the paper capitalism as a dissipative system is considered. Capitalism development for the account of the strengthened exploitation of the ecosystem has reached a limit. The further evolution of capitalism is possible only by change of the social world. Objects of change become a control system of the social capital in economy and a civil society. There will be a decrease in social and economic potential, reduction of the international economic relations and refusal of pluralism in politics. |
Book reviews
|
|
69–75
|
Interest in everyday life has been rekindled in modern social theory under the influence of «practice turn». In a series of popular theoretical works the notion «practice» pretends to have the status of a universal explanatory category, and everyday life is interpreted as an intersection of more or less structured flows of interaction. However, there is a hidden distinction behind this «more or less» view, which is ignored by the «practice turn» adherents. Switching over from segments of activity to a form of their organization, and consistent study of structure and syntax of interaction bring about an alternative «non-practical» logic of comprehending everyday reality. This logic is traditionally connected with the late works of Erving Goffman and, particularly, his theory of frames. The article presents a review of Goffman’s cult book «Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience», which caused development of frame-analysis in sociology of everyday life. |
Review essays
|
|
76–81
|
The international symposium on philosophy, politics, and aesthetic theory ‘Thinking Worlds’ was held on November 17-18 in Moscow in the Polytechnic Museum. The presenters were Bernard Stiegler, Valery Podoroga, Jacques Ranciere, Chantal Mouffe, Molly Nesbit, Boris Kagarlitsky, and Mikhail Ryklin. Also, Molly Nesbit read the paper of Saskia Sassen who, unfortunately, was not able to participate in person. Sven-Olov Wallenstein and Anna Kostikova moderated the discussion. The conference was organized by the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography, the Russian Institute for Cultural Research, the Moscow Biennale Art Foundation, and the Interros Publishing Program. The Symposium was timed to the Second Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art (Spring 2007). The organizers intended to create a ‘discourse’ around the Biennale, a kind of intellectual context of debates and discussions. We present a discussion of the Symposium in the form of a dialogue where the discussants, being ‘hot on the trail’, attempt to reflect (not in the least bit, from sociologists’ standpoints) the event: to discern the place of such conferences in Russian intellectual space and to share their impressions of that space itself. |
Papers and essays
|
|
82–101
|
Article investigates basic values and attitudes of American citizens in the last decade. Analysis is based on the results of several special surveys conducted in the USA in 1990s – first half of 2000s, as well as on answers to single questions included in different public opinion polls. The major objects of analysis include religious attitudes, moral values, attitudes to human rights and civil freedoms, evaluation of technical progress and social changes, attitudes to success achievement and some other. |
|
|
102–113
|
Current article includes comparative analysis of contemporary lower strata studies and classical Chicago school studies devoted to the same topic. In the beginning contemporary underclass concepts are examined: their sources, key theoretical constructions, explanations of this strata existence. Direct comparison with Chicago scholars’ standpoints based on four key parameters: welfare programs interdependence; emphasis on race and ethnic minorities’ problems; “inner city” territorial isolation; disposition towards deviation. Another important idea of the whole article is principal similarity of theoretical tasks through different epochs regardless historical differences of the empiric object. |
In memoriam
|
|
114–120
|
The interview with a well-known sociologist Yuri A. Levada is devoted to the history of sociology development in Russia in the end of the 1950-s – the beginning of the 1960-s, atmosphere in social sciences of this period, and the conflict between liberal sociologists and the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Levada’s case), which signified the end of «thaw» in sociological environment. The author of the interview was an organizer and a leader of a famous sociological seminar, held up to the middle of the 1980-s. He provides a detailed analysis of a «seminar» form of academic communication in the conditions of party control of social sciences. |
|
|
121–136
|
The publication of documents from state and private archives illustrates and supplements the interview with Y.A. Levada. |
|
© 
