2024. vol. 23. No. 2

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a tool of urban planning — the rules of the Land Use and Development (LUD), which are a key element of the Russian urban planning reform of the 2000s. The main challenge in urban law and planning is the high variability of norms, which undermines their legitimacy; instead of regulating relationships, they merely describe them. This raises questions about how the dynamics of norms emerge and why a regulatory tool that functioned predictably in international contexts behaves differently when transplanted. How does the LUD tool itself change during urban reform, and how does its operation structure the course of reform? Does it depend on its structure or the conceptual underpinnings on which it is based? How does this distinct operation of LUDs relate to their transfer from a neoliberal economic system to a post-socialist one, and what does this imply about the characteristics of post-socialism? Current research in institutional analysis does not address these questions but allows us to explore how social relations are organized in specific contexts. Drawing on published documents, field research, including in-depth and expert interviews, and participant observations, the paper attempts to offer alternative ways of describing the operation of LUDs. Unlike neo-institutionalism, actor-network theory, and social topology introduce the concept of coordination, which views the operation of the LUD tool as a coordination of processes across four levels: (1) aligning local interests through the technical elements of LUDs, (2) adapting new governance instruments at the state level, (3) synchronizing various reform and change processes, and (4) integrating different epistemological perspectives. Thus, the high variability of LUD norms is linked to their diverse applications, from local interactions to the design and implementation of reforms, with an emphasis on the temporal synchronization of different processes.

The article presents an analysis of the (self)management of the newly constructed large housing estate “Severnaya Dolina” (St. Petersburg, Russia). Built within the neoliberalization of Russian housing policy, this housing estate is an urban space where intervention and control by the state is limited, the provision of social goods is partially shifted to a private development company that manages the territory, and social control is mostly exercised by residents. I analyze this situation as an example of neoliberal communitarianism, or a governance model based on community mobilization, responsibilization of citizens, and an emphasis on the notion of “active citizenship”. In contrast to existing approaches to the analysis of neoliberal communitarianism and responsibilization as programs initiated by governments, I consider its «real existence» in the practices of the inhabitants of the new LHE. Referring to the materials of the focus groups conducted, as well as the analysis of the online communication of the residents of “Severnaya Dolina”, I demonstrate, firstly, what ideas they have formed about the management of the territory of the district, focusing on the distribution of responsibility for solving problems and especially the role that the residents assign to themselves. Secondly, I demonstrate how elements of neoliberal communitarianism are manifested: these are practices of management arising beyond the state, as well as responsibilization of the residents and the formation of a version of urban citizenship. To describe these elements (not provided top-down within a state/city campaign but deriving down-up from the local practice), I propose the notion of “violent neighborness,” which reflects the radical form of responsibilization that residents exercise towards each other, as well as the concept of local urban citizenship, which captures the connection between the inhabitants of the “Severnaya Dolina”, local community, and territory.

The article presents an analysis of conditions for the transfer of powers in the field of urban planning from the local level to the regional level. At the end of 2014, a federal law allowed the regions to centralize powers that were previously considered to be the exclusive competence of the municipalities (development and adoption of master plans, surveying standards, land use, and development rules). The study considers several conditions that contribute to the centralization of urban planning authorities: the representation of developers’ interests in the local and regional assemblies, the representation of the “United Russia” party in the city assembly, as well as the budgetary autonomy of the city. Based on qualitative comparative analysis (multi-values QCA), the study finds that, contrary to expectations, the dominance of deputies-developers in the city assembly has not become a necessary condition for the protection of municipal powers in urban planning. On the contrary, the dominance of developers among the deputy councilors in the city and regional legislatures facilitated the transfer of powers. The results also show that the dominance of “United Russia”’ in the city assembly served as an institutional disciplinary tool to consolidate deputies to centralize powers in favor of the regional level. The relatively high level of budgetary autonomy of a city is also a necessary condition for the centralization of urban planning powers.

Cooperation between public authorities and activists is a well-studied issue in social movement research. However, the authorities are often considered monolithic and analyzed as targets of activists’ actions affecting urban conflict outcomes. Meanwhile, various representatives of public authorities demonstrate their own interests in urban disputes and different levels of engagement in resolving conflicts. An evaluation of the database concerning dynamics of urban conflicts in Russian million cities shows rare attempts to resolve conflicts by core executives, such as mayors, governors, and deputy governors, compared to city and regional council members. Based on the sociological tradition of studying social movement coalitions (Van Dyke; Diani; Sterns and Almeida; Jasper and Duyvendak) this article examines the reasons why core executives make the decision to support activists in urban conflicts in the context of a noncompetitive regime. The research is based on 97 semi-structured interviews with participants in urban and ecological conflicts as well as experts in five Russian million cities (Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan). Cases of core executives’ engagement are explored as examples of state actor-social movement coalitions where officials provide their organizational resources and leverage to contribute to social movement goals. We identify six reasons why core executives make the decision to support activists in urban conflicts: 1) public resonance created by urban activists around a symbolically significant object; 2) changes in economic and political structural conditions; 3) the potential risk of sanctions from or direct interference by federal officials; 4) the proximity of elections and the need to maintain public reputation; 5) the exploitation of urban conflicts in order to win in intra-elite competition; 6) the emotions of core executives allowing them to align themselves with urban activists.

Urban conflicts are usually analyzed in a spatial way — as claims by several parties to transform the physical or symbolic aspects of urban space. However, conflicts, by definition, unfold not only in space but also in time: as a sequence of interconnected events of a certain duration. In this article, relying on the “sociology of processuality” by Andrew Abbott and the methodology for conflict episodes analysis, I consider one of the temporal dimensions of urban conflicts — the ordering of actions in time (sequencing). The selection of analytical tools for analyzing event sequences is carried out taking into account their key features: the “path dependency” (dependence of the current situation on past states of the process) and “plurisectality” (repetition of the same stages in an episode of conflict). The analysis of urban conflict episodes serves as an instrument that allows to track the interactions between the challengers (active citizens) and the initiators of urban transformation projects (developers or public authorities), with the addition of a “fourth party” acting as a mediator or ally of the main participants in the conflict. The database of urban conflicts in Russian cities with a population of over a million built in accordance with this logic, makes it possible to examine the sequences more closely and conduct an exploratory analysis of its variation. Collected data on 259 conflicts show that there are significant differences between cities and conflict types in average estimates of duration, length and intensity of conflicts. An analysis of the sequences in conflicts over the development of recreational areas and infill development also indicates significant diversity in the content of conflict episodes, but the common denominator is the active role of citizens and public authorities, with a much smaller share of the actions of developers and the fourth party. Half of the sequences are short (up to 5-6 actions), while long episodes with a large number of actions slightly increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome for residents. The study contributes to the discussion on urban conflict patterns and their temporal aspects.

In academic and public policy discourses, there is an increasing discussion about the emergence of a multipolar world order. This discussion is supported by statistical data, historical evidence, and concrete facts that highlight the polarization of the world and the waning influence of American hegemony. These narratives often frame the current state of the world as a transition from one certain and determinate order to another. The purpose of this paper is to critically grapple with the concept of world order, which serves as the foundation for many theories in the fields of globalization and international relations. A critical review of the dominant theories of world order and globalization reveals that many of them presuppose the existence of a regulated entity for the imaginary unity of the world, whether positively or negatively. This presupposition is prominent due to the pervasive influence of the epistemological antinomy of foundationalism/anti(non)-foundationalism. By suspending this antinomy and deconstructing the idea of world order, drawing upon the theory of risk society and cosmopolitanization as a new global differentiation force this paper argues that the contemporary world is not moving towards a new, predetermined order but rather towards a state of indeterminacy, uncertainty, and fluidity. The rise of global risks in recent times has instigated a transformational process that has affected various aspects of different societies. This paper argues that understanding and interpreting the current state of the world requires a revision of our epistemology and a shift towards prioritizing the indeterminate that is risk.

The article explores the extended version of the idea that intentional randomization (of which lotteries are a special case), can be a useful tool for dealing with various social and political problems that go beyond minor issues. It contributes to the discussion of lotteries in social and political affairs in three ways. First, it argues that randomization is applicable to various types of tasks, not limited to the choice between discrete alternatives, as it is usually perceived. This broadens the scope of its possible applications to include, for example, tasks related to evaluation or policy-making. Second, it describes the variety of possible reasons and rationales for using social randomization, thus further extending the applicability of lotteries to societal issues. While normative reasons for lotteries such as equality, fairness and epistemic rationality are often cited in philosophical discussions, there are many pragmatic reasons to use them for socially meaningful purposes. Third, based on this variety of use, the article proposes the heuristic Default Randomization Principle claiming that randomization can be a general approach to social and political affairs used as a default option. By considering randomization as a general-purpose device, it is easier to recognize and realize the potential of social randomization and to resolve some common arguments against the use of random choice in public affairs.

Talcott Parsons’ structural functionalism is an obligatory structural element of works on the history and theory of sociology. On the one hand, such works postulate and explain his contribution to the development of the macro-sociological theorizing within the “paradigm of social facts” founded by Émile Durkheim (concepts of social fact, social institution, mechanical and organic social solidarity, objective scientific method, etc.). On the other hand, any reconstructions of Parsons’ theory invariably contain critical arguments, the essence and scope of which vary from brief mentions of its excessive abstractness (teleology) and even utopianism to extensive quotes from numerous works by representatives of those research areas (as a rule, conflict theories) that are largely based on the disagreement with specific postulates or the general logic of Parsons’ reasoning about the structure of social system and the essence of social action. This format for presenting Parsons’ legacy has become generally accepted; therefore, the revival of interest in Parsons’ ideas, primarily in his concept of societal community in a rather practical-empirical way, in the works of Giuseppe Sciortino (with co-authors) in the last two decades has been somewhat unexpected. Albeit admitting the objective impossibility of mentioning all corresponding thematic lines, arguments and references in one article together with the high probability of subjective biases in their reconstruction and interpretation, the author makes an attempt to present Sciortino’s general argumentation: his rejection of the excessively simplified historical-critical perception of Parsons’ legacy, his attempts to systematize Parsons’ theoretical constructs that require only some clarification to be applied in the study of contemporary social realities, and his identification of those areas of the theoretical-empirical sociological analysis in which Parsons’ model of societal community has obvious heuristic (and even humanistic) potential, despite its generally recognized limitations.

Based on the analysis of Machiavelli’s political writings such as “Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius”, “The Prince” and “The History of Florence”, the article shows that attempts made repeatedly over the past few decades by such scholars as Tony Negri, John McCormick, Agnes Heller, Claude Lefort and Pierre Manent to declare Machiavelli an admirer of radical democracy, or the prophet of modern democratic politics and even of the “plebeian principle” in politics find neither conceptual, nor terminological confirmation in the works of the Florentine thinker. It is noted that one of the central places in Machiavelli’s political thinking is occupied by the idea of a mixed rule, borrowed from the classical political tradition and, therefore, predominantly of pre-modern origin. In their turn, attempts to make Machiavelli a supporter of radical democracy of the modern style are considered in the article as presenting the political legacy of the great Florentine in a strongly distorted form and dictated primarily by the desire of a number of modern authors to isolate his political ideas and concepts from the historical context of their formation and development, placing them in an intellectual and cultural environment alien to them in order to give them topical political and polemical connotations.

The article provides an analysis of W. Sombart’s conception of modern capitalism in the aspect of cultural critique. The first hypothesis is that Sombart’s critique of technology is a critique of modern capitalism. The ideal type of critique of technology is defined by the instrumental interpretation of technology and the belief that mechanization and massification of modern society, alienation of labor, psychological degradation, etc. are consequences of the inversion of the Zweck-Mittel-relationship (this views technology as basically a means to an end). The second hypothesis is that Sombart proposes a version of the “other modernity,” which means an attempt to put technology in the service of the bourgeois order through its subordination to ethical principles. Acceptance of technological advances is accompanied by concerns about its poses the problem of the “cultural value of technology”. The third hypothesis deals with the explanation of this version of the “other modernity” by a compensatory interest (it does not reject industrialization as such, but points to defects in the late capitalist development that require correction). The study identifies two different diachronic paradigms in the conservative thought in Germany before WWI and, accordingly, in the interwar period: 1) a paradigm of compensation and 2) a proactive paradigm of contributing to the national renewal, setting new guidelines in understanding the fundamental conditions of modernity. In the 1920s and 30s, Sombart goes beyond the critique of culture and demonstrates the attitude of proactive modernism (“German socialism” with planned economy and technocratic management that favor the common good over individual profit).

The focus of this article is on how social modernization, specifically the process of a gradual spread of emancipatory, or post-materialistic, value orientations, affects environmental attitudes in a comparative perspective. Based on the evolutionary theory of modernization developed by R. Inglehart and C. Welzel, we propose a sociological model of the formation of environmental attitudes that combines both micro- and macro-level perspectives and takes into account both subjective and objective factors. We test hypotheses derived from this model using a multi-level regression approach and data from public opinion surveys conducted as part of the 5th wave of the European Values Study (2017-2020; N = 56,368), as well as socio-economic statistics from 30 European countries. Our results show that both individual commitment to emancipatory values and the overall prevalence of these orientations in society are statistically significantly and positively correlated with the strength of pro-environmental views at the respective levels of analysis — more prominently at the country level, but values are the most important predictor of environmental attitudes at the individual level as well. Furthermore, there is a cross-level interaction: the more prevalent emancipatory orientations are in a specific country, the stronger the link between individual values and attitudes towards environmental issues. Additionally, the support for pro-environmental views slightly decreases with age and increases with the levels of education and income. This indicates that modernization contributes to the spread of a pro-environmental worldview not only through shifting prevalent normative beliefs but also through other mechanisms, particularly by expanding available action resources.

The article attempts to extract from Bruno Latour’s rich oeuvre a coherent theoretical program he called “compositionism”. The aim of compositionism is to derive a procedure for composing a “common world”, a form of reality capable of providing the best possible living conditions for the maximum number of agents within it. The article consists of two parts. The first outlines the theoretical features of the emergence of the compositionist project in the context of the development of Latour’s political thought from the 1980s to the 2010s. Originally articulated in the ‘Politics of Nature’ in order to find an alternative to the world comprised by the dominant constitution of modernity, the theory of compositionism gradually developed throughout Latour’s academic career. The notion of the ‘Parliament of things’ should be seen as the first attempt to propose an approach of realizing the process of composing the common world. Later, in the 2000s, Latour would substantially revise his political project. Turning to the tradition of direct democracy, he would try to make it more empirical. This is how “object-oriented politics” or Dingpolitik was born, part of which should be considered a political mode of existence [POL] that is always built around things. The second part of the article attempts to apply the established theoretical apparatus to the interpretation of Latour’s later studies about the climate crisis. Among these is the ‘Où Atterrir?’ experiment, which embodies what should be seen as a positive project of “bottom-up” overcoming of “political numbness” in the face of the environmental threat.

The intensification of human impact on the environment, progressive global inequality and the escalating opposition to the resource logic of the perception of nature led to the formation at the beginning of the 21st century of a discourse surrounding extractivism — a special form of social relations leading to the transformation of development into resource exploitation with the alienation of local actors (communities, people, companies and even states) from the profits generated and exported from the territory where this resource is located. The concept of extractivism has spread beyond its original topic (from natural resources to human talent resources, data, green regulation, and many others) and has been subject to abundant and varied reflection by scholars of different disciplines. The practices described in Latin American material were discovered in other parts of the world, including in hidden forms that mimic environmentally and socially responsible development. The expanded concept of extractivism claims to be another large concept that organizes many processes, reducing postmodern development to the production of resource peripheries that renews and cements existing social cleavages not only on former colonial outskirts, but also in long-developed cores of countries of developed capitalism. The imagined emptiness of new resource hinterlands has become a new mechanism for excluding growing vulnerable groups from the distribution of profits produced in global value chains.

The article is devoted to the problem of contemporary studies in artistic culture and art. The current change in the methodological paradigm in social and humanitarian knowledge concerning the subject of art is considered through the example of a new monograph written by Nikolay A. Khrenov, a Russian culture expert, philosopher and scholar in the sociology of art. The book Art in a Situation of Cultural Theory Turn: Methodological Searches provides a systematic analysis of methodological transformations in the humanities. Based on extensive material, the study shows the changes in artistic culture in the social structure of the industrial and post-industrial societies. The author carries out a critical analysis of historical, sociological, aesthetic concepts of art at the stage of transition from the idea of culture to the science of culture. Constructing a system of argumentation, Khrenov asserts that the science of culture, the sub-branch of which is the sociology of culture and art, is becoming an integration center of the humanities. The article discusses the scientist’s thesis that the movement from classical art history towards sociology of art and cultural studies meets the demand for the integration of various disciplines in modern humanitarian knowledge. The positions and ideas put forward in the monograph allow us to consider the relationship between cultural reflection and art history within the general situation of updating the theoretical and methodological tools of studies in art.

The article analyzes the main ideas of Jürgen Habermas, which he outlined in his work «A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics». It is a continuation of the work «The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society» published more than 60 years ago. Habermas sees the main vector of transformation of the public sphere in the emergence and explosive growth of the influence of new media. The latter has not only expanded the functionality of traditional sources of information, but also become a symbol of a new milestone on a historical scale, comparable to the advent of printing. Habermas notes that there are two sides to this, with the dark side still outweighing the benefits. For example, social media promises that each voice will be heard, which is, indisputably, an important step in the development of the public sphere. However, in reality, this declared openness is fraught with many risks. First, there is no control over the distribution of news content. Second, tech corporations are playing an increasingly important role, using algorithms to manipulate users. Third, the concept of the «public sphere» is becoming increasingly vague. Habermas continues the analogy with printing, describing how long it took humanity to adapt to it, and asks a logical question: how many years will it take us to learn to live in the era of new media?

Book review: Malahov V. (2023) The politics of differences. Cultural pluralism and identity. Moscow: NLO — 288 p. ISBN 978-5-4448-2182-4

Book review: Fedorov V. V. (2023) Full of Thoughts, Moscow: VCIOM. — P. 300. ISBN: 978-5-906345-45-5.