2024. vol. 23. No. 3

In this article, I explore the limitations of the critique of Emile Durkheim’s notorious reductionism presented by Bruno Latour in his Actor-Network Theory project, and suggest an approach to the ontology of heterogeneity in Durkheim’s sociology. This ontology is organized around the notion of the thing (chose). What is important in this ontological project is the distinction between material objects and social things such as reality sui generis. Reality here is defined by the complex resistance of various social and material things, emotions, landscapes and other ontological orders. Such a heterogonous ontology requires multiple and situational assemblages and dynamic tensions between things. In Durkheim’s case, not only people, but all things are actors. Things act and perceive. They have a kind of affinity, sensibility, self-consciousness, and other features usually attributed only to human actors. I argue that Latour’s critique of Durkheimian ontology is a friendly fire. In this sense, with a closer reading of Durkheim’s papers, the classic of sociology with his reality sui generis could easily become not a scapegoat, but a potential ally for science and technology studies (STS). A significant advantage of Durkheim’s heterogeneous ontology over the various approaches in STS is that the sociological classicist sees in resistance the conditions of existence of so-called social things.

The article develops an approach to the conceptualization of “cultural citizenship”, which is used to describe the issues of overcoming cultural differences in the process of integration and social inclusion. Cultural citizenship is one of the concepts that develop the paradigms of citizenship and civic consciousness that exist in the tradition of political theory and sociology of culture. The purpose of the article is to develop a sociological approach to “cultural citizenship”, based on such existing family concepts as citizenship (membership), solidarity, identity. The first part of the article compares the legal and sociological interpretations of citizenship and their relationship with the cultural aspect of citizenship. In the second part, based on this comparison, the subject and central problems of cultural citizenship in the social sciences are formulated. In the third part, two approaches to the definition of cultural citizenship are analyzed. The first approach leans towards political theory and defines the state as a source of citizenship, focusing on legal instruments of integration. The second leans towards cultural sociology and defines community as a source of citizenship, focusing on integrative practices of cultural production. The analysis of the two approaches in the final part actualizes the empirical study of cultural citizenship as a process implemented at the organizational level. Cultural citizenship, in this vein, is defined as the process of two-sided inclusion of ‘strange’ and ‘different’ cultural traits of dominant and minoritarian social category with respect to the integrity of the dominant cultural variation. The main operationalization of the organizational level finds itself in “cultural institutions” (e.g., exposition halls, museums, libraries, etc.) that are supposed to play a key role in the cultural citizenship process.

The paper examines and debates controversial issues that characterize the logic of comparison in social anthropology and sociology. The first part of the article illustrates the dynamics of comparison in social anthropology from the classics to the present day. The second part of the paper highlights differences and similarities in how sociologists and anthropologists discuss and use comparison in their research. For sociologists, a comparison is primarily a variety of comparative perspectives that characterize a tool for exploring causal relations, from testing explanatory models to grasping the unique history of different societies. The article points out the contradiction between the comparative perspective inherent in social anthropology as a science about the “Other” and the marginal position of comparative research in contemporary anthropological discipline. The proposed resolution to this contradiction is the concept of “comparative social anthropology”, defined by analogy with the concept of “comparative sociology” developed by the authors. In conclusion, the authors present three areas of comparative sociological research that could be helpful to anthropologists: the extended case method, institutional ethnography, and theory-building based on case comparison.

By the problem of inequality social scientists usually understood socialeconomic inequality. Economic theories explain the stability of inequality by connection with macro processes and a certain history of society development. Sociological theories describe inequality more broadly, including in the analysis, in addition to economic variables, the concepts of status and prestige. Modern sociological theories focus on the processes that form the more subtle mechanisms of production and reproduction of inequality. For example, this includes cognitive processes that form categorical inequality based on schematization and classification, as well as cultural processes that manifest themselves in everyday actions through evaluation, standardization and rationalization. However, in addition to clarifying these more subtle mechanisms of inequality reproduction, these theories describe an unintended element in this process. From the point of view of the theory of unintended consequences, this process can be based on social actions, social interaction and the mechanisms of reproduction of institutionalized practices. Theoretical analysis indicates that many sociological theories of inequality include an unintended element and fit into the framework of the study of unintended consequences. This makes the problem of inequality more complex, but allows us to clarify the key resources with which it is reproduced. Moreover, the process of eliminating inequality can lead to a situation of counterfinality, when the initial intention to reduce inequality leads to its increase. Such a view requires that the process of implementing reforms to reduce inequality involves an analysis of the intentions, taking into account a variety of circumstances and dimensions of inequality.

This article presents a descriptive theoretical-methodological model developed based on contemporary constructivist approaches to ethnicity research and situated within the context of the cognitive turn occurring in social sciences in general, and ethnicity studies in particular. This synthetic model addresses the question of what specifically needs to be researched when studying ethnicity and also provides tools for the operationalization of ethnicity for empirical research. Broadly, the model describes differentiating collective representations. The key elements of the model are ethnic categories and their relations, which are associated with various attributes divided into first and second-order attributes, also included in the model. The third type of elements in the model are general representations of the nature of ethnicity, characterizing the construction of ethnicity as a whole, understood as the entire collection of categories, attributes, and general representations in interrelation. The construction of ethnicity and its individual elements are the focus of empirical research, and the article also presents approaches to the operationalization of ethnicity within specific research designs. By accumulating contemporary approaches and distancing itself from other constructivist models (R. Brubaker, K. Chandra, A. Wimmer, and R. Jenkins), the article thus offers a transparent conceptualization of ethnicity, as well as concrete solutions for empirical research. It is addressed to researchers who, in one way or another, deal with ethnicity in their studies, yet lack a clear understanding of what exactly is being discussed when ethnicity is researched and what can be the focus of empirical investigations.

The text presents the opinions of current ethnicity researchers regarding the article by Evgeni Varshaver. While agreeing that the text itself is interesting, the authors, firstly, disagree on its innovativeness, and secondly, in light of the complexity of the phenomenon of ethnicity itself, doubt the possibility of a simple and clear scheme for its study, as Varshaver claims. Among other topics that were discussed: the possibility of quantitative studies of ethnicity in the constructivist paradigm, the nature of the cognitive turn in ethnicity research, etc.

In the second half of the 20th century, humankind’s increased awareness of the likely consequences of nuclear war and climate change led to the emergence of a new temporality: humanity’s future was now seen as potentially finite, with a possible end that was completely negative and required prevention. This new temporality, which the article proposes to call “katechontic,” differs from all previous modes of time perception, including the ideas of cyclical eternity and infinite progress, as well as eschatological expectations of the end. At the same time, these previous temporal perspectives have become connected to the most significant political forms of today, such as the empire and the state. This raises the question of whether these political forms can be adapted to the katechontic temporality. The state, as an essentially pluralist political form, is structurally embedded within the infinite temporal horizon of modernity and requires the neutralization of eschatology. It is unable to adapt to the katechontic temporality, as collective action to prevent a global catastrophe would de-legitimize sovereign plurality. The imperial political form, contrary to the popular thesis of Carl Schmitt about the katechontic nature of the medieval Christian empire, has historically been oriented towards either the eschatological end of time or eternity. The main obstacle to adapting the empire to the katechontic temporality is the violent nature of imperial expansion. Another reason why the state and empire are incompatible with the katechontic temporality is their hierarchical centralization of power. Sovereign centralization has intrinsic value when there are no external criteria for the correctness of a political decision. The katechontic temporality introduces such criteria demanding that political decisions correctly reflect the external (natural and technological) context. Therefore, the political must be subordinated to this external truth, which might be implemented via the model of “double representation.”

The article deals with the Hobbesian state of nature as a foundational model for his epistemic ideal of “civil science.” The first part elucidates the state of nature argument in the context of the Hobbesian “innovative” definition of “civil philosophy” (philosophia civilis) which significantly differs in argumentative standards from contemporary ethics and political philosophy. The second part connects the Hobbesian state of nature and his “natural logic” as specific forms of “first philosophy” concerned with the stabilization of “first definitions” for “civil science”, necessary for “civil science” proper but not a part of it. The third part introduces the state of nature in Hobbes as a “practical” thought experiment made possible by specific observations of our own everyday experience revealed as self-knowledge. Here, the state of nature functions as Hans Vaihingher’s half-fiction, that is, as an informal explanatory model connecting counterfactual possibilities and actuality. The connection occurs in the form of an elaborate “thought experiment” inside actuality, providing not only the counterfactual “limiting case” explaining a range of possible situations, but also a continuum of quasi-narrative descriptions of possible situations and courses of events leading to negative consequences, namely, to controversy in opinions and contention in wills. The fourth part shows how these quasi-narrative descriptions are captured by an understanding of the state of nature model as “possible histories”, providing the basic “range of possibilities” (Spielraum in the sense of Wolfgang von Kries) for Hobbesian “civil science” proper as a science of public right. The state of nature as “Spielraum” allows us to capture specifically political possibilities which form the background for Hobbesian “civil science.” Therefore, the state of nature model provides the “first principles” for the Hobbesian constructive “civil science” in the form of an elaborate probabilistic model.

It is difficult to find a text by Paul Ricoeur in which the hermeneutics of action is presented as a whole concept. However, the philosopher constantly returns to the problem of action, developing his own project of hermeneutical philosophy. This article analyzes Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of action as a theory formed in two stages: the social action hermeneutics and the action hermeneutics within the concept of the “capable man”. The study shows that the social action hermeneutics consists of semantics and poetics of action and its basis is the hermeneutics of text. The action hermeneutics in the concept of “capable man” is presented as a result of Ricoeur’s answers to four questions about the “who” of the self: “Who is speaking?”, “Who is acting?”, “Who is recounting about himself or herself?”, “Who is the moral subject of imputation?” The stages of action hermeneutics are analyzed as concepts with different responses to the question of who comprehends the action. In the hermeneutics of social action, he who gives meaning to the action is an interpreter. In the concept of “capable man”, he is an actor. The interpreter is the reader and creator of the social meaning of the action. Ricoeur assigns this role to representatives of the social sciences (historians or sociologists). An actor is a self or a subject capable of doing things, giving meaning to their actions and taking responsibility. As a result, Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of action can be understood as a concept that integrates various themes from his philosophical work (such as textual hermeneutics, narrative theory, phenomenology of self and ethics) as well as different philosophical approaches to understanding action: Anglo-Saxon and Continental. The findings of this paper can be used to examine and analyze Ricoeur’s hermeneutics and the history of the philosophy of action more broadly.

Since the parliament is endowed with representative functions it is called upon to represent the structure of society and articulate its inherent values. The chairman (speaker) represents the leading political party, so we can consider his/her speeches in the chamber as a ruling elite’s message to citizens. We aim to identify value dominants in the discourse of the chairmen of the Russian State Duma during the 1st till the 8th convocations (1994-2023) and to search for points of its contact with the values of Russian society. The methodological framework is the integral model of values, based on the well-known theories by Geert Hofstede, Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz, adapted for content analysis of discursive texts (transcripts of the State Duma sessions) by thesaurus marker words characterizing basic values. We also use qualitative discourse analysis to identify semantic chains, the specifics of ideological articulation of marker words, and analyze the transformation of their meaning in different contexts.The stability of the models based on the frequency of use of marker words in discourse for four value groups is tested using the principal component analysis. The hypothesis is tested that the speaker’s party affiliation has lost its connection with the values they broadcast over time (such a connection was observed only during the 1st and the 2nd convocations of the State Duma). We confirmed the assumption about a value shift in discourse from collectivist values to individualistic ones during the years of the post-Soviet political transition, while a decrease in the clusters of secular-rational and traditional values. The models are verified using secondary analysis of data from public opinion pools and waves of the World Values Survey. Correlations are revealed between the frequency of mentioning values and the dynamics of respondents’ answers to questions corresponding to these values (with the exception of traditionalist values). Comparison of the models with the country’s social and economic development indicators revealed counterintuitive results indicating a nonlinear influence of the economic situation on political thinking and discursive practices. The paper is intended to contribute to the theoretical and empirical development of contemporary Russian policy in the field of values.

This study is devoted to the investigation of factors affecting the level of trust in the Russian police. The main research issue of the article is to understand why some citizens trust law enforcement agencies, while others do not. To achieve this goal, data obtained during the 7th wave of the World Values Survey were used. The method of analyzing quantitative data was ordinal logistic regression. It is shown that the crime rate in the area of residence and the perception of security have received only partial empirical confirmation. The positive influence of the perception of corruption on trust in the police was found. The article also portrays how a more favorable attitude towards law enforcement agencies is associated with higher corruption. The author comes to the conclusion that citizens with higher levels of trust generally have more positive attitudes towards law enforcement agencies. It has been established that the level of trust of post-materialists in the police is lower than that of materialists. Statistical analysis has shown that an increase in the number of citizens with post-materialistic values leads to a decrease in the level of trust in law enforcement agencies. The author found that men have a lower level of trust in the police compared to women. The significance of the study lies in the fact that it can provide useful and practical recommendations for improving the work of the police and increasing the level of public confidence in it.

Helping the elderly people living nearby is a common practice in the Russian countryside. The article presents a study of the experimental social program “Caring Neighbor”, which reforms voluntary neighbor assistance into a formalized paid social service provided under a contract. In this way, neighborhood assistance becomes part of the long-term care system. Theoretically, the article is based on the concept of the ethics of care proposed by Carol Gilligan. Whether the new social program introduces features of managerial ethics into the relationship of neighborly care for the elderly in the rural community is the main question of the article. The study, implemented in rural settlements of the Republic of Karelia and the Leningrad Region in 2020-2021, includes a series of case studies of neighborly care, carried out informally and as part of the “Caring Neighbor” program (number of cases = 16), alongside 20 expert interviews. The article concludes that the ethics of caring for the elderly which is being formed now in the Russian village can be defined as community managerialism. Community norms still dominate, but caring about the elderly people is beginning to be understood as a managed, non-gratuitous activity that needs to be coordinated.

The article focuses on the nature of the modern knowledge society, which is characterized, first of all, by a sharp increase in intellectual capital (education, experience, skills, competencies, know-how, the price of personnel in the labor market, patents, etc.) in the amount of capitalization of large business. The knowledge society is a society of high social dynamics, the embodiment of the migration archetype, of rational discourse and intellectual work, which realizes the well-known thesis “Knowledge is power” in a new way. The last three decades, Nico Stehr, a well-known German sociologist and philosopher has been rethinking, reformulating, and substantiating the theories of the knowledge society, which appeared in the 1960s. The article investigates Stehr’s concept, expresses arguments in its support, and highlights some blank spots that remain inexplicable for him in the light of the social realities of recent years. The conclusion runs that the knowledge society represents a significant social trend in the formation of science and technology as a leading productive force. It also manifests a form of the urban discourse of freedom — the cognitive self-realization of the individual in the spectrum of wide possibilities of the public good as a subject-matter of epistemological urban studies. However, this trend is countered by modern knowledge capitalism (privatization, fencing off of knowledge, including that with the help of patents), as well as by the high degree of risk and uncertainty that dominates the modern world.

This article presents a historical and analytical exploration of cultural imperialism, critically examining its impacts and consequences. Drawing on Western primary sources from the 1960s to the early 2000s, the authors incorporate key literature from the peak period of cultural imperialism debates. The article traces the formation and development of cultural imperialism from its roots in colonialism, through its systematization by Herbert Schiller, to its contemporary manifestations in a globalized world. It also explores the significance of cultural imperialism in today’s world, referencing literature from the 2010s and 2020s. The Marxist perspective on the free flow of information between cultures is emphasized, highlighting said flow’s inherently unequal and economically unfair conditions from the outset. This critical approach allows for an evaluation of both positive and negative views on cultural imperialism studies, revealing contradictions and encouraging dialogue on potential solutions or transformations. The intense reaction to the famous MacBride report of 1980 has demonstrated that the problems of cultural relations are primarily driven by economic factors; without addressing these economic issues, cultural problems cannot be resolved. The concluding section of the article highlights that the economic rise of Third World countries has also led to a significant flow of cultural products from these regions. The article aims to stimulate further research in cultural studies and promote a deeper understanding of the dynamics of cultural processes in the contemporary world.

Inequality remains one of the most fundamental problems of the modern world. Usually, inequality is examined through the prism of its economic causes and consequences. However, this logic excludes an important element from the explanatory model: in addition to economic barriers, inequality generates cultural obstacles. It creates gaps between people, forming often impenetrable boundaries between different social groups. Inequalities shaped by cultural differences take rigid and enduring forms and are extremely difficult to eliminate. We will refer to such cultural processes of inequality associated with categorizing groups of people and assigning value to them as recognition. The study of recognition as a cultural mechanism of inequality has in recent years emerged as a significant frontier in contemporary sociology of inequality, and appears to be a critical element necessary for a comprehensive understanding of inequality processes. The purpose of this review is to show how the cultural dimension of inequality that we have identified, which we will further refer to as recognition, is thematized in sociological studies of inequality and culture. We want to show that issues of respect and dignity have always been at the core of the conversation about inequality. Despite the abundance of relevant research, the concept of recognition remains problematic: it is overly eclectic and poorly grounded in sociological theory.

The main idea of the article is to review various theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of housing problems, which are based on the classical notions of rationalities’ multiplicity set mainly by Max Weber in the framework of his economic-sociological approach, as well as Mary Douglas in the framework of socio-cultural anthropology. To implement this task, the author of the article, taking an interdisciplinary position, refers to contemporary studies of the housing sector’s rationalities in different countries, mainly in Africa and Europe. Despite the lack of a direct connection between different studies, the unanimous refusal of the dichotomy “rational — irrational” in the analysis of housing processes was confirmed by the representatives of various disciplines. At the same time, the difference of approaches lies at the level of rationality (civilizational, national, urban, etc.) analysis, in the explored subject of social actions (the state, entrepreneurs, etc.), as well as in the features of researchers’ methodological positions themselves (behavioral economics, neo-institutionalism, etc.). In conclusion, M. Weber’s legacy is outlined as playing a decisive role for the shaping of ideas about the multiplicity of rationalities in housing research.

Book Review: Boris E. Nolde (2024) Russia in the Economic War. Translated by Alla Belykh, Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press. - 388 pp. ISBN 978-5-93255-675-7

Book review: Fishman L. (2022) The Age of Virtues: After Soviet Morality, Moscow: New Literature Observe. (In Russian)

To mark the anniversary — one hundred years since his birth — of Fridrikh Rafailovich Filippov, a Soviet sociologist who made a great contribution to the development of research on social mobility and education in our country, we are posting on the pages of Russian Sociological Review a fragment of his last major book, based on materials whose uniqueness is not inferior to the author's notorious analytical intuition. The book was published at the end of the Soviet period in the development of both the country and the sociology associated with this period. The book, made with all scientific care, remains a document of the epoch, which we look back on more and more often after thirty-five years.