Sociological Journal

Published by Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FCTAS RAS)
Print ISSN: 1562-2495
The author of the study guide under review assigned herself the task of helping readers fathom the tendencies and courses for development in contemporary foreign sociology, as well as identify the connections between classic paradigms and the latest ones which define the face of modern social science. Examined in particular is a reassessment of Western modernization theories in Russian sociology. The goals of this book are dictated by the search for new paradigms, which would help explain the changes that we are observing in the modern world. This study guide is aimed at specialists in the field of theory, methodology and history of sociology, at teachers, and at college and postgraduate students studying sociology.
25–28 August 2015 the ESA 12th Conference “Differences, Inequalities and Sociological Imagination” took place in Prague. The largest professional sociological association in Europe holds on the significant — pretending on being the most representative — meeting of sociologists. The article deals with Preliminary Results of the conference, designs its main themes and subjects. The concepts, mentioned in conference’s title, were discussed and differently interpreted during the conference, but a general direction of reflexion can be distinguished through the following concepts: diversity and sociological imagination. In general, European sociologists characterize the contemporary society as post-crisis one, but at the same time the uncertainty rests one of the main concepts, and precariat is considered as a constantly growing social group, which takes a very important place in social structure. Theoretical frames, which are determined by this researching focus, form on the ideas of appropriate thinkers, such as A. Giddens, P. Bourdieu, B. Latour, U. Beck, Z. Bauman.
Он пришел в социологию совершенно сознательно (17 апреля 1936 – 25 апреля 2016)
70 лет со дня рождения Геннадия Батыгина (19 февраля 1951 – 1 июня 2003)
From April 2020 to August 2021 the Public Opinion Foundation conducted a study of the top management of small, medium and large businesses in a pandemic. We focused on “success stories” and on what characteristics of a company determine its survival. Despite the pandemic crisis these organizations were successfully able to adapt, they launched new products and processes, their teams stayed consolidated and in some cases even grew to accommodate new functions. One of the factors of a company’s success and its survival in a crisis is having a system of values shared by all team members, which is an integral part of corporate culture. The heads of companies point out: taking care of the collective means to make a very profitable investment in business development. During the crisis, corporate culture helped managers to preserve a tightly knit team around them, create a certain work atmosphere in the collective and inspire employees to continue growing. This article examines different levels of corporate culture, showing the role of each of them when it comes to the survival of a business in a pandemic crisis. The text also contains the results of a case study and content analysis of 70 in-depth interviews with company leaders, reflecting changes in corporate culture given an ongoing pandemic. Particular attention is paid to the transformation of the role of the business leader. In the final section we consider the specifics of culture for businesses of various sizes, and then summarize the results by outlining areas for future research.
This article concentrates on exposure and analysis of sociological plots in the “Annals of Psychology, Criminal Anthropology and Hypnotism” (“Vestnik psikhologii, kriminal'noi antropologii i gipnotizma”) magazine (1904–1919). The magazine was an official press body of the Psychoneurological Institute. It was the only Institute in the Russian Empire which had the chair of sociology. It was one of the first magazines where the founders and authors addressed the study of social processes and phenomena. In this magazine, they published works that later became fruits of unique and promising collaboration between outstanding scientists of various specializations who were striving to “understand human nature”... That is a motto of the magazine formulated by V.M. Bechterev. In the framework of this educational and scientific center, an effort was made to organize and unite specialists in various disciplines (creative efforts by historians М.М. Kovalevskiy, N.I. Kareev, psychologists V.M. Bechterev, V.А. Wagner, “the first professional sociologists” P.А. Sorokin, K.М. Tachtarev, etc.) and to establish experimental studying of different aspects of society and people activities (social psychology, reflexology of social groups, how profession impacts individuals behavior, etc.). “Annals of Psychology, Criminal Anthropology and Hypnotism” magazine had become the tool of communication which they used to talk about their intellectual achievements. It also served as a field for discussions. In 1912, this magazine was named “Annals of Psychology, Criminal Anthropology and Hypnotism”. It was the magazine P.A. Sorokin chose to publish his works in the early stage of his brilliant scientific career. Authors of the magazine also included P.F. Kapterev, N.I. Kareev and N.D. Kondratev. The article concludes that the magazine played a major role in the process of sociology institutionalization and self-identification in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
The purpose of this article is to draw the attention of specialists in the field of social sciences to a unique collection of documents at Moscow’s Institute of social psychology (1917–1924) created by V.M. Khvostov — a legislative science expert, philosopher, sociologist, who set himself the task of separating sociology and making it a specialized scientific discipline. The only work to date devoted to the Institute was an article written by its employee L.A. Byzov in 1923 (published in 2011), where he speaks about the history of the Institute, its development, achievements and failures from the point of view of a person who knows the situation from the inside. This makes it invaluable in terms of studying the history of the Institute of social psychology, in this work in particular, which provides more detailed information about the activities of V.M. Khvostov, the Institute’s employees and specialists involved in its work. These people were actually performing a scientific feat, creating a new direction in the field of social sciences, working in the extremely difficult conditions of the post-revolutionary era. The content and completeness of those of the Institute’s protocols which found their way into our hands, them currently being stored in the archives of the European University in St. Petersburg, are worthy of a full-fledged scientific publication that could write another page in the history of Russian sociology.
In the 1920’s Marxism, having become the state ideology of Soviet Russia, took a leading position among the political ideologies of Europe in terms of its influence on the minds and hearts of people. The teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels received various interpretations, among which “sociology of knowledge” in the interpretation of M. Scheler and K. Mannheim earned the most recognition in the academic environment. It originated in Germany in the mid 1920’s as a result of criticism of the Marxist “theory of ideology”, of “economist” limitations of the materialistic vision of man, of history and society. In the USSR “sociology of knowledge” was understood to be the most refined attempt to overcome Marxism. The essential characteristics of Marxism and “sociology of knowledge” as interpreted by K. Mannheim are revealed, while being subjected to comparative and critical analysis. The first reaction of Soviet Marxist sociologists to “sociology of knowledge” is analyzed. In the light of this reaction, it was presented as “social fascism”. The specifics of how the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels existed in the USSR during the 1920s–1930’s are evaluated. “Historical materialism” is qualified as a sociological methodology of suspicion, and the practice of its application by the Bolsheviks as a form of discrimination and persecution in society based on social class and social group affiliation.
The published correspondence reveals the professional ties of the RussianAmerican sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889–1968) and the German publisher and sociologist Salomon (1892–1964, Salomon-Delatour since 1947). It substantially complements the knowledge about Sorokin’s priorities in professional contacts and scientific interests. In addition to the most complete version of Sorokin’s article “Russian Sociology in the Twentieth Century” (1926), published in the Yearbook of Sociology released by Salomon, the accompanying correspondence introduces Sorokin’s plans to participate in the preparation of the German editions of the books Leaves from a Russian Diary (1924), The Sociology of Revolution (1925), Social Mobility (1925), Modern Sociological Theories (1928, the German edition came out in 1932), Principles of Rural and Urban Sociology (1929) and Readers on Rural Sociology (1930–1932). Sorokin’s plans and articles on the study of genius and leadership, the role of the intelligentsia in society, and issues of book review are discussed. The letters are a testament to Sorokin’s sociology starting to receive actual international recognition. The correspondence tells of the impact of the Great Depression (1929–1939) on sociologists’ contacts.
This article sets out to study the professors’ community in the Red Professorate Institute in regards to the community’s homogeneity and its didactic potential. Based on statistical and autobiographical documents deposited in the State archive of the Russian Federation, the author comes to the conclusion that the Institute did not succeed in crystallizing the cadres of a new type of Soviet professorship, due to their being no common features between its members: neither on the level of education and qualification characteristics, nor in the social homogeneity, nor in their political loyalty. The community was bright, polyphonic, heterogeneous, mobile, variable, sometimes responding to encouraging requests from the authorities (such as, for example, party membership), and sometimes ignoring them. In the socio-demographic aspect, the Institute of Red Professors did not completely become an ideological institution, how it was planned by Soviet government (although it was secured in curricula and programs of the disciplines). It was one of the places where the intelligentsia worked, where their knowledge and skills, often acquired even before 1917, were in demand.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of well-known sociologist and cultural scholar Sergey S. Rapoport (1934–2017), a bright and profound social scientist. Living inVilnius, he collaborated with sociologists from bothLithuaniaandRussia. Sergey Rapoport published a number of works on the problems of sociology of culture, sociology of family, sociology of the intelligentsia, sociology of everyday life, etc. He is also known as a researcher of the sociology and ideology of totalitarianism. Throughout the years, his scientific work stays relevant.
Mobility, as well as inclusion, is attributed by default with a positive connotation, which creates the illusion of an always subjective choice. The article discusses forced (im) mobility, which evacuated, labor-mobilized and certain other individuals were subject to during wartime and post-war periods in the Urals. The main task of this study was to figure out who these people appeared to be in the discourse constructs of their time - subjective characters or those dependent on someone else's will, agents of a socially acceptable (or unacceptable) order or hostages of the situation? The empirical base consists of certain lists of questions which were addressed to working people in 1942-1947 and available at the Documentation Center of public organizations of the Sverdlovsk region, supplemented by newspaper articles and some other documents. Analysis in terms of affective and temporal orders shows that people who were relocated to the Urals perceived their situation as temporary, what is expressed by the term "packed and ready to move". Authorities were interested in keeping personnel in those localities where enterprises were evacuated to, while fearing loss of control over the situation. This conflict is considered with regard to the subjectivity gradations of forced migrants. Three gradations are identified: zero, basic and increased degree of subjectivity. Separately illustrated is the situation of those drafted into the Trudarmee - inhabitants of Central Asia as well as Soviet Germans. It is noted that the latter's mobilization into the Trudarmee was superimposed onto their ethnically stigmatized identity; after the war, they were subject to forced inclusion through a system of special "permanent" settlements.
The correspondence between P.A. Sorokin, head of the Harvard Centre for the Study of Creative Altruism, and L. von Wiese, president of the German Society for Sociology and publisher of a respected sociological journal, from 1945–1949 is instilled with worldview reflections and a search for a way out of the post-war moral dead-end for European civilization. This publication was prepared with support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 20-011-00451, CGES Saint Petersburg and Bielefeld Universities, Grant No. 1 from 5.02.2021, on authorization from the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv, BAarch B320/39) and the Pitirim A. Sorokin Collection, University Archives & Special Collections, University Library at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Response letters from L. von Wiese to P.A. Sorokin are quoted in footnotes with numbering in Latin numerals. Footnote icons written in Arabic numerals refer to off-text notes.
The postwar correspondence between P.A. Sorokin, head of the Harvard Centre for the Study of Creative Altruism, and L. von Wiese, President of the German Society for Sociology and publisher of a respected sociological journal from 1950 to 1966, describes their cooperation on issues of general sociology and in the search for practical ways of humanizing the postwar world. It covers notable events in P.A. Sorokin's scientific biography: his conflict with T. Parsons, L. von Wiese's role in its alleviation, Sorokin's creative plans and their implementation, the work of the Research Center for the Study of Creative Altruism, and evidence of recognition of Sorokin's work in West German society. This publication was prepared with support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project №20-011-00451, CGES Saint Petersburg and Bielefeld Universities, Grant №1 from 05.02.2021, on permission from The Pitirim Sorokin Foundation, the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv, BAarch B 320/39) and the Pitirim A. Sorokin Collection, University Archives & Special Collections, the University Library at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Letters written by L.vonWiese as a response to P.A.Sorokin are quoted in footnotes with numbering in Latin numerals. Footnote icons written in Arabic numerals refer to notes that supplement the main text.
Student unrest of 1956 in Soviet universities is examined based on the example of the Ural State University and the Ural Polytechnic Institute in Sverdlovsk. Student attitudes are analyzed in terms of social and critical thinking, and the reaction of authorities — in light of the policy towards the intelligentsia. The theoretical and methodological frame of analysis is constructivism, with emphasis put on aspects of bilateral, reciprocal design and temporality. The empirical base consists of documents from the collections of the Documentation Centre of the Social Institutions of Sverdlovsk Region, the University Museum, as well as materials from local and national press. The mid 1950’s were marked by a radical revision of the limits of acceptable criticism, which was unfolding until the end of 1956. Unorthodox activity was not regarded as seditious up until a point. The gap, interval between the original action and the resulting stigmatizing mark shows how such a notion crystallized. At some point it seemed as if you could criticize everyone and everything. It is shown that the most crucial effect was produced not by the theme of student statements but rather by a mismatch in the magnitude of the subjects and objects of public criticism. The position of authorities was to depoliticize student activity, while using such a relatively new course as pathologizing objectification: the younger generation was treated as a bearer of specific problems requiring special attention. “Labor education” with emphasis on hard physical labor was used as the universal lifesaver. Sundays at construction sites, hedgehog-fit visits to farms, as well as sending expelled students to factories inform the phenomenon of organic intellectuals “on the contrary” (in the words of A. Gramsci and N. Savelyeva). At the same time, the pragmatic benefits of resolving to admit to universities only those who had sufficient work experience was not reduced to disposing of students’ “unhealthy moods”, but rather “postponement” of higher education was to attract the youngsters to the virgin lands and construction sites. Students themselves insisted on the political connotations of their actions. The desire of the young generation to “catch the winds of history in their sails” was gradually accumulated in the concept of romance, which had yet to displace the patriotism and heroism that prevailed within the ideological orientations and the official rhetoric of the 50’s.
The author, while reconstructing the history of his generation - contemporaries of World War 2 - explores the youth culture of the 1960's. It was the final period of the youth socialization of WW2 contemporaries and others born in 1940's. Their external life conditions were changing rapidly, while the social environment was changing at a slower pace. They began to influence change in the forms and content of cultural processes. The term 'culture' is used here meaning the field, art, literature, everyday communication and partially the field of ethics. The external factors which determined the cultural consciousness of the 15-25 year olds in Soviet Russia were as follows: Information and facts from foreign cultures, which were often perceived in the USSR in a wrong way. The Scientific & Technical Revolution - the result of a highly developed scientific culture which was used to influence the mass understanding of culture. This article explores the significant locations, levels, and cells of society where the young people perceived cultural experiences: these were families, circles of friends, the army, work. educational collectives, sometimes containing dozens and thousands of individuals who were not familiar with each other. The key essence of the text is in itself, as the conclusions that it draws are not original. The West has imposed on us not only the arms race and a search for allies, but also the consumer race, which infected the tastes and vanity of our youths with Western fashion, music and dance. It has also imposed the longing for an abstract non-class humanity onto the minds of the more thoughtful and sensitive individuals. These influences have contributed to the fall of the Soviet propaganda machine. © 2018 Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Поддержка В.А. Ядовым российской региональной социологии в 1960–1980-е годы
The article examines the theory and practice of sociological study of the phenomenon of religiousness in the USSR in 1960-1970-es. The philosophical and ideological assumptions, tasks put forward by the party bureaucracy before the sociology of religion, the role of the scientific atheism, atheist propaganda and their influence on the sociology of religion are considered. The article shows the typical classifications of religious consciousness, tools of mass surveys (questionnaires); the results of informal interviews and participant observation among believers that are kept in the Russian Archive of Socio-Political History. In particular, the authors come to the conclusion that theoretical concepts and empirical research were, to a large extent, determined by ideological order.
This article describes those interaction between applied sciences (mathematics and information technology) and sociologists in the 1960’s and 1980’s which influenced the subsequent development of Russian sociology. The object of research is scientific articles and other texts (popular science articles, memoirs, interviews) of those participating in past and present interdisciplinary interaction. The main trait of the interdisciplinary cooperation between sociologists and mathematicians is the paradigmatization of sociology as a field of science. Precise sciences played a special role in this process, as they participated in the formation of the language, thematic repertoire and methodological arsenal of sociology. As shown by our analysis, the demand for cooperation was formed by three tasks: of the methodological, instrumental and practical (socio-engineering) variety. The article describes three cases of cooperation. Number one — when it was formed by the organizational and intellectual leadership of mathematicians (Novosibirsk school). Number two — when leadership positions were held by sociologists (Leningrad school). And number three — when “game rules” were set by external agents — the cooperation of sociologists and mathematicians in the name of solving industrial tasks. The typical tasks which scientists collectively solved in each of these three cases were identified and systematized. The article offers conclusions about the significance of this period for the development of sociology. Further development of this topic, in our opinion, lies within giving direction to the analysis of cooperation mechanisms between sociologists and researchers in the field of precise sciences, as well as its institutionalization.
This article analyzes the alignment of forces (social subjects) and the socio-political context prevalent during the time of the Khrushchev thaw, which lead to establishing the very first academic institute of sociology in 1968 — the Institute for Concrete Social Research (ICSR) AS USSR. Certain facts dating back to the 1940’s are clarified concerning the background of the ICSR under the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, using data from the Russian Academy of Sciences’ archive. It is a well-known fact that at the end of the 1950’s and the beginning of the 1960’s a centralized hierarchical system was in place to manage Soviet science, which functioned under stringent control from the communist party. One of the more common opinions states that sociology at the time was establishing itself in a desperate struggle against authorities. Among the issues analyzed is the nature of that struggle, as well as who was able to overcome the system and how, in order to establish sociology as an official discipline, while creating the necessary conditions for instituting the ICSR, why did concrete social studies become its specialization. Considered are three interacting parties which participated in this process, i.e. social subjects — the emerging sociological community, academic leaders and party-political authorities. Shown are the nature and the degree of interest on behalf of each subject, as well as the nature of interactions between sociologists and leading academics, sociologists and party-political authorities, and between branches of government. It is argued that during the Khrushchev thaw these interactions bore various aspects, both negative and positive, and that the popular thesis about a “desperate struggle for sociology” against authorities is a one-sided and exaggerated interpretation of the true picture. It is revealed that the emergence of sociology at the earliest stages, together with the establishment of the first academic institute, was due not only to a “sociological movement”, as in a widespread development of sociological research, but also an “institutional and administrative movement” embodied in the academic leadership, as well as interest and support on behalf of party-political authorities. Analyzed are the ideological conditions for establishing the ICSR. Namely — the confrontation and subsequent compromise between “Marxist sociology” (historical materialism) and empirical (“concrete”) evaluation of society. It is shown that a compromise between the parties involved is what determined the initial official specialization of the Institute, in the form of concrete social research. © 2018, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. All Rights reserved.
The difference between non-Western and Western matrices of political identity has been attracting the attention of researchers since the end of the 19th century. This issue is located at the intersection of sociology and political science. The purpose of this article is to identify the specifics of political identity in Japan based on public data from the past 20 years, which is analyzed while taking into account the characteristics of the national political system and the political culture of this country. The authors focus on the idea of Japan’s self-image, the most important tasks and preferred forms of governance, attitudes towards government institutions, as well as certain qualities of citizens in terms of their self-assessment as subjects. The article combines sociological methods for analyzing opinion polls with a historical and cultural approach, as well as the method of “deconstruction”, which involves defining the basic concepts, narratives, myths and other forms of discourse that have been transformed into elements of political identity or which influence its formation. Opinion surveys show that traditional mental patterns continue to play a significant role in shaping the configuration of the political identity of the Japanese, identifying such features as a trust in the patronizing representatives of the political class, an urge for social protection from the authorities, a high degree of national unity, support from the state as the main political entity, and a low level of individual participation. In the context of nonlinear dynamics of socio-political transformations, such unique features derive from the desire to rely on patrimonialism and other traditions.
The aim of the paper is to analyze parental values in Russia and 33 other countries, and explore how they’ve changed between 1990 and 2017–2020. Russian dynamics are shown on 7 waves, international — on 2 waves. We used a combination of data from the World Values Survey and the European Values Study. We found that in 1990 the Russian value agenda in regards to children was essentially directed towards survival. By 2017–2020 certain changes had occurred: Russians no longer considered survival values to be as important (such as hard work, thrift, obedience); self-expression values (e.g., independence and imagination) became more popular; humanistic values lost much of their importance for Russians. In 33 countries humanistic values remained as popular as in 1990, while survival values seem to be less important. Russian parental values change in the same direction as do Russian personal values.
This article considers the subject of interdisciplinary interaction among specialists working in exact and social sciences as a practice of exchanging ideas about social reality; mutual adaptation of these ideas; empirical verification of the universal formal logic rules applied to specific tasks of sociological research. Such formulation of the subject goes beyond the problem of adapting educational programs to “literacy classes” for potential partners. It is maintained that in inter-professional communication it is important to formulate conceptual systems of common use not “in general”, not for all possible cases, but with regard to the problem addressed by consolidated effort. For such conceptual systems we use the term “common language area” according to the ideas of epistemologists (Ilya Kasavin). Elements of these conceptual systems include paradigms, concepts, tools and procedures mobilized for collaborative work. Readers are offered a description of the experience of cooperation between mathematicians and sociologists in 1990 – 2010s in the qualitative analysis of sociological data — which is an area of concern for both sociology and exact methods. To find a cooperative solution, we needed to develop a system of basic propositions regarding the object and purpose of the research; to put together a structure of sociological data suitable for using the proposed formal tool; to carry out empirical verification of the formalized language of logic-mathematical reasoning. This work has made it possible to explicate the opportunities and limitations when it comes to interpreting results. The article draws conclusions about the specifics of communication in a team of specialists, including sociologists and mathematicians, and about the development of a common language area in the field of cooperation that deals with qualitative analysis of sociological data. Our experience of cooperation in using formalized qualitative analysis of sociological data shows that, when it comes to the need to solve a common problem, partner role relations turned out to be the most effective (rather than role pairs such as “teacher-student” or “seller-buyer”).
This article examines the history of Russian sociology from the viewpoint of sociology of knowledge, specifically the period of history from the early 1990’s to the mid-2000’s. The external historical context, as well as the internal mental and theoretical-methodological consequences associated with the fall of Marxist-Leninist ideology are all analyzed. Digressing from the emotional psychological experiences and value judgments of sociologists, the author sees an ideological challenge in the void that arose in place of Marxism-Leninism. His focus is on the actual responses to this challenge in the form of attempts made by Russian sociologists to fill and comprehend said void. In particular, the author touches upon the “polyparadigmatic approach” concept proposed by V.A. Yadov, in association with the controversy that arose between him and the creator of this concept. The author considers the “epistemological anarchism” doctrine by P. Feyerabend and finds that it has a lot in common with the concept of a “polyparadigm approach”.
The article discusses the results of comparative analysis of the results of 1990s’ and 2000s’ reforms from the point of view of the losses and gains of Russians. Using the data from longitudinal sociological surveys the author presents the changes in the ratio of winners and losers, provides detailed characteristics of these groups, analyzes the peculiarities of their socio-economic adaptation. In particular, based on self-estimation, there is a six fold increase in the number of winners from the reforms of the 2000s in comparison with the winners from the reforms of the 1990s. This can be explained by improvement of socio-economic situation in the country and increasing government attention to tackling social problems as well as by the rise of people's adaptive capacities. Currently the proportion of “winners” is higher among those people who in the early stages of market reforms experienced disastrous deterioration of their economic situation. So today, among “winners” there are many people who were only able to slightly improve their position, and positive social well-being is often the result of modest pretensions. Often moderate social optimism expresses not so much a positive assessment of the existing reality but mainly strengthening opinion about favorable changes in the future. Among “winners” there is a substantial group of people who have received certain preferences from the state.Changes resulted in a considerable improvement of the social well-being of pensioners and public sector employees. The significance and emotional problems of physical survival expressed in previous years by a less successful and more successful people have visibly diminished.With the improvement of the socio-economic situation the number of supporters of market reforms has increased, especially among the most adapted people. At the same time the author emphasizes an internal inconsistency and conflict in mass consciousness, which is explains by the contradictions of social reality, on the one hand, and unclear prospects of future development of the country, on the other. The analysis leads to the conclusion that in the future the ratio of winners and losers will be largely determined by the directions of the country socio-economic policy.
During the 1990’s and 2000’s audience research departments at broadcasting companies and advertising agencies played a serious role in the development of Russian sociology of media. One such subsidiary is VGTRK’s Audience Research Agency, founded by media manager and journalist A.G. Bystritsky, and which for a long time was run by sociologist A.V. Sharikov. The tasks of the Agency have repeatedly changed for 12 incomplete years of its work. They included secondary analysis of the results of TV audience measurement, expert surveys, audience qualitative studies, research expeditions to the Russian regions, etc. A special place among the Agency projects is held by the first exit poll in the history of Russian sociology (1993). Examined are the main periods and lines of activity of this subsidiary, its projects and the publications based upon them. Information is provided about the leading experts who participated in the agency’s activities throughout the years of its existence.
This article analyzes the stability dynamic of Russian households over the last two decades, as well as its determinants. The methodology used for measuring stability is that which is being developed by intergovernmental bodies such as The United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The empirical base of the study consists of data from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS–HSE). The acquired results speak to the viability of Russian households: families’ average real capita income, after decreasing twofold during the crisis period (1994– 1998), not only recovered and returned to pre-reform values, but even exceeded the latter by one third during the period of rapid growth (2000–2007). Strategies for increasing the stability potential of households change depending on economic recessions and upsurges. It is shown that a decline in the proportion of households with income below minimal cost of living during growth of GDP was accompanied by an increasing inequality in stable development potential between the poor and the more wealthy families throughout the entire examined period, and especially from 2008 to 2017. Scattered local measures aimed at reducing poverty can result in a more pronounced synergetic effect, if we were to view households with income below minimal cost of living as a complex socio-economic system.
This article analyzes the dynamics of life satisfaction among Russia’s population over the course of the last two decades, as well as its determinants based on OECD methodology and data from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey of the Higher School of Economics (RLMS–HSE). It shows that inRussia, which during its transformational period went through each phase of the business cycle with high oscillation amplitude, life satisfaction is more closely connected to the main economic indicators than in countries that haven’t experienced similar economic and social shock. The way life satisfaction and its main determinants correlate inRussiais similar in character to what we see in several other countries. Meanwhile, the main values which characterize these connections, as well as their forms, depend on the particular course of movement of the economic cycle in any given country, as well as the previous path (model) of its development.
This is an article on the dynamics and specifics of people’s self-evaluation of the respect they receive from others, based on data from the “Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS–HSE)” (1994–2020). It shows that in recent years the dynamics of respect self-assessments have become somewhat shaky as opposed to them having been positive for quite a long period of time. In the minds of Russian people respect is rather vaguely linked to evaluation of financial status and possession of power. However there is a marked connection between where people place themselves on the scale of respect on one hand and such closely tied and unilateral components as tolerance and trust on the other. The influence of specific, personified interpersonal trust on the self-evaluations that were subject to analysis is more pronounced than that of general trust, which is still pretty low in Russian society. Association with the type of people who are generally respected by society depends more on one’s professional, civic and national identity than on political affiliation. Scores on the respect scale improve when a person partakes in work activity and has a positive outlook on their own professional qualities and achievements. People’s evaluation of how respected they are is boosted by professional growth and diminished by elevated anxiety on account of possibly becoming unemployed or facing difficulties trying to find a job, and in conditions of economic instability and uncertainty.
The report analyzes the public opinion on the main socio-economic and political issues at the end of the fourth year of Boris Yeltsin’s presidential term, on the eve of the Duma elections in December 1995 and the presidential elections in 1996. The poll’s data show the growing discontent of the population with the state of affairs in the country, the economic crisis, their own impoverishment, and the inability of the authorities to solve the country’s main problems. At the same time, a growing number of people lost interest in politics, lost confidence the political and economic reforms will lead to the country’s revival, democratization, and the ability to choose the best people for positions of power. Two thirds of the people said that they have become worse off than at the start of radical reforms ten years ago, while the main responsibility for the plight of the people and the country lies within the current government, which had no idea where the country’s economy was going, and had no program for overcoming the crisis. 75% believed that the government lives by its own interests; they do not care about the people. Market reforms initiated by Boris Yeltsin spurred mass negative assessments: our life before the reforms was better and more prosperous; the people were deceived, they were promised market socialism, and were drawn into the construction of capitalism; reforms were based on robbing the people, only speculators, swindlers, and officials had benefited from them. Regretting the dismantling of socialism, the population had lost belief that the ideas of socialism and communism were able to unite society again. As such an idea, the majority suggested reviving Russia as a powerful state, while calling for following a special, Russian path which implies a “strong hand” in power. The majority believed that the President and the government had already exhausted their opportunities to put an end to the crisis in Russia, and that they should be replaced with new people. The assessment of the President’s performance reached its lowest point during his administration – only 6% expressed their approval and 71% disapproved. The war in Chechnya seriously harmed the President’s popularity. More than 80% expressed negative assessments on the Kremlin’s Chechnya policies.
О ценностном отношении к абстрактным категориям. [Аналитич. обзор]. Быченков В.М. Институты: сверхколлективные образования и безличные формы социальной субъективности. М.: Российская академия социальных наук, 1996.
Интервью было подготовлено в 2001 году, когда его автор работала на кафедре германистики Фрайбургского университета (Германия) над диссертацией по специальности «Всеобщее языкознание». В рамках этой работы автор проводила сравнительный анализ стилей русскоязычных и немецкоязычных социологических статей, что и определило основную тематику интервью. Целью интервью было получить информацию о состоянии социологической науки в советское время, о социологических школах в СССР, о системе научных журналов, о преподавании социологии, а также о редакторской работе с научными социологическими текстами в советское и постсоветское время.
It’s commonly believed that the book “Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law” (1913) of Eugen Erlich (1862–1922) was historically the first work in which was made an attempt to create a sociology of law as a specific scientific discipline. However the translation and publication of this work in Russian (2011) was insignificant to the sociological community, while in the English-language literature of the last decades we can observe a growing interest to the classic. The author of the article tries to emphasize the main points and advantages of the theory of the “living law” of Ehrlich, showing how the “Fundamental principles...” may be interesting for the modern reader. For this, the author of the article offers a specific strategy for reading the book.
Кентавризм — специфическая особенность современности? Тощенко Ж.Т. Кентавр-проблема (Опыт философского и социологического анализа): [монография] / Ж.Т. Тощенко. М.: Новый хронограф, 2011
Социологический афтершок: российские выборы 2011–2012 годов в аналитике поллстеров [Рец. на книгу: От плебисцита — к выборам. Как и почему россияне голосовали на выборах 2011–2012 гг. / Под ред. В.В. Федорова. М.: Праксис, 2013]
: The article is devoted to pre-crisis situation (2014 – 2016) analysis of ethnic relations in Russia and European countries with considering studying ethnic tension by domestic experience. Ethnic tension is considering as a social psychological characteristic reflect the imbalance in social relations, resulting from the escalating conflict between ethnic groups. The empirical foundation of study is the ESS database. Indicators of ethnic tension, such as relations to relocation of immigrants into the country of the respondent, the assessment of changes that bring immigrants are analyzed. Detaching the analogues to those indicators in the ESS allowed to construct an index of ethnic tension and to compare it’s values in the European countries. The countries with the lowest (Scandinavia) and the highest level of ethnic tensions (Cyprus, Russia, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary) are revealed. Most ethnic tensions observed in younger and older age groups, as well as in the group of women, and among respondents with low education and low income, living in villages. In the context of the main causes of ethnic tensions (cultural characteristics of ethnic groups interacting), highlighted the factors that consistently influence on ethnic tensions, such as the size of GDP per capita, the proportion of migrants in total population, the number of migrants who arrived in the last 5 years, trust the people, occupation.
Kohn E. How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. — 288 p.
The authors summarize the origin and evolution of the urban “island” of BelaVista in Porto, Portugal, since the 19th century. Despite local residents mobilizing in the wake of the revolution of April 25th 1974 in the context of the urban housing and design initiative (Local Ambulatory Support Service — Serviço de Apoio Ambulatório Local, SAAL), they were unable to renovate the crumbling neighbourhood. The Residents’ Association, resisting the onslaught of demolition strategies that were driven by real estate interests, eventually managed, with the support from a technical team of architects, social scientists and activists, to mobilize residents and ensure the political commitment of an independent parliamentary candidate in order to rehabilitate the “island” of Bela Vista. The project was also subsequently supported by the Councillors of Culture and Urbanism. Though various quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interviews, life stories) methods were applied in the study, the article highlights and expands on the action-research method opposite to positivist assumptions.
Clerke T., Hopwood N. Doing ethnography in teams. A case study of asymmetric in collaborative research. New York: Springer Briefs in education, 2014
Еще раз об акторно-сетевой теории, или трудности перевода/ Рец. на кн.: Латур Б. Пересборка социального: введение в акторно-сетевую теорию / Пер. с англ. И. Полонской; Под ред. С. Гавриленко; НИУ ВШЭ. М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2014. — 382 с.
Помнить или забыть: значение выбора для прошлого и настоящего [Рец. на кн.] Ассман А. Длинная тень прошлого: Мемориальная культура и историческая политика / Пер. с нем. Б. Хлебникова. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2014
. The book “Agrarians, power, and the village: from past to present” by Alexander M. Nikulin (Publishing House “Delo”, Moscow, 2014) is notable for the fact that it examines the two hundred year history of interaction between the government and agrarian scientists. In particular, the author presents biographical information about such outstanding scientists as A.I. Vasilchikov, F.A. Shcherbina A.V. Chayanov, G.A. Studenskiy, L.N. Litoshenko, S.S. Maslov, P.A. Sorokin, A.D. Bilimovich, T.I. Zaslavskaya, and V.P. Danilov. The book cites little-known facts about the American experts who worked inRussia during the 1920‑1930’s, such as Harold Ware, Lement Harris and Thomas Campbell. A.M. Nikulin’s book sheds light on the long history of the Russian village and the relationship between the government and agrarian scientists. This publication is extremely relevant for the sake of revamping these relationships on a new foundation.
Социология бесовщины и плутовства. [Рец. на кн.] Тощенко Ж.Т. Фантомы российского общества. М.: Центр социального прогнозирования и маркетинга, 2015
Трудом Россию не поднять?.. [Рец. на книгу] Карачаровский В.В., Шкаратан О.И., Ястребов Г.А. Русская культура труда и иностранное влияние / Науч. ред. О.И. Шкаратан. М.: Страна Оз, 2015
Кодекс профессиональной этики и практики (дополнен 30.11.2015). Американская ассоциация исследователей общественного мнения / Пер. с англ. Д.М. Рогозина
Пять уроков старения. Сила возраста: уроки старости для семей и молодежи / Под ред. Д. Батталья; Пер. с итал. О. Уваровой, М. Челинцевой, С. Файн. СПб.: Алетейя, 2015
This book presents an analysis of various aspects of contemporary political behavior of Russians, and a political forecast for the future policy after 2024. In other words, the leitmotif of the book is a detailed and thorough analysis of the current political preferences of Russian citizens and their transformation in the context of future political processes. The monograph explicitly presents the results of three surveys and provides in-depth analysis. A special merit of the book is the “futurology” section, which tries to determine the future character of domestic policy. The authors believe that its contours are already becoming all the more apparent in real life. Another merit of the book is its discussion, which offers different approaches and opinions in a comparative context when it comes to assessing the analyzed political processes and phenomena. Groups of evaluations which starkly contrast each other we metaphorically labeled as “white” and “red”. What also makes this book valuable is the fact that it can serve as a guide when studying political science in universities and in special training of practical political strategists, particularly in relation to the methodology for analyzing and evaluating political processes of modernity.
Top-cited authors
Polina Ambarova
  • Ural Federal University
A. Korotayev
  • HSE University
Nina Rusinova
  • Institute of Sociology
Viacheslav Safronov
  • Sociological Institute, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Nataliya Voronina
  • Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences