{"title":"Analyzing the “Entanglement” of the Soviet and Chinese Models of Alternative Modernity in J. Arnason’s Historical Sociology","authors":"M. Maslovskiy","doi":"10.19181/socjour.2023.29.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines approaches towards analyzing the “entanglement” of modern societies in sociological and historical literature. Differences between G. Therborn’s and J. Arnason’s approaches are highlighted and Arnason’s perspective on “alternative” communist modernity is discussed. The interaction of the USSR and China represents an example of entanglement of alternative modernities. As Arnason demonstrates, in the 1920’s the Soviet model of state-building was seen by various political forces in China as a case of successful imperial restoration. In addition, he highlights the role of ties to China in Soviet politics. Chinese communists adapted Soviet patterns of totalitarian control before even coming to power. After 1949 there was a further adaptation and radicalization of the Soviet model in China. At the same time the rivalry between the USSR and China was largely a product of their imperial legacies. According to Arnason, in post-Maoist China a combination of patterns of capitalist development, elements of Marxist-Leninist political practices and ideology, as well as a selective revival of Confucian legacies all went beyond the Soviet model. Arnason characterizes how Chinese leadership was influenced by the example of economic development of other East Asian countries and examines the rivalry between the USA and China in the global geopolitical context.","PeriodicalId":35261,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines approaches towards analyzing the “entanglement” of modern societies in sociological and historical literature. Differences between G. Therborn’s and J. Arnason’s approaches are highlighted and Arnason’s perspective on “alternative” communist modernity is discussed. The interaction of the USSR and China represents an example of entanglement of alternative modernities. As Arnason demonstrates, in the 1920’s the Soviet model of state-building was seen by various political forces in China as a case of successful imperial restoration. In addition, he highlights the role of ties to China in Soviet politics. Chinese communists adapted Soviet patterns of totalitarian control before even coming to power. After 1949 there was a further adaptation and radicalization of the Soviet model in China. At the same time the rivalry between the USSR and China was largely a product of their imperial legacies. According to Arnason, in post-Maoist China a combination of patterns of capitalist development, elements of Marxist-Leninist political practices and ideology, as well as a selective revival of Confucian legacies all went beyond the Soviet model. Arnason characterizes how Chinese leadership was influenced by the example of economic development of other East Asian countries and examines the rivalry between the USA and China in the global geopolitical context.
期刊介绍:
“Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” publishes the articles on sociological disciplines. Interdisciplinary studies in sociology and related disciplines, such as social psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, ethnography, etc. — are also welcomed. The main emphasis is on the fundamental research in the field of theory, methodology and history of sociology. The regular rubric highlights the results of mass surveys and case studies. The rubric “Discussion”, which debated the controversial issues of sociological research, is regular as well. The journal publishes book reviews, and summaries, as well as lists of new books in Russian and English, which represent the main areas of interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. The journal aims to not only play samples of knowledge, considered regulatory and standards of internal expertise in the professional community, but also aims for opportunities to improve them. These rules, a tough selection and decision to print only a small portion of incoming materials allow “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” contribute to improving the quality of sociological research. Submitted manuscripts should show a high integrity in problem setting, problem analysis and correspond to the journal’s thematic profile and its scientific priorities.