{"title":"Precariat in Russia: from “Dangerous Class” to Normalizing Discourse","authors":"L. Fishman","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-107-4-104-122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problematique of using the concept of precariat in the Russian scientific literature. Having fixed the lack of consensus about the criteria of the precariat, its social composition and even its very existence as a class, the author suggests one should proceed from the fact that precariat is part of an ideological rather than a scientific discourse, similar to the discourse of the middle class, with which it has a clear continuity. These discourses are functional for the reproduction of the existing social relations. Therefore, the article attempts to study discourse that is used to describe precariat in Russia, and to comprehend for the reproduction of what relations it is functional. The research conducted by the author shows that the Russian interpretation of the precariat differs markedly from the Western one. This applies to both the composition of the precariat and its place in the social structure. The Russian authors draw a picture of a specific Russian precariat, which includes almost half of the society. This precariat bears little resemblance to the Western one, but almost completely coincides with the Russian middle class, as the Russian ruling circles view it. Since the state is able to conduct a dialogue with this kind of precariat, which is a passively suffering and no longer dangerous class that does not undermine the foundations of the system, the discourse about precariat and precarization is turning into the same potentially legitimate kind of normalizing discourse as the one about the middle class.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-107-4-104-122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article is devoted to the problematique of using the concept of precariat in the Russian scientific literature. Having fixed the lack of consensus about the criteria of the precariat, its social composition and even its very existence as a class, the author suggests one should proceed from the fact that precariat is part of an ideological rather than a scientific discourse, similar to the discourse of the middle class, with which it has a clear continuity. These discourses are functional for the reproduction of the existing social relations. Therefore, the article attempts to study discourse that is used to describe precariat in Russia, and to comprehend for the reproduction of what relations it is functional. The research conducted by the author shows that the Russian interpretation of the precariat differs markedly from the Western one. This applies to both the composition of the precariat and its place in the social structure. The Russian authors draw a picture of a specific Russian precariat, which includes almost half of the society. This precariat bears little resemblance to the Western one, but almost completely coincides with the Russian middle class, as the Russian ruling circles view it. Since the state is able to conduct a dialogue with this kind of precariat, which is a passively suffering and no longer dangerous class that does not undermine the foundations of the system, the discourse about precariat and precarization is turning into the same potentially legitimate kind of normalizing discourse as the one about the middle class.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.