Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-104-117
Riccardo Campa
This article presents two distinct modes of operating in a state of clandestinity adopted by Italian leftist terrorist groups, such as the Red Brigades and First Line, in the second half of the 20th century. The two modes of clandestine life are specified with the terms “invisibility” and “camouflage”. The invisibility mode of clandestinity imposes a regime of “secret life” on the group members, while the camouflage mode of clandestinity imposes a “double life” regime on them. The research aims to construct two simplified models, or, to use the Weberian terminology, two “ideal types”. Our primary sources are autobiographies published by former terrorists, official propaganda documents and pamphlets compiled by terrorist groups, and court rulings. Our secondary sources are journalist reports and research published by experts in political violence. From the theoretical point of view, the conclusion is, that for law enforcement, it is much more difficult to combat terrorist formations imposing the double life regime on their members rather than a secret life regime. Still, the double life regime is more stressful from a psychological point of view, as it requires an artificial split of personality. In the conclusions, the article expands the discussion to non-Italian terrorist organizations, with a different political or religious agenda.
{"title":"Secret Life versus Double Life: Modes of Clandestinity of Italian Terrorist Groups","authors":"Riccardo Campa","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-104-117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-104-117","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents two distinct modes of operating in a state of clandestinity adopted by Italian leftist terrorist groups, such as the Red Brigades and First Line, in the second half of the 20th century. The two modes of clandestine life are specified with the terms “invisibility” and “camouflage”. The invisibility mode of clandestinity imposes a regime of “secret life” on the group members, while the camouflage mode of clandestinity imposes a “double life” regime on them. The research aims to construct two simplified models, or, to use the Weberian terminology, two “ideal types”. Our primary sources are autobiographies published by former terrorists, official propaganda documents and pamphlets compiled by terrorist groups, and court rulings. Our secondary sources are journalist reports and research published by experts in political violence. From the theoretical point of view, the conclusion is, that for law enforcement, it is much more difficult to combat terrorist formations imposing the double life regime on their members rather than a secret life regime. Still, the double life regime is more stressful from a psychological point of view, as it requires an artificial split of personality. In the conclusions, the article expands the discussion to non-Italian terrorist organizations, with a different political or religious agenda.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122576769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108
E. Karchagin
The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.
{"title":"How Many Types of Justice are in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan?","authors":"E. Karchagin","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-1-87-108","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the problem of the multiplicity of justice in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan combines at least two understandings of justice; the civil one is connected with the keeping of covenants, while the natural one is a law of nature. We demonstrate that monistic views reducing civil justice to natural justice or natural justice to civil justice are as inadequately justified as denying justice at all. Hobbes uses two terms for justice, justice and equity. The latter is natural and binds the sovereign, while the former is created by the sovereign so that the sovereign is not accountable to the principle of justice. The natural poly-semantism of justice postulated in Leviathan finds its solution in the power of the sovereign, which sets the limits of semantic uncertainty and teaches his subjects what justice is. The case of Hobbes’ Foole shows that any definition of justice that goes against the definition of the sovereign will be interpreted as unacceptable. At the same time, there is a possibility for a number of other types of justice. Due to the introduction of the global and eschatological contexts, we get two types of natural justice (pre-civil and international), four types of civil justice (two local-civil and two global-civil), and one global theological (eschatological) justice. This number of conceptions can be considered in a contensive unity, because of the theological foundation of theorizing about justice in Leviathan due to the coincidence of natural and divine laws and the understanding of the commonwealth as a mortal God.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122899866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-334-343
M. Fetisov
{"title":"Take Power Differently: Another Political Ontology for the New Age","authors":"M. Fetisov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-334-343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-334-343","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127665746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Durkheimian Tradition Through The Eyes Of The Cultural Sociologist","authors":"Arthur Pecherskikh","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-1-191-196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-1-191-196","url":null,"abstract":"Book Review: Smith P. (2020) Durkheim and After: The Durkheimian Tradition, 1893-2020. New York: John Wiley & Sons.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116875559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2021-4-29-42
M. Belov
The unprecedented measures of quarantine regulation have led philosophers and lawyers around the world to speak of the fragility of democratic freedoms and the return of the state of emergency as a political reality described in the writings of 20th century theorists. However, the imposed restrictions are considered in the works either in relation to the legal mechanism of their imposition, or through the prism of political philosophy. In addition, the Russian experience has not been sufficiently highlighted in the publications. This article attempts to synthesize legal analysis with political-legal philosophy in order to show that the extension of the legal order is always embedded in its logic. The first part of the article shows how what has been mentioned at the level of philosophical reflection and in relation to foreign legal orders that have been implemented in Russia, using the example of substantive legal practice. The second half of the text draws attention to the logic of protest which coincides with the logic of both the police and the state. Since the rights to which the protesters draw attention to have their source precisely in the existing legal order, both the actions of the law-enforcement authorities and the actions of the protesters are aimed at protecting it. The conclusion is that the danger of this situation is that the normative system could poten-tially replace social reality in the future.
{"title":"Extending of the Legal Order During Pandemic: The Russian Perspective","authors":"M. Belov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-4-29-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-4-29-42","url":null,"abstract":"The unprecedented measures of quarantine regulation have led philosophers and lawyers around the world to speak of the fragility of democratic freedoms and the return of the state of emergency as a political reality described in the writings of 20th century theorists. However, the imposed restrictions are considered in the works either in relation to the legal mechanism of their imposition, or through the prism of political philosophy. In addition, the Russian experience has not been sufficiently highlighted in the publications. This article attempts to synthesize legal analysis with political-legal philosophy in order to show that the extension of the legal order is always embedded in its logic. The first part of the article shows how what has been mentioned at the level of philosophical reflection and in relation to foreign legal orders that have been implemented in Russia, using the example of substantive legal practice. The second half of the text draws attention to the logic of protest which coincides with the logic of both the police and the state. Since the rights to which the protesters draw attention to have their source precisely in the existing legal order, both the actions of the law-enforcement authorities and the actions of the protesters are aimed at protecting it. The conclusion is that the danger of this situation is that the normative system could poten-tially replace social reality in the future.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114576462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2020-2-276-309
M. Kiselev
The article is devoted to the problem of the perception in the USSR of C. Schmitt and his works. It is shown that the Russian Empire paid attention to and criticized Schmitt’s 1912 work Law and Judgment. Soviet readers in the 1920s–1940s were already acquainted with the content of Schmitt’s key works such as Political Romanticism, Dictatorship, The Historical and Spiritual State of Modern Parliamentarism, Political Theology, The Concept of Political, The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations, and On the Three Types of Juristic Thought, and a discussion of these works was a part of the intellectual life of the USSR in the 1920s–1940s. Moreover, Soviet Marxist-theorists of law, while criticizing Schmitt’s ideas, agreed with some of his ideas regarding the criticism of the bourgeois state and law until 1933. However, after 1933, Schmitt’s works in the USSR turned into an object of harsh criticism, and he himself was proclaimed a key fascist theoretician of state and law. Since the late 1940s, because of the so-called struggle with “cosmopolitanism”, Schmitt’s works received less attention. In the 1950s–1970s, Schmitt’s works appeared only in some critical statements, and the works of Soviet authors of the 1920s-1940s about Schmitt actually fell into oblivion. A new wave of interest in Schmitt began only in the second half of the 1980s, and his works can already be considered in the context of the intellectual history of modern Russia.
{"title":"Carl Schmitt in the USSR","authors":"M. Kiselev","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2020-2-276-309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2020-2-276-309","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of the perception in the USSR of C. Schmitt and his works. It is shown that the Russian Empire paid attention to and criticized Schmitt’s 1912 work Law and Judgment. Soviet readers in the 1920s–1940s were already acquainted with the content of Schmitt’s key works such as Political Romanticism, Dictatorship, The Historical and Spiritual State of Modern Parliamentarism, Political Theology, The Concept of Political, The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations, and On the Three Types of Juristic Thought, and a discussion of these works was a part of the intellectual life of the USSR in the 1920s–1940s. Moreover, Soviet Marxist-theorists of law, while criticizing Schmitt’s ideas, agreed with some of his ideas regarding the criticism of the bourgeois state and law until 1933. However, after 1933, Schmitt’s works in the USSR turned into an object of harsh criticism, and he himself was proclaimed a key fascist theoretician of state and law. Since the late 1940s, because of the so-called struggle with “cosmopolitanism”, Schmitt’s works received less attention. In the 1950s–1970s, Schmitt’s works appeared only in some critical statements, and the works of Soviet authors of the 1920s-1940s about Schmitt actually fell into oblivion. A new wave of interest in Schmitt began only in the second half of the 1980s, and his works can already be considered in the context of the intellectual history of modern Russia.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115613829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-49-76
Iskender Yasaveev
The article deals with the constructions of the social problem of HIV/AIDS created by both the authorities and HIV activists in Russia. The work is based on the study of the rhetoric of Russian authorities, participant observations, and interviews with HIV activists. The constructions of HIV/ AIDS that were formed by authorities and HIV activists are significantly different. The Russian President and Prime Minister constructed HIV/AIDS not as an epidemic in the country, but as a “global problem”, representing Russia as a participant in the international efforts to combat AIDS. The authorities problematized the spread of the virus through the rhetoric of endangerment, while at the same time de-problematized HIV in Russia with the strategy of naturalizing the issue (“this is a problem that all countries face”). The HIV activists problematized the violations of the rights of people with HIV in public health institutions, the poor quality of antiretroviral therapy, the practice of late treatment, the lack of HIV prevention that includes sex education in schools, and repressive drug policies. Unlike the authorities’ construction, the problem constructed by HIV activists does not include the rhetoric of moral values. The main discursive way of problematization used by activists is the anti-discriminating rhetoric of entitlement. At the same time, HIV as a threat and a reason for fear is de-problematized by activists through the strategy of disproving stories where HIV activists talk about themselves, and directly interact with people to eliminate their fear of the virus.
{"title":"HIV/AIDS in Russia: Governmental and Activist Constructions of the Social Problem","authors":"Iskender Yasaveev","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-49-76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-49-76","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the constructions of the social problem of HIV/AIDS created by both the authorities and HIV activists in Russia. The work is based on the study of the rhetoric of Russian authorities, participant observations, and interviews with HIV activists. The constructions of HIV/ AIDS that were formed by authorities and HIV activists are significantly different. The Russian President and Prime Minister constructed HIV/AIDS not as an epidemic in the country, but as a “global problem”, representing Russia as a participant in the international efforts to combat AIDS. The authorities problematized the spread of the virus through the rhetoric of endangerment, while at the same time de-problematized HIV in Russia with the strategy of naturalizing the issue (“this is a problem that all countries face”). The HIV activists problematized the violations of the rights of people with HIV in public health institutions, the poor quality of antiretroviral therapy, the practice of late treatment, the lack of HIV prevention that includes sex education in schools, and repressive drug policies. Unlike the authorities’ construction, the problem constructed by HIV activists does not include the rhetoric of moral values. The main discursive way of problematization used by activists is the anti-discriminating rhetoric of entitlement. At the same time, HIV as a threat and a reason for fear is de-problematized by activists through the strategy of disproving stories where HIV activists talk about themselves, and directly interact with people to eliminate their fear of the virus.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127399881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-108-123
A. Kraevsky
The socio-legal theories of P. A. Sorokin and M. Weber are common in belonging to the normativist trend in the sociology of law. To determine the limits of their applicability to the analysis of the operation of legal norms, it is necessary to clarify the reasons for their differences. The notable differences between both theories are connected not only with the general differences in corresponding sociological systems, but also with fundamentally different conceptual foundations of socio-legal doctrines. The Russian-American sociologist P. A.Sorokin, in developing the ideas of L. I. Petrażycki, considered law as a set of norms with a certain content which indicates the permitted and proper behavior by means of the distribution of rights and obligations, which are always thought to be inextricably linked. This understanding of legal norms allows us to meaningfully separate them from the norms of morality, etiquette, technical norms, and rules of fashion. A key feature of law as a special kind of legitimate order for Weber is its coercion, ensured by the staff, i.e., a group of people specifically aimed at forcing compliance with the order. In contrast to Sorokin, Weber believed that law and other related phenomena are distinguished not at the level of individual norms, but at the level of normative systems (orders). Sorokin focused on organized groups, the skeleton of which are the norms that both determine the behavior of group members and create its structure. Contrary to Sorokin, Weber believes that normative motivation is only able to influence human behavior, but not to determine it. The difference in the researchers’ perceptions of the importance of normative motivation may be related to the focus on active duties in the case of Sorokin and on the framework model of the behavior of the empowered person in Weber’s case.
{"title":"The Conceptual Foundations of the Sociology of Law by Pitirim Sorokin and Max Weber","authors":"A. Kraevsky","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-108-123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-108-123","url":null,"abstract":"The socio-legal theories of P. A. Sorokin and M. Weber are common in belonging to the normativist trend in the sociology of law. To determine the limits of their applicability to the analysis of the operation of legal norms, it is necessary to clarify the reasons for their differences. The notable differences between both theories are connected not only with the general differences in corresponding sociological systems, but also with fundamentally different conceptual foundations of socio-legal doctrines. The Russian-American sociologist P. A.Sorokin, in developing the ideas of L. I. Petrażycki, considered law as a set of norms with a certain content which indicates the permitted and proper behavior by means of the distribution of rights and obligations, which are always thought to be inextricably linked. This understanding of legal norms allows us to meaningfully separate them from the norms of morality, etiquette, technical norms, and rules of fashion. A key feature of law as a special kind of legitimate order for Weber is its coercion, ensured by the staff, i.e., a group of people specifically aimed at forcing compliance with the order. In contrast to Sorokin, Weber believed that law and other related phenomena are distinguished not at the level of individual norms, but at the level of normative systems (orders). Sorokin focused on organized groups, the skeleton of which are the norms that both determine the behavior of group members and create its structure. Contrary to Sorokin, Weber believes that normative motivation is only able to influence human behavior, but not to determine it. The difference in the researchers’ perceptions of the importance of normative motivation may be related to the focus on active duties in the case of Sorokin and on the framework model of the behavior of the empowered person in Weber’s case.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125939126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-9-47
G. Yudin
Electoral procedures, such as elections, voting, or opinion polling, play a pivotal role in the Russian political system. A theoretical problem for contemporary political science arises; how can this proactive recourse to the popular voice coexist with the obvious depoliticization and concentration of personal power? Describing the Russian political regime as intermediary and inferior as opposed to full democracies cannot account for its electoral enthusiasm nor its robustness and endurance. This paper reverts to the plebiscitarian theory of democracy to address these issues. Combining monarchical power with universal suffrage created the political system of the Second Empire in France, and was later thoroughly theorized in Germany during the years of the Weimar Republic. Plebiscitary democracy produces direct democratic legitimacy for a strong leader while severely reducing the role of the masses under a drastic and rapid extension of suffrage. This paper identifies key principles as well as the main contradictions of plebiscitarian regimes. Additionally, it demonstrates that the plebiscitarian ideas proposed by Max Weber and Carl Schmitt have affected the minimalist definition of democracy espoused by Joseph Schumpeter, and therefore keeps enjoying a wide influence in political science. In identifying democracy with elections, the minimalist view promotes the electoralization of political regimes and favors the contemporary rise of plebiscitarianism. The paper considers present-day Russia as a radical case of plebiscitarian politics and traces some of its key developments.
{"title":"Russia as a Plebiscitary Democracy","authors":"G. Yudin","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-9-47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-2-9-47","url":null,"abstract":"Electoral procedures, such as elections, voting, or opinion polling, play a pivotal role in the Russian political system. A theoretical problem for contemporary political science arises; how can this proactive recourse to the popular voice coexist with the obvious depoliticization and concentration of personal power? Describing the Russian political regime as intermediary and inferior as opposed to full democracies cannot account for its electoral enthusiasm nor its robustness and endurance. This paper reverts to the plebiscitarian theory of democracy to address these issues. Combining monarchical power with universal suffrage created the political system of the Second Empire in France, and was later thoroughly theorized in Germany during the years of the Weimar Republic. Plebiscitary democracy produces direct democratic legitimacy for a strong leader while severely reducing the role of the masses under a drastic and rapid extension of suffrage. This paper identifies key principles as well as the main contradictions of plebiscitarian regimes. Additionally, it demonstrates that the plebiscitarian ideas proposed by Max Weber and Carl Schmitt have affected the minimalist definition of democracy espoused by Joseph Schumpeter, and therefore keeps enjoying a wide influence in political science. In identifying democracy with elections, the minimalist view promotes the electoralization of political regimes and favors the contemporary rise of plebiscitarianism. The paper considers present-day Russia as a radical case of plebiscitarian politics and traces some of its key developments.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124306627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2021-3-215-243
Dar'ya Volkova
This article explores the representation of the citizens in the discourse of new residential areas in Moscow. The article focuses on how different agents of discourse representing citizens helps to reveal which citizens are taken into account in the production of urban spaces and who is left out of it. In Moscow, new residential areas represent the contradictions of how citizens are represented in certain agendas. For authorities, such areas embody extensive policy, capital, and successful political management. In the media, such a type of housing becomes stigmatized: it is labelled as “ghetto” and imaged as environmental, which does not suit the correct path of city development. In this article, focusing on the production of urban citizenship in the part of public discourse produced by authorities, developers, and critical agents, I will show (1) when citizens are used as a faceless, impersonated category in the discourse in one row with the infrastructural achievements of the current government; (2) the construction of the “average citizen”, who is the main character in space production; (3) the grounds behind the “consumer-citizen” in discourse, who is entitled with only the economic agency on housing market; and (4) citizens who are symbolically excluded from their right to the new residential areas’ space. Through the characters-citizens in the discourse, I will show the lack of fundamental differences in the discourse of different agents, such as the authorities, developers, and critical agents.
{"title":"Resources, Consumers, Non-citizens: Representation of the Citizens in the Discourse of the New Residential Areas in Moscow","authors":"Dar'ya Volkova","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2021-3-215-243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2021-3-215-243","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the representation of the citizens in the discourse of new residential areas in Moscow. The article focuses on how different agents of discourse representing citizens helps to reveal which citizens are taken into account in the production of urban spaces and who is left out of it. In Moscow, new residential areas represent the contradictions of how citizens are represented in certain agendas. For authorities, such areas embody extensive policy, capital, and successful political management. In the media, such a type of housing becomes stigmatized: it is labelled as “ghetto” and imaged as environmental, which does not suit the correct path of city development. In this article, focusing on the production of urban citizenship in the part of public discourse produced by authorities, developers, and critical agents, I will show (1) when citizens are used as a faceless, impersonated category in the discourse in one row with the infrastructural achievements of the current government; (2) the construction of the “average citizen”, who is the main character in space production; (3) the grounds behind the “consumer-citizen” in discourse, who is entitled with only the economic agency on housing market; and (4) citizens who are symbolically excluded from their right to the new residential areas’ space. Through the characters-citizens in the discourse, I will show the lack of fundamental differences in the discourse of different agents, such as the authorities, developers, and critical agents.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124572326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：