Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-990-994
R. Manshin
On April 22-23, 2022, the Yeltsin Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University in Bishkek (Republic of Kyrgyzstan) hosted the International Scientific Forum “World Science and Contemporary Challenges in the Era of Globalization and Digital Transformation”. Prominent scientists from Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Great Britain, Turkey, Serbia and Singapore made presentations to discuss various economic, social-demographic and environmental questions, the solution of which can ensure the sustainable development of the countries of the Eurasian economic integration.
{"title":"Social-demographic processes in the EAEU: Notes on the scientific events in Kyrgyzstan","authors":"R. Manshin","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-990-994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-990-994","url":null,"abstract":"On April 22-23, 2022, the Yeltsin Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University in Bishkek (Republic of Kyrgyzstan) hosted the International Scientific Forum “World Science and Contemporary Challenges in the Era of Globalization and Digital Transformation”. Prominent scientists from Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Great Britain, Turkey, Serbia and Singapore made presentations to discuss various economic, social-demographic and environmental questions, the solution of which can ensure the sustainable development of the countries of the Eurasian economic integration.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45781670","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-963-971
Z. Puzanova, A. Tertyshnikova
The article considers such terms as social and moral exclusion in the context of the empirical study of collective representations. The authors define the origins of both terms and name those social groups that have historically been subject to exclusion in certain social areas. Moral exclusion is considered in terms of the applicability of moral norms to certain groups provided the cultural norms that exist in the society. Morality operationalizes our sense of justice by defining what and to whom we owe, whose needs, views and well-being are considered and whose are not. Our moral standards are applied to the people we value, and define those within our sphere of justice (or ‘moral community’, such as family members and friends) and those outside it. The excluded groups are considered as out-groups, and their inconveniences and deprivations seem normal, since in relation to them, justice seems inappropriate and moral norms inapplicable. Many social issues cause moral disputes about whether, for instance, an HIV-infected or drug addict deserves help especially from the state. The study aimed at identifying the presence or absence and the degree of moral exclusion of certain social groups. The article is based on the results of the survey of Moscow students conducted in 2021. A special block of the questionnaire consisted of the adapted version of the Marlow-Crown social desirability scale. The factor analysis allowed to identify the most influential factors of moral exclusion of certain groups for students, and the answers were analyzed in terms of readiness to give socially desirable answers to sensitive questions. The considered groups were chosen during focus groups and are not fully delinquent or stigmatized, i.e., the most important fact is whom the students exclude from the members of their personal moral community.
{"title":"Moral exclusion in the context of social desirability","authors":"Z. Puzanova, A. Tertyshnikova","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-963-971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-963-971","url":null,"abstract":"The article considers such terms as social and moral exclusion in the context of the empirical study of collective representations. The authors define the origins of both terms and name those social groups that have historically been subject to exclusion in certain social areas. Moral exclusion is considered in terms of the applicability of moral norms to certain groups provided the cultural norms that exist in the society. Morality operationalizes our sense of justice by defining what and to whom we owe, whose needs, views and well-being are considered and whose are not. Our moral standards are applied to the people we value, and define those within our sphere of justice (or ‘moral community’, such as family members and friends) and those outside it. The excluded groups are considered as out-groups, and their inconveniences and deprivations seem normal, since in relation to them, justice seems inappropriate and moral norms inapplicable. Many social issues cause moral disputes about whether, for instance, an HIV-infected or drug addict deserves help especially from the state. The study aimed at identifying the presence or absence and the degree of moral exclusion of certain social groups. The article is based on the results of the survey of Moscow students conducted in 2021. A special block of the questionnaire consisted of the adapted version of the Marlow-Crown social desirability scale. The factor analysis allowed to identify the most influential factors of moral exclusion of certain groups for students, and the answers were analyzed in terms of readiness to give socially desirable answers to sensitive questions. The considered groups were chosen during focus groups and are not fully delinquent or stigmatized, i.e., the most important fact is whom the students exclude from the members of their personal moral community.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46279180","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-937-948
R. Anisimov
The growing social inequality and the abandonment of the welfare-state model raise the question of the return of classes to the historical arena. The author argues that the contemporary society can be characterized as capitalist due to its main structural element - a pattern of striving for profit; at the same time, the contemporary capitalist society has changed the vector of making profit from external expansion (search for new markets and centers of production) to internal intensity (automatization, increased exploitation, total commodification, removal of institutional barriers to profit). Today, capitalism has exhausted the possibilities of external expansion and is changing its strategy to the restructuring of social systems and its actors, which is accompanied by the abandonment of the welfare-state model and by the growing instability in labor relations. This leads to the situation in which middle classes disappear and social inequality grows. The concept of classes developed by K. Marx has regained its importance, since the theories created in the middle of the 20th century no longer correspond to the contemporary realities. The article revises the Marxist class model, in particular the author argues that the type of ownership is no longer a key differentiating criterion, and capitalists and proletarians are no longer the main classes of the contemporary society. The classes of employers and precariat are more relevant for describing the contemporary society. The ideas of these two classes also differ: the precariat strives to preserve social guarantees and labor rights; while employers, on the contrary, strive to maximize profits by reducing social guarantees and violating labor rights.
{"title":"The dynamics of capitalism and the return of classes","authors":"R. Anisimov","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-937-948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-937-948","url":null,"abstract":"The growing social inequality and the abandonment of the welfare-state model raise the question of the return of classes to the historical arena. The author argues that the contemporary society can be characterized as capitalist due to its main structural element - a pattern of striving for profit; at the same time, the contemporary capitalist society has changed the vector of making profit from external expansion (search for new markets and centers of production) to internal intensity (automatization, increased exploitation, total commodification, removal of institutional barriers to profit). Today, capitalism has exhausted the possibilities of external expansion and is changing its strategy to the restructuring of social systems and its actors, which is accompanied by the abandonment of the welfare-state model and by the growing instability in labor relations. This leads to the situation in which middle classes disappear and social inequality grows. The concept of classes developed by K. Marx has regained its importance, since the theories created in the middle of the 20th century no longer correspond to the contemporary realities. The article revises the Marxist class model, in particular the author argues that the type of ownership is no longer a key differentiating criterion, and capitalists and proletarians are no longer the main classes of the contemporary society. The classes of employers and precariat are more relevant for describing the contemporary society. The ideas of these two classes also differ: the precariat strives to preserve social guarantees and labor rights; while employers, on the contrary, strive to maximize profits by reducing social guarantees and violating labor rights.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47743207","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-860-871
M. A. Muqsith, V. Muzykant, R. G. Tayibnapis, R. R. Pratomo
This article examines whether Pancasila as the sole principle and ideology and state philosophy is reflected in the Indonesian society. Understanding and appreciation of the values of Pancasila ideology are often considered only as a jargon, i.e., in the verbal perspective. Its implementation is neglected due to lack of insight and knowledge about Pancasila and not knowing its basic principles. Pancasila, which consists of five precepts, includes a series of attitudes and knowledge as well as hopes from the struggle of the Indonesian people to gain independence, and is regulated in the Pancasila state. The first precept is about God the Almighty ( Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa ); the second precept is about just and civilized humanity ( Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab ); the third precept claims the ‘unity of Indonesia’ ( Persatuan Indonesia ); the fourth precept claims democracy led by wisdom in the representative deliberation; the fifth precept claims social justice for all Indonesian people ( Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia ). Pancasila is the source of all laws in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which constitutes it as a sovereign and prosperous country supporting the wealth of its people, the divinity in the One and Only, freedom of religion, respect for diversity and pluralism, and building a democratic state. Social problems that often occur in every society usually start from breaking the law, dangers of the extremism doctrine, and criminal acts of corruption that can damage the grassroots of Pancasila. Therefore, to defend the country and strengthen the basic precepts of Pancasila, it is necessary to understand and deepen the practice of Pancasila in the ideology of nationalism and democracy.
本文考察了潘卡西拉作为唯一的原则和意识形态以及国家哲学是否在印尼社会中得到体现。对Pancasila意识形态价值观的理解和欣赏通常只被认为是一种行话，即从口头角度来看。由于缺乏对Pancasila的洞察力和知识，也不知道其基本原理，它的实施被忽视了。Pancasila由五个戒律组成，包括一系列的态度和知识，以及印尼人民争取独立斗争的希望，并在Pancasilla州受到监管。第一条戒律是关于全能的上帝（Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa）；第二条戒律是关于公正和文明的人类（Kemanusiaan yang adil and beradab）；第三条主张“印度尼西亚的统一”（Persatuan Indonesia）；第四条主张代议民主以智慧为先导；第五条戒律要求所有印尼人民享有社会正义（Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia）。Pancasila是《印度尼西亚共和国宪法》中所有法律的来源，它是一个主权和繁荣的国家，支持其人民的财富、“唯一”的神性、宗教自由、尊重多样性和多元主义以及建设民主国家。每个社会经常发生的社会问题通常始于违法、极端主义学说的危险，以及可能损害潘卡西拉基层的腐败犯罪行为。因此，要保卫国家，强化潘卡西拉的基本戒律，就必须理解和深化潘卡西拉在民族主义和民主意识形态中的实践。
{"title":"Revolutionizing Pancasila as the ideology of Indonesians","authors":"M. A. Muqsith, V. Muzykant, R. G. Tayibnapis, R. R. Pratomo","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-860-871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-860-871","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines whether Pancasila as the sole principle and ideology and state philosophy is reflected in the Indonesian society. Understanding and appreciation of the values of Pancasila ideology are often considered only as a jargon, i.e., in the verbal perspective. Its implementation is neglected due to lack of insight and knowledge about Pancasila and not knowing its basic principles. Pancasila, which consists of five precepts, includes a series of attitudes and knowledge as well as hopes from the struggle of the Indonesian people to gain independence, and is regulated in the Pancasila state. The first precept is about God the Almighty ( Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa ); the second precept is about just and civilized humanity ( Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab ); the third precept claims the ‘unity of Indonesia’ ( Persatuan Indonesia ); the fourth precept claims democracy led by wisdom in the representative deliberation; the fifth precept claims social justice for all Indonesian people ( Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia ). Pancasila is the source of all laws in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which constitutes it as a sovereign and prosperous country supporting the wealth of its people, the divinity in the One and Only, freedom of religion, respect for diversity and pluralism, and building a democratic state. Social problems that often occur in every society usually start from breaking the law, dangers of the extremism doctrine, and criminal acts of corruption that can damage the grassroots of Pancasila. Therefore, to defend the country and strengthen the basic precepts of Pancasila, it is necessary to understand and deepen the practice of Pancasila in the ideology of nationalism and democracy.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46457738","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-872-880
O. Chistyakova
The author considers tourism as a relevant social-cultural phenomenon of contemporary Russia, which is important for economic development and establishing interethnic and interreligious balance in the cultural-axiological space of Russa. The author pays special attention to the migration processes in their connection with the situation in the tourism and hospitality industry and prospects for its development. Considering the global diversity of migration forms and types, the category of legal foreign labor migration is analyzed to clarify some substantial issues of external labor migration as having social and intercultural meanings. The author explains the efficiency of labor migrant flows in the renewing Russian touristic sphere; emphasizes the ethnocultural specificity of tourism and the ethnic character of migration; considers the regional situation through the host population’s perception of labor migrants and the native population’s assessment of the ambiguous role of foreign specialists in the formation of ethnic-cultural and civil identities in the multicultural Russian society. Tourism is defined as a significant economic and intercultural stabilizing factor contributing to the development of a tolerant environment and integrating external migrants into the host society. The article describes the relationship between the effective development of internal tourism and the progressive regulation of foreign labor migration. The analysis of the features of migration processes shows the changing nature of external labor migration due to objective socialeconomic factors, and the role of labor migrants in the formation of the all-Russian civil identity. The author insists on the correlation between the growing attractiveness of tourist sites and a stable and peaceful situation in the sphere of interethnic and interreligious relations, including between the autochthonous and allochthonous peoples of multinational Russia.
{"title":"Development of Russian tourism in the contemporary social and ethnocultural conditions","authors":"O. Chistyakova","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-872-880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-872-880","url":null,"abstract":"The author considers tourism as a relevant social-cultural phenomenon of contemporary Russia, which is important for economic development and establishing interethnic and interreligious balance in the cultural-axiological space of Russa. The author pays special attention to the migration processes in their connection with the situation in the tourism and hospitality industry and prospects for its development. Considering the global diversity of migration forms and types, the category of legal foreign labor migration is analyzed to clarify some substantial issues of external labor migration as having social and intercultural meanings. The author explains the efficiency of labor migrant flows in the renewing Russian touristic sphere; emphasizes the ethnocultural specificity of tourism and the ethnic character of migration; considers the regional situation through the host population’s perception of labor migrants and the native population’s assessment of the ambiguous role of foreign specialists in the formation of ethnic-cultural and civil identities in the multicultural Russian society. Tourism is defined as a significant economic and intercultural stabilizing factor contributing to the development of a tolerant environment and integrating external migrants into the host society. The article describes the relationship between the effective development of internal tourism and the progressive regulation of foreign labor migration. The analysis of the features of migration processes shows the changing nature of external labor migration due to objective socialeconomic factors, and the role of labor migrants in the formation of the all-Russian civil identity. The author insists on the correlation between the growing attractiveness of tourist sites and a stable and peaceful situation in the sphere of interethnic and interreligious relations, including between the autochthonous and allochthonous peoples of multinational Russia.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44628436","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781
Philipp Tagirov
The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.
{"title":"European conservatism and the study of nature: From sacralization of nature to nihilism","authors":"Philipp Tagirov","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781","url":null,"abstract":"The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49211050","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-881-894
G. Zborovsky, P. Ambarova
The study of the research-pedagogical community’s (RPC) resources of Russian universities in the sociological perspective is determined by the new conditions for the implementation of the development strategy of the Russian higher education. An adequate assessment and the full use of the RPC’ potential, including its unused resources, are of particular importance for Russian universities experiencing serious deficits today. The article proposes a new ‘optics’ for assessing the ability of the university management to mobilize traditional and unused resources of the RPC. The article aims at describing the administrative and mobilization management approaches to the analysis of the RPC’ resources in Russian universities. The authors consider the problem at the intersection of sociology of management and sociology of higher education. The article is based on the secondary analysis of the research data collected by the authors since 2016. The authors also consider documents of strategic planning for the development of higher education and science in order to identify the priorities of the RPC’s academic development and the requirements for them in new conditions. The research is based on the analysis of the statistical data on the main indicators for the development of the Russian higher education in 2014-2021, such as databases of the Monitoring of the effectiveness of higher education organizations, statistical yearbooks ‘Indicators of Education’, data of the Monitoring of the Economics of Education of the Higher School of Economics, and other open sources. Thus, based on the theoretical and empirical research of the higher education practices, the authors define the concept and structure of the RPC’s resources; explain the need for a managerial approach in universities as aimed at mobilizing the unused RPC’s resources; reveal the limitations of the university administrative decisions in assessing and use of the RPC’s resources. The authors make three main conclusions: first, about the meaning of the concept and structure of the RPC’s resources as an important means of managerial analysis; second, about the need for a model of the mobilization university management; third, about the consequences of the dominance of the administrative approach in assessing and use of the RPC’s resources.
{"title":"Resources of the research-pedagogical community: Administrative and mobilization approaches","authors":"G. Zborovsky, P. Ambarova","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-881-894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-881-894","url":null,"abstract":"The study of the research-pedagogical community’s (RPC) resources of Russian universities in the sociological perspective is determined by the new conditions for the implementation of the development strategy of the Russian higher education. An adequate assessment and the full use of the RPC’ potential, including its unused resources, are of particular importance for Russian universities experiencing serious deficits today. The article proposes a new ‘optics’ for assessing the ability of the university management to mobilize traditional and unused resources of the RPC. The article aims at describing the administrative and mobilization management approaches to the analysis of the RPC’ resources in Russian universities. The authors consider the problem at the intersection of sociology of management and sociology of higher education. The article is based on the secondary analysis of the research data collected by the authors since 2016. The authors also consider documents of strategic planning for the development of higher education and science in order to identify the priorities of the RPC’s academic development and the requirements for them in new conditions. The research is based on the analysis of the statistical data on the main indicators for the development of the Russian higher education in 2014-2021, such as databases of the Monitoring of the effectiveness of higher education organizations, statistical yearbooks ‘Indicators of Education’, data of the Monitoring of the Economics of Education of the Higher School of Economics, and other open sources. Thus, based on the theoretical and empirical research of the higher education practices, the authors define the concept and structure of the RPC’s resources; explain the need for a managerial approach in universities as aimed at mobilizing the unused RPC’s resources; reveal the limitations of the university administrative decisions in assessing and use of the RPC’s resources. The authors make three main conclusions: first, about the meaning of the concept and structure of the RPC’s resources as an important means of managerial analysis; second, about the need for a model of the mobilization university management; third, about the consequences of the dominance of the administrative approach in assessing and use of the RPC’s resources.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45895037","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-895-908
V. Babintsev, G. Gaidukova, Zhanna A. Shapoval
The authors argue that in contemporary Russian universities, the bureaucracy has turned into the most influential corporation, and insist on the sociological analysis of its status, positive and negative consequences of formation and evolution. Despite many studies of this phenomenon, the university bureaucracy remains terra incognita for sociology of education - many fundamental issues remain unclear: why in the meritocratic and initially humanitarian university, practices of formal rationality with the focus on normative acts and instructions (rationality for its own sake) prevail; how to explain that even the obvious inconsistency of many bureaucratic practices does not lead to discrediting the bureaucratic system, but, on the contrary, contributes to its extended reproduction; why many specialists find the results of the university management optimization based on a bureaucratic approach doubtful. The majority of sociological works on the university bureaucratization provide answers to these questions in the form of admitting the current situation, but there is no causal analysis of the university bureaucracy development and evolution. The article considers possible causes of the current situation: the lack of a systematic approach to the university bureaucratization, its study mainly in the context of the higher education reforms; uncritical reproduction of the classical theories of bureaucracy, which need changes according to the contemporary realities; the lack of works on the status of the university bureaucracy under the digital transformation of society; the barrier of institutionalized hypocrisy; servility relationships between sociologists and university managers. The identified problems require empirical verification and discussion in the professional sociological community.
{"title":"Russian university bureaucracy - terra incognita for sociology of education","authors":"V. Babintsev, G. Gaidukova, Zhanna A. Shapoval","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-895-908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-895-908","url":null,"abstract":"The authors argue that in contemporary Russian universities, the bureaucracy has turned into the most influential corporation, and insist on the sociological analysis of its status, positive and negative consequences of formation and evolution. Despite many studies of this phenomenon, the university bureaucracy remains terra incognita for sociology of education - many fundamental issues remain unclear: why in the meritocratic and initially humanitarian university, practices of formal rationality with the focus on normative acts and instructions (rationality for its own sake) prevail; how to explain that even the obvious inconsistency of many bureaucratic practices does not lead to discrediting the bureaucratic system, but, on the contrary, contributes to its extended reproduction; why many specialists find the results of the university management optimization based on a bureaucratic approach doubtful. The majority of sociological works on the university bureaucratization provide answers to these questions in the form of admitting the current situation, but there is no causal analysis of the university bureaucracy development and evolution. The article considers possible causes of the current situation: the lack of a systematic approach to the university bureaucratization, its study mainly in the context of the higher education reforms; uncritical reproduction of the classical theories of bureaucracy, which need changes according to the contemporary realities; the lack of works on the status of the university bureaucracy under the digital transformation of society; the barrier of institutionalized hypocrisy; servility relationships between sociologists and university managers. The identified problems require empirical verification and discussion in the professional sociological community.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48171932","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-919-936
E. Čižo, V. Menshikov, A. Kokarevica, N. Selivanova-Fyodorova
The study aims at the comparative analysis of the trends in wealth concentration and formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ (the term by Piketty) in the countries of the contemporary European-American civilization (EAC). T. Piketty suggests that wealth concentration is increasing again (as in the 18th - 19th centuries), and the formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ is the most significant structural change in the long-term wealth distribution. The authors chose five parts of the EAC from West to East: USA, Western Europe, Latvia, Ukraine, and Russia. To measure and compare wealth inequality, the authors used statistical deciles: the top 10 % (including the top 1 %), the middle 40 % and the bottom 50 % of the population. 1995 and 2021 were chosen as time points for the diachronic analysis of the data from the World Inequality Database. The study results show that in different parts of the contemporary EAC, wealth concentration and the formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ differ in pace and sometimes in direction: from rapid concentration to deconcentration. Wealth concentration in the hands of the top 1 % of Americans has increased over the past 26 years from 28 % to 35 %, of Russians - from 21 % to 48 %. According to Piketty, such a situation (especially as in Russia) is a harbinger of social revolution. In terms of the wealth concentration level, Latvia and Ukraine represent an intermediate case between Western Europe and the USA/Russia. At the same time, the USA, Western Europe and Russia differ greatly in the cultural-value perspective. The authors question the united EAC in the 21st century and define it as split into an ‘initial core’ (European civilization) and two constantly conflicting ‘peripheries’ (American and Russian civilizations).
{"title":"Wealth concentration and the ‘patrimonial middle class’ in the contemporary European-American civilization","authors":"E. Čižo, V. Menshikov, A. Kokarevica, N. Selivanova-Fyodorova","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-919-936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-919-936","url":null,"abstract":"The study aims at the comparative analysis of the trends in wealth concentration and formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ (the term by Piketty) in the countries of the contemporary European-American civilization (EAC). T. Piketty suggests that wealth concentration is increasing again (as in the 18th - 19th centuries), and the formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ is the most significant structural change in the long-term wealth distribution. The authors chose five parts of the EAC from West to East: USA, Western Europe, Latvia, Ukraine, and Russia. To measure and compare wealth inequality, the authors used statistical deciles: the top 10 % (including the top 1 %), the middle 40 % and the bottom 50 % of the population. 1995 and 2021 were chosen as time points for the diachronic analysis of the data from the World Inequality Database. The study results show that in different parts of the contemporary EAC, wealth concentration and the formation of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ differ in pace and sometimes in direction: from rapid concentration to deconcentration. Wealth concentration in the hands of the top 1 % of Americans has increased over the past 26 years from 28 % to 35 %, of Russians - from 21 % to 48 %. According to Piketty, such a situation (especially as in Russia) is a harbinger of social revolution. In terms of the wealth concentration level, Latvia and Ukraine represent an intermediate case between Western Europe and the USA/Russia. At the same time, the USA, Western Europe and Russia differ greatly in the cultural-value perspective. The authors question the united EAC in the 21st century and define it as split into an ‘initial core’ (European civilization) and two constantly conflicting ‘peripheries’ (American and Russian civilizations).","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46182938","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 : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-812-827
L. Belyaeva
The study of the contemporary youth problems is impossible without generational analysis which provides methodological grounds for understanding the youth’s place in the social space, their functions and identification practices in the context of generational changes and continuity. The theoretical grounds for such an analysis were provided by the theory of generations by K. Mannheim, by his definition of socialization of the younger people who take their place in the hierarchy of generations. Some aspects of the generational analysis were developed by Mannheim quite thoroughly, others were only named, but his analysis was historically the first comprehensive study followed by the works of other authors. The article presents the results of the study of the social stratification and socialization of the ‘adult’ youth in contemporary Russia (cohorts of 18-24 and 25-34 years old) and of their position in the social space. Mannheim’s theory of generations was used as a methodological basis, while the empirical data was provided by the All-Russian representative survey of the ‘adult’ youth (N=1717). The author considers the influence of material well-being and education of parents on the financial differentiation, level of education and professional selfidentification of the younger people; identifies the upward social mobility trend of the younger people compared to their parents; makes a conclusion about the consolidation of the social differentiation among the younger generations of Russians; analyzes the influence of parents, teachers, classmates, informal groups and virtual world on the primary and secondary socialization of the youth. The author argues that informal groups and Internet communications have become extremely important in the primary and secondary socialization of the contemporary youth, especially under their detachment from political participation and ethical absenteeism.
{"title":"‘Adult’ youth in the contemporary social space of Russia","authors":"L. Belyaeva","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-812-827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-812-827","url":null,"abstract":"The study of the contemporary youth problems is impossible without generational analysis which provides methodological grounds for understanding the youth’s place in the social space, their functions and identification practices in the context of generational changes and continuity. The theoretical grounds for such an analysis were provided by the theory of generations by K. Mannheim, by his definition of socialization of the younger people who take their place in the hierarchy of generations. Some aspects of the generational analysis were developed by Mannheim quite thoroughly, others were only named, but his analysis was historically the first comprehensive study followed by the works of other authors. The article presents the results of the study of the social stratification and socialization of the ‘adult’ youth in contemporary Russia (cohorts of 18-24 and 25-34 years old) and of their position in the social space. Mannheim’s theory of generations was used as a methodological basis, while the empirical data was provided by the All-Russian representative survey of the ‘adult’ youth (N=1717). The author considers the influence of material well-being and education of parents on the financial differentiation, level of education and professional selfidentification of the younger people; identifies the upward social mobility trend of the younger people compared to their parents; makes a conclusion about the consolidation of the social differentiation among the younger generations of Russians; analyzes the influence of parents, teachers, classmates, informal groups and virtual world on the primary and secondary socialization of the youth. The author argues that informal groups and Internet communications have become extremely important in the primary and secondary socialization of the contemporary youth, especially under their detachment from political participation and ethical absenteeism.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42553834","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：