{"title":"概念光学中的农村人力资本:连续性和/或后主义?","authors":"I. Trotsuk","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-2-338-354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In explanatory dictionaries, “post” is interpreted either as a prefix that has the same meaning as the word “after” (the most obvious and well-known examples from the social sphere are post-imperialist or post-colonial (world), post-Soviet (period), post-socialist (countries), etc.), or as the first part of compound words, denoting what exists/happens based on the second part of the word (post-impressionism, postmodernism, post-industrial, etc.) [see, e.g.: 4]. On aggregator websites of definitions from different dictionaries [see, e.g.: 13], “post” is interpreted mainly as a prefix denoting something that occurs after something, but in relation to philosophical trends of the end of the 20th century (postmodernism, postpositivism, poststructuralism, etc.), it is not only about “after”, but also about a kind of (not dialectical or negative) denial of immediate predecessors - as changing (or destroying) the accepted ideas about the hierarchy of attitudes and methods, which can be applied to human activities beyond philosophy (post-capitalism, postcommunism, post-Fordism, etc.) [see, e.g.: 15]. The lexical and research legitimacy of the prefix “post” has not been questioned for a long time, it is taken for granted in scientific and official discourses; however, the question is whether this “tool” of analytical conceptualization is universal or it has a distorting effect on research “optics” and “rhetoric” and, accordingly, a discriminatory effect on the corresponding objective realities, given the heterogeneity of most contemporary social-economic and other processes. In particular, whether we can use concepts with the prefix “post” to assess the state and prospects of the so-called “human capital”, considering its variability on the conditional but already traditional “rural-urban continuum”. The article presents an attempt to provide a preliminary assessment of the universality (or limitations) of the concepts with the prefix “post” in the study of the rural “cluster” of human capital.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rural human capital in the conceptual optics: Continuum and/or post-ism?\",\"authors\":\"I. Trotsuk\",\"doi\":\"10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-2-338-354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In explanatory dictionaries, “post” is interpreted either as a prefix that has the same meaning as the word “after” (the most obvious and well-known examples from the social sphere are post-imperialist or post-colonial (world), post-Soviet (period), post-socialist (countries), etc.), or as the first part of compound words, denoting what exists/happens based on the second part of the word (post-impressionism, postmodernism, post-industrial, etc.) [see, e.g.: 4]. On aggregator websites of definitions from different dictionaries [see, e.g.: 13], “post” is interpreted mainly as a prefix denoting something that occurs after something, but in relation to philosophical trends of the end of the 20th century (postmodernism, postpositivism, poststructuralism, etc.), it is not only about “after”, but also about a kind of (not dialectical or negative) denial of immediate predecessors - as changing (or destroying) the accepted ideas about the hierarchy of attitudes and methods, which can be applied to human activities beyond philosophy (post-capitalism, postcommunism, post-Fordism, etc.) [see, e.g.: 15]. The lexical and research legitimacy of the prefix “post” has not been questioned for a long time, it is taken for granted in scientific and official discourses; however, the question is whether this “tool” of analytical conceptualization is universal or it has a distorting effect on research “optics” and “rhetoric” and, accordingly, a discriminatory effect on the corresponding objective realities, given the heterogeneity of most contemporary social-economic and other processes. In particular, whether we can use concepts with the prefix “post” to assess the state and prospects of the so-called “human capital”, considering its variability on the conditional but already traditional “rural-urban continuum”. The article presents an attempt to provide a preliminary assessment of the universality (or limitations) of the concepts with the prefix “post” in the study of the rural “cluster” of human capital.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-2-338-354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-2-338-354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Rural human capital in the conceptual optics: Continuum and/or post-ism?
In explanatory dictionaries, “post” is interpreted either as a prefix that has the same meaning as the word “after” (the most obvious and well-known examples from the social sphere are post-imperialist or post-colonial (world), post-Soviet (period), post-socialist (countries), etc.), or as the first part of compound words, denoting what exists/happens based on the second part of the word (post-impressionism, postmodernism, post-industrial, etc.) [see, e.g.: 4]. On aggregator websites of definitions from different dictionaries [see, e.g.: 13], “post” is interpreted mainly as a prefix denoting something that occurs after something, but in relation to philosophical trends of the end of the 20th century (postmodernism, postpositivism, poststructuralism, etc.), it is not only about “after”, but also about a kind of (not dialectical or negative) denial of immediate predecessors - as changing (or destroying) the accepted ideas about the hierarchy of attitudes and methods, which can be applied to human activities beyond philosophy (post-capitalism, postcommunism, post-Fordism, etc.) [see, e.g.: 15]. The lexical and research legitimacy of the prefix “post” has not been questioned for a long time, it is taken for granted in scientific and official discourses; however, the question is whether this “tool” of analytical conceptualization is universal or it has a distorting effect on research “optics” and “rhetoric” and, accordingly, a discriminatory effect on the corresponding objective realities, given the heterogeneity of most contemporary social-economic and other processes. In particular, whether we can use concepts with the prefix “post” to assess the state and prospects of the so-called “human capital”, considering its variability on the conditional but already traditional “rural-urban continuum”. The article presents an attempt to provide a preliminary assessment of the universality (or limitations) of the concepts with the prefix “post” in the study of the rural “cluster” of human capital.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal is a broad exchange of scientific information, and of the results of theoretical and empirical studies of the researchers from different fields of sociology: history of sociology, sociology of management, political sociology, economic sociology, sociology of culture, etc., philosophy, political science, demography – both in Russia and abroad. The articles of the Journal are grouped under ‘floating’ rubrics (chosen specially to structure the main themes of each issue), with the following rubrics as basic: Theory, Methodology and History of Sociological Research Contemporary Society: The Urgent Issues and Prospects for Development Surveys, Experiments, Case Studies Sociology of Organizations Sociology of Management Sociological Lectures. The titles of the rubrics are generally broadly formulated so that, despite the obvious theoretical focus of most articles (this is the principal distinguishing feature of the Series forming the image of the scientific journal), in each section we can publish articles differing substantially in their area of study and subject matter, conceptual focus, methodological tools of empirical research, the country of origin and disciplinary affiliation.