Раннесредневековое общество сквозь призму социальной антропологии
Extended review of Ludomir R. Lozny, Prestate Societies of the North Central European Plains, 600 – 900 CE. New York: Springer 2013. Validity of the author's concepts and conclusions based on archaeological evidence is tested from the position of social anthropology.
Information in the SGEM 2017 Conference Proceedings is subject to change without notice. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the International Scientific Council of SGEM.
The report reviews the conference «Social anthropology in Russia as a research and university discipline: search for past and future» organized by the state university «Higher school of economics» on September 11-13, 2007 in Pushkin. The purpose of conference was to discuss a wide circle of problems of the position of anthropology in Russia. The program of presentations included three sections: social anthropology as part of a curriculum, social anthropology as a scientific discipline and peculiarities of the academic community.
The book is the collection of papers on history, archaeology and art critics of North-West Russia and Baltic area.
This chapter focuses on contradictions in the development of social anthropology curriculum in contemporary Russia. Ethnography as a predecessor to social anthropology has been developing in Russia for several centuries as an academic discipline and occupation with a strong focus on folk culture, ethnicity. In Soviet times, professional training of ethnographers was offered within the Departments of History at several universities. The Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology (previously The Institute of Enthography) is the oldest institution in Russia for studies of humanities, which sprang from the Kunstkamera (Cabinet of Curiosities) founded by Peter the Great. This long tradition of ethnography as a scholarly discipline is based on field research with emphasis on ethnic peculiarities and inter-ethnic conflicts. In the beginning of 1990s, the oldest academic institution, the Institute of Ethnography of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) acquired a new name: the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of RAS, which signified a shift in self-identification of traditional ethnographers towards international recognition. A number of university-based and independent research centres were established in various Russian regions. The thematic scope of their research interests is wide and includes not only focus on past and present folk cultures, but also on issues of society, culture and diversity as seen in the programs of conferences and content of publications. The institutional resource for disciplinary and professional identity is a new Association of anthropologists and ethnographers that includes now more than a thousand members. The transformation of social anthropology curricula is explored on the national and local levels in relation to implications of the Bologna project and what makes social anthropology a distinctive area of professional training. The analysis shows that the characteristics of social anthropology education and training are defined as well as constrained by such structuring parameters as the conception of professionalism, highly ambivalent relations with contemporary post-socialist governments, the backgrounds of teachers and departments, a philosophy and ideology of diversity, reception of the notion of human rights and international exchange. Based on the results of analysing interviews and relevant documents, we will show contradictory processes in social anthropology curriculum in Russia.
The collapse of the socialist system prompted the former USSR countries to “re-invent” their stateness. The paper focuses on factors that impede or smooth stateness transformations in post-Soviet countries. First, the paper examines internal and external factors of state formation in selected countries. Next, it introduces empirical research tools and empirical findings that present alternative patterns of stateness and outcomes of state formation. The paper concludes with a detailed review of certain cases that may be considered prototypes of state formation for post-Soviet countries.
This volume intends to fill the gap in the range of publications about the post-transition social housing policy developments in Central and Eastern Europe by delivering critical evaluations about the past two decades of developments in selected countries’ social housing sectors, and showing what conditions have decisively impacted these processes.
Contributors depict the different paths the countries have taken by reviewing the policy changes, the conditions institutions work within, and the solutions that were selected to answer the housing needs of vulnerable households. They discuss whether the differences among the countries have emerged due to the time lag caused by belated reforms in selected countries, or whether any of the disparities can be attributed to differences inherited from Soviet times. Since some of the countries have recently become member states of the European Union, the volume also explores whether there were any convergence trends in the policy approaches to social housing that can be attributed to the general changes brought about by the EU accession.