Интеллигенция в пространстве внегородской России
The authors discuss concept of Russian intelligentsia from the standpoint of the present. Particular attention is given to examining the concept of “intelligentsia” and considering objective external indicators of its position in society. In particular, by using the conceptual tools of social geography the authors explore trajectory of geographical migration of intellectuals from the big cities to the countryside (late 19th – early 21st centuries.). They discuss such phenomena amidst intelligentsia as a cautious attitude towards urbanization, emergence of cultural perception of nature and rural traditions, passion for country recreation. The examples of enclaves of intellectuals in non-urban areas are reviewed with regard to the social role of the Russian intelligentsia. By positioning itself in geographical non-urban space, the intelligentsia thus refers to its social role and produces self-identification.
The practice of dacha subdivision, and garden plot allotment in particular, spread widely during Soviet times, not only within the Russian Federation, but also to other Soviet Republics and even other socialist countries. While in the environs of the many-socialist cities, second homes are actively included into the real estate market and housing supply, Moscow’s suburbs demonstrate their loyalty to the established tradition of seasonal migration between the city and the countryside. This study seeks to address the question how do the shifting from socialist to market economy impact the dacha life-style of the Muscovites and to look into dynamics of the changes in the relations between the city and hinterland since the collapse of the socialist state from dachas’ point of view.
In his article V.N. Musolov considering the image Antichrist, created by V.l. Soloviev, as a means of ideological struggle, author examines embedded in this image meanings and target audience this image. The author gives special attention to coincidence between the description of Antichrist Soloviev's and subsequent interpretations of the Russian intelligentsia.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.