Постмодернистский ген: является ли посткапитализм постпостмодернизмом?
The article examines a problem besetting social theory and theory of culture: the problem of using postmodernism as a language for describing the 21st century. The author resorts to the umbrella term “post-postmodernism” to indicate the more complex theories that focus mainly on the analysis of the latest forms of capitalism rather than the concepts that offer themselves as direct alternatives to postmodernism even though they ignore the link between postmodernism and capitalism. The author takes up the idea, first argued for by the American Marxist philosopher Fredric Jameson, that postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism and then uses Jameson’s approach in an attempt to retrace the continuity of new concepts of capitalism. The discussion begins with the theory of capitalist realism developed by leftist British thinker Mark Fisher. Fisher recognizes Jameson’s merits but takes exception to the term “postmodernism,” although the entire philosophical apparatus that Fisher uses is borrowed from Jameson’s work. The article then bridges the gap between capitalist realism and the latest left-wing theories such as accelerationism and post-capitalism. After tracing the close connection between the work of Mark Fisher and Nick Land, who worked together in the 1990’s at the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) and the ideas of Nick Srnicek, the author asks why Srnicek and his colleagues are put off by Fredric Jameson’s postmodern theory. The answer is that postmodernism does not permit contemporary leftists to speculate about the future. However, as the author points out, Jameson’s ideas about postmodernism at the “genetic level” are implicit in Srnicek’s concept of post-capitalism, which makes Srnicek’s theory “post-postmodernist,” although as a negative variation (in contrast to Mark Fisher’s positive one).
The author examines the delicate relationship between such phenomena as philosophy and popular culture. After formulating three attitudes of philosophers working with popular culture (left-critical, right-critical and left-objectivistic), the author proposes the term «crossroad» to show at what point of evolution of philosophy of culture and social theory during the XXth century converged popular culture and philosophy. This «crossroad» turned out to be post-modernism in such representation in which the American Marxist philosopher Fredric Jame-son began to talk about. Postmodernism before Jameson was understood as a trend in art, and only Jameson came up with the idea to extend it to the entire culture that dissolved in during the 1970s in the economy. It was Jameson who first stated the thesis that nowadays high and popular culture represent a single space. Briefly describing Jameson's approach, the author shows what this synthesis of postmodern philosophy and popular culture has led to. Recog-nizing popular culture as legitimate, and its then state as «postmodern», social philosophers began to develop the idea of expansion of culture into the social sphere, however, not in everything agreeing with Jameson. The author emphasizes the idea that the beginning of the XXI century was marked by a surge of philosophical interest in popular culture.
Modern capitalism favors values that undermine our face-to-face bonds with friends and family members. Focusing on the post-communist world, and comparing it to more 'developed' societies, this book reveals the mixed effects of capitalist culture on interpersonal relationships. While most observers blame the egoism and asocial behavior found in new free-market societies on their communist pasts, this work shows how relationships are also threatened by the profit orientations and personal ambition unleashed by economic development. Successful people in societies as diverse as China, Russia, and Eastern Germany adjust to the market economy at a social cost, relaxing their morals in order to obtain success and succumbing to increased material temptations to exploit relationships for their own financial and professional gain. The capitalist personality is internally troubled as a result of this "sellout," but these qualms subside as it devalues intimate qualitative bonds with others. This book also shows that post-communists are similarly individualized as people living in Western societies. Capitalism may indeed favor values of independence, creativity, and self-expressiveness, but it also rewards self-centeredness, consumerism, and the stripping down of morality. As is the case in the West, capitalist culture fosters an internally conflicted and self-centered personality in post-communist societies.
The main focus of this paper is the relation between the realisation of the right of the child to express his/her views and democracy in Russia. With this in view, I will study the interconnection between the right to express the views and the right to participate. Further, I will give an overview of the specifics of democracy in Russia, how they influence political participation, and what could be done to prevent the further infantilisation of citizens in Russia. Finally, I will explore traditional perceptions with regard to children’s participation in Russia and the legal framework and practice of the implementation of the child’s right to social and political participation.
The article deals with current approaches to research on social-economic impacts of cultural events. A systematic approach is proposed to analysis of services provided within cultural events in behalf of different target groups — stakeholders.
During the 14th and 15th October 2017, a conference organized by Ben Eklof (Indiana University), Igor Fedyukin (Higher School of Economics (Moscow), Tatiana Saburova (Higher School of Economics, Indiana University), Elena Vishlenkova (Higher School of Economics, Moscow) has been held at the Indiana University Europe Gateway at CIEE Global Institute (Berlin) with the aim to discuss new narratives about the history of Russian education, aroused by James C. Scott’s books, Seeking like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1998), in particular on the basis of the concept of “high modernism” in its effort to redesign society and of the role of knowledge in the context of social and economic changes.
The article identifies the effect of personalization of politics: its definition is given, the determinants and possible consequences are considered. That effect is illustrated by some features in the Asian and European style of modern political leadership.