Мобильность и солидарность. Статья вторая
Alexander F Filippov. Mobility and Solidarity. Part 2. This article continues «Mobility and solidarity. Part 1» (Sociological review. Vol. 10. № 3). Solidarity is considered first of all from the point of view of co-intended meaning, as an additional motive accompanying the main motivation of participants of interaction and, at exhaustion of the initial motive, replacing this motive. An example of such a motive in elementary interactions is fidelity. Fidelity, according to Georg Simmel, enables participants to make as kind of logical induction from the facts of the current behavior to the expected behavior of partners. Other type of communication concerning solidarity, is civil friendship, as described, in particular, by Aristotle. However any friendship presupposes too narrow and too specific circles of contacts, it can be only a prototype of modern solidarity. Religious ethics of fraternal affection and ethics of military brotherhood compete to friendship and often force it out. The more they are free from «world orders» (M. Weber), the more they come nearer to type of pure solidarity. The exchange of gifts can be considered as another type solidarity, however in modern societies it has only limited potential of universality. The most important phenomenon of modern mobile society is pure togetherness (Z. Bauman). Here solidarity is present as an imputed motive, one of the accepted vocabulary of motives, often invoked post hoc to explain why those who aren’t forced to it by power, money, or value commitments keep together
The summary paper argues that the phenomenon of male alliance (friendship) emerges as a consequence of mutual preference demonstrated by male individuals - both human and animal, - and such preference can be empirically captured. Friendly relations between men are built on two different foundations: (1) the principle of biological and social similarity and (2) the principle of psychological complementarity of the alliance members. Friendship is predominantly formed between boys and men of the same ethnic (racial) origin, similar age, behavior, and common social background. By contrast, psychologically friends are selected based on the complementarity of their temperament and main personality traits, such as ergonicity, sthenicity, emotionality, neophobia/neophilia, extraversion/introversion, dependence/independence of behavior, and dominance/submissiveness. These principles trigger the following key effects: a person is more likely to develop an individual preference and find a friend in childhood, and the number of potential friends is very limited.
Rich data from social network sites (SNS) attracts the attention of psychologists and sociologists interested in interpersonal dynamics, friendship networks, and social capital. The presented study explores the effect of network structural features and psychological characteristics of SNS users on changes in their friendship networks. The data from the representative and diverse sample of 375 Russian Vkontakte SNS users from Vologda city was used. Two waves of network data collection allow us to estimate changes in the size of the friendship networks. Regression analysis reveals similarities in the factors responsible for the changes in networks for users who attract or reject friends. We discuss possible explanations of this phenomenon, as well as limitations of the study and further research directions.
The Russian civil law and practice have undergone major changes aimed at improving the legal normalization of relations and the modernization of private legal practice in the spirit of the disposition method of regulation.
The legal approach, according to which any rule that defines the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract should be interpreted by the court on the basis of its spirit and legislative regulation purposes, is conceptual for interpretation of the rules. It eliminates formalism in the law enforcement practice.
To illustrate the essence of this approach, the authors refer to the analysis of the provisions of Article 452 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the Civil Code), which allows to find out what kind of sense is put by the legislator in the requirement for pretrial settlement of the dispute on change (termination) of the contract, which turns out to be a mandatory step for bringing the case to court consideration.
On the basis of interpretation and study of the judicial practice, attention is drawn to the fact that the provisions of Article 452 of the Civil Code should not be understood purely formally and are designed solely for the court to unsure that attempts to pretrial resolution of a legal conflict were made and are exhausted.
This approach to interpretation of the provisions of Article 452 of the Civil Code is consistent with the objectives of legal regulation and does not create unnecessary obstacles to implementation of the rights of the bona fide participants of civil relations.
The paper examines social differences in the understanding of the concept of ‘friendship’ in late 18th – early 19th century Russia deployed in the unpublished correspondence of Count Aleksandr Vorontsov, a member of the social elite of the Catherinean Age, and Aleksei D´iakonov, an obscure official who was Vorontsov’s client. While letter exchange was a kind of freemasonic practice, and both correspondents were members of a Masonic lodge, Vorontsov used sentimentalist language and addressed his client as “friend,” trying to erase or at least obscure the social boundaries between them. Social equality, even as a rhetorical formula, was progressively becoming possible between an aristocrat and an educated commoner such as D´iakonov, and it unfolded in rhetorical terms. D´iakonov adopted vis-à-vis his patron an attitude that reflected their respective positions on the hierarchical ladder, thus conforming to the traditional behavior of a Russian official and avoiding Western (Masonic, or sentimentalist) rhetoric of equality.
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.