The ability to defend the boundaries of one's empiric Self – dispositional sovereignty - is a personal trait with a great adaptive significance. It develops through generalization of everyday actions aimed at protecting boundaries in discrete situations of interaction with other people, first of all - relatives. This article examines the role of sibling status (birth order) in the development of this trait. Two empirical studies were conducted. The first, which involved children between two and ten years of age, showed that the highest scores of mature protection are in the only children in the family, the lowest ones are in the first children, and the second children demonstrate a moderate level of boundaries protection skills. In the second study, conducted on the youth sample, it is shown that the connection of sovereignty with the birth order is moderated by sex: sovereignty is maximal in younger girls and older boys.
The article examines the main sociological approaches to the theoretical interpretation of the intertwined arduous issues of modern sociology of morality – on the sources of legitimacy of multiple normative orders, on the role of morality as a universal intermediary in potentially conflicting relations between different normative systems (in particular, between state and non-state law, professional ethics, religion, bureaucratic organizational rules, etc.). Some promising directions of theoretical interpretation of the relationship between morality and law are outlined basing on a critical analysis and synthesis of classical and modern approaches to the problems of sources of norms and relations between multiple normative systems, in particular, between law and morality. In the context of the reconstruction of the argument against the position of moral relativism in the social sciences set forth by S. Lukes, I also consider the possibility of describing "moral" and "conventional" as analytically different dimensions of social norms, as well as the prospect of using the concept of "participating reactive devic
The Polish memoirs of the interwar period help to understand how the Poles recalled the pre-revolutionary times by settling with the past after the collapse of the Russian Empire, establishment of the Bolshevik regime and the rebirth of independent Poland. These memoir narratives are crucial for the understanding of continuity in the Russian and Polish relations, including their inertial component as the stereotypes of mutual perception. The memoirists’ motivation was influenced by the politics of memory and some initiatives from the academic community. The situation in Poland favored the creation of a patriotically correct picture of the past. However, many authors viewed the Russian Empire not just in a negative way. Personal experience conflicted with influential stereotypes. The escape from the canon of “the fighting Poland” was the narration about the life of the Poles in the pre-revolutionary Russia as the history of their success in the implementation of civilizing mission. Not all the texts written by the representatives of the lower social layers met the expectations of memory contest organizers. A special branch of the Polish memoirs were testimonies of communists living in the USSR. The authors writing their memoirs in the interwar period perceived the uprising of 1863–1864 recognized then as the lower border of contemporary history as the earliest personal experience. Memories reflected intergenerational transit of data concerning the past, including the formation of historical perception of children. The number of texts and the degree of detail amplified closer to the World War I. One can talk about the existence of related but not identical images of Russia, the Russian government and the Russian people. Polish memoirs written both by political decision-makers and people from the remotest borderlands provide many important insights about the Russian Empire. They are of interest for Russianists, Slavists and Orientalists.
The paper is the first attempt to obtain insights into the legal relations of the Russian Empire with the countries of Central Asia based on the concept of frontier modernization. The author identifies the main stages of legal cooperation between Russia and Central Asian states in the 18th — early 20th centuries, reveals the main means and methods, by which the Russian government tried to influence the legal development of the countries and peoples of the region in each of the investigated stages. Here, he compares them with similar processes implemented by the Russian Empire in its other eastern border regions. According to the author, the incomplete frontier modernization process in the Central Asian khanates (unlike in Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan, etc.) was associated both with their formal legal status (the actual protectorate of the Russian Empire with formal independence) and with the political situation (the revolutionary events of 1917, which toppled the empire).