The article reconstructs the historical development of a research method known as Social Network Analysis (SNA). The heuristic capability of the method on the basis of intellectual history is analyzed as well.
The author displays that due to symbolic thinking people can act at the same time bothe as subjects and objects of social life. The article proves that the analysis of the language of politics, the competence of politics, and political information are considered by the academic community as independent modes of political reality. However, the political actors speak, think and know in political context simultaneously. Therefore, the conceptual focus of the research isn’t on the political ontology, epistemology and semantics as such but on the relationships in the political community. It is shown that the symbolic space of politics emerges as a spontaneous nonconventional social interaction creating a stable (and already conventional) model of relations, which isn’t fi xed in the framework of the positivist approach. The author argues that the understanding of language as a social symbolization goes beyond the perception of political character as a “world view” or “mirror of reality.” The process of political symbolization is a collective interaction of meanings not just reproducing the existing meanings but generating new ones as well. This gives the political symbolization a universal communicative function.
In this article, we analyze how students studying at Moscow universities perceive historical events of 1917, 1937, 1991, and 1993. We look at two groups of students: those who have taken the standardized test (the Unified State Exam) in history, and those who have not. The study shows that neither of the two groups has a firm grasp or understanding of 20th century history, as they can usually only say a few words about the events. The more recent the event, the lower the students' knowledge of the event. The authors conclude that history lessons in schools should be restructured and redistributed, and that memory politics should be transformed with attention to new channels of communication that are popular among young people today.
The article deals with the new Russia's crises and their impact on the regions social development including labor markets, household incomes, consumption and regions budget expenditures. The focus is on the new crisis regional differentiation and implication for different territories, big cities and towns as well as rural settlements and population.
The aims of this article are: (1) identifying new tendencies in social history that emerged in the 21st century, (2) analyzing its current theoretical premises, (3) identifying the most rapidly and intensively developing fields of research, intra- and interdisciplinary alliances, and central themes. Furthermore, the study delineates emergent research fields and subject matters and traces the development of the subdiscipline’s conceptual framework and its main categories. Both cognitive and institutional aspects of social history’s current condition are analyzed (e.g. loss of leadership, the scholarly community lacking a ‘midpoint’ notwithstanding the numerous journals, associations, and old academic elite still persisting). These changes assessment is based on a cover-to-cover reading of a large body of literature on social history, which will make it possible to proceed from surface judgments to more thorough knowledge of what is happening to this discipline today.
The article presents an analysis of some of the systemic challenges that Russian social policy currently face. It is shown that the functions of social policy in the modern world are much wider than those usually articulated in Russia, and the need to shift from social support to social management is emphasized. The situation with socio-economic inequalities is analyzed; it is shown that the problem of excessive and illegitimate inequalities becomes the most important challenge for the Russian state and its social policy. The significance of this problem is also recognized by the Russians themselves, who consider it even more important than the problem of poverty. Another important systemic challenge is decline in abilities of the population to solve its problems on its own (even with the seeming increase in incomes) due to the “de-farming of the peasantry” and decrease in the social resource of the population, especially among its most vulnerable groups, increase in the debt burden of the middle class, etc. It is emphasized that the further successful and sustainable development of Russia requires an adequate response not only to the challenges described in the article but also to many other systemic challenges.