Since mid-1980-s fashion on postmodern went beyond the boundaries of aesthetics and theory of literature. This topic became interesting for philosophy and sociology. The article is devoted to the relations of these two disciplines to postmodern. The author considers four positions inside social theory concerning postmodern. Firstly, social theorists which take “theory of postmodern” into consideration but in general don’t agree with the idea that Western society entered the situation of postmodernity. Secondly, social theorists who accept the idea of postmodern and try to develop it in different directions. Mostly, these are those who agree with the concept of postmodernity. Thirdly, social theorists who consider the possibility of applying postmodern ideas to social theory, they call themselves “postmodernists”. Fourthly, there are those, who consider postmodernism in a strictly sociological sense, i.e. they do research of what could be called “discourse of postmodern in sociology”. By 2000 adherents of modernity, adherents of postmodernity and adherents of postmodernism in social theory started to reject ideas about postmodernity/postmodernism. By 2000 postmodernism in social theory strangely died. This death could be called “strange” as despite the fact that this concept is still used, it no longer occupies the same central place in social theory as it was since the second half of the 1980-s and till the mid-1990s.
Socially responsible (ethical) consumption in Russia is only taking its first steps and is fairly fragmented. In most cases, consumers engage in practices of one particular sort, whether ethical purchasing, ethical boycotts or separate collection of waste. The article presents the data of a representative empirical study aiming to identify specific qualities of citizens participating in various socially responsible consumption practices as well as factors facilitating Russians’ engagement in the above practices. The article purports that market-oriented practices, such as ethical purchasing and boycotts, and nonmarket ones, such as separate collection of waste, are driven by different factors and relate to the sphere of civil society in different ways. The article concludes that differentiated strategies need to be implemented in this area by NGOs and management groups of various levels.
The article contains the critical examination of Grinbcrg Rubinstain's concept of economic sociodynamics and patronized goods from the position of liberal doctrines of the Austrian school. It reveals von Miscs theory of history, where ideas occupy the central place and interests are pro-derivatives from them. It is shown that the notion of "public interest" is a dominant public opinion, which, of course, cannot exist as something separate from the individuals. Public interest not necessary represents something positive and ensuring progress. The public interest may be aimed against it. And outside public opinion it simply does not exist. Patronized goods with the exception of pure public goods become not because they have need in such the state, but because the state and interest groups need to take care of them. The state constrains free entrepreneurship, which only can provide efficient delivery of the most of the patronized goods. And the state is ineffective supplier of these goods. In general social liberalism from the perspective of the Austrian economic theory is presented as a new wave of statism.
The theme of social liberalism is examined in the light of the quality of the state. One thing is a state that stands above society. The other – a state based on an agreement with society and, therefore, requiring the adoption of social policies, based on the alignment of interests of different groups. In Russia, there is a state of the ? rst type, but the society is clearly unhappy about this and increasingly makes demands for transformation of the state. In the methodology of the social sciences as the author believes it is important to study the extent to which the state is implementing a “common interest” and how it is re?ected in the analytical and mathematical models describing the Russian society
Multicultural policy is one of the few theory-based approaches to managing ethno-cultural diversity. However, Russian scientific community expresses doubts about the feasibility of the policy for Russia. Such doubts arise from the difficulties in integration of migrants in Europe and support for assimilation policies among the Russian public. The goals of this article are to 1) present theoretical and empirical evidence for multiculturalism policy; 2) describe two components of the multiculturalism policy: support and promotion of cultural diversity and facilitation of equitable participation of heterogeneous ethno-cultural groups; 3) and to compare the degree of implementation and effectiveness of multiculturalism policies in Canada, countries of Europe, and Russia. We conclude that recent changes in Russian policy are likely to improve intergroup relationships in the Russian Federation, however, such changes cannot be seen as sufficient for satisfactory social, political, psychological and economic integration of migrants into Russian society.