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.
The authors compare the political views of Russian and French parliamentarians. The research is based on interviews with the members of the State Duma and the National Assembly. There are both similarities and differences in their views on their own countries, normative and descriptive notions of the leader and political class. However, while the similarities are based on resembling problems in social, political and economic situation of the countries, the distinction is the result of a fundamental difference in political values shared by Russian and French deputies.
In the article analysis of income stratification specifics in Russian society in comparison with other countries (Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Venezuela, Mexico, China) is presented, based on the data from several nationwide surveys. It is shown that the model of income stratification based on the relation between per capita income in a particular household and median income in the country efficiently captures features that are associated with different models of society. Russian specifics of income stratification in comparison to other countries is analyzed. Based on the comparative international data of «International Social Survey Programme» (ISSP), it is demonstrated that income stratification model of the Russian society is typical of European countries. At the same time, according to the depth of income inequality Russia occupies an intermediate position between European countries and countries of the former "third world».
In the article results of analysis of characteristics and dynamics of income and subjective stratification models of Russian society are presented, based on data from several nationwide surveys carried out in 1999-2016. It is shown that the current model of income stratification is characterized by the dominance of the middle strata and is adequately reflected in public consciousness, based on the self-assessment of the positions people hold in the society. Economic crisis that started in 2014 so far did not cause any serious changes in the income stratification model or the assessment of their positions in society by Russians.
As for the methodological results of the analysis, it is shown that the optimal methods for income stratification of Russian society should be found among the relative methods used in developed countries, but not among the absolute methods used in developing countries. In addition, given Russia's regional heterogeneity in terms of modernization progress, it is more expedient to use the aggregate model of income stratification constructed on the basis of pre-stratification of regional communities than models based on the average measures for the country as a whole for the analysis of the social structure.
This article focuses on perceptions of patriotism among students of three leading Russian universities: Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), and National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE). The authors analyze how patriotism is understood and constructed among students, what aspects of social and political life are used in these constructions, and which figures emerge as key “patriots” in Russian students’ narratives. The article demonstrates that students in Russia’s top universities associate the concept of patriotism with activities conducted by Russia’s political elite, and that the most patriotic figure for most students is Vladimir Putin. The article also shows that students do not associate patriotism with their own stance towards Russia.
In given article on example of the fairy tales E.T.Gofman opens ability mystery be positioned by key source authorities. The privileged access to mystery possess intellectuals that greatly intensifies their position in legitimation play. The author confirms this on example of different political situations.
The paper analyzes the contents and objectives of ‘public social science’, the relationship between scholarly and popular knowledge, conventions governing the representation of the past outside the academic context, and the transfer of scholarly knowledge from academic to media environment.
Public history is treated as a specific type of historical judgment and historical practice, thus the analysis of ‘public history’ cover cognitive aspects as well as social ones.
The article examines the current wave of constitutional amendments in post-Soviet area (2014–2018) as an answer to the revolutionary breakdown of political regime in Ukraine (2014) and a search for new strategies of political modernization. It traces the different attitudes to constitutional reforms agenda – revolutionary, reformist and counter-reformist, showing how the balance of power has been shifted in political regimes with parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential systems of government. It discusses the importance of ideological grounds and substantive features of new constitutional provisions as well as legal and technical mechanisms of their elaboration, adoption and implementation in different countries of the region. The author provides an incisive account of the phenomenon of the political regimes legitimacy crisis and the role of new institutions in overcoming it.
The paper seeks to generate insights as to the way made to science and in science by one of Russia’s leading social economists and sociologists T. I. Zaslavskaya (1927 – 2013). Zaslavskaya’s way to science is described in connection with her socialization and professionalization, her civic position as well as with the mentoring traditions of her teachers and herself as the Teacher and a founder of her own school of thought. The paper identifies the consistency of key concepts integral to the economic and sociological periods of Zaslavskaya’s academic career and points out the growing expansion and complexity of her research area. Special emphasis is made on the up-to-date significance of the concepts and theories developed by Zaslavskaya over years for social economics, economic and general sociology and an interdisciplinary conceptualization of post-communist transformations.
This paper seeks to generate insights as to the way made to science and life in science by one of Russia's leading social economists and sociologists T.I. Zaslavskaya (1927–2013). Zaslavskaya's way to science is described in connection with her socialization and professionalization, her civic position as well as with the mentoring traditions of her teachers and herself as the Teacher and a founder of her own school of thought. The first part of the article (see Obshchestvennyie nauki i sovremennost’, 2018, no. 6) was devoted to the history of the formation of Zaslavskaya as a person, as a scientist, to the grasping of those principles that later formed the basis of her work as a mentor, creator of her economical and sociological school. This second part identifies the consistency of key concepts integral to the economic and sociological periods of Zaslavskaya's academic career and points out the growing expansion and complexity of her research area. Special emphasis is made on the up-to-date significance of the concepts and theories developed by Zaslavskaya over years for social economics, economic and general sociology and an interdisciplinary conceptualization of post-communist transformations.
We live in the XXIth century. The modern world creates its own attitude to labour. What is happening today in the sphere of labour? Whether the issue of labour’s crisis is still relevant? The hard work of the industrial era becomes a thing of the past. New working practices as well as new challenges for labour are appearing now. Alongside with the growth of unemployment, trudotsentrizm becomes the consequences of technical innovation development. In this regard, there raises the question of the preservation of human capital. Recently, the sharp criticism of the diagnosis of the “end of labour in its classical sense” has been replaced by open hostility to labour in a post-industrial economy and neo-liberalism. What should be done? Shall we reject labour and float freely on the waves of globalization? Or shall we overcome the alienation and return to the understanding of high significance of labor in human life and society.