La réciprocité, dimensions théologiques, juridiques et autres
The paper provides a summary of Hannah Arendt's thinking on political reciprocity based on the analysis of her general view of politics and its historical fate in the European tradition. According to Arendt, political reciprocity is profoundly different in nature from the types of reciprocity which are proper for other spheres of human life (family, domestic, religious, communitarian, economic). Its specificity is due to the specificity of the field of politics and to the nature of the link that connects men in a community that can be referred to as political. Political community is not the same thing as a large family, an ethnic or religious community or a market society. Politics (in the strict sense of the term) is based on the pluralities of men who form together a shared public world, and the question of political reciprocity is not raised from the problem of man, his nature and his goodness, but from the problem of the world and its reality.
The article is a reply to M. Dodlova and M. Yudkevich. In their recent paper they undertake an attempt to use the notion of gift in the analysis of principal–agent relationship and to generalize the idea of gift in order to obtain a theory of gift exchange in the workplace. However, the analysis suggested lacks conceptual clarity and rests upon false presuppositions regarding the nature of gift. As a result, authors draw erroneous conclusions and fall victims of the magic of the gift. This short reply points to these deficiencies and suggests some ideas for alternative approaches to the analysis of certain phenomena observed in the workplace.
Concept of nonprofit marketing has emerged from discussions of applying the philosophy and techniques of marketing to the public and nonprofit sectors in the marketing literature. However, many of these marketing ideas emerged originally from social science disciplines. Almost all social science can be classified into the two general categories of «individualistic" and "collectivistic" perspectives (Collins, 1994; Olsen, 1992; Parsons, 1961). This study attempts to accommodate a pluralistic stance toward diversity of social science perspectives in context of nonprofit marketing theory. Thus, it is not limited to discussion of individualistic or collectivist references. The study attempts to consider different social science perspectives to validate nonprofit marketing theory.
Modern non-profit marketing theory was developed from narrow borrowing social sciences concepts discussed in sociology, organizational behavior, and economic anthropology. However, there are additional alternative concepts and ideas from social sciences that can better explain the phenomena of non-profit marketing.
The article discusses the controversial concept of marketing for non-profit organizations. The existing theory of marketing for non-profit organizations developed with borrowing some concepts from the social sciences. From sociology, organizational behavior and anthropology were borrowed the concept of the organization as an open system, motivation, self-interest, bilateral voluntary exchange. Alternative concepts of organization, motivation and relationships with the environment created within the social sciences, allow to formulate an alternative approach to the study of non-profit marketing organizations. Recommendations for future research are offered.
The author deconstructs the prevailing conceptualization of non-profit marketing and concludes it rests on three principles: voluntary exchange, an open system organization, and self-interest motivation. A review of the genesis of these principles revealed that alternative principles were ignored in the social science literature. Based on a qualitative analysis and critical hermeneutic approach a revised conceptualization of non-profit marketing was suggested which incorporated the principles of reciprocity, the features of a contingency-choice organization, and altruistic interest motivation. A revised definition of non-profit marketing is offered based on these principles.
Although the concept of non-profit sector marketing has been widely embraced by marketing academics, many scholars and managers in the non-profit field remain skeptical. Skeptics of the appropriateness of the marketing concept in the non-profit field argued that its application distorted a non-profit organization's objectives, antithetical to its social service ethic, and invited inappropriate commercialization of non-profit services P. Kotler and his associates modified existing political communication and public advertising theories to formulate the marketing approach comprised of the «4 Ps» model, voluntary exchange, and the marketing philosophy of meeting customers’ needs. This explanation of the notion of marketing resulted in the term «social marketing». In 1972, Kotler formulated his broadened, generic, and axiomatic concept of marketing that was conceptualized as being universal for any type of product or organization including non-profit organizations. Three major principles underling the school's conceptualization of non-profit marketing: An open-system model of formal organizations, borrowed from organizational theory and the concept of social exchange, adapted from individualistic sociology. An alternative explanation can be based on: A closed-system model of formal organizations. The closed-system perspective is older stemming from Weber's classical analysis of bureaucracy. «Coercion mutually agreed upon « motivation. Self-interest motivation has limited usefulness in context of non-profit organizations. In many contexts it is antithetical to the philosophy of non-profit services and, hence, is inconsistent with a legitimate conceptualization of non-profit marketing. The application of self-interest motivation is integral to the social exchange school of marketing, but in the context of non-profit agencies it is inappropriate. Reciprocity and Redistribution. The relationship of formal organizations with their environments can be explained not only from an exchange perspective but also from reciprocity and redistribution perspectives.
In this exploratory study, we examined several interethnic ideologies held by individuals (assimilation, colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism) from a social ecological perspective. We examined moderation effects of neighborhood ethnic density (ED) on relationships between interethnic ideologies and intergroup bias towards various minority ethnic groups in the Russian context. Intergroup bias was assessed as a composite score of bias toward four ethnic groups who have different cultural distances from the Russian mainstream population: Chechens, Belarusians, Uzbeks, and Chinese. We obtained a gender balanced sample of ethnic Russians from the Central Federal District of Russia (N = 359) comprising of 47% women and 53% men. The measures were used in a Russian translation by an adaptation using the back-translation and cognitive interviews. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationships. The results showed that high perceived neighborhood non-Russian ED weakened negative relations between intergroup bias and ideologies that purportedly accept cultural diversity (multiculturalism and polyculturalism). On the other hand, for interethnic ideologies those purportedly reject cultural diversity, high perceived neighborhood non-Russian ED weakened the positive relations between intergroup bias and assimilation and strengthened the negative relations between intergroup bias and colorblindness. The pattern of results suggests that the relationship between attitudes and intergroup bias may change based on the perceived ethnic composition of the local area and frequency of contacts. Although our findings are relatively novel they support the emerging view that attitudes and intergroup relations need to be studied from a social ecological context.
The present paper discusses perspectives of Activity Theory (AT) in the context of contemporary globalizing world, describing which we refer to the notion “De-structuralized modernity” (Sorokin & Froumin, 2020). Radical changes in everyday life challenge social sciences and humanities. Approaches are in demand, which have the potential to comprehend the changing human étant and éntre. We argue that Activity Theory has the potential to face these challenges. Leontiev’s AT grounds on the idea of qualitatively new mental features arising to deal with novel environmental challenges, which is much in line with J.M. Baldwin reasoning on evolution. AT also offers a method to prognosis the upcoming neoplasms. In the same time, applying classics of AT to the current reality, “De-structuralized modernity”, entails the need for new theoretical elaborations of the latter, stemming from the radical transformation of the relations between individual and socio-cultural environments. A unique societal context emerges on the global level, which, on the one hand, requires individual to adapt constantly to changing socio-cultural reality, and, on the other hand, dramatically expands his/her potential for proactive actorhood transforming surrounding structures. We argue that the major and novel challenge for the individual is the task of maintaining the integrity and coherence of the a) Self-identity and b) system of links in and with the socio-cultural environment - in their dynamics and unity. The notion of “culture” has particular relevance and importance in this context because it allows grasping simultaneously two dimensions in their dynamic dialectical interrelations. First, the “internal” (“subjective”, “in the minds”) and “external” (“objective”, material and institutional environment) realities. Second, individual (“micro”) and societal (“macro”) scales of human activities. Discussing the ways to understand these dynamics, we dispute the popular “constitutive view” on personality and refer to the concept of the “ontological shift” (Mironenko & Sorokin, 2018). We also highlight how technological advancements change and “expand” human nature making it capable to deal with the outlined new tasks.
The article deals with the ways Russian authorities have constructed the social problem of HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome) in Russia. The statistical construction of HIV/AIDS includes data indicating the significant rise of HIV prevalence in Russia since 2000. The study focuses on what and how Russian authorities speak about HIV/AIDS, while there are official data on the rapid spread of the virus in the country. The work is based on a discourse analysis of the authorities’ rhetoric about HIV/AIDS. During his first presidential terms, Vladimir Putin constructed HIV/AIDS not as an epidemic in the country, but as a “global problem,” representing Russia as a participant in international efforts to combat AIDS. The president problematized the HIV spread through the rhetoric of endangerment but without its crucial term “epidemic,” while at the same time de-problematized HIV in Russia by the strategy of naturalizing (“this is a problem that all countries face”). The Russian authorities appealed to traditional moral values and spoke about marginal or risk groups, rather than risk practices. After the deterioration of relations with Western countries since 2007, the Russian president excluded HIV/AIDS problem from his public agenda, despite the existence of the data on steep HIV growth in Russia. The Russian president’s traditionalism, de-problematization, and silence concerning HIV/AIDS lead to the absence of the HIV/AIDS issues in media agenda, the agenda of local authorities, and consequently the personal agendas of Russian citizens. The consequences are ignorance, fears, stigmatization of people living with HIV, semi-legal status of needle, and syringe exchange programs for intravenous drug users, low antiretroviral therapy coverage, and the continuing HIV epidemic.