Сценарии воздействия экономического кризиса на систему образования в России: К Х Международной научной конференции ГУ ВШЭ по проблемам развития экономики и общества, Москва, 7—9 апреля 2009 г.
The article introduces the new possibilities for the analysis of sociological views of Marx basing on the publication of his manuscripts, excerpts and epistolary heritage provided by the full academic edition of collected works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the original languages (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, MEGA). It is shown that the manuscripts and original versions of “Capital” contain a number of ideas important for interpretation of sociological views of Marx (a commodity as the own result of the capital; private property as just a legal shell of the bourgeois economic relations; the logic and the stages of technological development on the basis of capital, etc.) which only fragmentary were reflected in the “Capital” itself. After the release of volume 1 (1867) Marx made several attempts to complete the “Сapital”, his preliminary versions of the books 2 and 3 show that he was evident of the core theoretical problems of the concluding parts of the book (such as the analysis of the reproduction of the total capital of the society and the explanation of the average rate of profit on the basis of the labour theory of value), but he never managed to solve them successfully. In the last period of his life Marx sparingly informed even his closest friends on the state and prospects of his work; many important ideas were not understood by them, including Engels who contributed to the formation of the orthodox “materialist understanding of history”. After Marx’s death, partly due to the complexity and difficulty of his theory, partly because of incompleteness of the drafts of the final parts of the “Capital” the Engels’ version of his ideas played an important role, influencing the largely popular interpretations of Marx’s theory. On their base, both the Historical Materialism and its criticism were formed. To enable an adequate perception of the heritage of Marx in the 21th century, the integration into the scientific discourse of those materials which became public only in the last decades is needed.
Abstract. On November 28–30, 2019 the International Scientific Conference “The Future of Sociological Knowledge and Challenges of Social Transformation (to the 90th Anniversary of V.A. Yadov)” took place, and within the framework of the conference the round table discussion of Community of Professional Sociologists was held, the general content of which we offered to the readers. The main issue of the discussion was the state and role of sociology in Russia and the world. The participants expressed different positions, outlined the main problems of sociological knowledge and profession, diagnosed both crisis phenomena and grounds for development of the modern sociology. Specialists stated that the crisis in the theoretical understanding of society in sociology is reflected to a certain extent in society’s distrust to sociology. Practically each of the participants discussed the public role of sociologist in the modern world, which faces the need to interact with commercial and power organizations. Discussing the fate of sociology in the 21st century, the participants proposed ways out of the crisis – rethinking the subject of sociology, new ways of assembling the palette of modern sociological research, the need to return to the theory of a holistic image of society and construction of ideas about the ways of future development of society.
This article offers the theoretical reconstruction of the treatment of morality by the classic of French and world sociology Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Based on Durkheim’s texts, the author strives to show that, contrary to some modern interpretations, he was neither an anti-Kantian nor an anti-utilitarian. He constantly criticized both Kant and utilitarianism, but was strongly influenced by both theoretical positions. This influence was both “negative,” as an opposition to these positions, and “positive,” as a sort of their reproduction, continuation and development. Durkheim did not reject Kant’s views and utilitarianism (especially, in its eudemonist version), but relied on them, seeking to realize their theoretical synthesis. The means of such a synthesis was a sociological approach to morality, in which society is treated as an entity that combines duty and good, immanent and transcendent principles in morality. The evolution of Durkheim’s interpretation of the elements, or characteristics of morality, as well as the connection of morality with religion and other social institutions, are considered. The author have analyzed Durkheim’s idea of the autonomy of sacredness in morality, of its irreducibility to the religious sacredness; hence the principal possibility of secular morality. According to Durkheim, morality is of a fundamental importance for society, it underlies all social institutions and social transformations.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.