НЕродительство в России: Добровольная бездетность в (био)политическом контексте
The textbook is designed to give a holistic view of modern Russia; on the state, prospects for the development of its political system, political system, economy and culture; about the place of Russia in the system of international relations; The problems facing the country, alternatives and scenarios for their solution; discussions about the present and future of Russia. For Russian and foreign students, social scientists and specialists engaged in pressing problems of modern Russia.
In Putin's third term, official rhetoric has become a normative, moralizing discourse promotng Russian tradtional values as opposed to the "moral decay" of the West. This "biopolitical turn" in Russian politics -- a redefining of the boundaries of the Russian political community and extension of state sovereignty into private lives -- is part of the authortarian drift of the Russian political regime.
The end of socialism in the Soviet Union and its satellite states ushered in a new era of choice. Yet the idea that people are really free to live as they choose turns out to be problematic. Personal choice is limited by a range of factors such as a person’s economic situation, class, age, government policies and social expectations, especially regarding gender roles. Furthermore, the notion of free choice is a crucial feature of capitalist ideology, and can be manipulated in the interests of the market. This edited collection explores the complexity of choice in Russia and Ukraine. The contributors explore how the new choices available to people after the collapse of the Soviet Union have interacted with and influenced gender identities and gender, and how choice has become one of the driving forces of class-formation in countries which were, in the Soviet era, supposedly classless.
The book will of interest to students and scholars across a range of subjects including gender and sexualities studies, history, sociology and political science.
This article combines Media Studies' and Fan Studies' approaches to such phenomenon as global manga spread, highlighing the role of participatory cultures and fan communities in the distribution, translation and interpretation of manga in Russia. The first part of the article is dedicated to participatory cultures as a concept and cultural reality in Russia, to differences between such notions as "otaku" (manga and anime fans), fan practices, fan cultures and participatory cultures. The article stresses the productive transformative potential of participatory cultures as cultural agents, their ability to cross national and cultural borders on their own terms and to influence the development of global phenomena within local contexts, even when national cultural industries, including the mass market, are not capable for some reasons to fulfil this task properly. The second part of the article is dedicated to the international reception of a controversial manga and anime title "Made in Abyss". This case demonstrates the ability of participatory cultures to become a space for open discussions of problematic questions, for production of knowledge and thinking about Japan as well as about local cultures.
Autonomism is a relatively new post-Marxist school, which is still developing fruitfully, providing us with critical account of the modern society. Although autonomists ground on Marxist «axiomatics», they are quite successful in elaboration of their own social theory and terminology. In my article I demonstrate the major concepts, coined by autonomists, which became later the basis for autonomists’ theory, and explain the connection between these notions and significant social phenomena of the contemporary epoch, as well as with the traditional categories of social and political philosophy. Introducing these concepts, autonomists not only set some conventional glossary, but also join the dispute with notable social and political philosophers of the past such as Thomas Hobbes, thus showing historicity of these thinkers’ philosophical views as well and with the help of such deep comparisons, clarifying the key aspects of modernity.
The author presents a review of “In the Shadow of Regulation: Informality in the Russian Labor Market” edited by V. Gimpelson and R. Kapeliushnikov (HSE Publishing House, 2014). This book is designed as a collection of texts devoted to various aspects of informal employment in the Russian labor market. The book review attempts to explore whether informal employment can be treated as a result of imperfections in the formal employment system or a special sector that helps to overcome those shortcomings. To answer this question, the author turns to basic definitions in order to understand who can be described as "informally employed". Different approaches to defining informality are given. Then, based on empirical results, it’s demonstrated that the position of "informally employed" сan be better as well as worse, compared to "formal employment". The lack of social guarantees can be considered the most evident shortcoming of being informally employed, while saving money due to the absence of taxation can be seen as a key advantage. There are though countries with both higher and lower incomes among the informally employed in world markets. Turning to Russian realities one should pay attention to the heterogeneity of informal employment: in general, informally employed workers have lower incomes, but some groups, such as freelancers, earn more money. The self-estimation of informally employed people does not prove the idea of informal employment as a problem to the employed themselves as they do not assess their status as lower than being formally employed. Taking into account the variety of aspects of informality, it’s hard to assess it either positively or negatively, but it’s rather evident that the struggle against informality itself would be erroneous while the best way to reduce the informal sector is to correct the formal sector to make it more attractive.
The paper explores symbolic determinants of the political passivity commonly attributed to the majority of Russians. In spite of the high level of the discontent, the majority of Russians does not participate in formal mechanisms of public activity. These discontent citizens do not join political parties or civic organizations and do not even vote for opposition parties. The empirical base of the research is in-depth interviews with a sample of discontents. I define the sample according to attributes identified by the Levada Center in their national research: low levels of social trust, high level of paternalism, and low level of income. I argue that combination of these features generates a particular interpretation of political reality rooted in three discursive limitations of the political participation: the devaluation of the other, which prevents collective actions; an overlapping understanding of state and public, which undermines any types of public activity and a misunderstanding of democracy (democracy is an empty signifier in terms of Laclau).