Парадоксы экспрессии счастья, психологическое благополучие и культура
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.
This collection includes materials presented for discussion during three theoretical and practical conferences held at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 2013 through 2015 and published in Russian under common title of the Vietnam Studies in Russia. The papers in this title were selected among those submitted by Russian scholars only and published in issues 4 through 6 of the Vietnam Studies. It aims at acquainting foreign readers and researchers with current state of and case studies on Vietnam in Russia. The authors of presented topics are fulltime employees in major research centers of Russia, such as academic institutions, first of all the Centre for Vietnam and ASEAN studies, IFES RAS, and university centers in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Vladivostok. The collection consists of six subject sections covering the main areas of research and touching upon various realms of Vietnam's internal and foreign policies, social and cultural processes in that country. Part one includes papers discussing the current trends in relations between Russia / USSR and Vietnam. Part two analyzes political situation in Vietnam and its challenges in the region. Part three looks at Vietnam's socio-economic development under the impact of renovation reforms and market economy building. Part four highlights different episodes of Vietnam's history, and Part five represents studies in cultural area. Part six consists of topics on Vietnamese linguistics and literature. The original papers in this collection rely on a wide range of sources and documents, and reflect their authors' own findings. The authors' views do not necessarily represent those of the collection compilers. This collection is the second of its kind in the Russian Federation and is intended for distribution abroad. Volume One was edited by IFES RAS and published by Forum Publishing House in 2014.
The political process is a constant interaction between the power and opposition. The political process is a constant clash between the formal and informal, between direct speech and metaphors. Power always makes sense only if there is resistance. The power resistance is balanced in favor of its dialectical opposition. Practice protests are taking place at all political regimes, but not always the possibility of resistance are similar. In some political systems interlocutor on government and realization of the right to revolt are an essential political and moral principle. In other cases, in dictatorships, the right to revolt conquered by a hard struggle, not always being efficient and not always getting massive. The author shows how, depending on the cultural traditions of the images may vary resistance. Indeed, the figure of the rebellious person differently perceived in the political landscape. The discourse of resistance can be filled by individual practitioners of dissent, as well as robust tradition of protest. Relations between the power and rebellious man shows and interpreted by the author in a variety of subjects belonging to different cultures. From the point of view of the author, in the practices of rebellious man in his quest for freedom and demonstrate their own position, you can find both special and general, is equally emphasizes the integrity of the political process.