Suchergebnisse

Актуальность темы исследования в настоящее время определяется тем фактом, что электронное пространство, по большей части, является повторением реальной политики, что свидетельствует о том, что интернет-технологии глубоко укоренились в политической жизни общества. Целью данной работы было выяснение особенностей информационных технологий (ИТ) и их места в современном политическом процессе на примере Казахстана. Доказано, что Интернет является жизненно важной частью любого общества, особенно демократического, где он выполняет функции социальных, экономических и политических институтов. В этой статье приводится обоснование важности информационных технологий в политической жизни общества. Особое внимание уделяется усилению их влияния при принятии важных политических решений. В данном исследовании также приведены примеры использования информационных технологий в современных политических процессах. Детальный анализ теоретических концепций, их интерпретация применительно к Казахстану, детальное изучение моделей медиаполитики открывает возможности и перспективы для новых научных исследований процессов трансформации и модернизации информационных технологий в политическом процессе.

If the beginning of the 21st century, with its rapid changes, somewhat led into deep confusion of the world in general and the country in particular, then the arisen is unknown from where Covid 19 and the so-called digitalization are already testing the strength of the human community once again and even more with tough manifestations. Target attitudes, formed over decades, are shifted in the criteria. Living preferences, built priorities, prevailing moral but ethical standards. Of course, the forms of social consciousness, among which economic science, if you use a generalizing term is crucial. And the history of countries with their various characteristics confirms this, as well as the fact that science itself is not represented is a set of dogmas or once and for all frozen truths. Economic science, reflecting, to one degree or another, the cyclically developing economic world, also changes its object, subject, methodological approaches, tools analysis.

The article attempts to provide a definition for the problem area of the philosophy of politics, political philosophy and political science. Given the lack of a well-established distinction between the subjects of these sciences in the Russian-language discourse, the author turns to the English-language tradition. The analysis of this discourse shows the following: 1) the absence of a distinction between political philosophy and the philosophy of politics, which is replaced by political ontology as part of political philosophy; 2) the existence of a distinction between political theory and political philosophy; 3) the dependence of the paradigm of the relationship between political theory and political philosophy on the consensus developed in the national intellectual tradition. In the English-language discourse, the question of the relationship between political science and political philosophy comes to the fore. The latter is considered as a subordinate, integral part of political science. It is shown that, based on the criterion of "insufficient scientificity", attempts to exclude political philosophy from the political science do not stop. The article substantiates the position according to which, despite their apparent similarity, the subjects of political science and political philosophy do not coincide – the disciplinary ontology of political science can become the subject of political philosophy. When discussing the relationship between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy, the article presents several hypotheses. First, a distinction is made between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy and the author argues that they are distinct. Secondly, the position, according to which the philosophy of politics belongs to the field of philosophy, and political philosophy to political science, is critically examined, and the fact that the two disciplines belong to the philosophical corpus of knowledge is substantiated. Thirdly, it is proposed to demarcate between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy in accordance with the difference between their subjects. The subject of philosophy of politics is the phenomenon of the political, while the subject of political philosophy is political phenomena.

The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.

The article is devoted to analysis of new Marxism as a key methodological
trends of political science research. Historical events of the last century and the
ensuing updated the creative legacy of Marx and contributed to its reconsideration,
which was the enrichment of political science, development of methodology in its area
schools and trends, developing ideas known German scientist.

The article deals with the methodological problems of transformation processes in political science in the late XIX-th-early XX centuries and in the period between the two world wars. The author reveals the causes and origins of the crisis phenomena in political science due to the new political realities in the world and new trends in the political science development. The process of modern political science formation is analyzed in its gradual development (formal-legal, traditional, behavioral and post-behavioral). The special role of the Chicago revolution in political science, which created the environment and the ground for the emergence of the "behavioral" revolution, is revealed. The main program provisions of the "behavioral" revolution are indicated, its results, the main vectors of political science development in the post-behavioral era are revealed.The role of structural functionalism (G. Almond and his school) in the formation of modern political science is revealed. The article deals with the interaction of political science with related social disciplines, which led to the emergence of some hybrid disciplines of political knowledge, including political sociology and political management. The content of the hybridization concept is revealed. The role of sociology in this process as the "main donor" of political science in the considered era is revealed. Object-subject areas of political sociology and political management, their place and role in the mechanism of socio-political systems functioning in the subject field of political science are defined. Generalizing conclusions are made. ; В статье рассматриваются методологические проблемы трансформационных процессов в политической науке в конце XIX — начале ХХ столетий и в период между двумя мировыми войнами. Раскрываются причины и истоки зарождения кризисных явлений в политической науке, обусловленные новыми политическими реалиями, сложившимися в мире, и новыми тенденциями в развитии самой политической науки. Процесс становления современной политической науки анализируется в ее поэтапном развитии (формально-правовом, традиционном, поведенческом и пост-поведенческом). Раскрыта особая роль "чикагской революции" в политологии, создавшей среду и почву для возникновения "поведенческой" революции. Обозначены основные программные положения "поведенческой" революции, выявлены ее результаты, основные векторы развития политической науки в пост-поведенческую эпоху.Раскрыта роль структурного функционализма (Г. Алмонд и его школа) в формировании современной политической науки. Рассматривается взаимодействие политической науки со смежными социальными дисциплинами, приведшее к появлению целого ряда гибридных дисциплин политического знания, в том числе политической социологии и политического менеджмента. Раскрыто содержание понятия "гибридизация". Выявлена роль социологии в этом процессе как "главного донора" политической науки в рассматриваемую эпоху. Определены объектно-предметные области политической социологии и политического менеджмента, их место и роль в механизме функционирования социально-политических систем, в предметном поле политической науки. Сделаны обобщающие выводы.

The article is devoted to a very interesting methodological paradigm, which has
its own history and the high importance in a number of Social Sciences - Institutional,
which is influenced by social changes and needs in their understanding was further
developed in the form of appearance of new institutional paradigm, actively used in
modern political science knowledge.