Suchergebnisse

The paper identifies specifics transition of military identity in the context of alternation theories of P. Berger and T. Lukman, habitus of P. Bourdieu, «the homecomer» of A. Schütz, and «cultural shock» of K. Oberg and B. Bergman. In the context of the theory of P. Berger and T. Lukman, it is necessary to distinguish between two modes of military identity – a weak form (correlated with partial secondary socialization in the army field) and a strong form (correlated with the alternation, which is accompanied by distancing from the past). In the context of Bourdieu's theory, the transition of military identity is correlated with the concept of habitus. The militant habitus can enter into a collision with the civil soci- ocultural context during the transition of a serviceman from the army to the civilian field. The contradic- tion between two habitus, which for a long time was formed in the military and civil sociocultural fields, can have a hysteresis (delay in adapting to social changes) by its effect. In the context of the theory of «cultural shock» K. Oberg and B. Bergman, the transition of military identity is correlated with the state of social anxiety and disorientation of an individual in the situation of sudden immersion in an unknown military cultural context in which the previous socio-cultural experience is no longer applicable. In the context of the concept of «the homecomer» of A. Schütz, the problem of the disparity of relevance systems actual in army and civil fields is analyzed, which can lead to a retardation of the reintegration process. It is concluded that the success of social rehabilitation of veterans largely depends on their ability to transform military identity and transpose it into a civilian context. ; В статье выявлена специфика транзитов милитарной идентичности в контексте теорий альтернации П. Бергера и Т. Лукмана, габитуса П. Бурдье, «возвращающегося домой» А. Шютца и «культурного шока» К. Оберга и Б. Бергмана. Сделан вывод, что успешность социальной реадаптации ветеранов в значительной степени зависит от их умения транспонировать милитарную идентичность в гражданский контекст. ; У статті виявлено специфіку транзитів мілітарної ідентичності в контексті теорій альтернації П. Бергера і Т. Лукмана, габітуса П. Бурдьє, «того, хто повертається додому» А. Шютца і «культурного шоку» К. Оберга і Б. Бергмана. Зроблено висновок, що успішність соціальної реадаптації ветеранів значно залежить від уміння транспонувати мілітарну ідентичність у цивільний контекст.

Перспективи розвитку соціології насильства лежать в площині її тісної взаємодії з іншими теоріями середнього рівня. Наразі характерним є асиметричність такого методологічного зв'язку: соціологія насильства частіше й активніше використовує досягнення суміжних соціологічних напрямів, які співвідносяться з нею. Однак така потреба в них має диференційований характер, і це зумовлено як логікою наукового знання, так і соціальним запитом, адресованим сучасним «суспільством ризику». ; In the formation context of the sociology of violence, it is argued some asymmetries of its methodo- logical connections with other theories of the middle range character. It is currently characterized with the sociology of violence more often and more actively using the achievements of adjacent sociological trends.Adequate analysis of the interaction of those middle range theories of is possible while comparing the theories that have comparable (on a scale, etc.) subjects of research. Sociology of violence has its object of studying a certain social phenomenon – accordingly, methodologically correct will be a comparison with similar theories, having the subject of their study of comparable social phenomena. This does not mean that this theory is not related to theories that study community and group - but those dependencies already require additional defragment of the sociology of violence itself.On the one hand, those to be social psychology, criminal and political sociology; on the other one – the sociologies of family, education, youth, etc. But if the sociology of violence actively uses the achievements of these and other similar sociological trends, then in the theories of the middle range there is an obvious lack of attention to the achievements of the sociology of violence itself.Prospects for the development for sociology of violence to be in the spheres of its close interactions with other middle range theories. But, as it is obviously seen, those connections to be far from being always understood by researchers, as far as its principles are not quite clear, that reduces the effectiveness of scientific results. Sociology of violence develops, using the achievements of those middle range theories correlating with it, although the need for them is someway differentiated, and this is due both to the logics of scientific knowledge and to the social request addressed by the sociology of violence.

Перспективи розвитку соціології насильства лежать в площині її тісної взаємодії з іншими теоріями середнього рівня. Наразі характерним є асиметричність такого методологічного зв'язку: соціологія насильства частіше й активніше використовує досягнення суміжних соціологічних напрямів, які співвідносяться з нею. Однак така потреба в них має диференційований характер, і це зумовлено як логікою наукового знання, так і соціальним запитом, адресованим сучасним «суспільством ризику». ; In the formation context of the sociology of violence, it is argued some asymmetries of its methodo- logical connections with other theories of the middle range character. It is currently characterized with the sociology of violence more often and more actively using the achievements of adjacent sociological trends.Adequate analysis of the interaction of those middle range theories of is possible while comparing the theories that have comparable (on a scale, etc.) subjects of research. Sociology of violence has its object of studying a certain social phenomenon – accordingly, methodologically correct will be a comparison with similar theories, having the subject of their study of comparable social phenomena. This does not mean that this theory is not related to theories that study community and group - but those dependencies already require additional defragment of the sociology of violence itself.On the one hand, those to be social psychology, criminal and political sociology; on the other one – the sociologies of family, education, youth, etc. But if the sociology of violence actively uses the achievements of these and other similar sociological trends, then in the theories of the middle range there is an obvious lack of attention to the achievements of the sociology of violence itself.Prospects for the development for sociology of violence to be in the spheres of its close interactions with other middle range theories. But, as it is obviously seen, those connections to be far from being always understood by researchers, as far as its principles are not quite clear, that reduces the effectiveness of scientific results. Sociology of violence develops, using the achievements of those middle range theories correlating with it, although the need for them is someway differentiated, and this is due both to the logics of scientific knowledge and to the social request addressed by the sociology of violence.

Problem setting. Today political sociology requires not only critical but also structural analysis of politics, creation of corresponding theoretical and methodological tool, one of major constituents of that there are research and prognostication of political relations and processes.Recent research and publications analysis. Actually political sociology as scientific direction was formed to the к middle of ХХ of century, when a few scientific schools consisted of study of cooperation of society and politics. Louis Althusser became the classics of political sociology works of followers of marxism and representatives of Frankfort school of А. Gramsci, D. Lukács, and laid the foundation of its institualization as science. The deeper sociological analysis of political relations is contained in researches by R. Dahrendorf, M. Horkheimer, H. Marcuse, Т. Adorno, J. Habermas, І. Wallerstein, P. Bourdieu. Therefore, the рaper objective was creation of theoretical model of sociological analysis of political relations.Paper main body. Social relations are considered as such, that related to the necessity of general satisfaction of various social necessities, that, in obedience to the law of increase of necessities, is basis of development of society and providing of his integrity. Thus, a social sphere is a place cooperation of people, social behavior of that determines integrity of society. Political relations are related to the necessity of imperious settlement of social relations for the sake of their optimization in the process of achievement of general aims. Accordingly, political sphere - it the place of rivalry of people and task forces for a right to realize own interests by means of power. The functional component of the political system, that includes methods, methods, directions of development of political relations, is the political mode. As a worker there was select determination of prof. J.-L. Quermonne. He determined the political regime, as ". aggregate of elements of ideological, institutional and sociological order, that assist forming of political power of this country on a certain period". Our choice is base on that description of the political mode in any state determines the actual picture of principles of organization of political sphere of society.On the basis of content-analysis of publications of 10 Ukrainian electronic MASS-MEDIA and 8 official internet-portals of state and non-state organizations in 2018 the vector model of political relations that determine the political regime in modern Ukraine is worked out.The analysis carried out in the article allowed to reach the following conclusions of the research. Political relations form the core of any social system, regulate and counterbalance the centripetal and centrifugal forces that ensure its integrity and sustainable development. The research of these relations exclusively by political scientists artificially narrows the problem. Sociological analysis allows to reveal their static and dynamic characteristics, because on the basis of research of political situations (social statics) determines political plots and predicts political changes (social dynamics). The combination of static and dynamic analysis principles can be compared with the process of creating video. Each individual character characterizes a certain socio-political situation, the main actors and the nature and conditions of their interaction, and the sequence of such personnel forms a complete systemic understanding of the "plot", the dynamics and basic parameters of socio-political processes and relations in society. ; В статье проводится анализ социальной природы политических отношений. Отмечается, что рост интереса современных социологов к политической проблематике обусловлен интенсивным развитием аналитической социологии, в рамках которой предлагается авторская векторная модель социологического анализа политических отношений. Теоретическое обоснование представленной модели проводится на основе учения о социальном пространстве П. Сорокина, социальном прагматизме Ю. Хабермаса, социальных неравенствах Т. Парсонса и политических режимах Ж.-Л. Кермонна. Показано, что именно социологический анализ политических отношений позволяет раскрыть их статические и динамические характеристики, прогнозировать структуру и направления политических изменений. ; В статті проводиться аналіз соціальної природи політичних відносин. Зазначається, що зростання інтересу сучасних соціологів до політичної проблематики зумовлене інтенсивним розвитком аналітичної соціології, в межах якої пропонується авторська векторна модель соціологічного аналізу політичних відносин. Теоретичне обгрунтування представленої моделі проводиться на основі учення про соціальний простір П. Сорокіна, соціальний прагматизм Ю. Габермаса, соціальні нерівності Т. Парсонса та політичні режими Ж.-Л. Кермонна. Доводиться, що саме соціологічний аналіз політичних відносин дозволяє розкрити їхні статичні і динамічні характеристики, прогнозувати політичні зміни.

Problem setting. Today political sociology requires not only critical but also structural analysis of politics, creation of corresponding theoretical and methodological tool, one of major constituents of that there are research and prognostication of political relations and processes.Recent research and publications analysis. Actually political sociology as scientific direction was formed to the к middle of ХХ of century, when a few scientific schools consisted of study of cooperation of society and politics. Louis Althusser became the classics of political sociology works of followers of marxism and representatives of Frankfort school of А. Gramsci, D. Lukács, and laid the foundation of its institualization as science. The deeper sociological analysis of political relations is contained in researches by R. Dahrendorf, M. Horkheimer, H. Marcuse, Т. Adorno, J. Habermas, І. Wallerstein, P. Bourdieu. Therefore, the рaper objective was creation of theoretical model of sociological analysis of political relations.Paper main body. Social relations are considered as such, that related to the necessity of general satisfaction of various social necessities, that, in obedience to the law of increase of necessities, is basis of development of society and providing of his integrity. Thus, a social sphere is a place cooperation of people, social behavior of that determines integrity of society. Political relations are related to the necessity of imperious settlement of social relations for the sake of their optimization in the process of achievement of general aims. Accordingly, political sphere - it the place of rivalry of people and task forces for a right to realize own interests by means of power. The functional component of the political system, that includes methods, methods, directions of development of political relations, is the political mode. As a worker there was select determination of prof. J.-L. Quermonne. He determined the political regime, as ". aggregate of elements of ideological, institutional and sociological order, that assist forming of political power of this country on a certain period". Our choice is base on that description of the political mode in any state determines the actual picture of principles of organization of political sphere of society.On the basis of content-analysis of publications of 10 Ukrainian electronic MASS-MEDIA and 8 official internet-portals of state and non-state organizations in 2018 the vector model of political relations that determine the political regime in modern Ukraine is worked out.The analysis carried out in the article allowed to reach the following conclusions of the research. Political relations form the core of any social system, regulate and counterbalance the centripetal and centrifugal forces that ensure its integrity and sustainable development. The research of these relations exclusively by political scientists artificially narrows the problem. Sociological analysis allows to reveal their static and dynamic characteristics, because on the basis of research of political situations (social statics) determines political plots and predicts political changes (social dynamics). The combination of static and dynamic analysis principles can be compared with the process of creating video. Each individual character characterizes a certain socio-political situation, the main actors and the nature and conditions of their interaction, and the sequence of such personnel forms a complete systemic understanding of the "plot", the dynamics and basic parameters of socio-political processes and relations in society. ; В статье проводится анализ социальной природы политических отношений. Отмечается, что рост интереса современных социологов к политической проблематике обусловлен интенсивным развитием аналитической социологии, в рамках которой предлагается авторская векторная модель социологического анализа политических отношений. Теоретическое обоснование представленной модели проводится на основе учения о социальном пространстве П. Сорокина, социальном прагматизме Ю. Хабермаса, социальных неравенствах Т. Парсонса и политических режимах Ж.-Л. Кермонна. Показано, что именно социологический анализ политических отношений позволяет раскрыть их статические и динамические характеристики, прогнозировать структуру и направления политических изменений. ; В статті проводиться аналіз соціальної природи політичних відносин. Зазначається, що зростання інтересу сучасних соціологів до політичної проблематики зумовлене інтенсивним розвитком аналітичної соціології, в межах якої пропонується авторська векторна модель соціологічного аналізу політичних відносин. Теоретичне обгрунтування представленої моделі проводиться на основі учення про соціальний простір П. Сорокіна, соціальний прагматизм Ю. Габермаса, соціальні нерівності Т. Парсонса та політичні режими Ж.-Л. Кермонна. Доводиться, що саме соціологічний аналіз політичних відносин дозволяє розкрити їхні статичні і динамічні характеристики, прогнозувати політичні зміни.

Problem setting. Humanity entered the era of globalization, which is characterized by a number of factors - national economies have melded into a single global system where the capital can easily move, new information opportunities have made the world more open, the technological revolution has led to a qualitative change in the means of production and consumption, the planetary scientific revolution has become a reality; developed industrial countries are striving to liberalization of the movement of goods and capital, the world is moving closer together on the basis of modern means of communication; new international social movements, new modes of transport, new telecommunication technologies are being implemented, education is being internationalized. However, all these innovations have not made the issue of war less burning. World society has faced the trend of increasing wars and armed conflicts in the world over the past decades and in the total number of killed and injured have grown as a result of hostilities.Recent research and publications analysis. Numerous works written on the target topic indicate that the issues of war as a specific phenomenon in the life of human society have always been and remain in the focus of attention of thinkers, scientists, researchers of the past and the present time. In particular, the thorough analysis of the essence, content, forms of war, its features and laws have been carried out in the works written by V. F. Hegel, F. Engels, C. von Clausewitz, B. Liddel-Hart, N. Machiavelli, V. Mandragel, H. von Moltke, C. Moscos, J. Friedman, F. Fukuyama, S. Huntington, R. Aron, K. Hajiyev, M. Gareev, V. Slipchenko, V. Smolyanyuk, E. Toffler, M. Trebin, I. Panarin, V. Serebryannikov and so on.Paper objective. The goal of this paper is to specify the historical background of the formation of modern sociology of war.Paper main body. The article deals with the views on the war in a historical perspective, focuses on the methodological grounds of the armed confrontation, which started after the Second World War when the most developed countries developed a powerful military-industrial complex dominating in politics and economics. Potential opponents sought to overtake each other, to shift the developed military-strategic parity pursuing own benefit. They begin to develop nuclear missile weapons, which radically changed the concept of war over a short time. Due to the increase in the power of nuclear weapons, the leading authorities in the world military sphere and subsequently the military-political leaders of the countries-members of the nuclear club gradually started to understand that one of the long-term tasks is to contain the use of nuclear weapons by the enemy.The article emphasizes that the late 1950s - early 1960s are characterized by a significant increase in attention to the theoretical problems of war and peace. This is due to the creation of the military-political blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Since then many publications have appeared which focus the primacy of politics over the military sphere. Military theorists understand that the outbreak of war to solve political goals could lead to irreversible consequences. At the end of the 20th century with the beginning of globalization, many concepts arose to search for the causes of wars. The confrontation of the West with the rest of the world in the face of growing multi-polarity can become a cause of war and conflict at the beginning of the third millennium.The article also highlights the concept of mutiny war, which is seen as a new form of armed conflict, in which the future wars would be waged by small terrorist cells and special forces, gaining influence by subversion and organised revolutions rather than through traditional warfare.Conclusions of the research. Numerous theoretical and practical issues related to determining the laws of war, its essence and features as well as to transforming the goals, scope, nature and means of armed struggle and the importance of the human factor for the consequences of hostilities for a particular country and humanity as a whole should be considered on the basis of recognizing the fact that the phenomenon of war is eternal, inevitable and unavoidable. The views and concepts that were formed in the second half of the 20th century have not rejected and condemned armed violence but also approved and legitimized it, adapted to the needs of foreign policy and even have rationalized it. Political and military leaders have sought to make people consider the war in all its forms and violence as a common phenomenon that states and people can tolerate in their relations. The probability of using armed violence in the system of the modern world order can easily become a reality. ; В статье осуществлена попытка определения исторических предпосылок современной социологии войны, раскрываются особенности взглядов исследователей второй половины XX века на сущность и роль войны как явление допустимое в отношениях между народами и государствами. Дается обзор ряда концепций относительно определения причин войн в конце ХХ века. ; У статті робиться спроба пошуку історичних передумов сучасної соціології війни, визначаються особливості поглядів до слідників другої половини XX ст. на сутність та роль війни як явище, допустиме у відносинах між народами і державами. Надається огляд низки концепцій щодо пошуку причинності війн наприкінці ХХ ст.

Problem setting. Humanity entered the era of globalization, which is characterized by a number of factors - national economies have melded into a single global system where the capital can easily move, new information opportunities have made the world more open, the technological revolution has led to a qualitative change in the means of production and consumption, the planetary scientific revolution has become a reality; developed industrial countries are striving to liberalization of the movement of goods and capital, the world is moving closer together on the basis of modern means of communication; new international social movements, new modes of transport, new telecommunication technologies are being implemented, education is being internationalized. However, all these innovations have not made the issue of war less burning. World society has faced the trend of increasing wars and armed conflicts in the world over the past decades and in the total number of killed and injured have grown as a result of hostilities.Recent research and publications analysis. Numerous works written on the target topic indicate that the issues of war as a specific phenomenon in the life of human society have always been and remain in the focus of attention of thinkers, scientists, researchers of the past and the present time. In particular, the thorough analysis of the essence, content, forms of war, its features and laws have been carried out in the works written by V. F. Hegel, F. Engels, C. von Clausewitz, B. Liddel-Hart, N. Machiavelli, V. Mandragel, H. von Moltke, C. Moscos, J. Friedman, F. Fukuyama, S. Huntington, R. Aron, K. Hajiyev, M. Gareev, V. Slipchenko, V. Smolyanyuk, E. Toffler, M. Trebin, I. Panarin, V. Serebryannikov and so on.Paper objective. The goal of this paper is to specify the historical background of the formation of modern sociology of war.Paper main body. The article deals with the views on the war in a historical perspective, focuses on the methodological grounds of the armed confrontation, which started after the Second World War when the most developed countries developed a powerful military-industrial complex dominating in politics and economics. Potential opponents sought to overtake each other, to shift the developed military-strategic parity pursuing own benefit. They begin to develop nuclear missile weapons, which radically changed the concept of war over a short time. Due to the increase in the power of nuclear weapons, the leading authorities in the world military sphere and subsequently the military-political leaders of the countries-members of the nuclear club gradually started to understand that one of the long-term tasks is to contain the use of nuclear weapons by the enemy.The article emphasizes that the late 1950s - early 1960s are characterized by a significant increase in attention to the theoretical problems of war and peace. This is due to the creation of the military-political blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Since then many publications have appeared which focus the primacy of politics over the military sphere. Military theorists understand that the outbreak of war to solve political goals could lead to irreversible consequences. At the end of the 20th century with the beginning of globalization, many concepts arose to search for the causes of wars. The confrontation of the West with the rest of the world in the face of growing multi-polarity can become a cause of war and conflict at the beginning of the third millennium.The article also highlights the concept of mutiny war, which is seen as a new form of armed conflict, in which the future wars would be waged by small terrorist cells and special forces, gaining influence by subversion and organised revolutions rather than through traditional warfare.Conclusions of the research. Numerous theoretical and practical issues related to determining the laws of war, its essence and features as well as to transforming the goals, scope, nature and means of armed struggle and the importance of the human factor for the consequences of hostilities for a particular country and humanity as a whole should be considered on the basis of recognizing the fact that the phenomenon of war is eternal, inevitable and unavoidable. The views and concepts that were formed in the second half of the 20th century have not rejected and condemned armed violence but also approved and legitimized it, adapted to the needs of foreign policy and even have rationalized it. Political and military leaders have sought to make people consider the war in all its forms and violence as a common phenomenon that states and people can tolerate in their relations. The probability of using armed violence in the system of the modern world order can easily become a reality. ; В статье осуществлена попытка определения исторических предпосылок современной социологии войны, раскрываются особенности взглядов исследователей второй половины XX века на сущность и роль войны как явление допустимое в отношениях между народами и государствами. Дается обзор ряда концепций относительно определения причин войн в конце ХХ века. ; У статті робиться спроба пошуку історичних передумов сучасної соціології війни, визначаються особливості поглядів до слідників другої половини XX ст. на сутність та роль війни як явище, допустиме у відносинах між народами і державами. Надається огляд низки концепцій щодо пошуку причинності війн наприкінці ХХ ст.

The article reveals the heuristic potential of the sociological concept of social activity developed by the founder of the Kharkov Sociological School E. A. Yakuba in the 1960- 1980s. Based on historical and sociological material and conceptual analysis, the author demonstrates the potential of this concept from the sociology of knowledge perspective. He analyzes a number of related categories and problems that are introduced by E. A. Yakuba to discuss the problems of social activity. It is emphasized that the elected by E. A. Yakuba position allows to study and measure social activity in detail (that is, answer the question "how?"), However, it is the sociology of knowledge that gives a chance to study the sociogenesis and ontogenesis of social activity (that is, answer the question "why?"). The definition, systemic connections and methods of operationalization and indication of social activity proposed by E. A. Yakuba are given and analyzed. A separate emphasis is placed on the analysis of how the category of "social activity" is associated with the category of "subjectivity". The most important plot is the connection of the social essence of activity, that is, its inclusion in the sociality of the individual as a connection with the social whole. The evolution of the views of E. A. Yakuba on these categories, as well as their relationship with social maturity, activity, personality, is investigated. The possibilities of the sociology of knowledge in synthesizing various aspects of E. A. Yakuba approach are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the consistency of E. A. Yakuba's theory, and also the limitations and specifics of the (often implicit) influence of Marxism on its development have been studied. The conclusion about the possibilities and limitations of updating the concept of "social activity" in a sociological-knowledge reassembling of E. A. Yakuba's theory is formulated.

The paper analyzes the characteristics of a global culture that seeks to complex interlocking "associated processes: economic, cultural, technological, political, environmentally. A fundamental theme is the concept of "global culture" that could be used to sense the presence of globalization in culture, life, etc, but does not set a single, integrated, standardized culture, which replaced the national culture.Keywords: globalization, global culture, glokalizatsiya, multiculture, Western culture. ; У статті проведено аналіз особливостей глобальної культури, яка спрямована на низку взаємопов'язаних процесів: економічних, культурних, технологічних, політичних, інвайроментальних. Центральним є поняття "глобальна культура", яку може вживатися у розумінні наявності процесів глобалізації у сферах культури, дозвілля, побуту тощо, але не у розумінні встановлення єдиної, інтегрованої, стандартної культури, що заміщує національні культури.Ключові слова: глобалізація, глобальна культура, глокалізація, мультикультур-ність, Західна культура.

General social contexts of the conflict-centered transformations of the modern world order are evaluated and conceived first and foremost in terms and categories of "hybrid warfare". Their most significant subjects and objects, principles and structures, norms and institutions, rules and manifestations undergo significant changes. This applies in particular to practically the entire spectrum of political and social subjects and/or socio-political actors in relevant social processes, both at the macro and micro levels. In practice, this is manifested in the blurring and intertwining, the diversity of combinations of their respective social roles and derived socio-legal statuses. These features are, first of all, articulated on fundamentally specific social group as "prisoners of war" and related to it ("hostages", etc.). Such "mutations" are primarily derived from the "external" socially-meaningful context of a complex and largely ambiguous situation related to the historical-genetic nature of such dynamic situations as the Donbas conflict, operationalized primarily in the categories "Anti-terrorist operation" (ATO), "Joint Forces Operations" (JFO). One of the most important socially significant consequences of this to be some indirect polarization of the respective social groups (which is a complex structured mix of elements of their "victimization" / "stigmatization" and/or "heroization" / "idealization"), and above all "prisoners of war" / "hostages" in public opinion and media discourses. ; У загальних суспільних контекстах конфлікто-центрових трансформацій сучасного світоустрою, оцінюваних і осмислюваних передусім у термінах та категоріях «гібридної війни», суттєвих змін зазнають їх значущі суб'єкти й об'єкти, принципи та структури, норми й інститути, правила та прояви. Це, зокрема, стосується практично всього спектра політико-соціальних суб'єктів, соціально-політичних акторів та/або соціальних учасників відповідних суспільних процесів – причому як на макро- так і на мікрорівнях. Практично це проявляється в розмиваннях та переплетіннях, урізноманітненнях комбінацій їхніх відповідних соціальних ролей та похідних соціально-правових статусів. Ці особливості передусім артикулюються щодо такої принципово специфічної соціальної групи, як «військовополонені», та суміжних із нею («заручники» тощо). Такі «мутації» передусім є похідними від «зовнішнього» соціально осмислюваного контексту складної та багато в чому неоднозначної ситуації, пов'язаної з історико-генетичними сутностями таких динамічних ситуацій, як конфлікт на Донбасі, операціоналізований передусім у категоріях антитерористичної операції (АТО) та операції Об'єднаних сил (ООС). Одним із важливих соціально значущих наслідків цього є опосередкована поляризація відповідних соціальних груп, яка являє собою складноструктуровану суміш елементів їх «віктимізації» / «стигматизації» та «героїзації »/ «ідеалізації»), а передусім «військовополонених» / «заручників» у суспільній думці та медіадискурсі.

General social contexts of the conflict-centered transformations of the modern world order are evaluated and conceived first and foremost in terms and categories of "hybrid warfare". Their most significant subjects and objects, principles and structures, norms and institutions, rules and manifestations undergo significant changes. This applies in particular to practically the entire spectrum of political and social subjects and/or socio-political actors in relevant social processes, both at the macro and micro levels. In practice, this is manifested in the blurring and intertwining, the diversity of combinations of their respective social roles and derived socio-legal statuses. These features are, first of all, articulated on fundamentally specific social group as "prisoners of war" and related to it ("hostages", etc.). Such "mutations" are primarily derived from the "external" socially-meaningful context of a complex and largely ambiguous situation related to the historical-genetic nature of such dynamic situations as the Donbas conflict, operationalized primarily in the categories "Anti-terrorist operation" (ATO), "Joint Forces Operations" (JFO). One of the most important socially significant consequences of this to be some indirect polarization of the respective social groups (which is a complex structured mix of elements of their "victimization" / "stigmatization" and/or "heroization" / "idealization"), and above all "prisoners of war" / "hostages" in public opinion and media discourses. ; У загальних суспільних контекстах конфлікто-центрових трансформацій сучасного світоустрою, оцінюваних і осмислюваних передусім у термінах та категоріях «гібридної війни», суттєвих змін зазнають їх значущі суб'єкти й об'єкти, принципи та структури, норми й інститути, правила та прояви. Це, зокрема, стосується практично всього спектра політико-соціальних суб'єктів, соціально-політичних акторів та/або соціальних учасників відповідних суспільних процесів – причому як на макро- так і на мікрорівнях. Практично це проявляється в розмиваннях та переплетіннях, урізноманітненнях комбінацій їхніх відповідних соціальних ролей та похідних соціально-правових статусів. Ці особливості передусім артикулюються щодо такої принципово специфічної соціальної групи, як «військовополонені», та суміжних із нею («заручники» тощо). Такі «мутації» передусім є похідними від «зовнішнього» соціально осмислюваного контексту складної та багато в чому неоднозначної ситуації, пов'язаної з історико-генетичними сутностями таких динамічних ситуацій, як конфлікт на Донбасі, операціоналізований передусім у категоріях антитерористичної операції (АТО) та операції Об'єднаних сил (ООС). Одним із важливих соціально значущих наслідків цього є опосередкована поляризація відповідних соціальних груп, яка являє собою складноструктуровану суміш елементів їх «віктимізації» / «стигматизації» та «героїзації »/ «ідеалізації»), а передусім «військовополонених» / «заручників» у суспільній думці та медіадискурсі.

24 Haziran 2018'de gerçekleşen seçimler, 16 Nisan 2017 referandumunda kabul edilen Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sisteminin hayata geçmesini sağlaması ve seçmenin oy verme davranışını etkileyecek pek çok yeni düzenleme içermesi dolayısıyla siyasi tarihimizin en önemli seçimlerinden biri olarak değerlendirilebilir. Seçimlerde, AK Parti ve MHP'den oluşan Cumhur ittifakı, Erdoğan'ı yeni sistemin ilk Cumhurbaşkanı seçtirmeyi ve yeni sistemi etkili işletmek üzere Meclis çoğunluğunu elde etmeyi hedeflerken, CHP, İYİ Parti ve SP'den oluşan Millet ittifakı ve HDP, Erdoğan'ı Cumhurbaşkanı seçtirmemeyi veya Meclis çoğunluğunu sağlayarak Cumhurbaşkanını Meclis üzerinden dengelemeyi hedefliyordu. Seçimler, Erdoğan'ın ilk turda Cumhurbaşkanı seçilmesi ve Cumhur ittifakının Meclis çoğunluğunu elde etmesiyle sonuçlandı. Bu çerçevede, yeni sisteme öncülük eden Cumhur ittifakı, sistemi hayata geçirme imkanı da yakalamış oldu. Bu makalede, seçimlerin siyasi bağlamını ortaya koymak üzere, 2007 Cumhurbaşkanlığı krizinden 24 Haziran seçimlerine kadar geçen sürede siyasetin geçirdiği kritik süreçleri ve bu süreçlerin siyasal sistem değişikliği üzerindeki etkileri tartışıldıktan sonra, seçimlerin kısa ve orta vadeli siyasi ve toplumsal sonuçlarına değinilecektir. ; The general and presidential elections of 24 June 2018 in Turkey were one of the most important elections in the modern history of the country in many ways. First of all, the elections were based on a series of new regulations that would shape the voters' attitudes. Also, the elections were a systemic prerequisite for the newly established presidential system to take effect, which had a national approval through 16 April 2017 referendum. The elections were also distinguished with the rare alliances it contained. The People's Alliance (Cumhur İttifakı) consisted in Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) and Bahçeli's Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), and worked to bring Erdoğan to the office, to embrace and run the new system effectively. On the opposite side there were a coalition and a single party, the coalition naming itself Nation's Alliance (Millet İttifakı) and consisting in an alliance of Republican People's Party (CHP), Good Party (İYİ Parti) and Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi); while the People's Democratic Party (HDP) ran by itself. They came together to either oust Erdoğan in the running for president or at least gain the majority in the parliament to force a systemic balance over Erdoğan through the parliament. In this article, I will first elaborate on the critical political developments observed between what is known as the "2007 Presidential Crisis" and 24 June 2014 elections, along with their impact upon the changes in political system. Then, I will put forward some arguments on the possible political and social consequences of the 2018 elections in the short, medium and the long run.

The article presents the main characteristics of the military identity, examines theoretical approaches to the study of the problem of military/post-military transition. Military identity is the result of the social identification of the actor with the army/military groups due to the internalization of values and norms adopted in the army/military field. The peculiarities of two military transition – transition from civilian life to the military field (after mobilization or voluntary membership in the armed forces) and transition from military to civilian field (after demobilization or dismissal for health reasons) are revealed. If the first transition involves the formation of a military identity, then the second transition is correlated with the phenomenon of postmilitary identity. If high levels of military identity can interfere with social reintegration during the second transition (transition from military to civilian life), then in the case of the first transition (transition from civil life to army life), they can contribute to the successful adaptation of the recruit for life in the army. The post-army period of social reintegration of veterans can be complicated by the contrast between the way of life of the military (with its culture of obedience, discipline, command spirit) and civilians (who value independence, personal autonomy and self-determination). As a result, there may be a conflict between the military and civil identities of the social actor, negatively affecting his/her social existence. ; В статье представлены основные признаки милитарной идентичности, рассмотрены теоретические подходы к изучению проблемы милитарного/постмилитарного транзита. Милитарная идентичность определяется как результат социальной идентификации актора с армией/военными группами вследствие интернализации ценностей и норм, принятых в армейском/милитарном поле. Выявлены особенности двух милитарных транзитов – транзита из гражданской жизни в армейское поле (после мобилизации или добровольного вступления в ряды вооруженных сил) и транзита из армии в гражданское поле (после демобилизации или увольнения по состоянию здоровья). Подчеркнуто, что первый транзит предполагает формирование милитарной идентичности, второй соотносится с феноменом постмилитарной идентичности. Отмечено, что высокий уровень милитарной идентичности может, с одной стороны, препятствовать социальной реадаптации в период второй транзиции (перехода от армейской к гражданской жизни), с другой – способствовать успешному приспособлению призывника к жизни в армии в случае первой транзиции (перехода от гражданской жизни к армейской). Акцентировано на том, что постармейский период социальной реадаптации актора может быть осложнен контрастом между образом жизни военных (с его культурой послушания, дисциплинированности, командного духа) и гражданских лиц (ценящих независимость, личностную автономию и самоопределение), что может привести к конфликту между милитарной и гражданской идентичностями социального актора, негативно повлиять на его социальное существование. ; У статті представлені основні показники мілітарної ідентичності, розглянуті теоретичні підходи до вивчення проблеми мілітарного/постмілітарного транзиту. Мілітарну ідентичність визначено як результат соціальної ідентифікації актора з армією/військовими групами внаслідок інтерналізації цінностей і норм, прийнятих в армійському/мілітарному полі. Виявлені особливості двох мілітарних транзитів – транзиту з цивільного життя в армійське поле (після мобілізації або добровільного вступу до лав збройних сил) і транзиту з армії в цивільне поле (після демобілізації або звільнення за станом здоров'я). Підкреслено, що перший транзит передбачає формування мілітарної ідентичності, другий співвідноситься з феноменом постмілітарної ідентичності. Зазначено, що високий рівень мілітарної ідентичності може, з одного боку, перешкоджати соціальній реадаптації в період другої транзиції (переходу від армійського до цивільного життя), з іншого – сприяти успішному пристосуванню призовника до життя в армії в разі першої транзиції (переходу від цивільного життя до армійського). Акцентовано, що постармійський період соціальної реадаптації актора може бути ускладнений контрастом між способом життя військових (з його культурою слухняності, дисциплінованості, командного духу) і цивільних осіб (які цінують незалежність, особистісну автономію і самовизначення), що може призвести до конфлікту між мілітарною і громадянською ідентичностями актора, негативно вплинути на його соціальне буття.

The destructive effects of neoliberal policies encouraged many researchers to turn to his ideological predecessor developmentalism, which is based on the active role of the state in the economy. Therefore, in the present conditions of sharp debate "developmentalism versus neo-liberalism" determining the origin and intellectual genesis of the developmentalism becomes very actual.The intellectual genealogy of the developmentalism is inextricably linked with the relevant social and political practices. The subject of sociological analysis should be both experience of the United Kingdom and Netherlands, where the economy combined free market principles and practices of the developmentalism and experience of the Bismarck Germany and the Meiji Japan, where the government was the major initiator of the development.The intellectual genealogy of the developmentalism is complicated. One of the earliest representatives of the developmentalism in sociology became the american politician Alexander Hamilton. Other early author of the developmental theory was german sociologist and economist Friedrich List, who combined the economical practices of the developmentalism and the ideology of nationalism. Another prominent defender of state economic regulation was american sociologist and economist Henry Charles Carey.With the death of Carrie in 1879, we can talk about the end of the classical ideology of developmentalism. A new wave of interest in the state regulation of the economy - for many complex ways - appeared much later, in 1930-s, when the policy of social Keynesianism, named "The New Deal", helped the U.S. government to get out of the Great Depression. After the Second World War Keynesian economics had been a standard policy for all the states of the West (as President R. Nixon said, "We are all Keynesians now"). ; Стаття висвітлює інтелектуальну ґенезу девелопментілізму як політичної ідеології та економічної практики.