Suchergebnisse

The Problem of Divided Ethnonational Groups in Contemporary Russia and PolandBoth Russia and Poland – to varying degrees – tend to maintain ties with "compatriots" living abroad, but these two groups are distinct in their essence. Poles living outside Poland can be rather qualified as part/parts of a divided people, whereas Russian-backed compatriots form a divided nation, and moreover, form not a divided nation of the Russian Federation, but a post-Soviet one.The Government of the Russian Federation used to claim maintaining ties with "Russian compatriots" living abroad. The theme of the rights of Russians living abroad is among the most popular ones in Russian media. The groups of Russian-speaking people who live in the former Soviet republics have often been subjects or objects of conflict situations in the last 20 years because of their desire to live in accordance with their identity. But the essence of this group of so-called Russians, living in the post-Soviet space, is very complex. Russian-backed compatriots form not a divided people – in an ethnic sense – but a divided nation (a cultural or historical, non-ethnic group). And moreover, such groups form not a divided nation of Russian Federation, but a post-Soviet divided nation. Problem podzielonych grup etniczno-narodowych we współczesnej Rosji i PolsceZarówno Rosja jak i Polska dążą, choć w niejednakowym stopniu, do zachowania więzi z rodakami zamieszkałymi poza granicami kraju, jednakże te dwie zbiorowości de facto są zupełnie od siebie odmienne. Polaków żyjących za granicą można zaliczyć do tej części ludności polskiej, którą określamy mianem Polonii, podczas gdy zamieszkali poza krajem Rosjanie stanowią podzielony naród i, co więcej, tworzą nie tyle diasporę narodową Federacji Rosyjskiej, ile postsowiecką.Rząd Federacji Rosyjskiej utrzymuje, że zależy mu na zachowaniu więzi z Rosjanami mieszkającymi za granicą. Temat praw Rosjan z zagranicy jest jedną z najbardziej popularnych pośród podejmowanych przez rosyjskie media kwestii. Rosyjskojęzyczna ludność żyjąca w byłych republikach Związku Sowieckiego była często w minionych 20 latach przedmiotem i podmiotem sytuacji konfliktowych spowodowanych tym, że wykazywała wolę, aby żyć w zgodzie ze swą tożsamością. Jednak z samej swej istoty charakter tej grupy ludzi, w Rosji nazywanych Russkie, zamieszkujących w przestrzeni postsowieckiej, jest nad wyraz skomplikowany i złożony. Osoby mające rosyjskie korzenie tworzą "naród podzielony" nie w sensie etnicznym, ale w znaczeniu nieetnicznej grupy kulturowej bądź historycznej stanowiącej narodową diasporę, którą należałoby uznać za postsowiecką.

The Problem of Divided Ethnonational Groups in Contemporary Russia and PolandBoth Russia and Poland – to varying degrees – tend to maintain ties with "compatriots" living abroad, but these two groups are distinct in their essence. Poles living outside Poland can be rather qualified as part/parts of a divided people, whereas Russian-backed compatriots form a divided nation, and moreover, form not a divided nation of the Russian Federation, but a post-Soviet one.The Government of the Russian Federation used to claim maintaining ties with "Russian compatriots" living abroad. The theme of the rights of Russians living abroad is among the most popular ones in Russian media. The groups of Russian-speaking people who live in the former Soviet republics have often been subjects or objects of conflict situations in the last 20 years because of their desire to live in accordance with their identity. But the essence of this group of so-called Russians, living in the post-Soviet space, is very complex. Russian-backed compatriots form not a divided people – in an ethnic sense – but a divided nation (a cultural or historical, non-ethnic group). And moreover, such groups form not a divided nation of Russian Federation, but a post-Soviet divided nation. Problem podzielonych grup etniczno-narodowych we współczesnej Rosji i PolsceZarówno Rosja jak i Polska dążą, choć w niejednakowym stopniu, do zachowania więzi z rodakami zamieszkałymi poza granicami kraju, jednakże te dwie zbiorowości de facto są zupełnie od siebie odmienne. Polaków żyjących za granicą można zaliczyć do tej części ludności polskiej, którą określamy mianem Polonii, podczas gdy zamieszkali poza krajem Rosjanie stanowią podzielony naród i, co więcej, tworzą nie tyle diasporę narodową Federacji Rosyjskiej, ile postsowiecką.Rząd Federacji Rosyjskiej utrzymuje, że zależy mu na zachowaniu więzi z Rosjanami mieszkającymi za granicą. Temat praw Rosjan z zagranicy jest jedną z najbardziej popularnych pośród podejmowanych przez rosyjskie media kwestii. Rosyjskojęzyczna ludność żyjąca w byłych republikach Związku Sowieckiego była często w minionych 20 latach przedmiotem i podmiotem sytuacji konfliktowych spowodowanych tym, że wykazywała wolę, aby żyć w zgodzie ze swą tożsamością. Jednak z samej swej istoty charakter tej grupy ludzi, w Rosji nazywanych Russkie, zamieszkujących w przestrzeni postsowieckiej, jest nad wyraz skomplikowany i złożony. Osoby mające rosyjskie korzenie tworzą "naród podzielony" nie w sensie etnicznym, ale w znaczeniu nieetnicznej grupy kulturowej bądź historycznej stanowiącej narodową diasporę, którą należałoby uznać za postsowiecką.

Analyzing the data of the long-term sociological research, the author analyses the influence of the current socio-political circumstances on the perception of historical periods and personalities by the Russia's citizens. The author argues that despite citizens sympathize with some historical and socio-political achievements and attributes of the post-Soviet society, the Soviet period of the state's history provides the main components of the national myth to many persons in Russia. Even the most popular present-day attributes of the national greatness, such as military successes and the annexation of Crimea, significantly concede to the achievements of the Soviet era. As it is noted under the influence of shortage of relevant examples of civil consolidation, Russians are attracted by nostalgia for the period of soviet economic stability, social order and solidarity. In the absence of a critical historical assessment and under the influence of both foreign political isolation and a fall of the living standard, many citizens used to look for the foundations of a civil community in the Soviet past, idealizing and mythologizing it.

The article investigates the problem of the universally significant meaning of communi­cative messages. This framework problem implies answering more specific questions — is there a reality (correlative to the meaning of judgments) that would guarantee the universali­ty of the meanings of linguistic expressions; is there a reality behind moralizing or judgments of taste that ensures agreement on value judgments if they become the content of communica­tion. What provides the typical identity of mental states (thoughts, perceptions, representa­tions, sensations) in different individuals, when these states are thematized in communica­tion? Is there a typical correlation behind them in reality, which ensures the identity of men­tal states? The article posits that propositional attitudes act as "carriers" or frameworks of typical communicative environments, indirect contexts in which propositional content are localized as the main — intralingual — evolutionary mechanism that stabilizes key commu­nicative meanings. Indirect contexts produced in the language or the operators "I know that...", "I hope that...", "I remember that...", "I want that…", "I imagine that..." protect sentences from negation and make it possible to reproduce universally significant meanings.

The author studies the reception of A. von Humboldt of the humanitarian prob­lems of his time. In his works Humboldt articulated many ideas of the just social order and even of multiculturalism. But despite great interest towards the natural science of the regions he visited, the researcher avoided public judgments about social problems of these states' residents. A. Humboldt criticized many actual so­cial problems: aggressive cultural assimilation, colonialism, slavery, social in­equality etc., but avoided public demands of social transformations in the re­gions he visited. He either could reject any violent social transformations or looking for loyalty of the state's authorities, that financed and organized his ex­peditions. A. Humboldt, the opponent of slavery, never once spoke critically about slavery in a personal conversation or correspondence with T. Jefferson. During his journey across Russia, the scientist was extremely careful in his judg­ments about the Russian bondmen. The inconsistency of the Humboldt's per­sonal liberal position and his humanitarian blindness to socio-political problems illustrates the problem of the relationship between people of authority and people of knowledge, that was announce by F. Znanetsky. Humboldt who was primarily such a lay counselor just focused on his own academic research thar was his main priority.

Addressing the works of V.V. Petukhov, dedicated to the study of public opinion dynamics, including on issues of political self-determination, the author examines the impact of changes in the socio-economic and political situation on the preferences of Russians. In current sociological data, the author finds confirmation of the ideas of V.V. Petukhov about consistent attempts at ideological self-determination of Russians, despite the constant impact on society of crisis events of various origins, social turbulence and limited opportunities for political representation. Although the request of Russian society in the 1990s for democratic reforms was replaced in the 2000s by skepticism about the applicability of Western models of development, key democratic principles remained socially significant: the lifting of the ban on public criticism of senior officials, the expansion of publicity and freedom of speech, the elimination of censorship, the democratisation of elections, etc. The focus of many Russians on private problems by the time of election campaigns in 2019-2021 was replaced by a growing interest in political participation and ideological self-determination, and in 2021 about a third of citizens could clearly define their own ideological and political views. If the limited possibilities of party-political representation in the 2000–2010s stimulated public demand for ideological self-determination, then the categories of identity circulating in the official discourse gave many people a reason to think about their meanings, and even change their own ideas. This happened with the category "Russian", the content of which has become clearer over the past few years, and the subtle components of identity have lost popularity. The idea that Russians are all those who honestly work for the benefit of Russia has ceased to be popular. The proportion of those who agree with the most popular logic of interpreting Russian identity, that suggests that a Russian is one who grew up and was brought up in the traditions of Russian culture, has slightly decreased, while the popularity of defining Russian identity through the native Russian language, Russian origin and self-determination after 2014 increased. It is possible that the search for meaningful attributes of Russian identity, coinciding in the view of many with Russian civil identity, along with support for the ideas of national diversity, is an attempt by Russian society to "assemble" a new social consensus and search for the foundations of a new national mythology.

Applying to the sociological data, the author examines the Russians' perception of the family memory as a source of historical knowledge and proves that the memory about relatives and friends who have become participants and witnesses of the state's key events seriously "feeds" the emotional citizens' attitude towards symbols of the state identity and national pride. The actuality of the article is determinated by the global development of digital communication that seriously influences on the interest towards the reconstruction of family history and allows persons today to lift the veil of secrecy over the history of many families. Contemporary internet resources give wide opportunities for many modernized citizens to receive objective historical knowledge about their families. The purpose of this article is to study the specifics of the preservation and reproduction of family memory by the Russia's citizens. In order to achieve this goal the author implement some research tasks. The author study as the place of the family memory among a number of various historical sources as the demand for family historical knowledge that the persons from different socio-demographic groups has. The special attention is paid to the study of the social media mechanisms that are using in order to reconstruct and reproduce the family memory.

The problem of the "experimenter's regress" is widely discussed in the modern philosophy of science [Collins 1985]. However, it allows generalization and can be presented as a theoretical-cognitive paradox, as a philosophical-linguistic problem of reference and as a problem of philosophy of consciousness. The reli­ability of the functioning of "reality detectors" of any kind (devices, sensual abilities, theories, language statements or mental acts) is confirmed empiri­cally if they discover new objects and adequately describe their characteristics (in the format of measurement data, sensual qualities, scientific facts, referents of words and concepts). The properties of the observed reality discovered with their help, obviously, act as a rational criterion for the choice of observational in­struments or "reality detectors". But after all, the criterion of rational selection (evaluation, recognition) of the results of observation from the array of all re­ceived data is the application of the best (more powerful, effective, reliable, and receptive) detectors of reality. This paradox of self-referral is also applicable to researchers themselves: the reputation of a scientist acts as a criterion for the se­lection of his research results (including acceptance of his publications in leading editions, etc.), and the research results obtained obviously determine his reputa­tion. Based on the systemic-communicative approach, the authors argue that sci­entific rationality does not contradict, but is based on the self-referential charac­ter of scientific communication.

Analyzing the spread of information technologies on social consolidation the author pays special attention to the study of the Russian situation when the wide spreading of the new media does not result into intensive political consolidation. The author notes that Internet and social networks have an undeniable potential for social influence because of intensive social interaction of numerous stakeholders. At the same time, the nominal potential of social networks as a mechanism of political communication and consolidation is low today. Wide online access does not lead to an increase of the interest to politics or social activity, awareness or subjectivity. The themes of Internet communication is extremely diverse and, most importantly, is rarely focused on a practical result or a long-term plan of socio-political reform of public policy.