Suchergebnisse

On some Actual Aspects of the Interpretation of the Liberal Tradition in Russia
The article examines the key moments of the transformation of liberal tradition in Russia in the context of analysis of the main directions of the transformation of liberal ideological discourse and liberal culture in Western Europe and the United States. The need for such an analysis is primarily determined by the fact that since the early 1990s Western liberal stereotypes have become an ideological basis of the new Russian political elite and the dominant trend in state propaganda. However, the following main fact is often overlooked: in the 20th century,Russian liberalism was compromised twice, so in the short-term the hopes for the revival of the liberal ideas are gone. In the West, the liberal tradition has also been in the state of crisis: Western liberalism has been undergoing a very significant transformation that has far-reaching cultural and political implications. In particular, at the turn of the 21st c., a more active role in Western public discourse was taken by the radical neo-conservative versions of an ideology that combined a conservative program of political reforms with a strong libertarian (neoliberal) rhetoric. This ideology is actively used by the ruling circles of the US and Western Europe to influence ideologically the political elites of Russia – as it happened in Central and Eastern Europe during the so-called "velvet revolutions". At the same time, what increasingly clearly and sharply came to the fore in the late twentieth century is anti-liberal thought and criticism that has always evolved in parallel with liberalism itself and that almost never ceases to exist.

The article seeks to elucidate some controversial problems of the formation of both civic and national selfconsciousness through analysing the politics of identity and citizenship, which has assumed increasing importance in Western and Eastern European countries. Citizenship is considered as a dynamic construct that should be viewed as a 'process' through which specific rights and obligations are exercised. The central task, therefore, is to analyse the evolution of various conceptions of citizenship in the light of historical experience, continuity and change, as well as the process of transformation of the model of political education that has emerged within the framework of the liberal political culture of the 19th century and has continued to exert a great impact on the development of political discourse in the modern world. Special attention is given to the comparative analysis of the models of civic and national identity in the USA, Western and Eastern Europe, including post-communist Russia. The author argues that the conception of identity as well, as the criteria for its defi nition, have become crucial in the discussion of problems of citizenship and political education. The issue remains whether an effective model of political education alone, i.e. without active citizens' involvement and support, can have the potential not only to transform a political culture, but also influence the whole system of both secondary and university education. The final aim of the article is to prove the idea that a new conception of citizenship and political education could, in conditions of a deepening crisis, become the most important link binding civil society and the new content of the political making its way through corporative interests.

The article seeks to elucidate some controversial problems of the formation of both civic and national selfconsciousness through analysing the politics of identity and citizenship, which has assumed increasing importance in Western and Eastern European countries. Citizenship is considered as a dynamic construct that should be viewed as a 'process' through which specific rights and obligations are exercised. The central task, therefore, is to analyse the evolution of various conceptions of citizenship in the light of historical experience, continuity and change, as well as the process of transformation of the model of political education that has emerged within the framework of the liberal political culture of the 19th century and has continued to exert a great impact on the development of political discourse in the modern world. Special attention is given to the comparative analysis of the models of civic and national identity in the USA, Western and Eastern Europe, including post-communist Russia. The author argues that the conception of identity as well, as the criteria for its defi nition, have become crucial in the discussion of problems of citizenship and political education. The issue remains whether an effective model of political education alone, i.e. without active citizens' involvement and support, can have the potential not only to transform a political culture, but also influence the whole system of both secondary and university education. The final aim of the article is to prove the idea that a new conception of citizenship and political education could, in conditions of a deepening crisis, become the most important link binding civil society and the new content of the political making its way through corporative interests.

В статье рассматриваются ключевые моменты трансформации либеральной традиции в России в контексте анализа основных направлений эволюции либерального идеологического дискурса и либеральной культуры в Западной Европе и США. Необходимость такого анализа определяется, прежде всего, тем, что с начала 1990-х годов западные либеральные стереотипы стали идеологической основой для новой российской политической элиты и доминирующей тенденцией государственной пропаганды. Однако часто упускается из виду главный факт: в XX веке российский либерализм был дважды скомпрометирован так, что в краткосрочной перспективе надежд на возрождение либеральных идей практически не остается. Кризис либеральной традиции обозначился и на Западе. Либерализм переживает там очень значительные трансформации, имеющие далеко идущие культурные и политические последствия. В частности, в конце XX – начале XXI вв. более активную роль в западном публичном дискурсе стали играть радикальные неоконсервативные версии идеологии, сочетающие консервативную программу политических реформ с сильной либертарианской (неолиберальной) риторикой, которая активно использовались правящими кругами США и Западной Европы для идеологического влияния на политические элиты как России, так и стран Центральной и Восточной Европы в период так называемых «бархатных революций». Одновременно в конце двадцатого века все яснее и определеннее выходили на передний план антилиберальные идеи и критика, которые всегда развивались параллельно с самим либерализмом и почти никогда не прекращали своего существования.

В статье рассматриваются ключевые моменты трансформации либеральной традиции в России в контексте анализа основных направлений эволюции либерального идеологического дискурса и либеральной культуры в Западной Европе и США. Необходимость такого анализа определяется, прежде всего, тем, что с начала 1990-х годов западные либеральные стереотипы стали идеологической основой для новой российской политической элиты и доминирующей тенденцией государственной пропаганды. Однако часто упускается из виду главный факт: в XX веке российский либерализм был дважды скомпрометирован так, что в краткосрочной перспективе надежд на возрождение либеральных идей практически не остается. Кризис либеральной традиции обозначился и на Западе. Либерализм переживает там очень значительные трансформации, имеющие далеко идущие культурные и политические последствия. В частности, в конце XX – начале XXI вв. более активную роль в западном публичном дискурсе стали играть радикальные неоконсервативные версии идеологии, сочетающие консервативную программу политических реформ с сильной либертарианской (неолиберальной) риторикой, которая активно использовались правящими кругами США и Западной Европы для идеологического влияния на политические элиты как России, так и стран Центральной и Восточной Европы в период так называемых «бархатных революций». Одновременно в конце двадцатого века все яснее и определеннее выходили на передний план антилиберальные идеи и критика, которые всегда развивались параллельно с самим либерализмом и почти никогда не прекращали своего существования. ; W artykule rozpatruje się kluczowe momenty transformacji tradycji liberalnej w Rosji w kontekście analizy głównych kierunków ewolucji liberalnego dyskursu ideologicznego oraz kultury liberalnej w Europie i USA. Konieczność tejże analizy wynika przede wszystkim stąd, iż od początku lat 90-tych XX stulecia zachodnie stereotypy liberalne stały się podstawą ideologiczną dla nowej rosyjskiej elity politycznej oraz dominującą tendencją propagandy państwowej. Zarazem często traci się z pola widzenia główny fakt: w wieku XX liberalizm rosyjski uległ dwukrotnej kompromitacji, toteż nadzieje na odrodzenie idei liberalnych w perspektywie krótkookresowej praktycznie nie istnieją. Kryzys tradycji liberalnej zaznaczył się również na Zachodzie. Liberalizm przeżywa tam głęboko znaczące przemiany, posiadające daleko idące następstwa kulturowe i polityczne. W szczególności, w końcu XX i na początku XXI wieku bardziej aktywną rolę w zachodnim dyskursie publicznym zaczęły odgrywać radykalne, neokonserwatywne wersje ideologii, łączące konserwatywny program reform politycznych z silną retoryką libertariańską (neoliberalną), którą kręgi rządzące USA oraz Europą Zachodnią aktywnie wykorzystywały w celu ideologicznego oddziaływania zarówno na elity polityczne Rosji, jak i państw Europy Centralnej i Wschodniej w okresie tzw. aksamitnych rewolucji. Zarazem w końcówce XX wieku coraz jaśniej i wyraźniej na pierwszy plan wysunęły się idee antyliberalne i krytyka antyliberalna, które zawsze rozwijały się równolegle w stosunku do samego liberalizmu i których istnienie niemal nigdy nie uległo przerwaniu. ; The article examines the key moments of the transformation of the liberal tradition in Russia in the context of analysis of the main directions of the evolution of liberal ideological discourse and liberal culture in Western Europe and the United States. The need for such an analysis is determined, primarily, by the fact that since the early 1990s the Western liberal stereotypes became ideological basis for the new Russian political elite and the dominant trend of state propaganda. However, the main fact is often overlooked: in the XX century Russian liberalism has twice been compromised so that in the short-term the hopes for the revival of the liberal ideas are left. The crisis of the liberal tradition delineated also the West. Liberalism is undergoing there very significant transformation, with far-reaching cultural and political implications. In particular, at the end of XX – beginning of XXI cc. more active role in Western public discourse began to play the radical neo-conservative versions of an ideology that combined conservative program of political reforms with a strong libertarian (neoliberal) rhetoric, which is actively used by the ruling circles of the USA and Western Europe for ideological influence on the political elites of Russia as like as the Central and Eastern Europe during the so-called "velvet revolutions". At the same time in the late twentieth century, more and more clearly and sharply came to the fore anti-liberal thought and criticism that has always evolved in parallel with liberalism itself and almost never stopped its existence.

The article is devoted to actual problems of the theoretical analysis of the revolutionary terrorism of the modern era. The paper considers the specific features of revolutionary terrorism in frames of a comparison of the historical experience of the French and Russian October Revolutions. In the course of a comparative analysis the authors assess critically the results of the interpretation of this experience in the general sociological theories of Michael Mann, Barrington Moore and Immanuel Wallerstein and political philosophy of Neo-Marxism (Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson). The article notes that the majority of explanatory macro-sociological models are limited to the «summing up» of the terrorist policy of the parties and States in the XVIII–XX centuries. The various aspects of the discussion around the very phenomenon of terrorism and the role of the state in its containment or, on the contrary, distribution are affected only indirectly, as the terror itself is reduced to the segment level of macro-processes and structures (more or less significant) that determine the evolution to an industrial and post-industrial type of society. The historical line of continuity between the different stages of the evolution of the political tradition of terror is treated in the macro-models very abstractly and often becomes barely visible. Analytical ideas of the philosophy of modern left-wing radicalism also suggest that the neo-Marxist ideologues in their analysis of modern terrorism are equally committed, in a certain respect, to the abstract philosophical constructs, as well as the scientists oriented to macro-theoretical paradigms of modern sociology and academic Marxism with all their characteristic undoubted advantages and unavoidable aberrations.

В статье анализируются основные направления интерпретации феномена терроризма в современной политической науке и политической философии. В общественном созна- нии терроризм как важнейший фактор современной политики воспринимается, как пра- вило, весьма поверхностно. Многие современные интерпретации терроризма, при всей их кажущейся внешней объективности, на самом деле постоянно воспроизводят трафа- ретную историческую логику, основанную на чисто внешнем восприятии терроризма как подрывных акций индивидов и небольших групп, руководствующихся самыми различ- ными политическими мотивами. Данная тенденция постоянно используется средствами массовой информации, закрепляющими в политической памяти шаблонные образы тер- рористов и тем самым ложное восприятие как истинных целей, которые они преследуют, так и тех реальных корпоративных структур, которые финансируют и направляют их деятельность. Повсеместно возникающие дилеммы в трактовках террористической активности в различных регионах мира связаны с господством в современном полити- ческом дискурсе практик насилия, несвободы и чрезвычайных ситуаций, постоянно под- питывающих риторику «войны с террором». Эти практики сами по себе накладывают ограничения на субъективную свободу суждений, способствуя формированию структур «дисциплинарной власти», основные механизмы которой были в свое время всесторон- не исследованы в политической философии М. Фуко. В статье обосновывается тезис, согласно которому вопреки устойчивым либеральным стереотипам, государственный терроризм следует рассматривать в теоретическом плане в качестве универсальной ос- новы или «матрицы», в то время как все другие формы индивидуального и группового терроризма, независимо от их социальной, классовой или идеологической ориентации, являются производными от данной основы. В статье отмечается, что адекватные научные определения терроризма способствуют разрушению некоторых историософских концеп- ций, которые в последние десятилетия превратились в устойчивые политические мифы ; The article analyzes the main directions of interpretation of the phenomenon of terrorism in modern political science and political philosophy. In the public орinion terrorism as the most important factor of contemporary politics is often perceived very superficially. Many modern interpretations of terrorism, despite their apparent objectivity have consistently produced a sten- cil historical logic, based on purely external perception of terrorism as a subversive activity of individuals and small groups, guided by very different political motives. This trend is constantly reproduced by the media, creating conventional images of terrorists in political memory and thereby false perception of the true objectives they pursue and the real corporate structures that finance and direct their activities. Throughout the emerging dilemmas in the interpretation of terrorist activity in various regions of the world associated with the dominance of practices of violence, the lack of freedom and emergency situations in the modern political discourse. These practices constantly nourish the rhetoric of the "war on terror" imposing restrictions on the freedom of subjective judgments and contributing to the formation of "disciplinary power," the basic mechanisms of which had been once extensively considered in M. Foucault's political philosophy. The article proves the thesis that despite the stable liberal stereotypes, state terrorism should be viewed in theory as a universal matrix while all other forms of individual and group terrorism, regardless of their social, class or ideological orientation, are derived from this base. The paper proves the thesis according to which the adequate scientific definitions of terrorism contribute to the destruction of some historiosophical concepts, which in recent decades have transformed into a stable political myths. ; W artykule poddano analizie podstawowe kierunki interpretacji zjawiska terroryzmu we współczesnej nauce o polityce oraz filozofii politycznej. W świadomości społecznej terroryzm jako jeden z najważniejszych czynników współczesnej polityki traktuje się, na ogół, bardzo powierzchownie. Wiele współczesnych interpretacji terroryzmu, przy całym ich pozornym zewnętrznym obiektywizmie, w rzeczywistości stale odtwarza szablonową logikę historyczną, opartą na czysto zewnętrznym pojmowaniu terroryzmu jako akcji wywrotowych jednostek i niewielkich grup, kierujących się przeróżnymi motywami politycznymi. Dana tendencja stale posługuje się środkami masowej informacji, utrwalającymi w pamięci politycznej szablonowe obrazy terrorystów i tym samym fałszywe pojmowanie zarówno rzeczywistych celów, które starają się oni osiągać, jak i realnych struktur korporacyjnych, które finansują i ukierunkowują ich działalność. Powszechnie występujące dylematy w zakresie interpretacji aktywności terrorystycznej w wielu regionach świata wiążą się z panowaniem we współczesnym dyskursie politycznym praktyk przemocy, braku swobody i sytuacji nadzwyczajnych, stale zasilających retorykę "wojny z terrorem". Praktyki te same z siebie nakładają ograniczenia na subiektywną swobodę opinii, sprzyjając formowaniu struktur "władzy dyscyplinującej", której podstawowe mechanizmy były swego czasu wszechstronnie przebadane w filozofii politycznej M. Foucaulta. W artykule sformułowano tezę, zgodnie z którą, wbrew stabilnym stereotypom liberalnym, terroryzm państwowy należy rozpatrywać w planie teoretycznym w charakterze uniwersalnej zasady lub "matrycy", podczas gdy inne formy terroryzmu indywidualnego i grupowego, nie- zależnie od ich orientacji socjalnej, klasowej lub ideologicznej, jawią się jako wywodzące się z tejże podstawy. W artykule zauważa się, że adekwatne naukowe określenia terroryzmu sprzyjają zburzeniu niektórych koncepcji historiozoficznych, które w ciągu ostatnich dziesięcioleci przekształciły się w stabilne mity polityczne.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, who served in this post from 1913 to 1921, is widely known primarily as great political leader who played one of the main roles in shaping the new, extremely conflictual international order that arose after the first world war. In modern historiography, for example, Wilson's post-war foreign policy, associated with attempts to implement his famous Fourteen Points, the creation of the League of Nations, and many others, is studied in detail. Against the background of the dramatic collisions of post-war world politics, the fact, well known only to "narrow specialists", that Wilson was one of the most influential political scientists, historians and theorists of university education of his time, remains in the shadows. His influence is still constantly felt in modern concepts of reforms in American higher education. The administrative activity of W. Wilson took place at the final stage of the process, the result of which was a radical transformation of higher education in the United States. The stable notion that the main contours of the reforms of university education at Princeton, initiated by W. Wilson, were quite clearly outlined already in his theoretical works, has never been in doubt in the scientific world. At the heart of Wilson's reforms was the idea that the university should be seen as such an exemplary example of a form of community that, even at the very center of modern society, is able to retain its distinctive features. Wilson's ideas and policies in the field of university education continue to actively influence modern theoretical discussions, their "stimulating effect" is direct evidence that they have stood the test of time in their own way, also because they were far from speculative and never lost connections neither with the world historical tradition, nor with the real world of politics.

The article analyzes the results of the latest theoretical discussions in Western political theory, whose participants explore the specific features of the formation of the neoliberal discourse of "post-truth" that destroys the traditions of rational politics and the foundations of the humanistic paradigm of education that emerged during the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. In the modern world, classical humanism contrasts sharply with political realities and ideas prevailing in social discourses, including in the field of social sciences. Nowadays, many intellectuals, politicians and scientists consider it an almost immutable fact that we have all finally transitioned to the world of "post-truth" and "post-humanism". Therefore, we must come to terms with endless streams of lies, manipulations, meaningless propaganda that significantly primitivize the prevailing ideas about democratic norms and institutions and try to develop a conceptual apparatus that reflects the new reality. At the same time, modern concepts of post-truth in many of their aspects develop ideas that arose at the turn of the 1960s-1970s, when the contours of the "postmodern turn" were only outlined in Western political discourse. Moreover, the historical origins of the modern phenomenon of post-humanism go back to counter-revolutionary ideology and philosophical controversy with the legacy of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, which was initiated at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries in the works of the "founding fathers" of modern conservatism - Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. After World War II, an intellectual assault on humanism became one of the hallmarks of French structuralism and subsequent more radical post-structuralist doctrines. The article substantiates in detail the thesis that today the topic of discourse claims to be a kind of "hegemon", often dictating to the participants in discussions the nature and direction of the argumentation. Scientists' disputes on various aspects of political dominance, political communication and education are no exception in this regard. In the process of dispersing this trend, it became obvious that a necessary prerequisite for analyzing the language of politics is an understanding of the specifics of its various levels - from "high" political theory to personal, subjective characteristics.