Suchergebnisse

The research focuses on the phenomenon of formation and subsequent transformation of the social institution of science and the corporate unity of academia in the regional aspect in relation to the eastern regions of Russia during Stalin's era. The most important principle of the study was the adaptation to the goals of the historic and scientific analysis of the basic concept of social mobilization, which includes such backbone elements as doctrinal imperatives, state priorities, campaign nature, centralized and administrative-distributive mechanism of resource allocation for scientific research, control over scientific teams and groups of scholars that combined incentives and preferences with obligation and compulsion.
It has been established that Stalin's era featured two divergent trends that influenced the transformation of the domestic social institution of science: the first resulted in the possibilities of self-development of science as a system of knowledge, and the second acted as a derivative of priorities and needs of government institutions for the scientific and technical support of  strategic projects. In the 1930s, a mechanism of coordination of intra-scientific and state interests and needs was formed and consolidated on the basis of embedding and development of mobilization practices in scientific activity (the formation and reinforcement of hierarchy, directivity, norms and practices of conflict consolidation, motivational mechanisms of academic work, etc.).

The author analyzes A History of Russia: A World-Systems Analysis, a textbook by B. Yu. Kagarliczkij and V. N. Sergeev. It is noted that in their interpretation of Russian history, the authors of the book rely on academician Mikhail Pokrovsky's concept that prevailed in Soviet historiography until the 1930s. The textbook recognizes all the principles of the concept including the constitutive role of commercial capital in the historical processes of the country. Referring to the pattern put forward by M. N. Pokrovsky, the authors consider the main processes of Russian history, such as the introduction of serfdom, Peter I's reforms, and the modernization of the country in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. However, the world-systems analysis used by the authors is quite often merely declarative and is not substantiated by factual material. Nor does the book take into account the geopolitical context of the establishment and development of the Saint Petersburg empire; additionally, it ignores the problem connected with the preservation and consolidation of the state's independence, and the military-defense factor. The description of the Soviet period is even more schematic as it quite often overlooks the influence of intersystem factors. ; Анализируется учебное пособие Б. Ю. Кагарлицкого и В. Н. Сергеева «История России: Миросистемный анализ». Отмечается, что в своей интерпретации отечественной истории авторы руководствуются концепцией академика Михаила Покровского, которая господствовала в советской историографии до середины 1930-х гг. В книге признаются все основные постулаты этой концепции, включая определяющую роль торгового капитала в отечественном историческом процессе. В соответствии со схемой М. Н. Покровского в учебном пособии рассматриваются такие важнейшие процессы российской истории, как утверждение крепостного права, реформы Петра Великого, модернизация страны во второй половине XIX – начале XX в. Однако применяемая авторами методология «миросистемного анализа» нередко носит декларативный характер, не подкрепляется соответствующим фактическим материалом. В книге недостаточно учитывается геополитический контекст в процессе становления и развития Петербургской империи, игнорируются проблема сохранения и укрепления государственной независимости, военно-оборонительный фактор. Еще более схематический характер, зачастую без учета действия внутрисистемных факторов, носит изложение событий советского периода.