Search results

Автор рассматривает доверие как одно из самых интересных и в то же время неоднозначных социологических понятий, поскольку оно широко используется и в повседневной коммуникации, и в научном дискурсе как само собой разумеющееся и не требующее специальных разъяснений и ситуативных конкретизаций. Кроме того, социология вряд ли может предъявить претензии на монопольное владение данным понятием исследования доверия междисциплинарны, что порождает разнообразные его концептуальные и операциональные определения, размывающие дисциплинарные границы между теоретическими и эмпирическими исследованиями доверия. В первой части статьи обозначены основные компоненты социологического анализа доверия (причины и последствия социального доверия и недоверия; детерминанты и практические результаты разных «типов» и «уровней» доверия; попытки отличить доверие от иных, близких ему семантически понятий; общепринятые концептуализации доверия; базовые трактовки доверия как способа избегания неопределенности и т. д.). Во второй и третьей частях статьи охарактеризованы цели эмпирического изучения доверия в рамках количественного и качественного подходов. В первом случае, как правило, измеряется уровень социального и политического доверия в ходе масштабных опросов общественного мнения, нередко в сравнительном или мониторинговом формате. В рамках качественного подхода исследователи пытаются понять, что доверие означает для людей, как и почему они выбирают те или иные слова для описания доверия в разных ситуациях. Четвертая часть статьи посвящена повседневному дискурсивному конструированию доверия: автор считает нарративный анализ оптимальным методологическим выбором (при условии контекстуализации его результатов данными количественных и качественных исследований) для обнаружения типичных механизмов дискурсивного конституирования доверия в повседневных практиках и иллюстрирует свое предположение полуформализованными интервью, проведенными в сельских поселениях России. Статью завершают несколько выводов о тех достижениях и проблемах социологического анализа доверия, которые определяют его неоднозначное нынешнее положение в предметном поле нашей дисциплины.The article considers trust as one of the most teasing and vague notions in sociology for it is widely used in both everyday language and scientific discourse as taken for granted and not presuming any special interpretations or situational definitions. In the first section the author identifies key elements of the sociological study of trust (causes and effects; determinants and practical implications of different "types" and "levels" of trust; the prevailing definition of trust as a means of coping with uncertainty, etc.). The second and the third sections consider the empirical study of trust within quantitative and qualitative approaches pointing briefly to their focus of interest, which is social and political trust measured in large-scale surveys, often in the comparative perspective, in the former case; while the latter seeks to understand what trust means for people and why they prefer to speak about trust using specific words in particular situations. The fourth section discusses the discursive construction of trust; the author believes that narrative analysis is a perfect methodological decision (provided there is enough "quantitative" and "qualitative" data to contextualize its findings for correct interpretation) to identify the typological discursive constitution of trust in everyday practices; and illustrates such a potential of narrative analysis on a small example of semi-structured interviews with the Russian rural dwellers. The article ends with a few concluding remarks to summarize key findings and challenges of the trust research for now, which is justly enough considered to be at the crossroads.

The article considers economic successes of the Belgorod region as significantly determined by the governor Yevgeny Savchenko' agrarian policies, which compensate for the region's small size and modest human capital. In 2017, the authors published an article describing economic policies and social programs of regional authorities; now the authors focus on the leadership by Yevgeny Savchenko, and his rather paradoxical personal and management views. First, according to Max Weber's typology of authority, Savchenko is a charismatic leader with strong personality traits and careful political behavior, who benefits from the traditional Slavophile populism and institutional design of the gubernatorial powers that has allowed governors to become more powerful compared to other regional actors during 2002-2012. Second, the Belgorod governor's project has quite traditional Russian roots in the spirit of A.V. Chayanov's novel "My brother Alexey's journey to the land of peasant utopia", which allowed the Belgorod modernization project to successfully cope with unpredictable challenges from the Russian oligarchy and global economy, and to use competitive standards of consumer society as the grounds for conservative modernization and solidary society development. The Belgorod governor implements his own model of new economy consisting of the extensive development of solidarity and cooperation; ideals of healthy lifestyle; and freedom in choosing ways to work and to rest (regional authorities support corporate, family and individual strategies of life). Third, Savchenko has publicly articulated his personal political-economic theory reflecting a conglomerate of conservative, socialist and populist ideas, and combining anti-liberalism and statist philosophy as the basis for the revival of the Russian state, which the governor sees as an engine of social progress. ; Экономические успехи Белгородской области представлены в статье как в значительной степени результат аграрных реформ губернатора Евгения Степановича Савченко, которые компенсируют небольшой размер региона и его скромный человеческий капитал. В 2017 году авторы опубликовали статью, в которой подробно описаны экономические и социальные программы регионального правительства, сейчас акцент сделан на лидерском стиле губернатора и его весьма парадоксальных личных и управленческих взглядах. Во-первых, согласно типологии Макса Вебера, Е.С. Савченко-харизматический лидер с сильным характером и осторожный политик, который успешно использует традиционные идеи славянофильства и нынешний институциональный формат губернаторской власти, предоставляющий губернаторам больше полномочий, чем в 2002-2012 годы. Во-вторых, проекты белгородского губернатора вполне соответствуют духу известной работы А.В. Чаянова «Путешествие моего брата Алексея в страну крестьянской утопии», что позволило области успешно противостоять давлению российских олигархов и глобальной экономики, используя стандарты конкуренции общества потребления как фундамент для консервативной модернизации и солидарного общества. Белгородский губернатор последовательно реализует собственную экономическую модель, сочетающую широкое развитие солидарности и кооперации, идеалы здорового образа жизни и гарантии свободы в выборе способов занятости и отдыха. В-третьих, губернатор публично озвучивает свои политэкономические взгляды, представляющие конгломерат консервативных, социалистических и народнических идей и сочетающие антилиберализм и государственничество как основу возрождения российского государства в качестве двигателя общественного прогресса.

A science-based conversation about the current state of rural areas, prospects for rural human capital and trends in rural differentiation is impossible without the conceptual approaches and futuristic projects of great Russian agrarian scientists. The article presents an attempt of comparing such ideas of two outstanding social thinkers of the early 20th century - Alexander Bogdanov and Alexander Chayanov, focusing on their utopias as representing the essential features (proletarian and peasant) of their social-economic and cultural-ethical views. Bogdanov and Chayanov had extensive encyclopedic knowledge and brilliant organizational skills; they wrote original works on social philosophy and political economy; both were prominent leaders of alternative social-political directions of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, Bogdanov and Chayanov wrote several famous utopias: Bogdanov's utopia develops Marxist ideas of proletarian revolution and construction of socialism not only on earth but also in space; Chayanov's utopia of moderate cooperative socialism defends the new revolutionary significance of the peasantry. The proletarian ideologist Bogdanov was skeptical about the political potential of the peasantry, arguing that opponents of proletarian revolution would use peasant conservatism against socialist revolution. The peasant ideologist Chayanov was skeptical about the creative potential of the working class, predicting that in the coming social revolution it would be used to build authoritarian-bureaucratic socialism. However, both thinkers sought prospects for rural-urban development through the analysis of possible ways of interaction between man and nature. Despite the ignorance of the positive revolutionary potential of the proletariat (Chayanov) and the peasantry (Bogdanov), both thinkers made huge contributions to the theory and practice of the Russian Revolution, and their utopian ideas still inspire the search for a new just, humane and happy world.

The article presents the results of the assessment of Russia's food security in 2020-2021 based on the available statistical data and sociological monitoring of the population's 'food well-being' conducted since 2015 by the Center for Agro-Food Policy of the RANEPA. The authors believe that the pandemic risks for Russian agriculture were limited, and agricultural production ensured a high level of food self-sufficiency. Although the physical access to food remained at the same level, the economic access has deteriorated; however, Russian families managed to keep their usual diet by redirecting the money saved due to the pandemic restrictions to food consumption. Rising food prices have become the most important problem under the crisis, and to solve it, the Russian government has used a wide range of measures - from reducing duties on food imports and temporary bans on food exports to setting marginal retail prices for certain food products. The sociological assessment of the population's 'food well-being' (the all-Russian telephone survey) showed that the families' requirements to the access to food are rather modest due to the huge credit of patience and sustainable practices of adaptation to the objective social-economic restrictions. Given the achieved indicators of Russia's food self-sufficiency according to the Food Security Doctrine, the state should shift its focus from food self-sufficiency (and increasing exports) to the economic access of the population to food.

This year confirmed an ambiguous situation with food security in Russia. On the one hand, the government insists on the achieved sustainable food self-sufficiency/sovereignty: "Russia is self-sufficient in all basic types of food", "the level of food security in Russia is one of the most reliable in the world", "the Eurasian Economic Union has reached a level of self-sufficiency in most food products (grain, vegetable oils, pork, lamb, sugar, eggs)". The Russian leadership admits the "very complex nature" of food sovereignty as depending on climate change, population growth, trade wars, sanctions, and so on. However, the official discourse emphasizes that "we should not be pessimists", "a country striving to be sovereign must provide itself with food", and Russia solves this task so successfully that has become one of the largest food exporters. Therefore, "in 2023, food inflation in Russia will be one of the lowest in the world due to self-sufficiency in basic products" and "systemic measures of anti-crisis support for enterprises and sectors that ensure food security" . Since mid-2020, rising prices on world markets have determined higher prices on domestic markets, and high food inflation affected many countries. In Russia, food inflation is lower compared to other regions (10% vs 19.1% in the EU or 14.9% in the OECD), and the rate of increase in food prices is lower than general inflation, while in other countries food prices became key drivers of accelerating retail prices. The article considers Russia's measures for keeping food prices down and its population's everyday food-consumer practices for keeping usual diet under rising prices. The survey confirmed the persistent inconsistency of Russians' assessment of food practices, which can be explained by the trend to 'normalize' one's life situation in general and in its most essential part (daily diet) in particular.

The article focuses on the theoretical and methodological problems encountered by the Russian scholars of cooperative organizations. The authors identify four basic methodological approaches to the cooperation phenomenon in the Russian academic tradition: (1) socio-reformist (or socio-ideological), (2) descriptive-monographic, and (3) economic-theoretical, with the first two being dominant. After a short discussion of the prospects and limitations of the theoretical studies of cooperatives as business organizations by Russian scholars, some of the distinguishing features of Russian cooperation thought are mentioned. Considering the features of the Russian cooperative thought, the authors found it useful to name the most prominent Russian researchers of cooperation who can be included in the ICA list of the world cooperative heritage. The authors pay special attention to the myth of the first Russian cooperative and the Decembrists as the first Russian cooperators. Unfortunately, this myth was officially recognized and determines the birthday of the cooperative movement in Russia. The article briefly discusses the contribution to cooperative thought made by Antsiferov, Bilimovich, Tugan-Baranovsky, Chayanov, and Totomianz. Special attention is paid to the scientific contribution of Emelianoff, almost unknown in modern Russia, and the fate of his ideas. Finally, the authors emphasize the particular importance of describing the transformations and the most important achievements of the Russian and foreign cooperative thought in the curriculum of the discipline "Theory and practice of cooperation".

Addresses the key interdisciplinary approaches to the study of clothes as well as basic conceptual models of the sociological analysis of dress. The authors believe that in any sociological research, it is not reasonable to use just one approach and argue that a combination of diverse approaches optimised for a specific task matches better. Nevertheless, the semiotic approach offers the most interesting and effective tools for the interpretation of clothes' functions and codes in a changing cultural and historical context.

Addresses gifting flowers as a specific social and cultural ritual. The authors apply Simmel's model to reveal "genuine" nature of different type of ritualised flowers giving both in its traditional, even ancient and actual, newly invented forms. Giving flowers as a ritual has several social functions, among which the consolidative, ideological, innovative, and memorial ones are specially addressed.