Articles

The review is devoted to the publication in Russian of the monograph by Roger Scruton (Sir Roger Vernon Scruton FBA FRSL), a polemical argumentation against several famous thinkers that became cult figures for contemporary intellectuals on the left of the political spectrum. The purpose of the English philosopher is to ‘protect’ the society that is commonly called “capitalist” from the destructive impact of their ideas. By and large, for Scruton the “capitalist” represents an analogue of Western civilisation, its traditional political, cultural, and social values. In his book, the English philosopher analyses the ideas of a wide range of thinkers belonging to different schools of thought. The criticism of Eric Hobsbawm and Edward Thompson, two figures that laid the foundations for the movement of the ‘new left’ in Great Britain, represents a paradigmatic example of his approach and methods. Although Scruton does not belong to the category of ‘heavyweight’ academicians used to take part in such polemics (as, for example, Raymond Aron), his work nonetheless preserves a certain intellectual value, supported by a fair amount of journalistic enthusiasm.

The article overviews the biography, scientific path and the legacy of the doctor of psychological sciences, professor, founder of the first Department of Political Psychology in Russia, Aleksandr Ivanovich Yuriev (1942–2020). The usual life path of a Soviet teenager: school — vocational school — factory — military service — factory, were accompanied by A.I. Yuriev’s reflections on his personal experience and inspiring encounters with unique people who became his mentors. All his life, professor A.I. Yuriev kept a good memory and gratitude to his teachers: academician B.G. Ananiev, professor A.A. Krylov, professor V.A. Hansen. Their scientific work became the basis on which professor A.I. Yuriev created his own scientific school of political psychology. The theoretical and methodological foundation of the Russian political psychology was supplemented by an intense and successful scientific and practical work in the most difficult political period of the 1990s. This experience allowed him and other members of the department to become full-fledged members of the ISPP (International Society of Political Psychology) and take part in a series of ISPP conferences. From the establishment of the Department of Political Psychology at St. Petersburg State University in 1989 to the last conference held by Professor A.I. Yuriev in 2019 have past 30 years. In this short period of time according to the standards of history, a unique scientific school of political psychology was created and it’s now characterized by a solid experience in scientific and practical work, with former graduate students successfully working in political disciplines and with a consolidated programme for future scientific research.

The article provides the analysis of the results of a qualitative study of the perception of regional political leaders in the context of crisis in 2020. The study is based on the materials of a research project conducted by the Political Sociology and Psychology Programme of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The research methodology includes in-depth interviews and ‘fixed associations’ methods, allowing the authors to focus on the influence of an objective factor (political context) on the process of political perception. The empirical part of the work, supporting the suggested theoretical model, is based on three case-studies, namely citizens’ perception of the Moscow Mayor, the President of Bashkortostan Republic and the Governor of Krasnodar. The study shows that a society in the process of overcoming a socio-political crisis, has specific and particular requirements concerning the professional and personal characteristics of regional political leaders. Non-compliance with these requirements directly affects not only the level of electoral support for Russian regional leaders, but also increases the general protest potential.

The article analyses the much-discussed idea over the past few years of “de-oligarchization” of Russian politics and economy. Starting from the analysis of how the concepts of “oligarch” and “equidistance [of the oligarchs] from power” are articulated in the Russian public sphere, the article investigates what institutional or rhetorical changes affected the transformation of the public opinion when comparing the perception of politics in the 1990s with the following period of time. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the socio-economic transformation that have taken place within Russia and the concurrent discursive shift, including the notion of “rethinking” the Russian political reality, repeatedly stressed by various speakers. The article argues that the methodologically effective neo-corporatist paradigm of interaction between government and business remains a relevant analytical framework to investigate and describe contemporary relations between public authorities and powerful businessmen.

The article offers an analysis of the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation implemented in 2020. The author comes to the conclusion that due to the shortcomings of the 1993 Constitution — adopted in the context of a political crisis — its revision was unavoidable. In the new socio-political realities of the 2010s–2020s, the Russian authorities decided, for the first time, to establish a channel of communication with the society, which forced them to rely on the procedure of popular vote on the amendments and support of the notion of “unconditional sovereignty” as a goal of the constitutional changes. Having received this popular approval, the political regime of Vladimir Putin, representing a compromise between transnational and national elites, announced a new stage of state-building. The main task of this process is indeed the gradual repudiation of the external influence that developed in the 1990s. Consequently, the value of sovereignty and its various types becomes the main reference point of the Russian state policy. Will the opportunity become a reality? The answer to this question largely depends on the future socio-economic track undertaken by the Russian authorities.

The article analyses problems of identification and analysis of latent mechanisms of state policy in conditions of expanding public sphere as a product of contemporary tendencies of openness and accountability. State policy-making and policy-implementation as elements of the broader process of decision-making that requires specific approaches to collecting, processing and disseminating information, are challenged by growing demands from the civil society for a more public and open responsiveness of state authorities. This expanding public debate, however, is increasingly instrumentalized by political actors to achieve their own latent goals, not always in line with national interests. As a consequence, by expanding the space for political communication contemporary digital technologies not only enlarge the field for social interaction, but also make it more sophisticated filling it with more forms and content, thus increasing incidental sounds and communication barriers. Indeed, the apparent development of the public sphere lays the foundation for the transformation of latent political mechanisms, which by relying on new communicational opportunities become more flexible and efficient.

On November 20, 2020, a scientific conference “State policy in the context of global challenges of our time” was held at Lomonosov Moscow State University. It coincided with the 10th anniversary of the Department of Public Policy of the Faculty of Political Science of Moscow University. During the conference, attended by both, domestic specialists and foreign researchers from the USA, Bulgaria and Kazakhstan, participants had a meaningful and fruitful discussion concerning cogent issues of public policy and challenges faced by the contemporary structures of public authority. The article overviews key materials presented during the panel “State Policy in the Context of Contemporary Globalization and National Political Transformations” bringing together research of scholars from Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, Bashkir State University and other Russian academic institutions.

The article provides a detailed account of research concerning the issues of the existing architecture of world politics and international relations, the vulnerability of state sovereignty at the present stage of social development, political stability and regime transformations, as well as the topic of academic specialized support to public policy. Finally, the authors indicate the most important remarks and fundamental issues of the current dynamics of public administration.

The article reviews the recent monograph published by professor N.M. Rakityansky, Mental Studies of Global Political Worlds (Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2020). The book describes the experience of researching various ‘mentalities’ of modern political worlds; the theoretical and methodological potential of this concept and its operational capabilities. In his research, the author draws on methodological assumptions from several disciplines, especially political psychology, conducting an in-depth systematic analysis of the phenomenon of ‘political mentality’. The author's model for the study of ‘political mentality’ represents a novel approach in Russian political science. The core of the mental model is dogma — the primary system of knowledge about the structure of the universe and the meaning of human existence. Dogma determines the nature of the political power in the country, the peculiarities of the legal system, its economic structure and spirituality. It also sets the direction not only for people's lives and destinies, but also for the countries’ political elites. The book is filled with humanistic content which draws on the author’s approach to human nature and cognitive potential of nations. Thus, the author's reasoning about the future of mankind admits the possibility of peaceful coexistence between bearers of different ‘mentalities’.

The article analyses the consolidation of public relations and dialogue between Rosatom State Corporation and civil society in the sphere of security concerns and high level of radiological anxiety of the population. The aim of Rosatom is to comply with the current legislation and fulfill the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations designated to inform the population and reduce the degree of radiological anxiety. The article first overviews the objectives and interests of the parties as well as their legislative and regulatory background hand in hand with the significance of the nuclear industry for the Russian Federation. Then the analysis takes into consideration major challenges faced by the nuclear industry and the whole civilization more broadly - namely the environmental pollution and global warming - identifying key topics of the dialogue between the State Corporation and the general public. Finally, the article demonstrates the mechanism of influence of the civil society on the decision-making process drawing on the example of two Federal target-oriented programs, “Ensuring nuclear and radiation safety for 2008 and for the period up to 2015” and “Ensuring nuclear and radiation safety for 2016–2020 and for the period up to 2030”, hand in hand with the experience of public dialogue with public organizations in the field of radioactive waste handling.

The article analyses the mechanisms for coping with historical trauma. The author demonstrates the possibility of the methodological combination of two main approaches to the study of this phenomenon in social and political science: psychoanalytic and sociological. The article suggests that the mechanism for overcoming a historical trauma includes two stages of traumatic transformation: interpretation and representation, as well as a number of other mechanisms moving from the level of an individual subject to the level of a collective subject. The first phase involves the analysis of the empirical materials containing direct (historical evidence) or indirect (artistic materials) trauma evidence, and their decoding in order to identify the actual trauma origins. The second phase involves the representation of the information about the traumatic event collected from the victim and previously decoded and the implementation of the traumatic construction in the collective identity.