Articles

The article analyzes “discourse” as one of the key notions founding the formation of biopolitical concepts represented in M. Foucault’s and S. Žižek’s works. The main purposes of the article are determining the features of the discourse as a political and philosophical notion rooted as such because of Foucault’s research; grounding the point, according to which the conceptualization of the “biopolitics” notion is tightly linked to the development of the “discourse” notion; comparing the approaches to defining biopolitics represented in M. Foucault’s and S. Žižek’s works. The methods of the present research include historic and comparative approaches. A conceptual analysis plays an important role as well. This method helps not just in explaining the conceptions of the discourse and biopolitics, but demonstrate their natural connection in this research problematics. The article concludes that discursive nature of biopolitics as a concept developing from the second part of the XX century in the western political thought is absolutely evident. On the one hand, the discourse is a sphere of biopolitical practices, on the other hand, it is a source of their formations. This thesis is illustrated by comparing the biopolitical concepts of M. Foucault and S. Žižek. Nevertheless, being rather similar to each other, the approaches represented in the discussed authors’ works are different in terms of terminology used.

“What Is to Be Done?” is one of the most famous political novels of the 19th century. For a long time, Russian science has been dominated by the view that the novel contains a call for revolution. This article attempts to prove that the novel “What Is to Be Done?” is not a call to action, it is a reflection on possible scenarios for the development of the country. The main text of the novel is a set of behavioral models for young raznochinets. These models are designed for peaceful life in the capitalist society of autocratic Russia. But, in addition, Chernyshevsky hints at the possibility of a revolutionary scenario. If the government will refuse liberal reforms, suppresses dissent, prevent young people from building new economic relations, the answer will be a revolution.

The reign of Tsar Peter I Alekseevich is a special period in Russian history. Undoubtedly, the reforms of Peter I became the most important stage in the history of Russia. Peter the Great is one of the few Russian sovereigns who officially spoke about his political ideology, and at the legislative level presented a detailed explanation of the tasks he set for the country. The laws, written personally by Peter I or prepared with his direct participation, represented a kind of project of the future structure of the Russian state, the fundamental principles of the new establishment of all areas of life of Russian society. It is in his legislation that Peter the Great fully appears as an interesting political thinker who, based on ancient political traditions, introduced ideological innovations into the political life of the country.

The article analyzes the process of state-building during the reign of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible and its influence on the vectors of further political development of Russia. The authors applied methodological principles of the world-system analysis and civilizational analysis. The article shows that the development of the Russian State during the reign of Ivan IV is carried out in the paradigm of extensiveness, military and commercial expansion. Along with the Byzantine heritage, the Russian state also inherited the Golden Horde, primarily due to the inclusion of spaces that were previously integrated into the logic of the general imperial development of the Golden Horde. In the western direction during this period, despite the stalemate in the Livonian War, the Russian State was increasing its interaction with European countries (primarily with Britain), but thanks to the policy of Ivan IV, Russia did not become the periphery of the emerging capitalist world economy. Numerous challenges of the state-building process led to the formation of a highly centralized model of political government, which possessed a set of characteristic features and maintained continuity with the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

This paper is a conceptual development of the study of worldview as a term and a social phenomenon. The work refers to the existing concepts of ‘worldview’ and its structure, reveals the actual features of the public and expert perception of related categories (‘ideology’, ‘myth’, ‘utopia’), and also suggests directions for the development of the existing academic discourse related to research in an extremely important problem field. The structure of the worldview is described through the pentabasis model, which makes it possible to build value connections between the elements of the worldview (‘person’, ‘ family’, ‘society’, ‘state’, ‘country’) and identify the principles that correspond to these value connections. The final part of the article describes the institutional framework of the pentabasis, which consists of a system of symbols, ideas, rules, practices and rituals. This approach outlines a possible direction for the development of the existing academic discourse and will allow further verification of fundamental hypotheses related to the key worldview guidelines of Russian society, its value matrix and the possible institutional framework of the latter. The pentabasis model can be in demand to formulate a proposals focused on applied public governance decisions.

Nikolai Chernyshevsky is one of the most prominent radical thinkers of the 19th century. This article attempts to answer two questions. First, can Chernyshevsky be considered a revolutionary? The second is whether the novel “What Is to Be Done?” is propaganda of the revolution? In Soviet times, the dominant point of view was that the novel contains a call for revolution. In the post-Soviet period, the point of view began to dominate that Chernyshevsky was not a revolutionary, but a reformer. And the novel contains a call for peaceful activity. According to the author, both positions are incorrect. They characterize the need of readers of different epochs to see Chernyshevsky as a revolutionary or reformer. Chernyshevsky does not propagandize in the novel “What Is to Be Done?” peaceful development or revolution, the novel is a reflection on possible scenarios for the development of the country.

The article discusses the connection between literature and politics on the example of Aleksandr S. Pushkin (1799–1837). Already the first poetic works by Pushkin reflect his civic thought and ideas about the rule of law. An analysis of his works of fiction and non-fiction shows that he used scholarly and literary approaches for the analysis of Russia’s past and the assessment of existing problems. He denied schematism in the interpretation of the past, advocated progress based on the wise ruling the country, citizenship, and patriotism of the people, supported the idea of reforms leading to the elimination of serfdom and the autocracy, but his good and visionary advice was not heard. On the contrary, he was sent into exile, first to the south, then to Mikhailovskoye. After his release from exile in 1826, he was under police surveillance. The historical role of his works lies in the fact that he played a significant role in the growth of national consciousness and public interest in politics.

The author analyzes the impact of the new coronavirus infection on the campaign for the election of deputies to the 8th State Duma, both during the campaign period and at the time of voting. Research objectives are to find out whether the coronavirus pandemic affected the election campaign in general and the transparency and legitimacy of the electoral process in particular; what forced changes have been made to the electoral system and the pre-election work of candidates and parties, and whether these changes are applicable outside the conditions of the pandemic. In the article, the author research the program documents of the parties, uses content analysis, and the comparative method. As a result, the author came to the conclusion that the coronavirus pandemic had a serious impact on the 2021 election campaign, in terms of organizing, preparing and conducting voting, and in matters of electoral activities of political parties and candidates. Some changes are situational, and not applicable outside the conditions of epidemiological risks, others, systemic, have chance of becoming standard practice outside the conditions of a pandemic. The changes affecting the electoral process did not affect the transparency and legitimacy of the electoral process, and in some aspects made it more convenient for voters.

Based on empirical quantitative data, the article examines the relationship between the severity of the epidemiological situation in a particular country (1), the stringency of protective and restrictive measures imposed by the government (2), and the institutional characteristics of the country (including the quality of healthcare, management, the level of public confidence in the government, value orientations, etc.), which determine the specifics of the application of measures and their effectiveness (3). As a result, with the help of the index of the severity of the epidemiological situation, institutional characteristics were identified that most affect the effectiveness of the measures applied and, if possible, allow combining the relatively easy passage of the pandemic with relatively lax measures. Based on statistical indicators, practical recommendations have been developed aimed at reducing the severity of the epidemiological situation and reducing the severity of measures.

The article’s primary purpose was to identify relevant scientific approaches, models, and scenarios for digitalizing the space of contemporary policy. To solve the work tasks, we used discourse analysis, critical analysis and predictive scripting. According to the research results, the authors could identify the essential effects of current technological transformations that ensure the close interweaving of the traditional political space and the digital environment into a single digital space of politics, claiming to form an independent phygital socio-technical reality. Among the key areas of transformation of the space of traditional politics, we can include the intensive digital algorithmization of the socio-political sphere of the life of the modern state and society, the emergence of digital intellectual actants, as well as alternative subjects of digital politics, to which we primarily include global technology corporations. Based on the study results, the authors describe a scenario for forming hybrid state-technological regimes that combine the resources of political power, digital infrastructures and technologies into a single subject of socio-political governance of a new type.