This article analyzes three problem groups: problems of neo-corporatism — both “classical” (the erosion of stable classes and groups and the transition of social practices to the meso-level) and new ones that have emerged in the 21st century; problems of the further fragmentation of consensual practices; and the complications of consensus-building in the context of fairly closed and non-public real management structures and the erosion of stable social strata. The article addresses different political science approaches to solving socio-economic problems within the neo-corporatist framework as well as socio-psychological arguments — in particular those related to specifi cities of contemporary political behavior and political differentiation — that also demonstrate the diffi culty of a neo-corporate model. The author points to some drawbacks of description and of prescriptions for the development of Russian neo-corporatism that exist in Russian scholarship owing to the lack of attention to new problems of neo-corporatism and to an orientation toward European corporativist practices of the beginning of 1990s.

The change in the relationship between the state and science is clearly manifested at the present time (we are talking about a slowdown in the growth of funding and a change in its principles, precarious employment in science, the prevalence of technoscience, etc.). After presenting the most characteristic features, the article discusses what these changes are related to and how objective they are. Based on the analysis of statistical data and strategic documents of a number of states, the reasons for the ongoing transformation are revealed. It is emphasized that its risks have been presented in many futuristic concepts representing scenarios for the development of society (from the knowledge society to transhumanism), but have not received due attention. It is concluded that we are witnessing a transition from the classical model of the relationship between science and the state, which emerged during the scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century, to a new model characterized primarily by the expansion of the number of stakeholders, the creation of new forms of innovative research organization, networking and internationalization of scientific research, new techniques for evaluating and stimulating scientific activity, expertise of scientific projects, including public.

S. Huntington’s article on the clash of civilizations, published a little over 30 years ago, and the book that followed it, partly seemed prophetic — in any case, the main conflicts in Europe unfolded just along the line of civilizational faults outlined by the author; the ideas outlined are still in the focus of attention of political scientists. The article attempts not only to systematize the critical arguments against this concept, but also hermeneutically, based on the text of the article, to consider the question of understanding civilizations and substantiating the idea of their inevitable conflict, and systematically present errors in reasoning. Textual analysis shows that identification, which is considered by Huntington to be actually the key criterion of civilization, is first unreasonably reduced to fundamentalist religious, and then this information is supported by ad hoc assumptions. In addition, a number of logical errors in reasoning are revealed. Based on the results obtained, the heuristic potential of this concept is questioned; the conclusion about the fault line in Europe in this regard is not scientific, but “projective-ideological”.