Suchergebnisse

This article was initially intended to be a review of War, a book by Arkady Babchenko published in 2015, but turned out to be more of an essay. On one hand, the purpose in publishing a book in 2015 about the two Chechen military campaigns may be questioned especially since Babchenko had previously published numerous texts about his recent experiences as a war journalist. On the other hand, War is full of sociological issues, which eliminates any doubt about the possibility of writing a review of this definitely non-sociological book for a sociological journal. In fact, such books revive a new round of debates on two topics important for the sociological discourse. The first considers the status of the "stories" of ordinary witnesses of the events, and their logic of narration has obtained the same legitimate status as scientific narratives; that is why sociologists are interested in the everyday "testimonies" within the "micro-" approach to the study of war. The question that underlines the second topic of the debates is central for contemporary society in general, that is, who has the right to write about war and to suggest linguistic, thematic, discursive, and implicit ideological formats to speak and to think about it? Certainly, there are adequate, institutionalized methodological models to study and to write about war. However, the macro-optical perspective inevitably misses the substantial meanings and emotions that turn wars into the most epiphanic moments of our lives expressed in biographical narratives. To overcome this limitation, we turn to the narratives of those who happened to witness wars from "within", either to fictional narratives (represented by The Kindly Ones, authored by Jonathan Littell), or to non-fictional stories (represented by Pathologies, written by Zakhar Prilepin). The latter are more typical for contemporary Russian tradition and, thus, are considered on the example of War. However, both fiction and non-fiction narratives allow us see the "human dimension of war"; they differ, perhaps, only in the power of conviction, and the level of trust.

The article identifies three basic 'dimensions' of the youth social mood. The first dimension is formed by a set of various cognitive, affective and behavioral orientations (and the patriotic mood is an integral part of this complex). The second dimension is formed by a set of estimates of the macro-social context of life in one's country. The third dimension is constituted by geopolitical awareness, i.e. the images of the neighboring countries. All three dimensions are difficult to measure due to the multiplicity of their conceptualization frames and excessive connotations of the basic terminology. The author provides an overview of the results of a series of surveys conducted in 2009-2013 on the samples of Moscow students by the Sociological Laboratory of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia to show what data we can obtain with the help of qualitative approach in 'measuring' these dimensions of the youth worldview and social mood, especially in identifying the common images of the neighboring countries (on the example of China, Kazakhstan and Serbia). The author focuses on technical and substantial details of the surveys, and concludes with recognizing the necessity of revealing social representations and stereotypes of public opinion in cross-cultural and comparative perspectives.

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".

This book analyzes contemporary Russian food policy, covering the structure and operation of the food system and how the government policy affects production and distribution of food. It examines international food trade policies, with special attention to Russia's food embargo, the politization of food trade, and an increase in protectionism.

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.