No 8 (2023)

V. N. Shubkin is known as a sociologist for his Novosibirsk research: this is how he is referred to by the American Sociological Association. The memories of him by his student, assistant, co-author show a broader picture of his creativity, associated, in particular, with special milestones in his biography. V. N. Shubkin also contributed to the development of international comparative sociological research. At the same time, along with sociology, he always gravitated toward journalistic and literary activity. In his essays, the author conveys to the general reader ideas about the possibilities and limits of sociology as the study of human behavior, and speaks of the need to supplement and combine social analysis with humanitarian knowledge about people. Author’s understanding of the prehistory of both current and past events allows to respond to current social problems talking about freedom and violence, and questioning morality. In a special way, as an ordinary participant in World War II, V.N. Shubkin describes sociology of this war.

On the centenary of outstanding Soviet and Russian sociologist Vladimir Shubkin, his latest research project is discussed, - the study of catastrophic consciousness. The project initiated by professor at East Lansing University (University of Michigan, USA) Vladimir Shlapentokh had pursued following objectives: to analyze the concepts of fears and catastrophism in relation to mass consciousness, to compare structures of fears in different regions of Russia, as well as in the countries that had intended at this time to join the project. A variety of real and imaginary fears and concerns that a person experiences explicitly or subconsciously were found to act in a sociological perspective as important mobilizing (motivating)/demobilizing (demotivating) factors of behavior, playing the role of mechanisms to evaluate certain events and plans of social interaction, ways to resist dangers or, conversely, escape them. The Center for International Studies of the Problems of Catastrophic Consciousness under the leadership of Shubkin was created specifically for the project at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article presents Shubkin‘s views on historical prerequisites for the reproduction of catastrophic consciousness in Russia, as well as generalized results of sociological studies of fears and concerns in Russia conducted in 1996, 1999 and 2003 under the leadership of Shubkin, data of comparative empirical studies in the USA, Lithuania, Ukraine and Bulgaria carried out using methodology and questionnaire developed by V. Shubkin. The contribution of the scholar to theoretical and empirical study of fears and concerns as factors of social well-being of society is noted. This well-being indicates ability of a society, a particular community, a group to solve constantly emerging problems, to maintain and improve its position among other communities, or its inability to solve these problems.

Modern global trends are increasingly penetrating into all areas of human activity, and in particular in the world of work. However, the impact of these processes and capacity to adapt to their influence are significantly differentiated depending on the scale of the territory. The article analyzes the employment prospects of the population of the model area of Russia along the center-periphery axis. The information base is represented by official statistics and monitoring data on the quality of labor potential of the Vologda region population. Using the agglomeration approach, the authors show that, despite the external stability of employment, there are still unresolved problems that increase the intraregional disproportions. It is defined that the factors, in some way or another associated with employment (lack of opportunities for seeking jobs and quality education, low wages), largely influence the attractiveness of territories, and their importance increases moving from the cores of the agglomeration to the periphery. This in turn imposes restrictions not only on the possibilities of professional fulfillment, but also on life support processes, which explains population movements from remote areas to more attractive settlements in terms of employment. At the same time, the desire of people to improve their situation also differs depending on location. The population of the agglomeration is more willing to master new knowledge, technologies and patterns of behavior, while the residents of the periphery are inclined to implement entrepreneurial intentions.

The purpose of the study is to reconstruct current religious situation in Kazakhstan as a secular state. Goals were formulated as follows: to reveal specifics of the religious situation; to present the religious self-identification of the population; to show the spectrum of the value perception of religion in public discourse; to outline main trends of religious changes; to discover the lines of "fault" in understanding the possibilities and prospects of secularism and religiosity; to comprehend the relevance and practical application in the research of the religious process. The religious process is assessed as multifactorial and contradictory. Based on sociological studies of public opinion and expert assessments, the authors presented a paradigm of perception of religion, analyzed its functions and capabilities in a multicultural and multi-confessional society. The religious situation in Kazakhstan is analyzed on the basis of state statistics, mass and expert surveys. Practical recommendations are given for improving government approaches in cooperation with religious institutions.

The article focuses on the analysis of parental mindsets and stereotypes about the rights of fathers and mothers in cases involving reproductive choice, as well as sharing responsibility for abandoning a newborn between mother, father and close relatives. The authors discuss opinions related to the rights of fathers in cases of abortion, attitudes towards supporting children from the families of alcohol/drug addicts, mothers with an increased risk of abandoning newborns, as well as leaving them in baby boxes. We have interviewed 2,000 respondents in 8 federal districts of the Russian Federation, conducted 15 focus groups (N=142) with managers, specialists, and parents, 15 in-depth interviews with young mothers. The authors have concluded that 90% of the research participants would negatively assess abandonment of a child by a mother, while more than half of the respondents would take an extremely condemning standpoint, and more than a third express compassion and participation for her. Young people, those who have graduated from primary and secondary vocational schools, as well as religious people are more likely to take the accusing standpoint. The elderly people, those with higher and incomplete higher education, as well as non-believers would rather take the compassionate standpoint towards abandoning mothers. The opposing opinions can be observed in relation to the dominant right of the mother to her reproductive choice in case of abortion, the recognition of the reproductive rights of fathers in case of pregnancy termination, the permissibility of abortion in case of inability to raise a child. Almost two-thirds of the respondents take a more consistent standpoint recognizing the need to help children and parents from troubled families and the priority of raising children even by a marginal mother, but in a natural family environment as compared to their removal and placement in a public facility or a new family. The data show a high level of expressiveness of attitudes towards equal parental rights and equal responsibility of mothers and fathers for reproductive decisions and care for children.

The article examines S.L. Frank's approaches to problematics of social forms in two relatively independent perspectives – in the perspective of Frank's critique of G. Simmel's formal sociology and in the perspective of his own philosophical constructions of social form. Accordingly, the article addresses two theoretical issues. The first is to clarify the reasons for Frank's negative evaluation of Simmel's formal project. The most plausible reasons are three: Frank's own psychological attitudes, not overcome by the time he wrote “The Essence of Sociology”; a critical appraisal of sociology's theoretical and cognitive possibilities and a desire to remove complex philosophical and cognitive problems from its field; the ambiguity of Simmel's concept of "social form" and the fruitlessness of its interpretation, in which it is reduced to universal one-dimensional axial parameters of interactions. The second theoretical task of the article is to clarify the place and meaning of the category "social form" in Frank's own constructions. It is shown that this category embodies the idea of ontological primacy of society, fundamental for his social philosophy. Social form is understood in it as a realization of "objective living idea", which has trans-psychic nature and is ontologically presupposed to interacting people, but requires them to actively participate in its implementation.

The purpose of thе article is to conceptualize trust as a private good. This purpose is relevant because today social capital is simultaneously studied in fundamentally different paradigms – as private and as public good. As a result, we cannot get a clear definition of social capital. One of the reasons for this duality is that the key element of social capital, i.e. trust, is studied in different paradigms. The rule of law and personal reputation create trust in a person, but the former is usually considered the property of society, and the latter is usually considered the property of a particular individual. In this light, the question of the possibility to conceptualize trust exclusively in one of the paradigms becomes relevant. First, the author describes his concept of social capital, defines trust and describes its role in the context of social capital. Trust sources are then divided into three types: subject properties, object properties, and context properties. On this basis, three pure types of trust are distinguished (baseline, personal, collective) and a composite one (categorical). Further, they are tied to a specific social unit with the help of an auxiliary concept of the collective, thus demonstrating fundamental possibility of conceptualizing trust as a private good. Special attention is paid to the role of institutions in creating trust, which the author deems to consider as properties of a collective. In conclusion, the logic of converting types of trust into each other is described.