The System of Social Sciences in the Context of Civilizational Approach: Formulating the Problem

In modern socio-humanitarian disciplines, the concept of a “system of social sciences” is absent. This concept existed in Soviet times and meant, among other things, the existence of a single conceptual social science apparatus and methodology. It is generally recognized that the interdisciplinary approach that replaced this system, which was recognized in our country after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is based on the difference in concepts, subjects and objects of research of the sciences of the entire socio-humanitarian block. At the same time, Russian social science practically does not pay attention to the theoretical and methodological relationship between the interdisciplinary approach and the concept of globalization, developed in Western science mainly in the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and which came to our country in the post-Soviet period in many ways in a “ready-made” form. At the same time, those researchers who state such a relationship consider this circumstance as a virtue of an interdisciplinary approach. In the first part of this article, an attempt is made to analyze the impact of the concept of globalization, in particular, its characteristic denial of the values of national statehood, sovereignty, including cultural and historical, on the formation and general principles of an interdisciplinary approach. The second part examines modern concepts of Russia as a civilization, first of all, the concept of state-civilization, currently introduced in the “Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation” dated March 30, 2023 and “Fundamentals of state policy in the field of historical education” dated May 08, 2024, in the context of the advantages of the Soviet Union identified by the author the experience of the social sciences system. At the end of the article, proposals are made to combine some basic principles of Soviet social science with a modern civilizational approach in order to create a unified value framework for the disciplines of the socio-humanitarian block.

1. Afanas’yeva V.V., Anisimov N.S. (2013) Nelineynoye razvitiye sotsiuma: postneklassicheskiy analiz [Nonlinear development of society: post-non-classical analysis]. Vlast’. No. 1. P. 68–71.

2. Al’bekov A.U., Starostin A.M. (eds.) (2019) Mezhdistsiplinarnyye problemy mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy v global’nom kontekste [Interdisciplinary problems of international relations in a global context]. Rostov n/D.: Izd. poligr. kompleks RG·EU (RINKh).

3. Avdeev E.A. (2015) Globalization in the Modern Theoretical Discourse: From Pluralism to Interdisciplinarity. Gumanitarnyye i yuridicheskiye issledovaniya. No. 1. P. 129–133.

4. Bauman Z. (2008) Liquid Modernity. Saint Petersburg: Piter.

5. Baumann Z. (2002) Natsional’noye gosudarstvo: chto dal’she? [The National State: what’s next?]. Otechestvennyye zapiski. No. 6. P. 419–436.

6. Beck U. (2008) Cosmopolitan Vision. Moscow: Tsentr issledovaniy postindustrial’nogo obshchestva.

7. Bell D. (1987) The World and the United States in 2013. Daedalus. Vol. 116. Is. 3. Р. 1–31.

8. Castells M. (1983) The City and Grassroots. A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movement. L.А.: University of California Press.

9. Castells M. (1989) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the UrbanRegional Process. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

10. Castells M. (1996) The Rise of Network Society. Oxford: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

11. Castells M. (2009) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

12. Cheshkov M.A. (2008) Sovremennyy mir kak tseloye (ideya epistemologicheskogo povorota) [The modern world as a whole (the idea of an epistemological turn)]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 11. P. 99–106

13. Deleuze G., Guattari P-F. (2010) Mille plateaux. Ekaterinburg: U-Faktoriya; Moscow: Astrel’.

14. Fishman L.G. (2024) Khvost Moderna. Ob”yektivnyye potrebnosti rossiyskoy politii i riski tsivilizatsionnogo podkhoda [The tail of modernity. The objective needs of Russian politics and the risks of a civilizational approach]. Rossiya v global’noy politike. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 172–181. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2024-22-4-172-181

15. Foucault M. (1994) Les mots et les choses. Une archeologie des sciences humaines. Saint Petersburg: A-cad.

16. Foucault M. (1999) Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison. Moscow.: Izd-vo “Ad Marginem”.

17. Friedmann J. (1986) The World City Hypothesis. Development and Change. Vol. 17. Р. 69–83.

18. Gabdullin R.R., Il’in I.V., Ivanov A.V. (2011) Vvedenie v paleoglobalistiku [Introduction to paleoglobalistics]. Moscow: MGU.

19. Giddens E. (1999) The Consequences of Modernity. In: Inozemtsev V.L. (ed.) Novaya postindustrial’naya volna na Zapade. Moscow: Academia. P. 101–122.

20. Giddens E. (2011) The Consequences of Modernity. Moscow: Praksis.

21. Ginzburg K. (2004) Miti emblemi spie morfologia e storia. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo.

22. Granin Yu.D. (2009) Globalizatsiya, natsii i natsionalizm. Istoriya i sovremennost’ [Globalization, nations and nationalism. History and modernity]. Moscow: Gumanitariy.

23. Gregory D., Urry J. (eds.) (1985) Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London: Macmillan.

24. Il’in I.V., Ursul A.D. (2009) Evolyutsionnaya globalistika (kontseptsiya evolyutsii global’nykh protsessov) [Evolutionary globalism (the concept of the evolution of global processes)]. Moscow: MGU.

25. Ionov I.N. (2009) Novaya global’naya istoriya i postkolonial’nyy diskurs [New global history and postcolonial discourse]. Istoriya i sovremennost’. No. 2. P. 33–60.

26. Kasavin I.T. (ed.) (2010) Mezhdistsiplinarnost’ v naukakh i filosofii [Interdisciplinarity in sciences and philosophy]. Moscow: IFRAN.

27. Khanna Р. (2016) Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization. New York: Random House.

28. Kleiner G.B. (2015) Mezhdistsiplinarnost’, sistemnost’, garmoniya — oriyentiry razvitiya sotsial’noekonomicheskikh issledovaniy [Interdisciplinarity, consistency, harmony — guidelines for the development of socio-economic research]. Perspektivy razvitiya mezhdistsiplinarnykh sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh i gumanitarnykh issledovaniy: Doklady i vystupleniya uchastnikov kruglogo stola (June 24, 2015, Rostov-naDonu). Rostov-na-Donu: Izd-vo YuFU. P. 12–32.

29. Kravchenko S.A., Salygin V.I. (2015) A New Synthesis of Scientific Knowledge: The Making of Interdisciplinary Science. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. No. 10. P. 22–30.

30. Kudina M.V., Ayrapetov O.R., Ul’yanova L.V., Depelyan R.A. (2023) “Iskusstvo upravlyat’ velikoy stranoy»: k 30-letiyu fakul’teta gosudarstvennogo upravleniya MGU imeni M.V. Lomonosova” [“The art of governing a great country”: on the 30th anniversary of the School of Public Administration of Lomonosov Moscow State University”]. Moscow: OOO Maks-Press.

31. Latour B. (1999) Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

32. Lysak I.V. (2016) Interdisciplinarity: Advantages and Problems of Application. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya. No. 5. Available at: https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=25376

33. Marcuze H. (1994) One-Dimensional Man. Moscow: PEFL-book.

34. Metel O.V. (2017) The Socialist Academy of Social Sciences: Essay of the History (1918–1919). Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Istoricheskie nauki”. No. 1(13). P. 184–191.

35. Mezhuev B., Biryukov S., Vanchugov V., Ulyanova L. (2021) Ideology Restart: Liberal Project and Pandemic. Lessons of 2020. Tetradi po konservatizmu. No. 3. P. 181–193. DOI: 10.24030/24092517-2021-0-3-181-193

36. Naumkin V.V. (2020) Non-West Model: Does the Civilization-State Exist? Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 4. P. 78–93. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.04.06

37. Nikonov V.A. (2014) Rossiyskaya matritsa [Russian matrix]. Moscow: Russkoe slovo.

38. Nikonov V.A. (2021) Rossiyskaya tsivilizatsiya [Russian civilization]. Moscow: Prosveshhenie.

39. Nikonov V.A. (2023) Objectives of rhe Science of Public Administration. To the 30th Anniversary of the School of Public Administration of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 21. Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obshhestvo). Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 3–13. DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2023-4-3-13

40. Pogorelskiy D.M. (2024) Civilizational Dimension of Russia’s Ethnopolitical Security. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 104. P. 37–46. DOI: 10.55959/MSU2070-1381-104-2024-37-46

41. Rumyantsev A.M. (1968) Obshchestvennyye nauki v SSSR i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences in the USSR and modernity]. Voprosy istorii. No. 9. P. 3–15.

42. Sassen S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

43. Sassen S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

44. Sluka N.A. (2005) Gradotsentricheskaya model’ mirovogo khozyaystva [The urban-centric model of the world economy]. Moscow: Press-Solo.

45. Spiridonova V.I. (2022) ‘Civilizational State’ as a Challenge to Unipolar Globalization. Vek globalizaysii. No. 1(41). P. 29–41. DOI: 10.30884/vglob/2022.01.02

46. Spiridonova V.I., Sokolova R.I., Shevchenko V.N. (2016) Rossiya kak gosudarstvo-tsivilizatsiya: filosofskopoliticheskiy analiz [Russia as a civilizational state: A philosophical and political analysis]. Moscow: IF RAN.

47. Taylor P.J. (1995) World Cities and Territorial States: The Rise and Fall of Their Mutuality. In: P.L. Knox, P.J. Taylor (eds.) World Cities in a World System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 48–62.

48. Teune H. (2011) Globalization and Local Democracy: The Challenge of Democratic Governance in an Urban World. Sociologiya. No. 3. P. 13–23.

49. Ulyanova L.V. (2015) Postmodernizm i tsennostnyy krizis evropeyskoy istoricheskoy nauki [Postmodernism and the value crisis of European historical science]. Tetradi po konservatizmu. No. 3. P. 59–72.

50. Ulyanova L.V. (2020) Politicheskaya politsiya i liberal’noye dvizheniye v Rossiyskoy imperii. 1880–1905 [Political police and the liberal movement in the Russian Empire. 1880–1905]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteyya.

51. Urry J. (2000) Sociology beyond Societies. Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London; New York: Routledge.

52. Ursul A.D. (2018) Globalistika i globalizatsionnyye issledovaniya: ctanovleniye novykh integrativnykh napravleniy [Globalistics and globalization studies: The formation of new integrative directions]. Filosofskaya mysl’. No. 4. P. 17–29.

53. Waters M. (1996) Globalization. London; New York: Routledge.

54. Yakovets Yu.V. (2003) Globalizatsiya i vzaimodeystviye tsivilizatsiy [Globalization and interaction of civilizations]. Moscow: Ekonomika.

55. Zhuravleva L.A., Zarubina E.V., Ruchkin A.V., Simachkova N.N., Chupina I.P. (2023) STATE-Civilization: Concept, Essence, Structure. Obrazovanie i pravo. No. 9. P. 80–88. DOI: 10.24412/2076-1503-2023-9-80-88