Rural human capital in the conceptual optics: Continuum and/or post-ism?

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

In explanatory dictionaries, “post” is interpreted either as a prefix that has the same meaning as the word “after” (the most obvious and well-known examples from the social sphere are post-imperialist or post-colonial (world), post-Soviet (period), post-socialist (countries), etc.), or as the first part of compound words, denoting what exists/happens based on the second part of the word (post-impressionism, postmodernism, post-industrial, etc.) [see, e.g.: 4]. On aggregator websites of definitions from different dictionaries [see, e.g.: 13], “post” is interpreted mainly as a prefix denoting something that occurs after something, but in relation to philosophical trends of the end of the 20th century (postmodernism, postpositivism, poststructuralism, etc.), it is not only about “after”, but also about a kind of (not dialectical or negative) denial of immediate predecessors - as changing (or destroying) the accepted ideas about the hierarchy of attitudes and methods, which can be applied to human activities beyond philosophy (post-capitalism, postcommunism, post-Fordism, etc.) [see, e.g.: 15]. The lexical and research legitimacy of the prefix “post” has not been questioned for a long time, it is taken for granted in scientific and official discourses; however, the question is whether this “tool” of analytical conceptualization is universal or it has a distorting effect on research “optics” and “rhetoric” and, accordingly, a discriminatory effect on the corresponding objective realities, given the heterogeneity of most contemporary social-economic and other processes. In particular, whether we can use concepts with the prefix “post” to assess the state and prospects of the so-called “human capital”, considering its variability on the conditional but already traditional “rural-urban continuum”. The article presents an attempt to provide a preliminary assessment of the universality (or limitations) of the concepts with the prefix “post” in the study of the rural “cluster” of human capital.

About the authors

I. V. Trotsuk

RUDN University; Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; National Research University Higher School of Economics

Author for correspondence.
Email: irina.trotsuk@yandex.ru
Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow, 117198, Russia; Vernadskogo Prosp., 84, Moscow, 119571, Russia; Myasnitskaya St., 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia

References

  1. Alekseev A.I., Koryukhin D.A. “Inversiya” selskoy urbanizatsii? [“Inversion” of rural urbanization?]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 5: Geografiya. 2017; 5. (In Russ.).
  2. Beck U. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modern [Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity]. Moscow; 2000. (In Russ.).
  3. Blok M., Golovin N.A. Sotsialny kapital: k obobshcheniyu ponyatiya [Social capital: On the generalization of the concept]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya 12: Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya. Pedagogika. 2015; 4. (In Russ.).
  4. Bolshoy tolkovy slovar russkogo yazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Gl. red. S.A. Kuznetsov. Saint Petersburg; 1998. (In Russ.).
  5. Braidotti R. Postchelovek [The Posthuman]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  6. Bulina A.O., Mozgovaya K.A., Pakhnin M.A. Chelovechesky kapital v teorii ekonomicheskogo rosta: klassicheskie modeli i novye podkhody [Human capital in the theory of economic growth: Classical models and new approaches]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Ekonomika. 2020; 36 (2). (In Russ.).
  7. Bourdieu P. Formy kapitala [Forms of capital]. Ekonomicheskaya Sotsiologiya. 2002; 3 (5). (In Russ.).
  8. Vilisov V. Postlyubov. Budushcheye chelovecheskih intimnostey [Post-Love. The Future of Human Intimacy]. Moscow; 2022. (In Russ.).
  9. Giddens A. Uskolzayushchiy mir. Kak globalizatsiya menyaet nashu zhizn [Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives]. Moscow; 2004. (In Russ.).
  10. Gornova G.V. Antinomii goroda [Antinomies of the City]. Omsk; 2011. (In Russ.).
  11. Gudkov L., Zorkaya N., Kochergina E., Pipiya K. Postsovetskaya molodezh: predvaritelnye itogi [Post-Soviet Youth: Preliminary Results]. Moscow; 2023. (In Russ.).
  12. Jameson F. Postmodernizm, ili kulturnaya logika pozdnego kapitalizma [Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism]. Moscow; 2019. (In Russ.).
  13. Kakoe slovo? [What word?]. URL: https://kakoeslovo.ru/dic/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82. (In Russ.).
  14. Katerny I.V. Postgumanizm. Chelovek v epokhu novoy sotsialnosti: metamorfozy, narrativy, dilemmy [Posthumanism. Man in the Era of New Sociality: Metamorphoses, Narratives, Dilemmas]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  15. Kemerov V.E. Post. URL: http://philosophy.niv.ru/doc/dictionary/modern/articles/290/post.htm?ysclid=limxla7u4c250861216. (In Russ.).
  16. Coleman J. Kapital sotsialny i chelovechesky [Social and human capital]. Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost. 2001; 3. (In Russ.).
  17. Lyotard J.-F. Sostoyanie postmoderna [The Postmodern Condition]. Saint Petersburg; 1998. (In Russ.).
  18. Markov A.V. Postmodern kultury i kultura postmoderna [Postmodernity of Culture and Culture of Postmodernity]. Moscow; 2022. (In Russ.).
  19. Minnullina E.B. Postpostmodernizm: mezhdu sub`ektom i absolyutno vneshnim [Postpostmodernism: Between the subject and the absolutely external]. Filosofiya i Kultura. 2020; 4. (In Russ.).
  20. Nikiforov L., Kuznetsova T. Gorod i selo: osobennosti integratsii v sovetsky i postsovetsky periody [City and village: Features of integration in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods]. Zhurnal Issledovaniy Sotsialnoy Politiki. 2007; 5. (In Russ.).
  21. Pavlov A. Postpostmodernizm. Kak sotsialnaya i kulturnaya teorii obyasnyayut nashe vremya [Post-postmodernism. How Social and Cultural Theories Explain Our Time.]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  22. Putnam R. Chtoby demokratiya srabotala. Grazhdanskie traditsii v sovremennoy Italii [Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy]. Moscow; 1996. (In Russ.).
  23. Proekt razvitiya chelovecheskogo kapitala [Human Capital Development Project]. URL: https://www.vsemirnyjbank.org/ru/publication/human-capital/brief/the-human-capital-project-frequently-asked-questions. (In Russ.).
  24. Sorokin P., Popova T. Kachestvo chelovecheskogo kapitala — otvet na vyzovy sotsialnoy politiki v usloviyah destrukturatsii [The quality of human capital — a response to the challenges of social policy under destructuring]. Zhurnal Issledovaniy Sotsialnoy Politiki. 2022; 20 (1). (In Russ.).
  25. Sorokin P., Popova T. Chelovechesky kapital — novoe ponimanie [Human capital — a new understanding]. URL: https://iq.hse.ru/news/671710021.html. (In Russ.).
  26. Treivish A.I. Selsko-gorodskoy kontinuum: sudba predstavleniya i ego svyaz s prostranstvennoy mobilnostiyu naseleniya [Rural-urban continuum: The fate of representation and its connection with the spatial mobility of the population]. Demograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2016; 3 (1). (In Russ.).
  27. Fadeeva O.P. Sibirskoe selo: ot formalnogo samoupravleniya k vynuzhdennoy samoorganizatsii [Siberian village: From formal self-government to forced self-organization]. ECO. 2019; 4. (In Russ.).
  28. Ferrando F. Filosofsky postgumanizm [Philosophical Posthumanism]. Moscow; 2022. (In Russ.).
  29. Fukuyama F. Doverie: sotsialnye dobrodeteli i put k protsvetaniyu [Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity]. Moscow; 2008. (In Russ.).
  30. Fukuyama F. Nashe postchelovecheskoe budushchee: Posledstviya biotekhnologicheskoy revolyutsii [Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution]. Moscow; 2004. (In Russ.).
  31. Fuller S. Postpravda: Znanie kak borba za vlast [Post-Truth. Knowledge as a Power Game]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  32. Harari Yu.N. Homo Deus: Kratkaya istoriya budushchego [Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow]. Moscow; 2018. (In Russ.).
  33. Harvey D. Sostoyanie postmoderna: Issledovanie istokov kulturnyh izmeneniy [The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  34. Hicks S. Obiyasnyaya postmodernism [Explaining Postmodernism]. Moscow; 2021. (In Russ.).
  35. Yashkova M. Sotsialny kapital: evolyutsiya kontsepta [Social capital: Evolution of the concept]. Neprikosnovenny Zapas. 2018; 3. (In Russ.).
  36. Bell D. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York; 1978.
  37. Braidotti R. Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics. Cambridge; 2006.
  38. Büscher B. The nonhuman turn: Critical reflections on alienation, entanglement and nature under capitalism. Dialogues in Human Geography. 2022; 12 (1).
  39. Curson C. (Ed.). Flexible Patterns of Work. London; 1986.
  40. Escobar A. Encountering Development. The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press; 1995.
  41. Fischer H.W., Chatre A., Devalkar S., Sohoni M. Rural institutions, social networks, and selforganized. Environmental Research Letters. 2021; 16 (10).
  42. Fukuyama F. Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly. 2001; 22 (1).
  43. Howard E. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London; 1902.
  44. Morton T. Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence. Columbia University Press; 2016.
  45. O’Halloran K. Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments. Corpora and Digitally-Driven Critical Analysis. Routledge; 2017.
  46. Putnam R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York; 2001.
  47. Singh N.M. The nonhuman turn or a re-turn to animism? Valuing life along and beyond capital. Dialogues in Human Geography. 2022; 12 (1).
  48. Sorokin P.A., Zimmerman C.C. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology. New York; 1929.
  49. Welsch W. Postmodernism — posthumanism — evolutionary anthropology. Journal of Posthuman Studies. 2017; 1 (1).
  50. Zimmerman С.С. Sociological Theories of Pitirim A. Sorokin. New York; 1974.

Copyright (c) 2023 Trotsuk I.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies