The phenomenon of self-organization of the rural population: Principles and prospects of research

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The phenomenon defined as self-organization implements its cognitive-analytical function in many disciplines - physics and chemistry, cybernetics and computer science, economics and sociology, psychology and cultural studies. Russian and foreign researchers study forms and practices of self-organization of the rural population and, as a rule, consider them through the factors that affect the pace, forms and quality of social-economic transformations, material appearance and event dynamics of the non-urban living space. The most effective factors that affect the reconstruction of the social space of rural areas and, in general, optimization of the rural world are managerial, social-economic, innovative, demographic and urbanistic, climatic and environmental, and also factors of complementary and intermediate character. The authors systematize the main principles in the study of self-organization practices of the rural population, which are empirically manifested in their regional and subject-activity features (local nature, cultural and ethnographic traditions, changing composition of the local population, their work habits, indicators of professional skills and diligence). All the above historically develops into a kind of genius loci (“spirit of place”, “genius locus”) as densely packed in customs and determining mechanisms for the development of initiatives by subjects of self-organization, who aim at building such institutional mechanisms and practices that cannot but contribute to the transition to a new development trajectory, first of individual segments (households, farmer associations, etc.), and then of all basic elements of rural society, which are embodied in the everyday life of rural ‘localities’.

About the authors

V. G. Vinogradsky

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author for correspondence.
Email: vgrape47@yandex.ru
Vernadskogo Prosp., 84, Moscow, 119571, Russia

O. Ya. Vinogradskaya

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Email: vgrape58@yandex.ru
Vernadskogo Prosp., 84, Moscow, 119571, Russia

References

  1. Agibalov A.V., Zaporozhtseva L.A., Tkacheva Yu.V. Stsenarny podkhod k razrabotke strategii razvitiya selskih territoriy [Scenario approach to the strategy for the development of rural areas]. Vestnik VGAU. 2019; 3. (In Russ.).
  2. Adukov R., Zakharov R. Gosprogramma kompleksnogo razvitiya selskih territoriy: otsenka i vyvody na budushchee [State Program for the Integrated Development of Rural Territories: Assessment and Conclusions for the Future]. Ekonomika Selskogo Khozyaystva Rossii. 2019; 10. (In Russ.).
  3. Bashmachnikov V.F. K metodologii vyyavleniya faktorov uspeshnosti semeynyh fermerskih khozyaystv v tselyah otsenki perspektiv ih razvitiya [On the methodology for identifying success factors of family farms to assess the prospects for their development]. Aktualnye Voprosy Sovremennoy Ekonomiki. 2021; 7. (In Russ.).
  4. Bozhkov O.B., Trotsuk I.V. Postsovetsky fermersky internatsional v selskom khozyaystve Severo-Zapadnogo regiona [Post-Soviet farmers’ international in the agriculture of the NorthWest Region]. Russian Peasant Studies. 2020; 5 (4). (In Russ.).
  5. Bolshoy tolkovy slovar russkogo yazyka [Big Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Language]. Saint Petersburg; 1998. (In Russ.).
  6. Vakhitov R.R. Kak my vyzhivali v 1990-ye? Obshchinnaya samoorganizatsiya rossiyan v epokhu liberalnyh reform 1990-h gg. [How did we survive in the 1990s? Communal selforganization of Russians in the era of liberal reforms in the 1990s]. Filosofiya Sotsialnyh Kommunikatsiy. 2009; 1. (In Russ.).
  7. Vinogradsky V.G. “Derevnya” i “selsky mir”: skhodstvo i nesovpadenie [“Village” and “rural world”: Similarities and discrepancies]. Puti Rossii: Granitsy politiki. Pod red. M.G. Pugachevoy. Moscow; 2019. (In Russ.).
  8. Deryabina M.A. Teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie osnovaniya samoorganizatsii sotsialnoekonomicheskih sistem [Theoretical-methodological foundations of self-organization of social-economic systems]. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2019; 7. (In Russ.).
  9. Karpichev V.S. K voprosu ob issledovanii konstruktivnoy i nekonstruktivnoy sotsialnoy samoorganizatsii [On the study of constructive and non-constructive social self-organization]. Sotsiologiya Vlasti. 2010; 5. (In Russ.).
  10. Kulyasov I.P., Kulyasova A.A. Ekoposeleniya — novaya forma selskih soobshchestv v Rossii [Ecovillages — a new form of rural communities in Russia]. Ekologiya i Zhizn. 2008; 10. (In Russ.).
  11. Osorgin K.S. Model mestnogo soobshchestva: struktura, funktsii, klyuchevye atributy [Local community model: Structure, functions, key attributes]. Obshchestvennaya geografiya v menyayushchemsya mire: fundamentalnye i prikladnye issledovaniya. Pod red. V.A. Rubtsova, E.I. Baybakova. Kazan; 2019. (In Russ.).
  12. Rybakova M.V. Potentsial ekoposeleniy v sotsialno-ekologicheskoy modernizatsii sovremennoy Rossii [Potential of ecovillages in the social-ecological modernization of contemporary Russia]. Rossiya: tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiya. Ezhegodnik. Moscow; 2015. (In Russ.).
  13. Smysly selskoy zhizni (Opyt sotsiologicheskogo analiza) [Meanings of Rural Life (Sociological Analysis)]. Pod red. Zh.T. Toshchenko. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ.).
  14. Sumskaya T.V. Problemy byudzhetnoy obespechennosti mestnogo samoupravleniya (na primere Novosibirskoy oblasti) [Problems of budgetary provision of local self-government (on the example of the Novosibirsk Region)]. Federalizm. 2018; 1. (In Russ.).
  15. Trotsuk I. Neformalnye praktiki: irratsionalnoe povedenie ili vliyanie kultury? Dva kontekstualnyh “freyma” dlya izucheniya neformalnoy ekonomiki [Informal practices: Irrational behavior or cultural influence? Two contextual “frames” for the study of informal economy]. Russian Peasant Studies. 2018; 3 (4). (In Russ.).
  16. Trotsuk I.V. “Prirodny altruism” ili vynuzhdennaya ratsionalnost? Dolzhnoe, ozhidaemoe i realnoe v (ne) formalnoy ekonomike [“Natural altruism” or forced rationality? Proper, expected and real in the (in) formal economy]. Russian Peasant Studies. 2017; 2 (4). (In Russ.).
  17. 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.).
  18. Fadeeva O.P., Nefedkin V.I. “Regionalny dirizhizm” i selskaya samoorganizatsiya v Tatarstane [“Regional dirigisme” and rural self-organization in Tatarstan]. Russian Peasant Studies. 2018; 3 (3). (In Russ.).
  19. Heidegger M. Osnovnye ponyatiya metafiziki. Mir–konechnost–odinochestvo [The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics — World, Finitude, Solitude]. Saint Petersburg; 2013. (In Russ.).
  20. Heidegger M. Pismo o gumanizme [Letter on humanism]. Vremya i bytie. Saint Petersburg; 2007. (In Russ.).
  21. Khitsenko V.E. Samoorganizatsiya: elementy teorii i sotsialnye prilozheniya [SelfOrganization: Elements of Theory and Social Application]. Moscow; 2014. (In Russ.).
  22. Shomina E.S. Samoorganizatsiya zhiteley v selskih poseleniyah — vzglyad skvoz rozovye ochki [Self-organization of villagers — a look through rose-colored glasses]. Sotsiologicheskaya Nauka i Sotsialnaya Praktika. 2020; 8 (2). (In Russ.).
  23. Shchukina M.Yu. Sotsialnaya aktivnost kak faktor samoorganizatsii rossiyskih ekoposeleniy [Social activity as a factor of self-organization of Russian ecovillages]. Problemny Analiz i Gosudarstvenno-Upravlencheskoe Proektirovanie, 2014; 7 (5). (In Russ.).
  24. Fischer H.W., Chatre A., Devalkar S., Sohoni M. Rural institutions, social networks, and selforganized. Environmental Research Letters. 2021; 16 (10).
  25. Kondratiev M.V., Fadeeva O.P. Practices of public participation in local self-governance: Case studies of Siberian villages. Regional Research of Russia. 2021; 11 (4).
  26. Krugman P.R. The Self-Organizing Economy. Oxford, 1996.
  27. Lin K. Social quality theory. A New Perspective on Social Development. K. Lin, P. Herrmann (Eds.). New York; 2015.
  28. McKey D., Rostain S., Iriarte J., Glaser B., Birk J.J., Holst I., Renard D. Pre-Columbian agricultural landscapes, ecosystem engineers, and self-organized patchiness in Amazonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2010; 107 (7).
  29. Nikulin A., Trotsuk I., Wegren S. Ideology and philosophy of the successful regional development in contemporary Russia: The Belgorod case. Russian Peasant Studies. 2018; 3 (1).
  30. Nikulin A.M., Trotsuk I.V., Wegren S.K. The importance of strong regional leadership in Russia: the Belgorod Miracle in agriculture. Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2017; 58 (3).
  31. Sherwood S., van Bommel S., Paredes M. Self-organization and the bypass: Re-imagining institutions for more sustainable development in agriculture and food. Agriculture. 2016; 6 (4).
  32. Sobolev A., Kurakin A., Pakhomov V., Trotsuk I. Cooperation in rural Russia: Past, present and future. Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology. 2018; 27 (1).
  33. Sovolev A., Kurakin A., Trotsuk I. Methodological approaches to the study of Russian cooperation and “Theory and practice of cooperation” as an academic discipline. Russian Peasant Studies. 2017; 2 (1).
  34. Trotsuk I. “To trust or not to trust” is not the question; “How to study trust” is much more challenging task. Russian Sociological Review. 2016; 15 (4).
  35. Zhang S., de Roo G., Rauws W. Understanding self-organization and formal institutions in peri-urban transformations: A case study from Beijing. Environment and Planning B-Urban Analytics and City Science. 2020; 47 (2).

Copyright (c) 2023 Vinogradsky V.G., Vinogradskaya O.Y.

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