Vol 21, No 4 (2021)

In the Weberian literature, it has been repeatedly noted that there is no serious theological interest in the most important provisions of the sociology of religion by Max Weber. This seems paradoxical given the religious-theological context for the development of Weber’s intellectual project of the social-theoretical hermeneutics of Western modernity. In the first part of the article, the author reconstructs the family and friends’ religious constellation which determined Weber’s understanding of the existential significance of religious meanings for certain groups of the modern era. The author mentions Weber’s close ties with a number of leading theologians of Germany in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, which influenced the heuristics of his writings. The second part of the article focuses on the multifaceted figure of Friedrich Naumann, a public intellectual, who was a Protestant pastor and a reactionary-conservative theologian and became a spiritual-political leader of the German left liberals. The author shows the initial ambivalence of the political-religious situation in the German Empire in the 1880s-1890s, in which Naumann tried to combine Christianity and socialism, and provides a brief overview of the young theologian and social activist’s gradual turning into a prominent figure of the German journalism and politics. In the third part of the article, the author describes the meeting of two thinkers as fateful for both Weber and Naumann, and emphasizes a radical turn in the worldview of the famous religious theorist and practitioner, who under the powerful influence of Weber’s personality and argumentation gave up both many previous ideas and pastor’s office. In conclusion, the author identifies the paradigmatic nature of Nauman’s ideological-political evolution as typical for a significant part of German intellectuals at the beginning of the 20th century, and considers Naumann’s Hegelian acceptance of the modern nation-state as the highest value (following Weber) as a self-fulfilling diagnosis for the crisis modernity on the eve of the First World War catastrophe.

Counterfinality is defined as unintended consequences of the uncoordinated actions of rationally acting individuals. Even before the concept was introduced by Sartre and developed by Elster, counterfinality was considered by many scholars. Some defined counterfinality as a type of social paradoxes and dilemmas, others - as an outcome of social interaction. Description and analysis of such social contradictions and paradoxes can be found in the works of Hobbes, Mandeville, Smith, Marx and Hegel. In the 20th century, sociologists also considered the issue of unintended consequences. Many classic papers of Merton contributed to the sociological analysis of the unintended consequences of intentional actions. Subsequent works focused on their classifications, and the phenomenon of counterfinality was highlighted in almost every classification. The term ‘counterfinality’ was introduced by Sartre as an ‘appendage of history’, an unforeseen consequence of many interactions. The sociological study of counterfinality was initiated by Elster. He analyzes counterfinality not within the functionalist paradigm, but in the methodological individualism perspective, and for him, counterfinality acts as a basis for social change. The author’s analysis of the main ideas of Sartre, Elster and other authors on counterfinality reveals its distinctive features in general and in the sociological analysis of social action in particular. The author argues that today the counterfinality theory consists mainly of responses and criticism of the ideas of Sartre and Elster, and that further sociological research should focus on conditions, features and consequences of counterfinality, and on its empirical indicators.

The article presents the results of the search for methodological ways to improve the quality of sociological information obtained in the focus group discussion. Today the scientific sphere is changing, and, in addition to the development of new methods, the existing interdisciplinary ones are being adapted to the specific research goals. An important way for improving sociological methods is the study of psychological aspects of respondents’ behavior during focus groups, since unconscious reactions can indicate the potential information bias and affect the quality of the project results. In the RUDN University, a three-stage methodological experiment was conducted based on the psychological technique “7 radicals”, the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) and the personal differential method. At the first stage, the experiment aimed at examining the ability of respondents without special knowledge in the field of psycho-typing to identify the dominant radicals. At the second stage, representatives of different psycho-types assessed each other so that the researchers would develop recommendations for the seating of focus group participants. At the third stage, the quality of the data obtained in focus groups was assessed depending on the moderator’s special skills (knowledge of psycho-types, FACS and SPAFF). Thus, the recommendations for moderators were developed - to increase the efficiency of work with focus group participants and to improve the quality of sociological data. The moderator needs knowledge in three areas: respondents’ psycho-types, affects in SPAFF, and the proxemic component (seating of respondents). The authors assess the prospects for introducing psychological techniques into the training system for focus group moderators and provide recommendations for moderators based on the results of the multi-stage experiment. Its results partially solve the problem of the quality of the focus group data by explaining the need to teach moderators interdisciplinary techniques (SPAFF and psycho-typing of the focus-group participants).

The expansion of the covid-19 has created a new pandemic social reality. In fact, for the first time in modern history, mankind faces a global crisis determined not by geopolitical or economic challenges but by a disease which spreads in most countries and all continents as a pandemic, which affects the current social-economic processes and development forecasts, reveals and intensifies the most acute social problems, and significantly transformed the functioning of the contemporary society. The pandemic was a complete surprise for the world and national communities - a surprise not so much medical or epidemiological as social. Already at the beginning of the pandemic, there was an opposition of two approaches to its probable social consequences. Some experts believed that it would change the society radically and irreversibly, would transform social institutions and change everyday life, and “the world will never be the same”. Others argued that the new social practices would not affect the deepest foundations of the established social order which would be later restored in its pre-coronavirus form [10]. However, it is obvious that the global and extraordinary social upheavals caused by the pandemic would have large-scale social consequences that need to be described and analyzed, in particular the impact of the coronavirus on the most important spheres and aspects of life as assessed by the people. The article is based on the results of the all-Russian sociological study and presents a comprehensive analysis of the Russian life under the pandemic. The authors provide data on the dynamics of material and social situation of Russians, explain the impact of the pandemic on the social-psychological well-being, public mentality and spiritual atmosphere. The authors pay particular attention to the behavioral practices of different groups of the Russian population according to their adaptation to new social-economic conditions, preservation and development of human potential, and view of the country’s future.

The article considers some key aspects of the current transformation of social reality. The author argues that the announcement of the pandemic determined an unprecedented situation: humanity faces a completely different concept of reality. In particular, the breakthrough in the development of NBIC technologies (nano, bio, new information and cognitive technologies) contributes to the strengthening of the paradigm that absolutizes the technocratic component of civilizational development. Under the general depression and decline in economic activity, there is an explosive growth in the field of bioengineering, information and cognitive research. The ‘new normality’ of the coronavirus era, associated with the unprecedented development of artificial intelligence systems, video surveillance technologies, geolocation and ‘big data’, in an unusually short time has created new existential and legal problems. The proclaimed threat to public health, being a significant goal-setting, has become a dominant justification for the introduction of serious innovations that allow the ruling elites to block civil rights, in particular, to legalize the use of tracking systems. Under the fight against the pandemic, the personal identification systems based on advanced technologies are being transformed from a security tool of law enforcement agencies into a tool of mass social engineering. Russia has come close to a new stage of digital transformation - a state-wide credential management system (the Unified Federal Information Register). Considering the experience of China in digital segregation, concerns arise: will digitalization turn into something dangerous as the algorithms of artificial intelligence improve, the use of biometric surveillance broaden, etc.? The article emphasizes that scanning the appearance and collecting information about citizens allows to create a gigantic array of data, the use of which can have unpredictable consequences, and the problem of their unauthorized use is not the main one. The power of algorithms, which allows to manipulate a person by means of continuously collected information about him, can turn into a new, sophisticated form of genocide.

Under the current humanitarian and technological revolution, the change of the paradigm of the social-economic development from the principle ‘man for economy’ to the principle ‘economy for man’ has become a priority criteria for positioning countries in the global space. The term ‘quality of life’ plays the key role in this concept, since the high quality of life allows the state to accumulate on its territory the main resource - human capital. Improving the quality of life takes a leading place among the Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) approved by the UN General Assembly [19]. The 2020 Human Development Report underlines “the meaning of a good life and the ways in which we can achieve it,” and the emphasis is made on “achieving the well-being of everyone” [10]. The article is based on the data of the authors’ representative sociological survey on “Demographic well-being of Russian regions” conducted in 2020. The survey aimed at revealing the assessments of respondents from different regions of Russia of the metrics of family well-being, and at identifying family problems for the development of differentiated/narrowly focused measures to support families with children. Based on the survey data, the authors conducted a detailed analysis of the parameters of family well-being and of the role of the state social support in ensuring it in the respondents’ perspective. Russian families differ in their assessments of the significance of measures necessary to support the family, focus on measures of economic support, on the development of social infrastructure, and on the role of ideological influence. The cluster analysis confirmed the need for differentiated measures of the state social support, which would take into account the stages of the family life cycle (age of family members, number of children). The factor analysis allowed to identify the structure of Russians’ ideas about the main measures that would contribute to strengthening the family, which must be taken into account when developing managerial decisions in the field of the social-demographic development.

The article considers the social self-identification of the Russian working youth and its class identity. The relevance of the topic is due to the need to search for basic indicators of the identity of the working class in the post-industrial era as connected with the fundamental differences between wage labour in the service sectors from the labour of industrial workers. The article presents an overview of contemporary concepts of multiple and fragmented identity, outlines the main vectors of controversy in the debates on identification processes and identity politics in contemporary societies; describes the basic features of the identification of the working class in the post-industrial era - the nature and content of labour; ownership of property and participation in the management of the enterprise. The contemporary working class is defined as a nonhomogeneous entity with internal differentiation determined by such factors as the form of employment, sphere of employment, income level, lifestyle and cultural capital. The empirical part of the research was implemented in the Ural Federal District in 2018 based on the mass and expert surveys. The results of the study prove that there are active processes of class formation in the Russian society; therefore, we need to revive the class approach to the description of the social structure. More than 50% of young people from the traditional industrial working class still identify themselves as members of this social group, while the same applies only to every third worker of routine service; and identification with the middle class loses popularity. The empirical data show the paradoxical nature of the working-class thinking and the instability of its basic orientations. The contradictory assessments and statements of the respondents confirm the vagueness of their class consciousness and the instability of their class identity.

The article examines the situation in the Middle East and North Africa region (the so-called ‘Afrasian arc of instability’) in the context of the social representations of the local youth. Based on the empirical study conducted with the authors’ method, the authors assess the youth’s ideas about the most important factors for the effective social-political development of the region. The research methodology is based on the analysis of 12 trends that determine the regional development in the Arab East. The study allowed to assess the social-political potential of the Arab youth as a specific and influential demographic group ready to contribute to the development agenda for the Arab East. The authors identify the Arab youth’s social preferences regarding the main development trends in the region; show that in the political struggle, young people do not act alone, their aspirations are closely intertwined with national goals; prove that there is an active search for ways out of the economic crisis, for strengthening national sovereignty and ensuring peace and security. All these problems have become urgent in recent years in the Middle East region for a number of its countries strives to solve difficult problems of overcoming the destructive impact of the Arab Spring. The article presents the youth priority requests such as demands for the quality legal relations, developing national idea, and ensuring national security by strengthening military force and possessing weapons of restraint. One of the basic preferences of the Arab youth is preserving sovereignty, reducing external influences and creating a strong alliance of the Middle Eastern states. Rapprochement with leading world powers and regional associations (named as West, East and Russia) seems to be on the periphery of the Arab youth interests.

The article is a review of the book by K. Clément Patriotism from Below. “How Is It Possible That People Are So Poor in the Rich Country?” (Moscow: NLO, 2021. 232 p.). The book is based on the results of the research project aimed at the detailed description of different types of everyday Russian patriotism with the help of the qualitative approach (in fact, case studies and semi-formalized interviews were conducted, although the book presents them as ethnographic research and in-depth interviews). The book identifies and describes the following types of the ‘grassroot’ Russian patriotism which does not always coincide with the state patriotic discourse (patriotism ‘from above’): non-state and state everyday patriotism, non-patriotism, detached patriotism, and local patriotism. The review identifies both the undoubted merits of the book and its conceptual, methodological and analytical limitations which can become a starting point for further sociological studies of discursive practices and behavioral patterns of Russians, especially of those living in the Russian ‘hinterland’ (depressed peripheral regions of the country).