Sociological Party -Zaptiv

The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences issued an order to hold in Moscow on February 3-4, 2012 the III All-Russian Sociological Congress. The chairman of the Bureau of the organizing committee of the congress was appointed by G.V. Osipov, well-known sociologists are included in the bureau and organizing committee himself. More precisely, they should have entered, because some of them refused this honor and did it in public form. The order was signed on April 21, 2011, and a month later (May 25) on the websites of the Russian Society of Sociologists (Ros) and the Faculty of Sociology of the NRU -HSE, a letter of sociologists appears, some of which were named among the organizers of the III All -Russian Sociological Congress. In this letter, they sharply refuse to participate in the upcoming event.

The letter indicates that the third sociological congress has already passed in the fall of 2008, and part of the members of the organizing committee of the new congress are people who died, and therefore will not be able to prepare the congress. In particular, I.S. Kon and V.N. Shubkin are named as the organizers of the Congress.

But still, more serious accusations concern not such “oversights” as the inclusion in the lists of people who cannot become organizers and participants in the congress or the wrong order of its serial number. “Signatals” were most outraged by two circumstances. The first - no one told them either about the congress, nor, moreover, about their participation in the organizing committee. The second - they would never agree to take part in the preparation of the event, “among the leaders of which the person convicted of plagiarism appears, as well as other gentlemen who have high academic titles with a dubious attitude to sociological science, but clearly striving to“ call the process ”, not having legitimate grounds.” This “face” is not called, but to sociologists it is clear who is meant. The summary of the letter is as follows: “The signatures below do not want to have anything in common with the event, which is in this way prepared - and, apparently, it will be carried out with the corresponding purposes.” And the letter ends with the words that they propose to conduct an alternative congress, and outside the framework of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

On June 1, a meeting of those who still consider themselves members of the office of the organizing committee of this congress took place. Clause one “Bureau’s Solutions” is designed to retroactively smooth out the numbering problem: “To adjust the name of the extraordinary anniversary All -Russian Sociological Congress of 2008 to the anniversary III Sociological Congress. Another All -Russian Sociological Congress is considered to be the IV All -Russian Sociological Congress. ” The text of the “solution” indicates that Congress will try to collect the traditional exhibits of the Soviet panopticum: Gennady Osipov, Vasily Zhukov, Vladimir Dobrenkov, etc.

One of the failed members of Bureau of the III of the Sociological Congress, whose name is the first list of those who signed a letter of protest (simply because the signatures are located in alphabetical order) is the head of the Levada Center Lev Dmitrievich Gudkov , with whom we talked about events around the future congress and how the idea arose to write this letter. The interview was taken by Lyubov Borusak .

Lyubov Borusyak: Do you think it is necessary to conduct such sociological congresses in Russia? Why did this message cause such indignation among large sociologists? And even more unexpectedly - how did it happen that under this letter there are signatures of people related to very different sociological schools?

Lev Gudkov: Well, how can you say, do you need or not? In the form, as they are held, in particular, the third congress ...

LB: ... which was anniversary, in honor of the 50th anniversary of Russian sociology.

L.G.: It seems to me that there is no sense in this sociology itself, since the problems of sociology at the congress are not discussed. But for the provincial sociologists who come to Moscow, to see what they are doing and what they are talking about, there is some sense from this. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is an absolutely meaningless event, purely pompous and bureaucratic.

LB: After the last congress, you have a feeling of dissatisfaction that you told us about. And many other sociologists said that there was no what they would like.

L.G.: This is a Soviet, pompous, ceremonial, anniversary event, very costly for money and very unproductive in meaning. In addition, it seems to me that the problems of sociology are not affected there at all - and this is the most important. Take the German Congress, take some other congress of sociologists - they are primarily carried out by substantial theoretical problems, which are discussed there. A professional dispute goes around some substantial, theoretical, conceptual problems. This is the meaning of such professional meetings, and not for someone to report on their successes and achievements, while reproducing reporting reports and forms of the Soviet party-assault.

LB: But there were still scientific reports.

L.G.: For this, you do not need to collect such a breakthrough of people.

And what is the meaning of the current conflict? The fact that, firstly, Osipov and the company are trying to remove the meaning of the former congress. But still there was some kind of alternative in positions: first of all, the discrepancies between the highest school of the economy and the social faculty of Moscow State University. Relatively speaking, there was a struggle for control over the educational processes, certification of the educational process.

LB: This is also a lot of money, except for everything else.

L.G.: Exactly. Money and influence behind this are worth it. In my opinion, this should not relate to sociology at all. And here's what I will tell you: in my opinion,

There should not be a single methodological center or generally unified programs for teaching sociology.

LB: Well, probably, like teaching everything else too.

L.G.: Yes, and everything else too. This is a meaningless bureaucratic form of organization of the educational process. The only positive meaning that can be is to tighten the lagging behind to a minimum acceptable level. Today there is an orientation to the lower level, to the limit, while every university should be responsible for the quality of teaching.

LB: We have 120 universities where they teach sociology. I think that in most of them serious methodological work is not only not conducted, but also cannot be conducted. There is simply no one to deal with this at many universities.

L.G.: But state certificates, state programs, state standards here do not eliminate this hole. You understand that if there are no books in the library, the latest foreign magazines do not receive, then at least you will blow the frog to the level of ox, it still will not become a cow.

LB: Why is the announcement that the congress is being prepared, besides the fact that there seems to be the “main” people who will be the people and other sociologists who expressed their indignation, aroused such a protest?

L.G.: Firstly,

There were simply falsification elements. The organizing committee included a lot of people who were not informed about it, who were not asked whether they are ready to work there or not.

In particular, I was there, although no one asked me.

LB: That is, they proceeded from the fact that everyone will be glad of this honor?

L.G.: Well, yes. They wanted to collect such an inlay under the cap of Osipov, Zhukov and Dobrenkov.

LB: Why did they do it so confidently?

L.G.: By the usual impudence and some kind of slope. Even the dead were included there: Shukin, con.

LB: Apparently, this was prepared earlier: the end recently died.

L.G.: Kon - recently, and as for Shubkin, they could scratch and control it a little.

In a letter - and it seems to me that this is reasonable - the idea of ​​an alternative congress is put forward, which should not be one and a half thousand people. Well, if there are 40-50 leading specialists who can really discuss some problems seriously.

LB: By the way, who initiated the letter? Did it go from the "tower"?

L.G.: Yes, they initiated a letter in the "TSLE". When they received this document, at the next meeting of the Scientific Council, the Socialist -Revolutionary Phantom of the “Twes” began to exchange impressions on this subject. At first, bewilderment arose, then indignation, well, and then - such an initiative.

LB: On the one hand, there was such an initiative, and on the other hand, the letter was signed by people who, to put it mildly, are not always friends with each other.

L.G.: It also struck me too much, but it was already too late.

LB: Are these different people who signed a letter, can they begin to organize this real, correct congress from your point of view?

L.G.: When it went into the internal newsletter, and the text was generally agreed, I signed it. And then I saw Fedorov and Oslon next to him, to my amazement. Well, what will you do here?

LB: Suppose that the idea of ​​an alternative congress, while rather foggy, will be realized. In your opinion, who can organize such a congress?

L.G.: Honestly, with all my internal claims to the sociological faculty “Twes”, I still think that today it is the best place to teach sociology in the country. I do not know how they teach in St. Petersburg - I don’t take it to judge this - but from what I see, after all, the highest level in the higher school of the economy.

LB: So you think that this congress can be organized on the basis of the "Tower"?

L.G.: Yes.

LB: But the "tower" already has international annual conferences.

L.G.: This is economics and modernization, these are big economic problems mainly. And there are really huge and very interesting conferences for a thousand people. This is not even a conference, but something more. And here it will be, as I understand it - in any case, this is exactly what was discussed - a compact conference with really working and authoritative sociologists.

LB: But should it be a thematic conference or not? Because even if a small number of very smart people and professional sociologists gather, and everyone will talk about his own, then still there will not be a serious and deep discussion of problems.

L.G.: So far it is too early to talk about it

LB: Do you think there are any problems that really cost to organize such a serious thing? What seems to you so essential that people who are professionally engaged in a professionally dealt with a lot of problems? What can unite them?

L.G.: You see, the level of professional solidarity is extremely low.

LB: I would even say negative.

L.G.: Well, no. There are six or seven professional associations. Frankly, I don’t remember all, but still some work is being done. Keep in mind that there is a huge rear of provincial sociology, which needs professional communication. There are no other opportunities to see, to hear, to hear. From reading literature, you can not get everything. Still, the effect of personal presence in performances and discussions deserves special attention, especially if it is a discussion.

LB: But if it is a compact conference for 50 people, after all, these provincial sociologists will not get there.

L.G.: One of the really working provincial sociologists will hit. Why not? After all, it is better to discuss serious problems with any authoritative people in order for the mechanism for breeding authority, recognition, and self-organization of internal.

LB: Do we have at least some evidence that this process at least begins?

L.G.: I find it difficult to answer. In fact, very weak forms of self -organization, but we have already talked about this more than once with you.

LB: But at least something was cutting out?

L.G.: The same, Soviet bureaucratic form of organization remained, which continues to exist to this day. It is represented by just those who are mentioned in the order at the Academy.

LB: Do you think, despite your letter, this pathos congress will still take place? Or will a step back, something will change and so on?

L.G.: I do not expect anything good from that side, however, bad too. They are engaged in intrigues for representation: who will represent Russia at international congresses, distribute finances and so on. Honestly, this is not related to science, and this is not interesting. But something will happen there.

LB: And it is possible that the congress will take place?

L.G.: It is quite possible. But from an alternative initiative, maybe something sensible will come out, despite the entire skepticism.

LB: Is something already being done in this direction or not?

L.G.: So far, there was only a letter. Therefore, I say that it is too early to discuss it.

LB: Maybe something will be clear by the fall?

L.G.: Even if an alternative idea is developed, it will not be implemented before next year. The preparatory work is long: you need to knock out the money, contact everyone, determine the topic, compose a program, that is, do everything that is required in the icographer.

LB: If such work goes, will you participate in this? Do you want this?

L.G.: Of course, I want why not. This is at least some hope for a living life, but for now we live-we hope. Sociology and the professional community should be built on discussions. Not on the distribution of premium pies, but on the exchange of views, points of view, on the presentation of the results, their analysis and discussion. Discipline is primarily constituted by problems and, accordingly, work to discuss problems, their interpretation, and so on.

LB: Do we generally have conferences, where are discussions of reports really and seriously? Because this usually happens like this: a report - a minute and a half for questions - a minute and a half to the answers - the next report.

L.G.: Previously, it was a little at our conferences ( referring to the annual conferences of the Levada Center-L.B .), But there is also little discussion. In general, there are two different types of scientific conferences. The first type is such a large vanity fair, where various scientific centers and people represent themselves: these are, for example, huge world or American congresses. And there are working conferences with pre-prepared reports, with a mailing list where there is a discussion of a specific problem: under the monograph, under some subject and so on. These are different tasks, and different forms.

So I just returned from the conference in Rome, where the works of Viktor Zaslavsky, my friend and co -author were discussed. I must say, I was simply struck by the atmosphere of this conference, which took place in the Senate library in Italy. It was a scientific community in its purest form, where people did not gather from under the stick, not in anticipation of any awards or incentives. This was an interested discussion of the results of his work in various fields of sociology: in the sociology of the Soviet system and its collapse, in the study of national conflicts, in the study of totalitarianism, the state-administrative system of the USSR. Historical work on the Cold War was discussed, on the history of the relationship between the CPSU and European Communist Parties, and so on. People from different countries arrived there: from the United States, from England, from France, Italians, Yugoslavs, Poles. There were two of us from Russia, however, one has been teaching in the States for a long time, but it doesn’t matter. I was struck by the interested and friendly attitude of people who had no benefit. Indeed, in addition to their own interest and expression of gratitude to this person, nothing connected these people.

LB: Lev Dmitrievich, and you yourself have done a report about?

L.G.: My report was the "deficiency of the legitimacy of the Putin regime. Games with Stalin. " This is in the framework of the study of totalitarianism and the continuation of our disputes with it.

LB: That is, for you it was such a conference that you would like to see here.

L.G.: There was no idle talk and all kinds of ritual trinkets. It was a discussion of what was done, that was not done, what is clear and what is not clear. They tried to understand what Zaslavsky stopped at, and that from this it was necessary to continue. His graduate students, his former students, performed.

LB: That is, there were a lot of people?

L.G.: In the hall there was a 60-70 man.

LB: Do you want your conferences at the Levada Center, do you want to somehow upgrade? The conference goes on one day, but it is very overloaded with reports. Interesting people come, but there is no way to talk about something, argue about what they heard.

L.G.: Here we have two problems. Firstly, there is a problem of money.

LB: Maybe the speakers are a little smaller?

L.G.: Then it will be necessary to change the format of the entire conference. Because the Levadinsky idea - and we continue it - was just this: to present the results of the center’s research in different fields plus the work of our colleagues in order to highlight the overall problems that we are developing. And if you look carefully, then the reports have common points of intersection and from different sides display the same substantive problems.

LB: I see. That is, at this conference, some kind of discussion is not assumed.

L.G.: I would like it to be, but this does not work out for lack of time and great saturation. And then, I want the young to speak. It seems to me that it is very important for them to be able to speak out, to present their work.

Sociology nevertheless reflects the structure of society and the nature of its requests in the field of social knowledge, knowledge about itself. If this request is not, then we will have an Osipov imitation, here is such a facade.

LB: Let's see what all this will result in.

L.G.: By the way, On June 1, they held the organizing committee of this congress. They called me, but I won’t go there.

Л.Б.: Вот интересно, вы подписываете такое письмо, но вас, тем не менее, зовут в оргкомитет. Они что, не заметили этого письма?

Л.Г.: А кто их знает. По-моему, они настолько зациклены на самих себе, что их остальное не волнует. Ну, действительно, мы же не конкурируем с ними за академические премии и фонды.

Л.Б.: Ну, они могли бы обидеться на вас, вычеркнуть из списков оргкомитета. Тем более, ясно, что вы в нем участвовать не станете. А остальных «подписантов» они тоже включили в оргкомитет?

Л.Г.: Не знаю. Повторяю, я думаю, что

пока «Вышка» как координационный центр гораздо симпатичнее и полезнее для развития дисциплины.

Пусть это будет «Вышка», а не Социологический факультет МГУ. Еще раз говорю, им, наверное, можно предъявлять претензии, но все-таки это ближе к какому-то оптимуму или образцу, чем что-нибудь другое. Поэтому если «Вышка» потянет на себя одеяло, я буду считать, что это хорошо.

Л.Б.: Спасибо.