Translated material
Bad story
The sociological community is buzzing. On April 21, 2011, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences announced the holding of the Third Sociological Congress in Moscow in February 2012 [1]. Sociologists threw up their hands in bewilderment, because the Third Congress had already taken place in October 2008, and at its opening, by the way, a greeting from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was read out [2]. In May 2011, leading sociologists from the Levada Center, FOM, VTsIOM, the Higher School of Economics and the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences appealed to the President of the Academy of Sciences, Yuri Osipov, with a request to review the order of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences [3]. After this, the new congress was called the "Fourth".
Sociologists again threw up their hands. The fact is that the decision to hold such a congress could only be made by the Russian Society of Sociologists (ROS), and no one else. Moreover, the Presidium of this organization already decided in November last year that the next congress will be held in Bashkiria in the fall of 2012 [4] and preparations for it are already in full swing. PRAN, apparently, did not go into such “details”, and next year two “Fourth Sociological Congresses” will be held in Russia. One, according to sociologists from ROS, is illegitimate, in Moscow, in February. Another, announced by ROS, in Ufa, in October.
A recent chord in these disputes was the decision of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences on November 22, 2011, according to which, according to the proposal of the Department of Social Sciences, the creation of a new “academic” Sociological Association of Russia - SAR was approved in the status of the only legitimate representative of domestic sociologists in relevant international organizations. In this regard, the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yuri Osipov, received a new open appeal from sociologists, which has currently been signed by more than 80 scientists [5].
What is the reason for the disagreements within the sociological community? We publish the commentary of Dr. philosopher. Sciences, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Sociology of the State Academic University of Humanities Vladimir Yadov.
First of all, let me remind you that Russia already has a national sociological association. This is the Russian Society of Sociologists, which has existed and been active for about 20 years. ROS was created as a professional association in 1989 by decision of the Presidium of the Soviet Sociological Association (SSA), as a republican (within the RSFSR) branch of the SSA. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, ROS in 1992 became the only representative of domestic sociologists in the International Sociological Association.
To date, RUS has over 4,000 members, 74 regional branches and 29 research committees. Of the public sociological associations, only ROS is included in the RAS directory, which indicates its recognition by the Presidium of the RAS as the leading national association, and only ROS from sociological associations is included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission for the mandatory distribution of dissertation abstracts in this specialty.
Why has the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences now decided to create a new association, “forgetting” about the existence of the ROS?
20 years ago
The Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences was created in 1988 by a Decree of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, on the basis of the then Institute of Sociological Research. Its organizing director was Prof. V.A. Yadov, who headed the institute from 1988 to 2000. At the very beginning, the Academic Council of the Institute of Sociology split into supporters of alternative research programs. V.A. program Yadova, then corresponding member. USSR Academy of Sciences G.V. Osipov contrasted his program. The first was aimed at studying the processes of perestroika, the second - rather at identifying its negative consequences. As a result, in 1991, Gennady Osipov managed to create his own Institute for Socio-Political Research (ISPR RAS) [6], where some of the employees moved, including a closed department that conducted surveys on instructions from the KGB (the tasks were covered up by instructions from the science department of the CPSU Central Committee). In the same year he was elected academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Let me take a short historical digression. Having become the organizing director of the Institute of Sociology, I began to get acquainted with its departments. The head of the first department says: “Vladimir Alexandrovich, you do not have access to top-secret materials.” “So arrange it!” A couple of days later, this character reports that the Leningrad branch of the KGB cannot find my dossier (!?), and says: “Okay, meet our special department.”
Department in another building. I'm going there. They, it turns out, conduct surveys: who listens to Western radio stations, what are the moods of the Volga Germans, etc. I’m going to see the Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences for Social Sciences V.N. Kudryavtsev (may his memory be blessed):
— Vladimir Nikolaevich, there is a certain branch of the KGB at the institute. It must be removed immediately.
- How to remove?
- And so, by your order.
- You are a naive person.
“Then I will ask our deputy Tatyana Ivanovna Zaslavskaya to speak at the Congress of People’s Deputies and report that the academic institute has a KGB structure.
V.N. Kudryavtsev connected me with the deputy. KGB Chairman General F. Bobkov, who then supervised the intelligentsia. A confidential half-hour conversation took place (a cup of coffee was offered), which ended with an agreement on further negotiations through a trustee entrusted by the general. We met regularly in my office, and the negotiation process ended not with the abolition of this department, but with its transfer to the ISPI, which had broken away from the Institute of Sociology.
Competition of theories?
Perhaps it was the ideological and theoretical preferences of the initiators of the SAR that prompted them to self-organize into a special association?
Let me remind you what happened in post-Soviet sociology after the fall of the Iron Curtain. In the field of sociological theory, having rejected the “only scientific” support - historical materialism, domestic sociologists initially turned to the concept of structural functionalism, which represents a “normal” society as a well-coordinated social system.
But, alas, nothing like this was observed in post-Soviet Russia. And then many supporters of a variety of theoretical approaches appeared, of which there are dozens in modern sociology. Against the background of “pro-Western”, i.e. those who sought to comprehend certain concepts in relation to Russian society, “true patriots” appeared, proclaiming as their credo “conservative sociology”, in some way connected with Orthodoxy [7].
Meanwhile, in my opinion, among sociological theories there are those that are more adequate to modern realities. These include various versions of globalization concepts, theories of increased risks, environmental concepts, activist approaches with an emphasis on active subjects transforming existing social structures, and many others, including theories aimed at studying and interpreting the everyday lives of people and their “life worlds.”
On the civic position of a sociologist
It seems that the main reason for the split in the sociological community is that in post-Soviet Russia, academic sociologists were divided into supporters of servile sociology, serving power structures, and supporters of a different understanding of their functions, as stated in the Open Letter below from a large group of sociologists.
Those whom I called servile see their task in increasing the role of sociology “in the system of scientific management of society.” ), announced for February 2012 This is the motto of the Fourth Sociological Congress ( all-russia-sc.ru , organized by PRAN, the opening of which will take place not somewhere in an academic or university hall, but (listen, listen!) in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, Moreover, by order of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, funds from the Russian Academy of Sciences were allocated for holding this congress.
All this prompted us to address the public with the following letter.
This letter was coordinated for a long time and was signed by more than 40 sociologists from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk and other regions, but was not published, because it so happened that the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences blessed the creation of an alternative sociological association. And it is completely strange that the decision to form this association was made without the knowledge of the Academic Council of the Institute of Sociology, named one of the co-founders of the SAR, and moreover, at a meeting chaired by the director of this particular institute, corresponding member. RAS M.K. Gorshkova [8].
After such an event, it is better to discuss problems of professional ethics without haste.
With the decision to approve the SAR, ethically unsightly and bordering on a violation of legal norms, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, through the efforts of those craving power control over the community of sociologists, was involved in a very bad story.
We express our gratitude to sociologist A.N. Alekseev for help in preparing the article.
1. www.ras.ru/presidium/documents/directionsp.aspx?ID=3906e697-eb3a-432d-8833-79dc558a86bf
2. http://kremLin.ru/news/1805
3. www.poLit.ru/dossie/2011/05/26/Letter_soc_to_osipov.html
4. www.ssa-rss.ru/index.php?page_id=19&id=409&p=5
5. www.ssa-rss.ru/index.php?page_id=360
6. For how G. Osipov himself interprets the demarcation of ISI and ISPI in 1991, see, for example, one of his biographies: www.peopLes.ru/science/phiLosophy/gennady_osipov/
7. From the report of the head of the Center for Conservative Research of the Sociological Faculty of Moscow State University, prof. A. Dugina at the plenary session of the V All-Russian scientific conference “Sorokin Readings” on December 1, 2009: “The general set of conservative values in favor of which society is inclined is generally obvious - these are the values of the state, sovereignty, sovereignty, family, morality, stability, harmony, tradition, historical rootedness, preservation and strengthening of national, cultural and spiritual identity. Often added to this are the newly discovered values of religion.” ( www.sorokinfond.ru/index.php?id=1018 )
8. In 2007, the same members of the Russian Academy of Sciences who now initiated the creation of the SAR (Sociological Association of Russia) undertook the establishment of the SSR - the Union of Sociologists of Russia, with approximately the same goal. This was reported in detail on Polit.ru - Natalia Demina, Soviet sociological revenge. Report and interviews with the main characters. July 11, 2007. ( http://poLit.ru/articLe/2007/07/11/soc/ )
An Open Letter to the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yu.S. will also be published on the TrV-Science website. Osipov, signed by the President of ROS, Professor V.A. Mansurov, President of the Society of Professional Sociologists, Member of the Executive Committee of the International Sociological Association (ISA), Professor N.E. Pokrovsky, co-chairman of the board of the St. Petersburg Association of Sociologists (SPaS) O.B. Bozhkov, ex-president of the Soviet Sociological Association, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences T.I. Zaslavskaya, president-organizer of ROS, corresponding member of the RAS N.I. Lapin and ex-president of ROS, professor V.A. Yadov. This letter was submitted to the RAS office on the day of the meeting of the RAS Presidium, which approved the decision to create the SAR.
The open letter was also signed by more than 70 sociologists from Yekaterinburg, Kaluga, Kirov, Kostroma, Krasnoyarsk, Moscow, Murmansk, St. Petersburg, Perm, Samara, Saratov, Khabarovsk and other Russian cities.
The collection of signatures continues.
* * *
ABOUT PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN SOCIOLOGY
(Open letter)
The approaching 2012 promises to be a stormy year for Russian sociology.
According to the actual state of affairs, two parallel All-Russian Congresses of Sociology are meeting, moreover, under the same serial number - “IV All-Russian Sociological Congress”. One of them is convened by the Russian Society of Sociologists (ROS), a national organization of Russian sociologists representing the professional community in the International Sociological Association, the other by order of the president of the state organization of the Russian Academy of Sciences. One congress - "Sociology and Society: Global Challenges and Regional Development" - will be held in Ufa, the other - in Moscow with the program "Sociology in the system of scientific management of society."
It is possible and should analyze the platforms of both congresses in detail, especially since behind these platforms there are fundamentally different, sometimes diametrically opposed positions regarding the meaning, tasks and goals of sociology in general and, in particular, in modern Russia. If the former, associated with ROS, see in sociology primarily a science that offers society a real picture of what is happening in it and how various segments of the population relate to what is happening, then the latter are mainly concerned with the inclusion of sociology in the apparatus of power and the desire to directly participate in the management of social processes. We agree that these are quite different approaches to understanding the place and tasks of sociology in society, as well as to understanding the civic position of a sociologist.
During the preparations for the Moscow congress, its organizers, knowing that a number of well-known Russian sociologists fundamentally refuse to take part in this administratively organized congress, included them in the governing bodies of the congress and in the congress program without proper approval.
A situation is being created where sociologists who do not want their names to be in any way associated with the next RUS congress announced along with the one already being prepared in October 2012, to no small surprise, find their names in the congress program in the role of co-chairs of sections and other sessions.
This situation is beyond the norms of decency and basic decency. It is extremely puzzling to see the participation of the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Moscow State University, Prof., in the bureau of the organizing committee and the Program Committee of this congress. V.A. Dobrenkov, in 2007 publicly convicted of plagiarism based on the results of the work of a special commission created by the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint from faculty students about the quality of education and conditions for classes.
In this regard, the undersigned notify the scientific community that they did not have, do not have and do not intend to have any connection with the above-mentioned meeting.
November 2011
(More than 40 signatures follow)