The sociocultural approach suggests. Sociocultural approach to the analysis of society
Most defiantly, these changes can be traced in the so-called ecological approach to understanding human development. W. Bronfenbrenner, D. Kuhn, J. Woolville, R. McCall draw attention to the need for a thorough study of the features of everyday behavior of children in the real conditions of their lives, starting with the immediate family environment and including the social and historical context. As environmentally significant variables, all types of the child's living space (home, family, class, transport, shops, parks, etc.) are involved in the analysis; social roles and functions (daughter, sister, student); characteristics of behavioral activity (duration, intensity, etc.). W. Bronfenbrenner's model of ecological systems has become widely known. The development of the child is considered by him as a dynamic process, when, on the one hand, a multi-level living environment affects the growing individual and, on the other hand, he himself actively restructures it. Bronfenbrenner identifies four levels of the child's living environment. The microlevel of the living environment includes the interaction of the individual with his immediate environment (family, kindergarten), characteristic activities and social roles. The meso-level, or meso-system, is formed when formal or informal connections arise between two or more micro-systems (for example, between family and school, family and peer group). The exo-level covers a wide social environment that is not directly related to the experience of the individual, but indirectly affects him (the nature of the parents' employment, the economic situation in the country, the role of the media). And finally, the macro level, or macro system, forms the cultural and historical context of values, traditions, laws (government programs), which, according to Bronfenbrenner, has a very significant impact on all lower levels. The idea that attracts more and more attention of researchers
development of a person throughout life ( life path) cannot be studied under controlled laboratory conditions. It is necessary to take into account not only predictable age-related changes, but also unique for each age cohort, for each generation, wide cultural and historical factors. So, P. Baltes distinguishes three types of factors: normative age, normative historical and non-normative factors. Normative age factors are changes occurring at a predictable age: biological (teething, puberty, menopause, etc.) and social (enrolling in school, recruiting for military service, retirement, etc.). Normative historical factors are such historical events of a global scale that affect in one way or another the entire age cohort (war, change of political and economic regimes, epidemics). Non-normative factors are represented by those personal events that are not related to certain time life, but can sometimes dramatically change it (illness, trauma, meeting with a special person, divorce, etc.). The situation is actually even more complicated, since the influence of the identified factors is mediated by a number of others, such as gender, age, race, and social class. We are talking about the complex mixed influence of these factors on the life path of a person, in the study of which only the first steps have been taken. So, we traced the evolution of the behavioral approach in developmental psychology on the example of the theories of classical behaviorism by D. Watson, the theory of operant learning by B. Skinner, the social-cognitive theory of A. Bandura and the model of ecological systems by W. Bronfenbrenner, focusing on the problem of factors that determine mental human development.
SELF-CHECK QUESTIONS:
1. Expand the concept of socialization in the concept of social learning.
2. How has the interpretation of the factors of development and functioning of the psyche changed in A. Bandura's theory of social learning in comparison with classical behaviorism and the theory of operant learning?
3. Compare the concepts of imitation (imitation), identification, modeling in social learning theory and in psychoanalysis.
4. Why research on aggression and aggressive behavior in the direction of social learning occupy the most important place?
5. Due to what mechanisms is the influence of the media on human behavior carried out? Lead concrete examples, for the analysis of which be sure to use the basic concepts of social learning theory.
Additional literature:
1. Bronfenbrenner W. Two Worlds of Childhood: Children in the USA and in the USSR. M., 1976.
2. Development of the child's personality / Ed. A.M. Fonareva. M., 1987.
3. Baltes P.B. & Baltes M.M. Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Chapter IX MENTAL DEVELOPMENT AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE: THE CONCEPT OF J. PIAGET
IN educational field foreign language as academic discipline since the mid-1990s has been compulsory discipline for studying at school, which led to the emergence of new methods of learning foreign languages. The possibilities of an open society made it possible to create a new generation of domestic textbooks, built with a focus on international standards and taking into account the domestic experience of teaching a foreign language and the new socio-cultural context of its study. Introduction of new federal state standards primary and secondary general education involves the socialization of schoolchildren in a multicultural society, which is achieved through the formation of students' sociocultural competence. This means that when conducting a lesson, along with general education, upbringing and educational, the sociocultural goal of the lesson should also be realized.
To realize the socio-cultural goal of the lesson at the lesson or after hours there is a need to apply a sociocultural approach that makes it easy to overcome the "cultural hindrances" arising from the lack of sociocultural knowledge and undeveloped sociocultural competence of students. The need for co-learning of languages and cultures can be explained by the fact that the communicative and socio-cultural development of students is largely due to the socio-cultural approach.
The sociocultural approach began to be applied in foreign language lessons relatively recently. It was developed on the basis of the dialogue concept of cultures by M.M. Bakhtin and V.S. Biblera V.V. Safonova.
Under the sociocultural approach, the researcher means a cultural (sociocultural) approach, focused on teaching the language in the "spirit of the world, in the context of a dialogue of cultures" .
Within the framework of the sociocultural approach, the basis of learning in the cognitive aspect is the dialogue of cultures, as a comparison and comparison of facts and phenomena from the sphere artistic creativity and way of life of the two peoples. The essence of this approach lies in the fact that “communicative-oriented teaching of a foreign language is closely related to the use of language as a means of knowing the world and national culture, the subculture of the country of the language being studied, the spiritual heritage of countries and peoples, and ways to achieve intercultural understanding. Teaching foreign language communication is carried out in the context of a dialogue of cultures, taking into account differences in the socio-cultural perception of the world.
Within the framework of this approach, the following goals are expected to be achieved:
1) development of interrelated policy in the field of culture, education and communication;
2) interdisciplinary integration;
3) humanization of education;
4) orientation towards the continuous development of a spiritually and culturally rich personality.
To the main provisions of the socio-cultural approach to learning foreign languages V.V. Safonova attributes the following:
1. A preliminary study of the sociocultural context of the use of non-native languages, the sociocultural context of teaching a foreign language in a particular country and a particular national environment is supposed;
2. “Globalization”, humanization, ecologization and cultural sociologization of the content of language education are required.
3. Sociocultural education is a mandatory component of language training in the 21st century. It is necessary to develop the student's self-awareness as a cultural and historical subject, a carrier of collective and individual sociocultural characteristics, and his role as a subject of a dialogue of cultures, general cultural and communicative skills to use a foreign language as a means of intercultural communication, needs for sociocultural development of the world, development of multilingualism and multiculturalism;
4. The result of sociocultural education is sociocultural competence, which provides the ability to navigate in the sociocultural markers of an authentic language environment, predict possible sociocultural interference in the context of intercultural communication and ways to eliminate them, sociocultural knowledge of countries and peoples, sociocultural self-education in any other areas;
5. The basis for socio-cultural education by means of a foreign language is regionally marked regional studies. A foreign language is a means of communication, a tool for understanding world culture, national cultures and social subcultures of the peoples of the countries of the studied language;
6. A system of problematic sociocultural tasks is used: cognitive-search, cognitive-research tasks, communicative and communicative-cognitive role-playing games, cognitive research educational projects, educational discussions. Attention should be paid to sociocultural impartiality, the degree of communicative and sociocultural complexity;
7. It is supposed to rely on a didactically oriented sociological analysis of the language environment of teaching and learning a foreign language, sociocultural characteristics languages and cultures, the range of social functions studied in a foreign language in a particular living environment, the sociocultural and communicative needs of students, the level of sociocultural education.
The application of a socio-cultural approach encourages students to intercultural interaction, and also teaches them to cope with communication difficulties. Ignoring the socio-cultural approach leads to the fact that "cultural interference", arising from ignorance of the characteristics of a particular culture / nation, interfere with the communication process. This is due to the fact that speech partners in the context of intercultural interaction, respectively, may differ from each other in relation to:
– value-oriented worldview;
- image and lifestyle;
- models of verbal and non-verbal communication.
The importance of implementing a sociocultural approach in foreign language lessons in secondary general education school the works of A.G. Asmolova, G.V. Elizarova, V.V. Safonova, P.V. Sysoev. All researchers note that the sociocultural approach is an integral part of teaching foreign languages in the light of current trends international integration .
So, sociocultural education is an important condition for the formation of communicative and sociocultural competencies and the implementation main goal teaching foreign languages: "development of the student's ability for intercultural interaction and the use of the target language as a tool for this interaction." The use of a sociocultural approach in foreign language lessons at school enriches the cultural and sociolinguistic knowledge of students, gradually prepares them for intercultural communication, and also develops such qualities of character as tolerance and respect for foreign language linguocultural communities.
Bibliography
1. Azimov, E.G. New dictionary methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of teaching languages) [Text] / E.G. Azimov, A.N. Schukin. - M.: Publishing house "IKAR", 2009. - 448 p.
2. Belozerova, N.V. Formation of a foreign language communicative competence cadets of universities of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia on the basis of a sociocultural approach [Text]: thesis .... cand. ped. Sciences: 13.00.08 / Belozerova N.V. - St. Petersburg, 2014 - 209 p.
3. Zaitseva, A.V. To the question of the socio-cultural approach in teaching foreign languages [Text] / A.V. Zaitseva // Proceedings of the Penza State Pedagogical University them. V.G. Belinsky. - 2007. - No. 7. – pp. 208-210
4. Safonova, V.V. Studying the languages of international communication in the context of the dialogue of cultures and civilizations [Text] / V.V. Safonov. - Voronezh: Origins, 1996. - 237 p.
5. Safonova, V.V. Problems of sociocultural education in language pedagogy [Text] / V.V. Safonova // Cultural aspects of language education. - M.: Euroshkola, 1998. - 63 p.
6. Safonova, V.V. Sociocultural approach to teaching foreign languages [Text] / V.V. Safonov. - M.: Higher school; Amscourt International, 1991. - 528s.
SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIETY
INTRODUCTION
The crisis of the social sciences in our country is connected, first of all, with the transformation or simply breaking of a more or less stable system of views. The issue of Marxism (more precisely, its Leninist-Soviet version) occupies a central place in the crisis problematics. The Western version of the crisis is on a different plane. It is connected, first of all, with the expansion of marginalist trends in the methodology of the social sciences. The essence of the new approaches was the esoteric comprehension of past reality, the denial of rationalistic moments in the development of society. One of the actively discussed issues was the question of the general determinant of the development of society. This is due to at least two factors.
1) Concrete social science studies reveal a much greater role of culture, social consciousness, mentality, etc. in the historical process than it could be assumed, based only on the formational paradigm of the development of society. Methodological overlays often became an incentive for a complete rejection of the Marxist concept historical development and above all from the principle of economic determinism, which underlies the doctrine of socio-economic formations. This led to the desire of a number of prominent scientists to oust the formation with its economic basis by civilization. (1).
2) The scientific status of the very concept of culture is rising. The further our society went into a dead end, the clearer it became to what extent the successes and failures of society depend on our activity, and not only on its intensity, positive or negative motivation, but also on the ways of activity that the culture of society provides us with.
In their interdependence, these circumstances paved the way for the intensification of research on the determinative role of the sociocultural. Socio-cultural includes the foundations of both the most important sections of the historical process (formational and civilizational), as well as their derivatives.
SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH: FORMATION OF METHODOLOGY.
The concept of socioculturality has come a long way before becoming fundamental in the methodology of the social sciences.
Stage 1 (the end of the 11th century - the end of the 20th century). The sociocultural was perceived only as a consequence of the historical development of society, as its product. Man acts as the creator of the cultural world, but not as its product, the result of culture itself.
Stage 2 (second half of the 20th century). The active role of culture is becoming more and more fixed in public consciousness and attracts the attention of specialists in various branches of social and humanitarian knowledge. However, a fundamentally new understanding of the place and role of culture in the functioning and development of society is not formed in one act. (2).
Consider the main directions of the formation of socio-cultural methodology in Russia
1). The creator of a large-scale scientific theory that provides a consistent, systematic description of the sociocultural mechanisms of the dynamics of Russian society, its historical changes- became A.S. Akhiezer. (3). The author proposed A New Look on the socio-cultural processes of the development of society, a theoretical apparatus has been developed, including about 350 categories and terms. (4). According to Akhiezer, it is necessary to consider cultural studies from the point of view of motivations. human activity(classical culturologists do not do this, they simply draw the image of culture at a given historical moment, they give a meaningful analysis of culture, which, however, does not turn into a sociological one). (5). Human history differs from biological processes in that it is reflexive. The growth of reflection means strengthening the ability of a person to make his history, himself the object of his reproductive activity, the content of culture, his action, the object of his concern, his criticism. According to Akhiezer, any knowledge of history includes not only a description of the subject content historical event, an explanation of its causes and conditions, but also an understanding of the extent to which people themselves realized the content of their own actions and, accordingly, learned to change and correct them.
In Akhiezer's sociocultural concept of history, there is no subject of history other than the social subject, i.e. a person who is a bearer of a certain culture and social relations. The study of this specific subject cannot be confined to the sphere of sociology, economics, philosophy, cultural studies, etc. It has a chance of success under the condition of a synthetic approach.
Within the framework of this approach, it becomes necessary to consider culture as a specific sphere of reality, which is of paramount importance for understanding the mechanisms of historical activity - from reproducing society and statehood to shaping everyday life.
Culture and social relations are two aspects of reproductive human activity. at the same time, contradictions constantly arise in society between social relations and culture, i.e. sociocultural contradictions. The sociocultural contradiction is revealed in the emergence of cultural programs that shift reproductive activity in such a way that, as a result, vital social relations are destroyed and become non-functional. This contradiction manifests itself in conflicts between historically established programs and innovations that change them, between existing and new social relations, which is ultimately determined by contradictions within reproductive activity, which is aimed at overcoming sociocultural confrontation, at keeping this contradiction within certain limits.
The possibility of a socio-cultural contradiction is connected with the fact that changes in culture and changes in social relations are subject to different patterns. A change in social relations in principle always entails changes in the efficiency of reproductive activity. (6). In society, only such social relations are permissible that can provide the level of harmony necessary for society, while culture always carries an assessment of any real or possible phenomenon from the point of view of some ideal, regardless of the possibility of realizing this ideal. Of course, in culture there are also limitations, but their nature is not the same as in social relations, because. Limitations in culture are always just one of the aspects of its content that enters into a dialogue, and possibly into a bitter conflict with its multidimensionality.
The analysis of the mechanism of culture begins with the identification of dual oppositions, with an analysis of the relationship between the poles, one of which is perceived as comfortable, and the other, respectively, as uncomfortable. The constructive tension between the poles of the dual opposition is fixed in culture driving force reproductive activity. This tension gives a powerful impulse to inversion, i.e. transition from comprehension of the phenomenon through one pole to comprehension through the opposite one. Inversion is the ability to use already accumulated options, applying them to constantly new situations, this is the initial cell of enumeration of given options, the initial form of abstract decision making. (7). Inversion in the process of the historical development of culture develops into mediation, the essence of which is that the process of comprehension does not end with the identification of the phenomenon being comprehended with one of the previously established poles of the dual opposition. Mediation is a process of forming previously unknown alternatives that did not exist in a given culture, expanding their spectrum. Ultimately, the whole culture is created as a result of mediation, as a consequence of overcoming the limitations of a previously established culture. For example, in the dual opposition of the old - the new, the first is the value in inversion, and the second - in mediation. This difference, according to Akhiezer, acts as a fundamental one for understanding the internal mechanisms in the life of society.
The sociocultural approach is based on the thesis that no matter what motives a person is guided in his activity, hidden (subconscious) or explicit, in terms of whatever science these motives are described, all this is fixed in culture. Culture can be understood as a text in which the motivation of people is fixed, written down, and people themselves may not reflect this. At the same time, it should be noted that the sociocultural approach does not deny economic, psychological and other factors, but the analysis of culture, understood as a program of activity, is a priority. Culture is multi-layered, hierarchical, internally contradictory. But the most important, and perhaps the central place in it is occupied by the program of the subject's activity. IN Everyday life people act in accordance with the historical content of culture. In any social subject - from society as a whole to the individual with all the intermediate steps between them in the form of communities - there is its own subculture. It also contains the program of activity of the respective subject. In studies of this type, subculture refers to the culture of a certain subject as a socio-cultural whole. The specificity of this approach lies in the fact that culture is always in question as about someone's culture. Talking about culture is generally possible, but this is a certain level of abstraction, the boundaries of the legality of which are always problematic.
A natural question may arise - where does this program come from in any subject. Adherents of the sociocultural approach believe that the answer to this question is simple. Any subject is people. When a child is born, he is not yet human. He becomes a man in the process of assimilation of culture, i.e. transformation of culture external to a person into the content of his consciousness, his personal culture. Ultimately - his reproductive activities.
Carrying out the given cultural program:
1) Man reproduces culture. It passes from generation to generation, culture is preserved, embodied in the results of his work - in objects, texts, etc. They fix and transmit the program.
2) Man reproduces himself as a subject
With this approach, the established culture should be considered as a universal, albeit abstract, basis for the reproduction of any (community) society, which is always considered at the same time as a subject. Society, the very fact of its existence, can only be explained by the fact that (com)society - the subject has a certain program, the implementation of which reproduces this society. The only guarantor that ensures the existence of society, protects it from collapse, from disorganization, is the reproductive activity of the people themselves. The only factor that explains the existence of the subject is its reproductive activity, based on an effective cultural reproductive program that allows society to exist in time. All dangers, all disorganization processes, people must be able to limit, relying on this program. If there is no such program, the society collapses, disappears.
The category of disorganization in this approach is one of the main categories of the science of society. Disorganization must be kept within certain limits. An effective program allows you to do this, a bad program does not. The growth of disorganization leads to the emergence of contradictions, conflicts, a split in different forms, not least between the prevailing culture and relations in society. This gives rise to an incentive to change culture, improve the reproduction program.
A cultural program can be effective (makes it possible to reproduce itself, society without a significant increase in disorganization, not exceeding critical level) or inefficient (disorganization increases, it can turn into a process that is uncontrollable and threatens society with a catastrophe).
The meaning of culture is that it is the basis for the formation of a program, which is a kind of summary of culture. The task of cultural studies in its socio-cultural interpretation is to understand culture as the basis for the formation of programs.
The hypothesis is that there is some spontaneous or non-spontaneous development of culture, determined or bound by some kind of laws, which can be implemented as a program of reproduction in society only if society itself changes in accordance with changes in culture. If a society does not change in accordance with the changes, a colossal social disorganization. The problem here is in the relationship between culture and the system of human relations (which includes the state).
At the same time, the laws of society exist as a trend, and are not rigidly established. Society as a system of relations, as an organization can exist if it corresponds to the level of cultural development (let's designate it as a certain X). Society, as a system of relations that has reached culture X (which, it must be said, must be feasible, functional), can itself actually be something else, rather X1 (in other words, there are laws of cultural development, and there are laws of social development that are not match up). And it is not always possible to connect culture X with state X1.
The development of culture does not guarantee that people can turn this culture into a system of social relations, society as a cultural text and society as a text of a system of relations may not coincide. The split between society cultural text and society as a text of relations passes through each person.
The problem is that if there is a cultural program, if people act according to this cultural program, then, consequently, they can reproduce society. But for this the program must be functional. The culture is diverse, so out of the mass of programs, only some may be functional, or even none at all.
2) Another socio-cultural concept can be considered the concept of the cultural core, developed in the works of Rakitov A.I. (8). in his opinion, any culture should be considered as a two-component structure - the core of culture and a protective belt. At the same time, the core of culture concentrates the norms, standards, standards and rules of activity, as well as the system of values developed in the real history of a given ethnic, professional or religious-cultural whole. These specific standards, rules, etc. associated with the fate of the community, its victories and defeats, the real conditions in which it was formed, the specifics of the natural environment, national habits, adaptation processes and those civilizational conditions in which this core was initially formed. The structures in which the core of culture is realized are, first of all, folklore, mythology, prejudices, national and social customs, habits, .. rules of everyday behavior, historical traditions, rituals, and of course, the main language structures
The main function of the core is to preserve the self-identity of the society, which is possible only with high stability and minimal variability of the cultural core. According to Rakitov, the core performs the function of a kind of social DNA that stores information about history, stages of formation, conditions of life and activity, and ethnic potential. (9). The information accumulated in the core through the system of upbringing and education is transmitted from generation to generation.
In order to preserve the core of culture in the process of historical development, a special cultural protective belt arises, which acts as a filtering mechanism that passes directive information coming from the core to all structural nodes of the social mechanism, but at the same time actively absorbs information coming into society from other cultures.
The core of culture, for all its stability, cannot remain unchanged in the absolute sense. It's just that the core of culture as an information formation changes and transforms much more slowly than a protective belt, and even more so than the real surrounding socio-technological habitat and life of a given society. The insignificance of the rate of changes in the core makes it possible to ignore them over rather large historical intervals.
The stability of the core can act as a purely negative phenomenon during deep transformations of the life of society, preventing the latter from adapting to new conditions of life and thereby pushing it to self-destruction.
Social consciousness and self-awareness serve as mechanisms for adapting the core of culture to the changed socio-technological environment. The first is the development of knowledge that is adequate outside of cultural reality, the second is a system of knowledge focused on understanding within cultural processes in order to evaluate them for the adequacy of reality. Self-consciousness, thus, is a mechanism for breaking new information into the core of culture with the aim of information transformation. This upgrade is the only possible way preservation of culture as a whole during the transition from one civilization to another.
“MENTALITY” - AS ONE OF THE CENTRAL CONCEPTS OF THE SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH.
Since the late 1980s, there has been a boom in interest in an integrated approach to understanding the past and present. With the introduction into scientific circulation of such concepts as the culture of everyday life, the way of life, the cultural-historical paradigm, the sociodynamics of culture, etc., a single subject of social and cultural history emerged - the value-semantic continuum of social development. (10)
The resulting idea of history as a socio-cultural process leads to the formation of special multi-valued concepts that are equally applicable to both the socio-historical and cultural-historical process. But the most mysterious of the newly emerged words was the word "mentality", which received the widest distribution. (11). This abstract and capacious concept came to the aid of social scientists, becoming a panacea, the only correct explanation of all existing problems. And all this in a situation where this area of knowledge remained virtually unexplored. The current situation has forced social scientists to outline the main approaches to the study of the mental dimension of history.
1). Definition of “mentality” in terms of historical psychology sounds like this. Mentality is a generalization of all the characteristics that distinguish the mind, the way of thinking.
The greatest success in the study of mentality was achieved by the French historical school of the Annales. M. Blok and L. Fevre, who introduced the concept of “mentality” into the lexicon, drew the attention of their colleagues to that layer of consciousness, which, due to its weak reflection, did not receive direct reflection in the sources, and therefore constantly escapes the attention of historians. (13 ). According to the followers of this trend, in the human mind, in one form or another, the most diverse manifestations of being find their refraction, being fixed in a system of images, ideas, symbols. That is why the study of the way people think, the ways and forms of organizing thinking, specific and figurative pictures of the world imprinted in the mind, is considered either as an opportunity to understand the logic of the historical process, both in general and in relation to individual historical phenomena.
Adherents of this point of view on the mentality, in our country, were representatives of the culturological school of A. Ya. Gurevich (14). The mentality, according to Gurevich, is that level of social consciousness. Where thought is not separated from emotions, from mental habits and methods of consciousness - people use them, usually without noticing it themselves, i.e. unconsciously.(15).
2). The sociocultural approach interprets the mentality as a set of ideas, views, “feelings” of the community of people of a certain era, geographical area and social environment that influence historical and sociocultural processes. In other words, mentality is a certain integral characteristic of people living in a separate culture, which allows us to describe the originality of these people's vision of the world around us and explain the specifics of their response to it. (16).
Today, social scientists are moving towards complex interpretations of the concept of mentality. This approach combines the historical-psychological and socio-cultural interpretations this term. This point of view comes from the position of man as a part of culture. Representing a set of basic methods of production and interaction with nature practiced by this society, the activities of social institutions and other regulators modern life, and also includes beliefs, a hierarchy of values, morality, features of interpersonal behavior and self-expression, a particular language, ways of transmitting experience through generations. (17).
The mentality can be considered as a way and method of studying the social and civilizational structures of the historical process as a whole, i.e. the study of mentality acts as a method of historical knowledge. Of much greater practical importance is the study of the mentality of a particular era, a particular social group or class. In this case, not the term “mentality” is often used, but the term “mentality”. The difference between these terms lies in the fact that mentality has a universal, universal meaning, and mentality can refer to a variety of social strata and historical times (18). It should be noted that the use of these two terms is not yet settled. There are researchers who use them as equivalent. It is this approach that we meet in the materials of the round table held by the journal Questions of Philosophy in 1993. (19).
One of the problems was the typology of mentality. Researchers distinguish the following types of mentalities:
1). individual mentality.
2). Group mentality.
3). National mentality.
4).Civilization mentality.
Attention should be paid to the presence of a continuum between these types of mentalities (see Scheme 1).
For example, group mentality in a socio-cultural context is a reflection of the total cultural-historical, national and social experience refracted in the mind of a particular person (20).
Extensive research is being done on internal structure mentality.
SECTION 1. SOCIO-CULTURAL PROCESS IN THE THEORIES OF CULTURES: ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.
Chapter 1.1. Culture and Man as Vectors of the Sociocultural Process: An Analysis of Western European Theories.
Chapter 1.2. Anthropological orientation of the study of the socio-cultural process in Russian science.
Chapter 1.3. Social memory of mankind as an anthropological code of culture.
SECTION 2. METHODOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH IN THE STUDY OF THE SOCIO-CULTURAL PROCESS.
Chapter 2.1. Sociocultural process as an object of sociological research.
Chapter 2.2. The essence of the anthropological approach to the study of the socio-cultural process.
Chapter 2.3. Features of the sociological and anthropological study of the sociocultural process.
SECTION 3. SOCIO-CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN MODERN RUSSIA: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH.
Chapter 3.1. Anthropological character of transformations in Russia and their main vectors.
Chapter 3.2. Sociocultural transformations and prospects for Russia in the context of globalization.
Chapter 3.3. Formation and development of sociocultural anthropology in educational space countries as a social demand of modernity
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Anthropological approach in sociology: the study of the socio-cultural process"
With the beginning of a new century in the social theory of world and domestic scientific knowledge, an intensive process of formation and formation of new explanatory models of modern sociocultural processes is increasingly growing. One of the most significant characteristics of this generally positive movement is the steady development of the anthropological component in common system social and humanitarian, increased interest of scientists in the deepest manifestations of the human phenomenon; its place and role in the development of socio-cultural processes throughout the centuries-old history of mankind. In the last decade, Russian sociology has been actively developing such a direction as sociocultural anthropology, which is confirmed by the appearance in it of anthropologically oriented research, scientific and academic disciplines, and new university specialties. I
The actualization of scientific interest in the study of the socio-cultural space in Russian society in our time is associated with a sharp increase in contradictions affecting the historical fate of many countries and peoples. On the one hand, scientific and technological progress on an unprecedented scale has revealed the power of the human intellect, making its potency comparable to the capabilities and power of nature.
On the other hand, the reckless exploitation of natural resources and the unfair distribution of the products of human labor in the world have extremely exacerbated the socio-ecological situation in the world, worsened the conditions for reproducing the actual life of a person, his material well-being, maintaining physical, spiritual, moral and mental health.
In other words, such a search for the roots of culture is stimulated by an ever deeper awareness of the growing instability of the development of the human community in modern world. This disturbing feeling is supported, on the one hand, by not always predictable consequences scientific and technological progress(military-technical, technological, environmental, energy, biogenetic and other global problems), and on the other hand, fundamental changes in the psychological and social orientations of modern social consciousness and behavior (increase in neurotic reflections of fear, catastrophism, sociopaths, threats of terrorist violence against society and personality, etc.). These phenomena are planetary scales, and their special manifestation in our today's Russian reality is becoming more and more obvious.
The keen interest of Russian scientists in studying the problems of the modern sociocultural process is also initiated by the fact that in last years under the influence of reforms in our society, there have been profound qualitative changes in almost all spheres of life, new social and national-ethnic realities have emerged, the forecasting and accounting of which is as necessary as it is extremely difficult.
Among the main transformations of Russian society, which significantly affect the nature of ongoing socio-cultural processes, the following can be distinguished: the impact of globalization of world socio-economic processes on the development of Russian society, its material, production and spiritual life is increasing;
The importance of traditional (production and organizational and managerial) technologies is being lost, and at the same time, the role of non-traditional technologies - information, social, intellectual - is growing; moreover, human potential, social capital, scientific knowledge become the determining factors in the development of world and national communities; traditional systems for managing society, material and spiritual production are being replaced by qualitatively different technologies based on the creation and use of modern information tools. Intellectual property becomes the main subject of management; and the place of the material surplus product is more and more actively occupied by the newly created intellectual and financial capital; based on the production and consumption of new knowledge - scientific, technical, philosophical, religious, moral and others, a transition is being made to the information phase of the development of the world community; accordingly, an intensive process of destruction of economic and social institutions traditional for an industrial society (property, value, etc.) is unfolding, a new social reality based on intellect and knowledge is being formed; the ideology of economic centrism and technological determinism is being replaced by the ideology of anthropocentrism in its qualitatively new human incarnation: real world social relations increasingly appears in the anthropocentric rather than sociocentric dimension. Economics and technology are recognized as a means, and a person, his material, physical and moral condition, his ability to show his individuality become the main social indicator of the progressiveness or reactionary nature of all phenomena and processes. modern Russia.1
Thus, current realities public life urgently demand a comprehensive understanding of man in the whole integrity of his being, in
1 See: G. V. Osipov. Russian sociology in the XXI century. Report at the All-Russian Sociological Congress. Moscow, 2003. September 30 - October 2; V. I. Zhukov. Continuation of the footnote on the next page of the indissoluble unity of its natural and socio-spiritual principles, when "the anthropological dualism of soul and body is replaced by a holistic human being, a single human personality, which is not in its individual properties, but in its personal behavior and action, choice and the decision manifests itself as good or evil, free or unfree, low or sublime.
Intelligence modern man is aimed at understanding oneself, one's role and place in the objectively occurring change in the dominant type of culture of social life, the nature of relations and the activities of its subjects in the changed living space.
Under these conditions, the search for optimal explanatory and predictive models of socio-cultural phenomena and processes of modern social life order, landmarks of the spiritual life of mankind becomes an extremely important task of modern sociology.
The above reasons prompt the scientific community to streamline the existing theoretical and methodological facets of the subject fields of various social sciences; to concretize their ideas about the methods and mechanisms for analyzing the objective and subjective aspects of the study of sociocultural processes; initiate the emergence of a number of new scientific disciplines, heuristic approaches to the study of man as the main subject of the historical process.
A special role, in our opinion, belongs to sociocultural anthropology, as a direction of sociological knowledge that is able to understand and interpret the deep essence of the human dimension of sociocultural processes, to find an adequate form of human survival in the new century. “The real subject of society and all social formations is a person, an individual. To the extent that sociology, in the analysis
Russian transformations: sociology, economics, politics. 1985-2001 years. - M.: MGSU Publishing House, 2002; Man and the modern world. - M .: INFRA-M, 2002. society comes from a real person (and not from social action or relations of interaction, etc.), it accepts the anthropological method, making it its own method”, rightly notes V.Ya. Elmeev.3
The strengthening of the anthropological principle in the sociological study of sociocultural processes is associated not only with an emphasis on the interest in a person in his specific and individual manifestations, but also with a special point of view from which the phenomena of sociocultural life are considered. Here it is important not only to analyze the changes taking place in the social space, but also the nature of those intrapersonal shifts that occur under their influence. “Anyone who today is aware of the depth of his “humanity” will not be able to recognize himself in the images of the anthropology of the New Age, whether it be biological, psychological, sociological or some other variety. He will find there some details of his appearance, familiar properties, connections, structures, but not himself. They talk about a person, but they don't really see him. They move towards it, but never reach it. They operate on it, but they cannot catch it. A person is counted statistically, distributed among organizations, used for various purposes, but this whole strange, grotesque-nightmarish spectacle only shows that all these actions are performed with some kind of phantom. Even when a person becomes a victim of violence, abuse, abuse - even when he is destroyed, he is not what the violence is aimed at, ”said the German philosopher and theologian R. Guardini. 4
Vector scientific research"from sociocentrism to human-centrism" requires reinforcement by strict theoretical and methodological foundations. Emphasis of social and cognitive interest must be transferred from l
Grigoryan B. T. The concept of man in modern philosophy // About the human in man. -M., 1991.-S. 378-379. O
V. Ya. Elmeev. On the methods of studying the social essence of a person // Problems of theoretical sociology. Issue Z. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 2000. - P.121.
4 Romano Guardini. End of the New Age. An attempt to find one's place / Self-awareness of culture and art of the XX century. Western Europe and USA. M.; St. Petersburg: University book, 2000. - P.208. analysis of the functioning of impersonal, depersonalized social, political and economic structures on human action and interaction. As a measure of socio-cultural processes, a person and his creative and creative potential, as well as the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between a person and society, its institutions, should be put forward.
This crystallizes the need for a different scientific view, formulated by us as an anthropological approach in sociology, a study on its basis of modern socio-cultural processes. We associate the scientific content of the indicated approach with three significant reasons of a theoretical and methodological order:
1) the need to revise the entire worldview apparatus through the prism of the logic of the civilizational development of mankind in radically updated conditions;
2) the scientific and practical demand for a special analysis of sociocultural processes from the position of the anthropological approach as insufficiently developed in sociological science, as well as giving this analysis an instrumental character;
3) the search for new forms of cognition of the integral nature of man in the sociocultural space through sociological and anthropological research, the integration of the efforts of scientific communities in various areas.
The anthropological approach in sociology is of particular importance in the context of socio-cultural tension in the Russian geopolitical space, where radical changes are taking place in almost all areas. social organization and everyday life of people. The future of our country and humanity as a whole is becoming dependent on the results of an intense search for new ideas, technologies, mechanisms, new forms of social development.
At the same time, it seems to us that many global problems facing Russian society are more acute and painful than other nation-states. Our country was one of the first to face the threat of international terrorism, and therefore there is reason to believe that the problems generated by this phenomenon are understood and comprehended much more deeply than is the case in the West. On the one hand, the multinational nature of Russian statehood has a peculiar influence and requires a special approach. On the other hand, Russian society has begun to recognize itself as a part of world civilization, to set itself the task of integrating into the global world and finding its rightful place in it.
The anthropological approach in the sociological study of modern processes in the Russian sociocultural space allows us, in our opinion, to consider their specificity from a new angle. B.N. Mironov, author of the famous book "The Social History of Russia in the Period Empire XVIII- the beginning of the 20th century" notes: "It happened in national historiography that anthropological research is primarily associated with research in physical anthropology. And this inertia is difficult to overcome. Meanwhile, Russia provides very fertile material for the anthropological approach.”5
The study of the socio-cultural situation in society, on the one hand, reveals an extraordinary variety of positions and dynamism of development in the system of social division of labor, specific manifestations of lifestyle, cultural preferences, nationally specific customs and traditions as the original reality of culture. On the other hand, in contemporary culture there are stable formations (values, norms) that provide and support a set of ideas that are significant for most members of society about the social goals of its development, ways to solve problematic problems in various areas of sociocultural life.
Thus, the relevance of the study is due to:
1) the need for theoretical and methodological conceptualization of the anthropological approach as insufficiently represented in sociological knowledge;
2) an increase in the significance of the designated approach in the context of anthropological tension in the Russian sociocultural space, which is also exacerbated by radical transformations in the social organization of people, including under the influence of globalization processes;
3) the demand for social anthropologists as specialists who are able to quickly assess the socio-cultural situation and contribute to the optimization of human life.
The state of scientific development of the problem.
Anthropological problems in sociology since the time of I. Kant have been reflected in one way or another in the theory and practice of Russian and world science. At present, in Russia, sociocultural anthropology has the status of an academic discipline, and as an independent scientific direction, it is in a state of formation.
At the same time, two trends in the field of socio-anthropological knowledge can be identified methodologically. The first is connected with socio-cultural anthropology directly through the formation and development of the scientific direction itself, clarifications subject field, the content of the academic discipline and specialty. The second trend is manifested in the anthropologization of the social sciences - a phenomenon recorded at the end of the 20th century and associated with the most general understanding of anthropology, which is revealed in interdisciplinary studies through an emphasis on the problem of man in general.
Among modern researchers who have made a significant contribution to the development of individual problems, they have replenished the theory with significant
5 Interview with Professor B.N. Mironov // Journal of Sociology and Social Footnotes continued on the next page with generalizations, given a non-trivial interpretation of many sociocultural phenomena, sociologists Averyanova L.Ya., Arutyunyan Yu.V., Drobizheva L.M., Elmeeva can be noted V.Ya., Kovaleva V.N., Kryuchkova Yu.A., Kravchenko S.A., Lapina N.I., Osadchaya G.I., Pulyaeva V.T., Sokolova I.V., Urzha O.A., culturologists Velika A.A., Erasov B.C., Ionina L.G., Lotman Yu.M., Uspensky B.A., Flier A.Ya.; philosophers Gurevich P.S., Ikonnikov G.I., Lyashenko V.P., Markova B.V., Mezhueva V.M., Minyusheva F.I., Nikitina V.A., Semenova Yu.I., Stepin B.C., Frolov I.T., historian Mironov B.N.; ethnologists and anthropologists Nikishenkova A.A., Tavadova G.T., Tishkova V.A., Cheshko C.V. and etc.
Among scientific works directly related to the study of the sociocultural process and used by the author in the development of the anthropological approach special place occupies the legacy of Sorokin P.A. His scientific work continues to be relevant. Integral sociology, Sorokin's theory of sociocultural dynamics, which are distinguished by their universality and flexibility, allow many provisions to be applied to the study of modern societies, including those undergoing global transformations.
In Russian science, the direct study of the sociocultural process is initiated by representatives of many scientific schools. The theoretical development of the socio-cultural dynamics of Russia, proposed by Akhiezer A.S., can be considered very fruitful, in which special attention is paid to the study of transitional states of society. Culture is considered by him both as a special form of human reality and as a specific form of reproduction. In the transitional process, it is endowed with the characteristics of multi-layeredness, hierarchy, internal inconsistency, and the program of the subject's activity occupies a central place in culture. To ensure stability and harmony in the society of anthropology. T. III. No. 2(10). 2000. - S.180-186. he considers it necessary to have a cultural program that is carried out through the reproductive activity of people. A sociocultural law is formulated, interpreted as the interpenetration of culture and social relations in the process of the subject's reproductive activity. Any social subject, according to him, can exist, reproduce itself, only constantly carrying out its integration, thereby preventing disintegration, conflict of parts that threaten the whole; providing a measure of this integration; maintaining within this framework unity, consensus, having an appropriate cultural program.
The works of Orlova E.A. are devoted to the analysis of sociocultural processes. She studies the dynamics of culture through the prism of sociocultural anthropology. The dynamics of socio-cultural life is represented through differential processes occurring at different levels of culture. At the same time, some processes are continuous and historical, others are discrete and have a micro-temporal dimension. Orlova E.A. some approaches to the typology of cultures have been developed on anthropological and philosophical grounds, on the basis of social action, forms of thinking, dependence on context, etc. It indicates the great importance of sociocultural anthropology, studies of sociocultural reality through its methods. In her opinion, “the modern study of sociocultural processes is a new, interesting and promising area of scientific knowledge. It is only taking shape, and therefore a person striving for something new, unusual look to the world, a person with an inquisitive mind and heightened sensitivity to the changeable, a person who wants to participate in the transformation of the artificial world himself, will find in this area a vast field for applying his efforts.
Orlova E.A. belong to the works devoted to the subject and object of socio-cultural anthropology as a field of social knowledge; substantiation of the emergence of the most scientific and educational discipline; contemporary issues anthropological research.
In the conceptualization of the anthropological approach in sociology, many philosophical ideas had a significant impact, including the concept of socio-philosophical anthropology, laid down by Barulin V.C.7 Its essence lies in the study of the process of creating a person through himself and society, forces of world development. The scientific positions of F.I. Minyushev, who proposes to qualify structural elements human life in the form of constants of human existence: work, love, domination, play, death. According to the scientist, the analysis of existence in modern society provides the state with an effective social policy that provides conditions for successful living by each member of the main existential phenomena of existence.8
Boronoev A.O., Emelyanov Yu.N., Kozlova N.N., Kuropyatnik A.I., Reznik Yu.M., Skvortsov N.G., Sharonov V.V. and others - representatives of the Moscow and St. Petersburg scientific schools.
Among the foreign schools that created the basis of sociocultural anthropology, first of all, are the USA, Great Britain and France. The significance of each of them is enormous in terms of their contribution to a holistic analysis of culture as a direct object of anthropological knowledge.
6 Orlova E.A. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. - M.: Publishing House of the IPCC, 1994.-S. 213.
See: Barulin B.C. Russian people in the XX century. Loss and finding oneself / Monograph. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000; Barulin B.C. Fundamentals of socio-philosophical anthropology. M.: ICC "Akademkniga", 2002. about
See: Minyushev F.I. The Phenomenon of Existence: Existential Foundations of Change in Russia. Constants of human existence // Man and the modern world. - M.: Infra-M, 2002. - S. 163-219.
Prominent representatives are Benedict R., Boas F., Grebner F., Kluckhohn K., Kroeber A., Levi-Strauss K., Linton R., Malinovsky B., Mead M., Morgan L., Moss M., Redcliffe -Brown A., Sahlins M., Sapir E., Service E., Steward J., Tylor E., White L., Whorf B., Fraser D., Herskovitz M., Evans-Pritchard E. and many others. They formulated the basic concepts of the evolution of culture, the foundations of its typology, various interpretations; the problems of dynamics, types of cultural processes, as well as methods for their study were studied. Many studies of these authors are based on an interdisciplinary approach.
However, despite the fact that sociology and related sciences in world scientific practice have been using the results of anthropological research for a long time and quite successfully, specific mechanisms, programs, and approaches in theoretical and methodological terms have not been developed enough. Often the data of sociocultural anthropology are used illustratively; the courses offered tend to gravitate toward philosophical anthropology, or are even replaced by ethnic (or other) anthropology; it is assumed that sociocultural anthropology cannot rely on the study of global social problems. Based on this, the author of the dissertation research presents evidence of the inconsistency of such reasoning and offers his own vision of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the anthropological approach in sociology.
The purpose of the dissertation research is to develop the foundations of the theory and methodology of the anthropological approach in the sociological study of sociocultural processes and substantiate its significance in scientific practice.
Research objectives:
Carrying out a comparative interdisciplinary study of culture as the basis of an anthropological approach to the study of sociocultural processes in Western European, domestic scientific theory and practice, as well as analyzing it state of the art;
Substantiation of the methodological positions applicable in the anthropological approach in the sociological study of sociocultural processes, taking into account the existing positive scientific experience;
Analysis of the main works, individual approaches and positions in the study of sociocultural processes in world and domestic science in terms of clarifying the conceptual and categorical apparatus, research methods, as well as research techniques and procedures;
Revealing the theoretical and methodological possibilities of the anthropological approach, the limits of its use in the study of modern socio-cultural processes;
Substantiation of the prospects for the integration of sociological and anthropological approaches in the study of sociocultural processes;
Identification of the features of sociological and anthropological research; analysis of its subject essence and research mechanisms;
Determination of the role of the anthropological approach in the study of the problems of modern societies; identification of the main trends in the development of socio-cultural processes in Russian society;
Substantiation of the imperative for the development of sociocultural anthropology as a special area of sociological knowledge; presentation of sociocultural anthropology and features of its formation and development; argumentation of the need for professional support within the framework of the new generation of specialties.
The object of research is the theory and methodology of the analysis of sociocultural processes.
The subject of the study is the features of the anthropological approach in sociology and the possibility of its application in the study of sociocultural processes in modern society.
scientific hypothesis. The theoretical and methodological possibilities of the anthropological approach in sociology make it possible to form an objective picture of the sociocultural space both at the micro and macro levels. The indicated approach makes it possible to obtain not only representatively up-to-date information, but also to highlight promising impulses for achieving a global world order and harmony in human relations.
theoretical and methodological foundations dissertation research are socio-philosophical and sociological provisions about the essence of man, his role and place in the structure of knowledge of socio-cultural processes in society, the practice of studying the dynamics of social change, as well as the principles systems approach, modeling and forecasting processes in the social space.
Scientific novelty of the research: the anthropological approach in sociology is put forward and argued, its research capabilities are revealed, based on the idea of the human dimension of sociocultural processes; key anthropological constants are proposed, formulated by the author on the basis of Western European and Russian theories of cultures and allowing optimal use of world experience in the development of an anthropological approach in sociology; the analysis of the sociocultural process as an object of sociological research is presented, its main characteristics are revealed, the conceptual and categorical apparatus is specified; the necessity of integrating sociological and anthropological approaches as a promising interdisciplinary combination is proved, which makes it possible to provide optimal scientific results by moving away from abstract theorizing to specific anthropological facts; features of the sociological and anthropological study of sociocultural processes were identified and formulated; presents an analysis of socio-cultural processes in modern Russia under the influence of internal and external socio-political factors based on the author's development of the anthropological approach in sociology; assessment, analysis are given, prospects for the development of socio-cultural anthropology as a scientific direction, academic discipline and sociological specialty of the new generation are identified.
In accordance with the idea and objectives of the dissertation research, the following provisions are submitted for defense:
1. The anthropological approach in sociology is based on the human dimension of sociocultural processes, interpreted as the correlation of ongoing sociocultural processes with the immediate state of a person. At the same time, the anthropological approach presents not only a person in his specific and individual manifestations, but also considers the phenomena of socio-cultural life from a special angle. It captures not only an analysis of the changes taking place in the social space, but also the nature of those intrapersonal shifts that occur under their influence.
2. The anthropological constants of the study of the sociocultural process, the quintessence of its changes are man and culture. At the same time, culture is considered as a stable formation that supports ideas that are significant for society about various spheres of social life. Culture and its diverse practices and meanings change in accordance with the development of civilization, which confirms its procedural nature. A person, in turn, forming his own culture and exerting a significant influence on its characteristics and forms, at the same time is dependent on it at every moment of his existence. Increment cultural property relies on traditions developed by the centuries-old experience of mankind through social memory.
3. The socio-cultural process is presented through the prism of time, space; a chain of individual events in a particular society; the configurations they acquire in the social system, and so on. In his analysis, the place and role of a person are determined, since, firstly, a person and, in fact, any sociocultural process are interdependent and cannot manifest themselves without each other. Secondly, the process acquires the character of procedurality only if there are changes. At the same time, the change in the sociocultural process is considered from the point of view of human participation in it, its influence, as well as the significance of the changed state on the development of human life.
4. The study of the sociocultural process based on the author's concept of the anthropological approach has its own characteristics, which lie in the fact that, firstly, anthropological studies, along with their own methodological tools, use almost the entire arsenal of sociological tools, including both quantitative and qualitative methods measurements; secondly, anthropological research proceeds from the concept of the human dimension of the object under study; thirdly, the analysis of social reality prevailing in anthropology at the level of microprocesses with the widespread use of sociological research tools allows extrapolating the results obtained to wider social communities at the level of macroprocesses; fourthly, the research focuses on the culture-mediated and genetically inherited principles of the formation of a holistic human individuality (an integrated culture of consumption, a culture of work, a culture of communication, a culture of everyday life, as well as health, reproductive behavior, etc.).
5. The socio-cultural vectors of Russia's development are characterized by a contradiction associated with the need for a rapid renewal of cultural life and the system of value regulation and the need to preserve one's identity. This situation is accompanied by a confrontation between modernizers and conservatives, between supporters of Western orientation and Russian identity. The future of Russia is associated not only with the interaction of the main modern civilizations and the construction of its own model of social order, but also to a greater extent with the degree of transformation of the Russian person himself.
6. Anthropological comprehension of globalization processes is presented by the applicant from the position of their fundamental influence on the socio-cultural reality of our country. The focus of globalization is man and his development in the system of the new world order. As a "sum of heterogeneous processes", globalization is changing the habitual scheme, the traditional way of life; has a significant impact on the mentality, social behavior and life strategy of people. On the one hand, new prospects for the formation and development of international cooperation in the field of communication, economics, science, culture, education, information, tourism. On the other hand, there is a threat of loss of national identity, identity, erasure of significant and unique features of the way of life, world outlook. Ways are formulated to find a balance between the advantages and negative consequences of globalization in order to preserve Russian cultural and civilizational adequacy.
7. In conditions of anthropological tension, the applicant fundamentally emphasizes the need to take into account the national and cultural diversity of Russia and regional specifics. Particular importance is attached to training in the prevention and overcoming of conflicts that have socio-cultural roots. The real implementation of the indicated parameters is possible if there are highly qualified specialists who not only have highly cultural worldviews, but also inspire ways to form group life, based on the ideals of preserving and strengthening the nation; offer qualifying judgments about the species-defining features of Russia and their manifestation in the context of general trends in socio-cultural development.
The theoretical and practical significance of the dissertation work lies in the possibility of using its main provisions and conclusions in the further development of the theoretical and methodological aspects of modern sociological science. The dissertation materials can be used as a research base for studying human problems under the influence of various sociocultural processes, for developing an effective anthropologically oriented social policy, and for regulating sociocultural processes in Russian society. The key provisions of the dissertation research can be used in the preparation and creation of training courses in sociocultural anthropology, sociology, ethnology and ethnography for undergraduate and graduate students studying sociology and other social and humanitarian specialties.
Approbation of dissertation research.
The main provisions of the thesis were tested at the First All-Russian Sociological Congress "Society and Sociology: New Realities and New Ideas" (St. Petersburg, September 27-30, 2000), at the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Talent, knowledge, experience of the older generation - at for the Motherland” (Moscow, 2000), VI
International Symposium “Unity and Ethno-Cultural Diversity of the World. Dialogue of worldviews” (Nizhny Novgorod, June 5-6, 2001), at the II International Social Congress “Russia in the System of Social Coordinates” (Moscow, November 25, 2002), at the V Congress of Ethnographers and Anthropologists of Russia (Omsk, 9-12 June 2003), at the Second All-Russian Sociological Congress "Russian Society and Sociology in the 21st Century: Social Challenges and Alternatives" (Moscow, September 30-2.10, 2003), at the III International Social Congress "Global Strategy for Russia's Social Development: Sociological Analysis and forecast” (Moscow, November 25-26, 2003), at the annual sociological readings of Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (1993-2004). Some provisions of the dissertation were reflected in the preparation of the report "Culture against terrorism" for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in 2003.
Some of the theoretical and practical aspects outlined in the presented work were used in the implementation of research projects as a member of the WTC: 2001. - “The Social Sphere of Russia: Prospects and Trends (1990-2000); 2001-2003 - "Young family in the new century"; 2002 - "Russia in the system of global social coordinates"; 2003 - "Global strategy of social development of Russia: analysis and forecast"; “The impact of social problems on the state of economic security Russian Federation»; “Assessment by the population of ongoing social transformations”; "Monitoring of the social sphere".
Discussion of the concept of the dissertation, its key ideas was held at a meeting of the expert group of the Faculty of Sociology and Social Management of the RSSU (reviewers: Doctor of Sociology, Professor Mikhailova L. I., Doctor of Sociology, Professor Shcheglova S. N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Vasiliev V. P.).
The results of the dissertation research are reflected in the lecture courses "Social Anthropology" developed by the author for the specialties "Social Anthropology", "Sociology", "Social Work", "Social Informatics", etc.
The structure and scope of the work are determined by the objectives and logic of the dissertation research, which consists of an introduction, three sections, including nine chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.
List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Sociological Sciences Tanatova, Dina Kabdullinovna, 2004
1. Ferkiss V. Technological Man. The Myth and the Reality. N.Y., 1970.
2. Gubmplowicz L. DerRassenkamf. Sociologishe Untrsuchungen. Innsbruck, 1883.
3. Inglehart R. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, 1997.
4. Abdulatipov R. Nation and nationalism: good and evil in national question. M., 1999. j
5. Avdeev V. B. Metaphysical anthropology. The Library of Racial Thought series. M .: White ma | lions, 2002.
6. Averkieva Yu. nJ History of theoretical thought in American ethnography. M.: Publishing house "Nauka", 1980.
7. Anan'eva M. I., Ikonnikova G. I. New trends in modern bourgeois sociology. (Critical analysis). M.: Thought, 1983.
8. Anurin VF Intelligence and society. Introduction to the sociology of intelligence. Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of Nizhny Novgorod University, 1997.
9. Aron Raymond. Stages of development of sociological thought / Common. ed. and foreword. P.S. Gurevich. M .: Publishing group "Progress", "Politics", 1992.
10. Akhiezer A. S. Russia: criticism of historical experience: (sociocultural dynamics of Russia). Movosib.: Sib. Chronograph, 1997. - V.1. From past to future.
11. Akhiezer A. S. Russia: criticism of historical experience: (sociocultural dynamics of Russia). Novosib.: Sib. Chronograph, 1998. - V.2. Theory and Methodology: Dictionary.;
12. Akhiezer AS Socio-cultural problems of Russia's development: a philosophical aspect / RAS INION. Dep. philosopher, science. M., 1992. - (Series: Theory and history of culture).
13. Barulin V. S. Osyovy of socio-philosophical anthropology. M.: ICC "Akademkniga", 2002.1
14. Barulin V.S. Russian people in the XX century. Loss and finding oneself / Monograph. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000.
15. Batenin S.S. Man in his history. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 1976.
16. Bauman 3. Individualized society / Per. from English. ed. V.L. Inozemtseva. M.: Logrs, 2002.
17. Belik A. A. Psychological anthropology: History and theory. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1993.
18. Belik A. A. Man: slave of genes or master of his own destiny? / Rev. ed. P.A. Rachkov. Moscow: Nauka, 1990.
19. Belov A. I. Anthropological detective. M .: LLC "AiF-Print", 2002. - (Series "Who are we?").
20. Berger P., Lukman T. Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge / Cer. from English. E.D. Rutkevich. M.: Medium, 1995.
21. Bibler V. S. From science teaching to the logic of culture: two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. - M.: Politizdat, 1990.
22. Bikanin K. T. Tephria of domination, conflict R. Dahrendorf. Samara, 1997. !
23. Bolgov V. I. Sociology of new forms of life (the problem of socio-cultural dynamics), Institute of Sociology RAS. M., 2001.
24. Budon R. A place of disorder. Criticism of theories of social change / Per. from fr. MM. Kirichenko); Scientific ed M.F. Chernysh M.: Aspect Press, 1998.
25. Bourdieu P. Beginnings. Choses dites: Per. from fr. / Pierre Bourdieu. Choses dites. Paris, Minuit, 1987. Translated by Shmatko H.A. / M.: Socio-Logos, 1994.
26. Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics: Per. from fr. / Comp., total. ed. and foreword. H.A. Shmatko / M.: Sobio-Logos, 1993.
27. Bykhovskaya I. M.i "Homo somatikos": axiology of the human body. M.: Editorial URSS, 2000.
28. Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world / Per. from English. P.M. KuDyukin. Under the general editorship of B.Yu. Kagarlitsky. St. Petersburg: University Book Publishing House, 2001.
29. Vdovin A. I. The Russian nation: national-political problems of the XX century and the national Russian idea. Ed. 2nd, add. and revised, M.: Roman-gazeta, 1996. ;-
30. Weber Alfred. Selected: The Crisis of European Culture. SPb.: Universitetskaya kntsga, 1998. - (The book of light).
31. Weber M. Selected works: Per. from German/Comp., total. ed. and after. Yu.N. Davydov; | Foreword. | P.P. Gaidenko. M.: Progress, 1990. Sociological thought of the West). Development prospects. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2002.
32. Volkov Yu. E. Theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociological analysis of social systems and processes. Moscow: Soviet sport, 2001.
33. Giddens Anthony. Sociology. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 1999.
34. Girtz K. Interpretation of cultures / Per. from English. M .: "RussianIpolitical Encyclopedia" (ROSSPEN), 2004. (Series "Culturology. XX century").
35. Globalization: The Human Dimension. Moscow: Moscow state institute international relations(University); Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2002.
36. Global community: Cartography of the postmodern world / Moscow School of Geoeconomic and Social Research. M.: Vost. lit., 2002.
37. Global community: New system coordinates (approaches to the problem) / Moscow School of Geoeconomic and Social Research. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000.
38. Gorshkov M.K. Russian society in the conditions of transformation: myths and reality (sociological analysis). 1992-2002 Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2003.
39. Grigoriev S.I., Subetto A.I. Fundamentals of non-classical sociology: new trends in the development of the culture of sociological thinking at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. M.: RUSAKI, 21000. (Series "sociology and social anthropology"; Issue 3). ^I
40. Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia: Essays on Ethnic History / Aftermath. S.B. Lavrov. -M.: Ekoprob, 1992.
41. Gumilyov L.N. Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the earth / Comp., total. ed. A.I. Kurkchi. -M .: "Institute DI-DIK", 1997. (Series of almanacs "Works of L.N. Gumilyov", issue Z).
42. Gurevich A.Ya. The Medieval World: The Culture of the Silent Majority. -M.: Art, 1990.
43. Dahrendorf R. After 1989: Morality, revolution and civil society. Reflections on the Revolution in Europe / Per. from English. Sedova L.A., Yakovleva A.L. - M.: Ad Marginem, 1998. (Library of the Moscow School of Political Sciences).
44. Dimaeva F.V. Islam in the modern Chechen Republic. Issue. 159. -M.: IEA RAN, 2002.
45. Dynamics of culture: theoretical and methodological aspects / Otv. ed. Orlova E.A., Arnoldov A.I. USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy. Philosophical Society of the USSR. M., 1989.
46. Dobrenkov V.I., Nechaev V.Ya. Society and education. M.: INFRA-M, 2003.
47. Dolnik V.R. The naughty child of the biosphere. Conversations about human behavior in the company of birds, animals! and children. 3rd edition, supplemented. St. Petersburg: Cherona-on-Neva, Paritet, 2003.
48. Drobizheva JI. M.,; Aklaev A. R., Koroteeva V. V., Soldatova G. U. Democratization and images of nationalism in the Russian Federation in the 1990s. -M.: Thought, 1996.
49. Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose / Per. from French, compilation, afterword and notes by A. B. Hoffmann. M.: Kanon, 1995. - (History of sociology in monuments).
50. Eliseev O.P. Cultural anthropology. M.: APK i PRO, 2003.
51. Zhukov V. I. Globalization. Globalism. Russia: Report at the Second International Social Congress "Russia in the system of global social coordinates!", November 25, 2002. Moscow: MGSU Publishing House, 2002.
52. Zhukov V. I. Comparative studies in modern sociology: methodological and methodological approaches. Moscow: RIC ISPI RAN, 2003.
53. Zhukov V. I. Russian transformations: sociology, economics, politics. 1985-2001 years. M.: Publishing House of MGSU, 2002.
54. Zdravomyslov A. G. Needs. Interests. Values. Moscow: Politizdat, 1986.
55. Zdravomyslov A. G., Matveeva S. Ya. Interethnic conflicts in Russia and the post-Soviet space. Issue 85. - M.: IEA RAN, 1995.
56. Zinevich G. P. Man studies man. Kyiv: Nauk.dumka, 1988.
57. Zubkov V. I. Sociological risk theory: Monograph. M.: Publishing house of RUDN University, 2003.
58. Ivanov VN Russia: socio-political situation (national and regional aspects). Moscow: ISPI RAN, 2000.
59. Ivanov V. N. Russia: options for choice. Socio-political situation. M: RIC ISPI RAN, 2003.
60. Ivanov V. N., O. Ya. Yarovoy. Russian federalism: formation and development. M., 2000. |
61. Ilyin V. V., Akhiezer A. S. Russian civilization: content, boundaries, opportunities / Ed. Ilyina V.V. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. Univ., 2000. - (Theoretical political science: the world of Russia and Russia in the world; Issue 7).
62. Ilyin V.V., Panarin A.S., Badovsky D.V. Political anthropology / Edited by V.V. Ilyin. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1995.
63. History of mentalities, historical anthropology: foreign studies in reviews and abstracts / Prepared by Gurevich A. Ya.; RAN. Institute of World History, Russian State University for the Humanities - Moscow: Rossiyskiy gos. humane un-t, 1996.
64. History of sociologists in Western Europe and the USA. Moscow: Nauka, 1993.
65. Its R. F. Century and generation. Ethnographic studies. M.: Thought, 1977.
66. Kant I. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999.- (Series "The Word about Being").
67. Kantor VK Rufsky European as a cultural phenomenon (philosophical and historical analysis). Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2001.
68. Kasyanova K. About Russian national character. M.: Academic project; Yekaterinburg: Business book, 2003.
69. Kirdina S. G. Institutional matrices and development of Russia. -Novosibirsk: IEiOPP SO RAN, 2001.
70. Kluckhohn Clyde Kay Mayben. Mirror for a person. Introduction to Anthropology. Translation from English, ed. Panchenko A. A. St. Petersburg: "Eurasia", 1998.
71. Kovalev V. I. Security: socio-biological aspects. Moscow: RIC ISPI RAN, 2001.
72. Kovalev VN Moscow profession sociologist. Encyclopedia of social education. - M.: Soyuz Publishing House, 2000.
73. Kovalev E. M., Shteinberg I. E. Qualitative methods in field sociological research. M.: Logos, 1999.
74. Kogan LN Man and his fate. M.: Thought, 1988.
75. Kodin M. I. Theoretical and methodological problems of socio-economic and socio-political transformations in Russia at the end of the 20th century. M.: Nauka, 2002.
76. Kozyrkov V. P. Development of the ordinary world. Sociocultural analysis. -N.Novgorod: VDGU Publishing House, 1999.
77. Koldin M. I. Russia in the “twilight” of transformations: Evolution, revolution or counter-revolution?! Policy. Ideology. Moral. M .: Young Guard, 2001.
78. Kolevatov V. A. Social memory and knowledge. M.: Thought, 1984.
79. Kon IS Sociological psychology. Moscow: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute; | Voronezh: NPO MODEK Publishing House, 1999. (Series "Psychology of Homelands^").
80. Koryuof F. New sociology / Per. from fr. E.D. Voznesenskaya, M.N. Fedorova; scientific ed. H.A. Shmatko M.: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2002. - (Gallicinium series).
81. Korotaev A. V. Social evolution: factors, patterns, trends. M.: Vost. lit., 2003.
82. Cole M., Scribnf S. Culture and thinking. Psychological essay / Per. from English. P. TulViste. Ed. and with preface. A. R. Luria. Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1997.
83. Kradin N. N. Alternative ways to civilization. Moscow: Logos Publishing House, 2000.
84. Kretschmer E. Body structure and character / Per. from German. M .: April Press, Publishing house EKSMO-Press, 2000. - (Series "Psychology. XX century").
85. Where does it go Russia)? Power, Society, Personality / Ed. ed. T. I. Zaslavskaya. M., 2000(.
86. Kuzovkov M. M. General and special in the social development of Russian autonomies in 1959-1970. M., 1997.
87. Cooley Charles Horton. Human nature and social order / Per. from English. M.: Idea-Press, House of Intellectual Books, 2000.
88. Culturology. XX century. Anthology: Philosophy and Sociology of Culture / RAS INION; Comp. And ed. Levit S. Ya. M .: INION, 1994. - (Series "Faces of Culture").
89. Lapin N.I. Ways of Russia: sociocultural transformations. M.: IF RAN, 2000. I
90. Larionov I. K. The social concept of personality, society and the state: Monograph. M., 2000.
91. Levin 3. I. The mentality of the diaspora (systemic and socio-cultural analysis). Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS; Publishing house "Craft +", 2001.
92. Levi-Strauss K.; Sad tropics / Per. from French. Lvov: Initiative; M .: LLC Firm Publishing House ACT, 1999. - (Classics of Psychology).
93. Levi-Strauss K; Structural anthropology. M.: Nauka, 1985. - (Ethnographic Library).
94. Levit S. Ya. Ecology of culture: Scientific and analytical review / USSR Academy of Sciences. INION. M.: INION, 1990. - (Series: Theory and history of culture).
95. Liberal tradition in the USA and its creators. American Studies Problems. (Under the editorship of E. F. Yazko|va, A. S. Manykin). Collect. mon. Issue 1., M.: Ed. Moscow State University, 1997.
96. Lich E. Culture and Communication: The Logic of the Interrelation of Symbols. To use structural analysis in social anthropology. Per. from English. M.: Publishing company "Eastern Literature" RAS, 2001. - (Ethnographic Library).
97. Personality, culture, ethnos: modern psychological anthropology / Ed. A. A. Velika. M.: Meaning, 2001.
98. Luzhkov Yu. M. The path to an effective state: a plan for the transformation of the system of state power and management in the Russian Federation. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2002.
99. Malinovsky Bronislav. scientific theory culture / Per. from English. I. V. Utekhina. Intro. article by A. Baiburin. M.: OGI, 1999.
100. Matveev VA ¡Historical experience of confronting separatism in the North Caucasus and the present. Issue. 147. - M.: IEA RAN, 2002.
101. Matveev V. A. Separatism in the North Caucasus: The boundaries of the phenomenon at the turn of the XIX XX century. - Issue. 146. - M.: IEA RAN, 2002.
102. Mezhuev VM culture and history (The problem of culture in the philosophical and historical theory of Marxism). Moscow: Politizdat, 1977.
103. Mills Ch. R. Sociological imagination / Per. from fr. O. A. Oberemko; under total ed. and foreword. G. S. Batygina. M.: Ed. House "Strategy", 1998.
104. Mythology and everyday life. Gender approach in anthropological disciplines. Proceedings of the scientific conference February 19-21, 2001. - St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2001; Institute of Russian Literature RAS (Pushkin House), 2001.
105. Mnatsakyan M. O. Integralism and national community. New ethnosociological theory. M.: Ankil Publishing House, 2001.
106. Multidimensional image of a person: A comprehensive interdisciplinary study of a person. M.: Nauka, 2001.
107. Upgrading in! Russia and the conflict of values / Akhiezer A. S., Kozlova N. N., Matveeva S. Ya. et al. M.: Institute of Philosophy, 1994.
108. Mol A. Sociodynamics of culture / Per. from fr. Intro. article, edition and notes by B. V. Biryukov, R. Kh. Zaripov, S. N. Plotnikov. Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1973.
109. Monson P. Contemporary Western sociology: theories, traditions, perspectives / Per. from the Swiss St. Petersburg: Notabene Publishing House, 1993.
110. Muscovites S. Bk crowd. Historical treatise on the psychology of the masses. Moscow: Center for Psychology and Psychotherapy, 1996.
111. Moss M. Society. Exchange. Personality: Works on social anthropology. / Translated (from French. M .: Publishing Company "Eastern Literature" RAS, 1996. - (Ethnographic Library).
112. Cultural Science and Social Practice: An Anthropological Perspective. Collection of scientific readings / Under the general editorship of Yu. M. Reznik. M.: Publishing house IKAR, 1998.
113. Neretina S., Ogurtsov A. Time of culture. St. Petersburg: RKhGI Publishing House, 2000.
114. Niebuhr R. X, Niebuhr R. Christ and Culture: Selected Writings of Richard Niebuhr and Reinhold! Niebuhr / Editorial Board: Gurevich P. S., Levit S. Ya. M.: Yurist, 1996. - (Series “Faces of Culture”).
115. Nikishenkov A, A. From the history of English ethnography. Criticism of functionalism. M.| Publishing House of Moscow University, 1986.
116. Noel E. Mass polls. Introduction to the methodology of demoscopy. Tot. ed., entry. and zakl. Art. N. S. Mansurova. M.: "AVA-ESTRA", 1993.
117. Odysseus: A man in history / rev. ed. Gurevich A. Ya. M.: Nauka, 1999.
118. Orlova I. B. Modern civilizations and Russia. Moscow: RIC ISPI RAN, 2000.
119. Orlova EA Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. M.: Izd-vo MGIK, 1994.
120. Osadchaya GI Social sphere of society: theory and methodology of sociological analysis. M.: Soyuz, 1996.
121. Osipov G., Martynenko V. Ten years that shook Russia. Moscow: Institute of Ecological and Technological Problems, 2000.
122. Osipov GV The paradigm of the new world order and Russia. Moscow: Institute of Ecological and Technological Problems, 1999.
123. Osipov GV Social myth-making and social practice. M.: "Norma", 2000.
124. Osipov I. D., Shchuchenko V. A. The eternal present of culture. Theoretical problems historical and cultural process / Ed. I. A. Golosenko. St. Petersburg: Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001.
125. Essays on social anthropology. St. Petersburg: LLP TK "Petropolis", 1995.
126. Panarin A. S. The temptation of globalism. M.: Russian national fund, 2000.
127. Parsons T. The system of modern societies / Per. from English. L. A. Sedova and A. D. Kovaleva. Under pefr. M. S. Kovaleva. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1997.
128. Peccei A. Human qualities / Per. from English. O. V. Zakharova. Tot. ed. and intro. article by Academician D. M. Gvishiani. Moscow: Progress, 1985.
129. Plakhov VD Traditions and society: Experience of philosophical and sociological research. M.: Thought, 1982.
130. Pomerants G. Exit from a trance. M .: Lawyer, 1995. - (Faces of Culture).
131. Popper K. Poverty of historicism: Per. from English. M.: Ed. group "Progress" VIA, 1993. |I
132. Popper K. Open society and its enemies. In 2 vols. Vol. 1: Enchantment of Plato. Per. from English, ed. B| N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Phoenix, Intern. Fund "Cultural Initiative", 1992.
133. Popper K. Open society and its enemies. In 2 vols. Vol. 2: The time of false prophets: Hegel, Marx and other oracles. Per. from English, ed. V. N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Phoenix, Intern. Fund "Cultural Initiative", 1992.
134. Porshnev B. F. About the beginning human history(problems of paleopsychology). M., 1972.
135. Problems of Philosophy of Culture: An Experience of Historical-Materialistic Analysis / V. M. Mezhuev;, N. S. Zlobin, V. Zh. Kelle, et al.; Ed. Kelle V. Zh. -M .: Thought, 1984.
136. Ways of peace in the North Caucasus. Independent expert report / Otv. ed. V. A. Tishkov. M.i IEA RAN, 1999.
137. Pento R., Gravits M. Methods of social sciences. Ed. and intro. Art. V. A. Tumanova. Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1972.
138. Works of L. A. White on cultural studies: (sat. Per.) / RAS INION. Department of Theory and History of Culture; editorial board: Lazarevich E. M. (ed.); Levit S. Ya. (responsible editor). M .: INION, 1996. - (Series "Faces of Culture").
139. Redel AI Spirituality is the basis of the Russian mentality. On the issue of socio-cultural prerequisites for the modernization of Russian society. - M.: RIC ISPI RAN, 2000.;
140. Reznik Yu. M. Introduction to social theory. Social ontology. Benefit. M.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 1999.I
141. Reznik Yu. M. Introduction to social theory. social epistemology. Benefit. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 1999.
142. Relativistic; nation theory: new approach to the study of ethnopolitical Russia. To the 70th anniversary of Professor A. G. Zdravomyslov. M.: RNISiNP, 1998.
143. Rogachev S. ¡V. Russian statehood in the system of transformational coordinates. M., 2000.
144. Romanov P. BJ Power, management and control in organizations: Anthropological studies of modern society. Saratov: Sarat Publishing House. un-ta, 2003.
145. Ross D., Nisbet R. Man and situation. Lessons social psychology/ Per. from English. V. V. Romanian, ed. E. N. Emelyanova, V. S. Maguna. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2000.
146. Russian society: sociological perspectives. Proceedings of the ISA RAS. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2000.
147. Russia: a transforming society / Edited by V. A. Yadov. -M.: Publishing house "KaTson-press-C", 2001.
148. Guide to the methodology of cultural and anthropological research: To the XIX World Philosophy. kong. / Rev. ed. Lazareva E. M. M.: USSR Academy of Sciences, INION, 1SÎ91.
149. Russians / Resp. ed. V. Aleksandrov, I. Vlasova, N. Polishchuk. M .: Science, 1997. - (Series "Peoples and Cultures").
150. Russian people. Èro customs, rituals, traditions, superstitions and poetry. Sobr. M. Zabylin. Edition of the bookseller M. Berezin. M., 1880.
151. Rutkevich E. D. Phenomenological sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Nauka, 1993.
152. Rutkevich MN Society as a system. Sociological essays. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001.
153. Radcliffe-Brown A. R. Method in social anthropology / Per. from English. and concluding Art. V. Nikolaev. M .: "KANON - press - C", "Kuchkovo field", 2001. - (Series "Publications of the CFS"). 1.I
154. Radcliffe-Browy AR Structure and function in a primitive society. Essays and lectures. Per. from English. M.: Publishing company "Vostochnayaliterature" RAS, 2001. (Ethnographic Library).
155. Sadman S., Bradbury N., Schwartz N. How people answer questions: the use of cognitive analysis in mass surveys / Per. from English. D. M. Rogozin, M. V. Rassokhina; Ed. G. S. Batygina. Moscow: Institute of the Public Opinion Foundation, 2003.
156. Sadovnichiy Vp A., Belokurov V. V., Sushko V. G., Shikin E. V. University education: an invitation to reflection. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1995.
157. Samokhvalova V.! I. Man and the fate of the world. Moscow: "Publishing house New Age", 2000.I
158. Sartre Zh. from French, foreword, note. V. I. Kolyadko. Moscow: TERRA - Book Club; Republic, 2002. - (Library of philosophical thought).
159. Semenov Yu. I. Philosophy of history from its origins to the present day: Main problems and concepts | and. Moscow: Stary Sad, 1999.
160. Semenova VV Qualitative methods: an introduction to humanistic sociology. M.: Dobrosvet, 1998.I
161. Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies: Per. from English. / Common ed. and intro. Art. A. E. Kibrika. M .: "Progress", "Univers", 1993. - (Philologists of the world).
162. Soboleva ME Philosophy of symbolic forms of E. Cassirer. Genesis. Basic concepts. Context. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 2001.
163. Sokolova IV) Social informatics (sociological aspects). -M.: "Soyuz", 1999.
164. Nightingale T. D. From “bourgeois” ethnology to “Soviet” ethnography. History of Russian ethnology in the first third of the 20th century. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1|997.
165. Sorokin P. A. Man. Civilization. Society / Per. from English. Moscow: Politizdat, 1992.
166. Sorokin Pitirim. Social and cultural dynamics: a study of changes in large systems of art, truth, ethics, law and public relations / Per. from English, comments and article by V. V. Sapov. - St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2000.
167. Social and cultural distance: Experience of multinational Russia / Otv. ed. L. M. Drobizheva. Moscow: IEA RAN, ISI RAN, 1998.
168. Social policy and social work in Changing Russia / Ed. E. Yarskoy-Smirndva, P. Romanova. Moscow: INION RAN, 2002.
169. Social inequality of ethnic groups: Representations and reality / ed. project and resp. ed. L. M. Drobizheva. Moscow: Academia, 2002.
170. Social stratification processes in modern society. In 2 books. / Editorial Board: 3. T. Golenkova et al. M.: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1993.
171. Social knowledge and social change. M. : IF RAN, 2001.
172. Social guidelines for renewal: society and man / Under the general editorship of Zaslavskaya ÍT. I. M.: Politizdat, 1990.
173. Sociology and mathematics. Modeling of social processes. Moscow: Nauka, 1970.
174. Stepin V. S., Gdrokhov V. G., Rozov M. A. Philosophy of science and technology. -M.: Contact-Alpha, 1995.
175. Straus A., K|orbin J. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques / Per. from English. and an afterword by T. S. Vasilyeva. M.: Editorial URSS, 2001.
176. The structure of culture and man in modern society / Akhiezer A. S., Glazychev V. L., Kogan V. M. et al. M., 1987.
177. Tylor E. B. Primitive culture. Per. from English. Moscow: Politizdat, 1989.
178. Theory of society. Collection / trans. with German, English / vetup. article, comp. and general ed. A. F. Filippova. M .: "Kanon-press-C", "Kuchkovo field", 1999. - (Series "LOGICA SOCÍALIS").
179. Tolerance and cultural tradition / Otv. ed. M. Yu. Martynova. M.: IEA RAN, 2002.
180. Toynbee A. J. Comprehension of history: Per. from English. / Comp. Ogurtsov A.P. Enter, Art. Ukolova V. I. Zakl. Art. Rashkovsky E. B. M.: Progress, 1991.
181. Toffler E. The third wave. M .: LLC Firm Publishing House ACT, 1999. - (Classical philosophical thought).
182. Toshchenko Zh. T. Paradoxical man. M.: Gardariki, 2001.
183. Toshchenko Zh. T. Ethnocracy: history and modernity. Sociological essays. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2003.
184. Traditional and new rituals in the life of the peoples of the USSR. M., 1991.
185. Tradition in the history of culture. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.
186. Transformation of the Social Structure and Stratification of Russian Society / Institute of Sociology RAS, 2nd ed. - M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998.
187. Touraine A. The return of the acting man. Essay on sociology. M.: Scientific world, 1998.
188. White JI. A. Works on cultural studies (collection. per.). M.: INION RAN, 1996.
189. Urzha OA Stratification and social management. M.: Publishing house of MGSU "Soyuz", 1999.
190. Farman I. P. Socio-cultural projects of Jurgen Habermas. Moscow: IF RAN, 1999.
191. Frazer D. D. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Per. from English. -2nd ed. Moscow: Politizdat, 1986.
192. Frolov I. T. Prospects of a person: An experience of a complex statement of the problem, discussions, Generalizations. 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Politizdat, 1983.
193. Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness: Per. from English. / Aut. intro. Art. P. S. Gurevich. M .: Republic, 1994. - (Thinkers of the XX century).
194. Fromm E. The soul of a person. M .: Republic, 1992. - (Thinkers of the XX century).
195. Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge: Per. from fr. / Common ed. B. Levchenko. K .: Nika-Center, 1996. - (Series "OPERA APARTA").
196. Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge: Per. from fr. / Common ed. B. Levchenko. K.: Nika-Centre, 1996.
197. Foucault M. Words and Things: Archeology of the Humanities. (For scientific libraries). -M.: Profess, 1977.
198. Habermas Y. Future of human nature. Per. with him. M.: Publishing house "Ves Mir", 2002.
199. Huizinga J. Horíio ludens. In the Shadow of Tomorrow: Per. from the Netherlands / Common ed. and after. G. M. Tavrizyan. Moscow: Progress Publishing Group, Progress-Academy,! 1992.
200. Huizinga J. Autumn of the Middle Ages: Op. in 3 volumes. T.1: Per. from the Netherlands Intro. Art. and general ed. Ukolova V. I. M.: Publishing group "Progress" - "Culture", 1995.
201. Hollicher V. Man in the scientific picture of the world: Per. with him. E. N. Gorodenskaya, D. N. Zavalishina, A. N. Zueva / General. ed. P. Ya. Galperin. -M.: Progress Publishing House), 1971.
202. Values and symbols of national identity in a changing society / Otv. ed. L. M. Drobizheva. M.: IEA RAN, 1994.
203. Man and culture: individuality in the history of culture / Otv. ed. Gurevich A. Ya. USSR Academy of Sciences. Scientific Council on the history of world culture. Moscow: Nauka, 1990.
204. Man: Thinkers past and present about his life, death and immortality. Ancient world the Age of Enlightenment / Ed.: I. T. Frolov and others; Comp. P. S. Gurevich. - M.: Politizdat, 1991.
205. Man in a multinational society: Ethnicity and law / Otv. ed. I. L. Babich, S. V. Sokolovsky. M.: IEA RAN, 1994.
206. Man and the modern world. M.: INFRA-M, 2002.
207. Man and law. The book about the Summer School in Legal Anthropology / Ed. ed. N. I. Novikova, V. A. Tishkov. Moscow: Strategy, 1999.
208. Humanity in the 21st century: indicators of development: Proceedings of the GU International Fair of Ideas. N. Novgorod, 2001.
209. Shadrin A. K). Economic factor of the policy of separatism in the Soviet Baltic republics. M .: LLP "Typography", 1996.
210. Chardin P. T. The phenomenon of man. Per. from fr. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.
211. Shatsky E. Utopia and tradition. Moscow: Progress, 1990.
212. Shepel V. M. Human competence of a manager. Management Anthropology. Moscow: Pedagogy House, 2000.
213. Spengler O. Decline of Europe. Rostov n / a: publishing house "Phoenix", 1998.
214. Sztompka P. Sociology of social change / Per. from English. ed. V. A. Yadova. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1996.
215. Elias Norbert. Society of individuals. M .: Praxis, 2001. - (Series "The Image of Society").
216. Ethnic tolerance in the multicultural regions of Russia / Ed. ed. N. M. Lebedeva, A. N. Tatarko. M.: IEA RAN, 2002.
217. Ethnic stereotypes of behavior / Ed. A. K. Baiburina. L .: Publishing house "Nauka", 1985.
218. Ethnos and politics: Reader / Avt.-comp. A. A. Prazauskas. M.: Publishing house of URAO, 2000.
219. Human ethology on the threshold of the 21st century: new data and old problems. Moscow: Stary Sad, 1999.
220. Efirov S. A. Social consent: utopia or a chance? M.: Publishing house of the Institute of sociology^ RAS, 2002.
221. Efroimson V.P. Genius and genetics. M .: Information and publishing agency "Russian World", 1998.
222. Yanovsky R. G. Social dynamics of humanitarian changes: the sociology of a chance for Russia to have a decent and safe life for its peoples. M.: Book and business, 2001.
223. Yarskaya-Smirnova E. Sociocultural analysis of atypicality. Saratov: Sarat. state those. un-t, 1997. ARTICLES IN MAGAZINES, COLLECTIONS.
224. Allen R.L. The Socio-spatiel making and marking of us: towards a critical postmodern spatial theoify of difference and community // Social identities. Oxford, 1999. Vol. 5, no. 3. - P. 249-277.
225. Dean M. Sociology after society // Sociology after postmodernism. L., 1997.-P. 205-228/;
226. Hanners U. Cosnjiopolitians and Locals in World Culture // Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. P. 237-244.
227. Krzysztofek Kazimierrz. Cultural Development and Globalization: How to Protect Cultures as Lift Support Systems? //Culturelink. special issue. 2000. -Zagreb, Croatia/ - P. 14)7-158.
228. Layne L.L. The Cultural fix: an anthropological contribution to science and technology studies // Sicience, technology a/ human values. Cambridge (Mass), 2000. Vol.25, No.4. - If. 492-519.
229. Avanesova G. A. Civilizational and socio-cultural parameters of the transformations of modern Russia // Culture in the modern world: experience, problems, solutions. Scientific and information collection. - Issue 1. - M.: RSL Publishing House, 2002. - S.33-61.
230. Azroyants E. A. The problem of man: a multidisciplinary approach // The problem of man: a multidisciplinary approach: Proceedings of the scientific. Conf., Moscow, October 22-23, 1998. M., 1998. - S. 6-9.
231. Alieva D. Ya. Paradigmatic shifts in the sociology of everyday life: the concept of Michel Maffesoli // Sociological journal. 1995. - No. 1. -p.110-122.
232. Bachinin V. Ai. Anthroposociology of anormative behavior // Social Sciences and modernity. No. 3. - M.: Nauka, 2001. - S. 62-73.
233. Belik A. A. Cultural (social) anthropology, the field of scientific research and academic discipline // Ethnographic Review. - No. 6. -2000.-S. 3-14.
234. Belyaev G. A., Leonov V. G. Scientific research in the context of culture // Philosopher. Problems of knowledge of man and society. Yaroslavl, 1998. - S. 2539.
235. Baudrillard J. Simulacra and simulations / Philosophy of the postmodern era. Minsk: Krasiko-print, 1996.
236. Bozhkov OB Biographies and genealogies: retrospectives of social and cultural transformations // Sociological journal. No. 1. - 2001. - S. 7488.
237. Boikov V. E. The state and problems of the formation of historical memory // sociological research. No. 8 (220). - 2002. - S. 85-89.
238. Bocharov VV, Anthropological science and society // Journal of sociology and social anthropology. Volume III. - No. 1. - 2000. - S.121-134.
239. Vasilchuk Yu.! A. Social development of man in the XX century // Social sciences and modernity. No. 1. - 2001. - S. 5-26.
240. Guardini Roman. End of the New Age. An attempt to find one's place / Self-awareness of culture and art of the XX century. Western Europe and USA. M.; St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya! kniga, 2000. S. 169-226.
241. Girtz Clifford. The influence of the concept of culture on the concept of man / Anthology of cultural studies. T.1. Interpretation of culture. - St. Petersburg: University book, 1997. - S. 115-141.
242. Glazkova S. A.; Is there a direction for social change? // Problems of theoretical sociology. Issue Z: Interuniversity coll. / Rev. ed. A. O. Boronoev. SPb.: Publishing | in S. - St. Petersburg. un-ta, 2000. - S. 91-100.
243. Globalization of ethnology on the threshold of the new millennium // Ethnographic review. No. 1. - 2000. - S. 19-39.
244. Golofast VB Variety of biographical narratives // Sociological journal. No. 1. - 1995. - S. 71-89.
245. Gurevich P. S. The problem of human integrity // Personality. Culture. Society. T. III. Issue 1(7). - 2001. - S. 31-43.
246. Gurevich P. S.; Man as a Subject of Philosophical Anthropology (Methodological Aspects) // Personality. Culture. Society. T. III. Issue. 3(9).-2001.-p. 52-67;
247. Yu. N. Davydov, “The Great Crisis” in P.A. Sorokin // Sociological journal. No. 1-2. - 1999. - S. 164-171.
248. Dobrenkov V.! I. Socio-humanitarian problems of the formation of a global society / Man and the modern world. M.: INFRA-M, 2002. -S. 11-27.
249. Elmeev V. Ya. On the methods of studying the social essence of a person // Problems of theoretical sociology. Issue Z: Interuniversity coll. / Rev. Ed. A. O. Boronoev. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 2000. - S. 117-126.
250. Zaslavskaya T. I. Sociostructural aspect of the transformation of Russian society // Sociological research. No. 8. - 2001. - S. 3-11.
251. Zaslavskaya T. I., Shabanova M. A. Social mechanisms for the transformation of illegal practices // Social sciences and modernity. -#5. -M.: Nauka, 2001. S. 5-24.
252. Zborovsky G. E. Sociology in the structure modern education// Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. T.U1. No. 1 (21). - 2003. - S. 186-194.
253. Ionin LG Culture and social structure // Sociological research. -No. 3. - 1996. - S. 31-42.
254. Karlov V.V. Ethno-national reflection and the subject of ethnology (on the problem of self-consciousness of science) // Ethnographic Review. M., 2000. -№4.-S. 3-22.
255. Kirdina S. G. Import of concepts, previous approaches or new independent theories?: (On the state of fundamental research in Russian sociology^) // Sots. research M., 2001. - No. 8. - S. 35-41.
256. Kuznetsov AM Anthropology and anthropological turn of modern social and humanitarian knowledge // Vladivostok: Vest. Far, Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 1999. - No. 4. - S. 128-140.
257. Kultygin V. P. Specifics of sociological knowledge: continuity, traditions and innovation // Sociological research. 2000. - No. 8. - S. 311.
258. Kuropyatnik AI Multiculturalism: problems of social stability of multi-ethnic societies. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 2000.
259. Lapaeva VV Russian science in a new social context: ways of self-determination // Sots.issled. M., 2001. - No. 8. - S. 41-51.
260. Latova N. V. Ethnometric measurements: theory and practice // Sociology: 4 M. 2003. - No. 17. - S. 142-167.
261. Levada Yuri. Folk "cheers". From Gorbachev to Putin. Notes on the margins of sociological surveys // Russian Hills. 2000. November. - S. 125-126.
262. Levashov V. K. Globalization and social security// Sociological research, M.: Nauka, 2002. No. 3. - S. 19-27.
263. Lynsha V. A. Gordon Child and American Neoevolutionism // Ethnographic Review, 2001. No. 5. - S. 3-17.
264. Mazlumyanova N. Ya. To the research methodology problem situations// Sociological journal. No. 1/2. - 2000. - S. 79-88.
265. Minyushev F.I. The Phenomenon of Existence: Existential Foundations of Changes in Russia. Constants of human existence // Man and the modern world. M.: INFRA-M, 2002. - S. 163-220.
266. Mitroshenkov OA Culture and civilization (lecture materials) // Personality. Culture. Society. 2000. - T.P. Issue. 2(3). - S.195-221.
267. Molodin VI Archeology: results and prospects of interdisciplinary research // Vest. RAN. M., 2001. - No. 9. - S. 788-796.
268. Nechaev V. Ya., Dobrenkov V. I. Four waves in the Russian education system / Man and the modern world. M.: INFRA-M, 2002. - S. 387418.
269. Nikishenkov A. A. Eurasianism, orientalism and social anthropology // Science of culture and social practice: an anthropological perspective. Collection of scientific readings. M.: Publishing house IKAR, 1998. - S. 74-83.
270. Nikishenkov A. A. Applied Research in Western Social/Cultural Anthropology // Ethnographic Review. 2000. -№5. - S. 17-30.
271. Petrova M. A. Application of the Weibull-Gnedenko distribution in the analysis of the course of an ethno-political conflict // Sociology 4M. 2003. -№16.- S. 114-125.
272. Pokrovsky H. E. Russian society on the paths of globalization / Man and the modern world. M.: INFRA-M, 2002. - S. 27-48.
273. Puzanova Zh.V., Trotsuk I.V. Narrative analysis: concept or metaphor? // Sociology: 4 M, 2003. -№17. pp.56-83.
274. Rozov M. A. Methodological features of humanitarian knowledge // Problems of humanitarian knowledge. Novosibirsk: Science, 1986. - S. 33-54.
275. Rozov M. A. The theory of social relay races and the problem of knowledge analysis // Theory of social relay races: History of Ideas - Prospects. - Novosibirsk: NSU, 1997.-S. 9-67.
276. Romanov P.V. Microlevel of social reality. Possibilities of an interdisciplinary approach // Sociological research. M.: Nauka, 2002. - No. 3. - S. 28-33.
277. Rybakov S. E. On the methodology of the study of ethnic phenomena // Ethnographic Review. Miklukho-Maclay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2000. - No. 5. - S. 3-17.
278. Salnikov LG Genetic and social inheritance indicators of human development // Humanity in the XXI century: indicators of development. Proceedings of the IV International Fair of Ideas, 29 academic symposium. -N. Novgorod, 2001. - S. 130-133.
279. Semashko L. M. Tetrasociology sociology of four dimensions: to the formulation of the problem. - 2001. - No. 9. - S. 20-28.
280. Semenova VV Intergenerational transmission through the prism of mass surveys and life stories // Transformation of the social structure and stratification of Russian society. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998.-S. 342-361.
281. Skvortsov N. G. Individual and ethnic environment: the problem of ethnicity in symbolic interactionism // Sociology and social anthropology. Interuniversity. Sat. ed. V.D. Vinogradov, V. V. Kozlovsky. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 1997. - S. 303-321.
282. Skvortsov N. G. Ethnicity, race and mode of production: a neo-Marxist perspective // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 1998. - Volume I. No. 1. - S. 53-72.
283. Smith R. Man between biology and culture // Man. 2000. - No. 1. -WITH. 33-44.
284. Sokuler 3. A. Sociology after postmodernism. Consolidated abstract // Sociological research on the threshold of the XXI century. Rep. ed. J.T. V. Girko. -M.: INION RAN. 2000. - S. 129-163.
285. Tatarova GG Mathematical modeling of social processes in sociological education // Sociological research. 2001. - No. 8. -WITH. 129.
286. Thevenot JI. Which way to go? The Moral Complexity of "Equipped" Humanity (translated from English by A. V. Tavrovsky) // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2000. - Volume III. No. 3. - S. 84-112.
287. Tendryakova M. V. Symposium " Actual problems studying the history of Russian ethnology and anthropology of the 20th century” // Ethnographic Review. M., 2001. - No. 5. - S. 132.
288. Terekhin A. V. On the anthropological orientation of social research // Human problems in modern science. N. Novgorod, 1999. -S. 206-211.
289. Tishkov VA Soviet ethnography: overcoming the crisis // Ethnographic review. M., 1992. - No. 1. - P.5-20.
290. Tishkov V. A. What is Russia? (perspectives of nation-building) // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. - No. 2.
291. Tishkov VA Cultural meaning of space // Y congress of ethnographers and anthropologists of Russia. Abstracts of reports. Omsk. June 9-12, 2003 M., 2003. -S. 16-24.
292. Trubetskoy N. S. Europe and humanity // Trubetskoy N. S. History. Culture. Language. M., 1995. - S. 60-100.
293. Filippov AF Elementary Sociology of Space // Sociological Journal. M., 1995. - No. 1. - S. 45-69.
294. Filippov V. R., Filippova E. I. Credo experto: (Domestic ethnology today and tomorrow) // Ethnographic Review. M., 1993. - No. 5. -S.3-11.
295. Flier A. Ya. Social experience as a basis for the functioning and historical reproduction of communities // Social sciences and modernity. 2002. - No. 1. - S. 166-183.
296. Fomichev PN Discourses of globalization and trends in the development of sociology. Analytical review // Sociological research on the threshold of the XXI century. M.: INION RAN, 2000. - S. 23-59.
297. Habermas Y. European national state: its achievements and limits. On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship // Nations and Nationalism / B. Andersen, O. Bauer et al. M., 2002.
298. Hannerz Ulf. Borders // International Journal of Social Sciences. -1998. No. 21. With the participation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the publishing house "Nauka". - S. 105-119.
299. Herzveld M. Anthropological perspectives: breaking the structures of power and knowledge // International Journal of Social Sciences. 1998. - No. 21. With the participation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the publishing house "Nauka". - S. 7-18.
300. Herzveld M. Anthropology: practical application of theory // International Journal of Social Sciences. 1998. - No. 20. With the participation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the publishing house "Nauka". - S. 7-28.
301. Hubinger Wenceslas. Anthropology and Modernity // International Journal of Social Sciences. 1998. - No. 21. With the participation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the publishing house "Nauka". -WITH. 93-105.
302. Tsvetaeva N. N. Biographical narratives Soviet era// Sociological journal. 2000. - No. 1/2. - S. 150-164.
303. Shmerlina IA Sociology and human ethology // Sociological journal. 2001. - No. 1. - S. 33-44.
304. Sztompka P. Social change as a trauma / Sociological research. M.: Nauka, 2001. - No. 1. - S. 6-17.
305. Shcherbina VV The collapse of culture and the scenario of the possible development of Russia // Personality. Culture. Society. M., 2000. - T.P. Issue. 2(3). - S. 10-29.
306. Shchukina T. A. Canada's International Cultural Policy Initiative // USA. Canada. No. 2 (386), February 2002. - S. 67-81.
307. Escobar A. Anthropology and Development // International Journal of Social Sciences. 1998. - No. 21. With the participation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the publishing house "Nauka". - S. 5979. DICTIONARIES, DIRECTORIES.
308. Who's who in the West./ Ed.: Conner H. Et al. Millennium ed. - New Providence (NY): Marquis who's who, 1999.
309. Abercrombie H., Hill S., Turner B. S. Sociological Dictionary / Per. from English, ed. S. A. Erofeeva. Kazan: Publishing House of Kazan University, 1997.
310. Agbunov M. Ancient myths and legends. Mythological dictionary. M.: MIKIS, 1994.
311. Ageeva R. A. What kind of tribe are we? Peoples of Russia: names and fates. Dictionary reference. Moscow: Academia, 2000.
312. Aksyanova G. A. 100 peoples of the Russian Federation: Number, settlement, language, religion, traditional occupations, anthropological features (reference materials). M.: Old Garden, 2001.
313. Big explanatory sociological dictionary (Collins). Volume 1 (A-O): Per. from English. - M.: Veche, ACT, 1999.
314. Big explanatory sociological dictionary (Collins). Volume 2 (P-Y): Per. from English. - M.: Veche, ACT, 1999.
315. World Encyclopedia: Philosophy of the XX century / Main. scientific ed. and comp. A. A. Gritsanov. M.: ACT, Mn.: Harvest, Modern writer, 2002.
316. Volkov Yu. G., Polikarpov V. S. Man: Encyclopedic Dictionary. -M.: Gardariki, 1999.
317. Gurevich PS Modern humanitarian dictionary-reference book: Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology. Culturology. M.: Olimp; ACT, 1999.
318. Dzhunusov M. S. Nationalism: Dictionary-reference book. M.: Slavic dialogue, 1998.
319. Brief psychological dictionary / Comp. J.I. Ya. Karpenko; Under total Rev.A. V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky. Moscow: Politizdat, 1985.
320. Culturology. XX century. Dictionary. St. Petersburg: - University book, 1997. - (Culturology. XX century).
321. Culture and cultural studies: Dictionary / Comp. and ed. A. I. Kravchenko. M.: Academic project; Yekaterinburg: Business book, 2003.
322. Nations and ethnic groups in the modern world. Dictionary reference. St. Petersburg: Petropolis Publishing House LLC, 1999.
323. The latest philosophical dictionary: 2nd ed., revised, and supplemented. Minsk: Interpressservice; Book House, 2001. - (World of Encyclopedias).
324. Russian sociological encyclopedia / Under the general. ed. acad. RAS G.B. Osipov. -M.: NORM; INFRA-M., 1999.
325. Soviet encyclopedic Dictionary/ Ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov. 4th ed. -M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1989.
326. Modern Western Sociology: Dictionary. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990.
327. Social policy: Explanatory dictionary. Second edition, revised / General. ed. N. A. Volgina. Rep. ed. B.V. Rakitsky. M.: Publishing House of the RAGS, 2002.
328. social management: Dictionary / Ed. V. I. Dobrenkova, I. M. Slepenkova. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1994.
329. Social technologies: Explanatory dictionary. / Rev. ed. V. N. Ivanov. -Moscow Belgorod: Luch - Center social technologies, 1995.
330. Sociological encyclopedia: In 2 vols. Vol. 1 / National Social Science Foundation / Head scientific project G. Yu. Semigin; Chief Editor V. N. Ivanov. M.: Thought, 2003.
331. Sociological encyclopedic dictionary: in Russian, English, German, French. and Czech. languages / Inst. social - watered, research. RAS; Institute of Sociology. RAS; ed.- coord. acad. RAS G. V. Osipov; ed. - comp. 3. T. Golenkova. M.: INFRA-M., NORMA, 1998.
332. Sociological encyclopedic dictionary: in Russian, English, German, French. and Czech. languages / ed.- coord. acad. RAS G. V. Osipov. M.: NORMA, 2000.
333. Sociology: Dictionary-reference. T.1. social structure and social processes. - M.: Nauka, 1990.
334. Tavadov G. T. Ethnology: Dictionary-reference book. M.: Sots. - watered, journal, 1998.
335. Educational sociological dictionary. Edition 2, supplemented, revised / General edition by S. A. Kravchenko. M.: Publishing house "ANKIL", 1997.
336. Philosophical dictionary. 3rd Edition / Edited by M. M. Rozental. Moscow: Politizdat, 1975.
337. Man. Philosophical-encyclopedic dictionary. M: Nauka, 2000.
338. Shcherbina VV Social theories of organizations: Dictionary. M.: INFRA-M., 2000.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition original texts dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. IN PDF files dissertations and abstracts that we deliver, there are no such errors.