Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya

The article focuses on the memory of the Great Patriotic War and the victory in it, as well as the practices of commemoration associated with May 9, across the eras of Soviet and Russian history. With the passing of the generation witness of the memory of the Great Patriotic War moves from personal to collective one, and the issue of passing on memory to younger generations becomes relevant. The article uses data from personal diaries of the Prozhito corpus from 1946 to 2012, as well as two empirical projects in which the Centre for Youth Studies team studied the sociopolitical context of growing up, local identity, and patriotism of millennials (18–43 years old) from large Russian cities were studied through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Being the central event of the collective memory of Russians, the Great Patriotic War becomes one of the national identity pillars. Based on the data, we conclude that the memory of the Great Patriotic War and the victory in it remains an axis of solidarity between generations and is transformed over time, as the importance of passing on memory through family and vernacular commemorative practices increases. Victory Day is associated with an entire era in the life of the country, city, and family. Perceiving the Great Patriotic War and the victory in it as an emotionally charged and personally experienced event, young people nevertheless have a critical attitude towards the use of this memory as a tool for controlling patriotic feelings and civic affiliation.

This article explores the transformation in the discourse of historical memory surrounding the Great Patriotic War in contemporary digital environments with a particular focus on Telegram channels operated by Russian military bloggers. In present-day Russia, the memory of the Great Patriotic War serves not only as a foundational component for national identity but also as a powerful tool for emotional unification and political legitimation. As hybrid warfare and information turbulence intensify, Telegram channels have become key sites where war symbolism is recontextualized and actively employed to frame current events especially those related to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The study draws on semantic and contextual analysis of a corpus comprising over 110,000 messages posted between February 24, 2022, and March 31, 2025. A thesaurus of 91 key lexemes related to World War II was used to identify linguistic patterns and rhetorical strategies. Findings feature a high prevalence of terms such as “Nazi,” “Soviet,” and “USSR” employed not merely to evoke the past but as instruments of ideological polarization, moral condemnation, and emotional mobilization. These lexical items structure narratives to demarcate friend from foe, sacralize collective action, and legitimize present-day political decisions. The analysis reveals that Telegram channels contribute to the production of politicized historical memory by embedding war-related symbols and references into the contemporary information flows. Digital memory in this context is non-linear, affect-driven and closely linked to performative modes of communication, turning historical references into strategic rhetorical tools. The study contributes to broader debates on digital memorialization, political communication, and the instrumentalization of the past in times of conflict.

This essay may be considered a product of memory studies, but it represents not only the historical memory of Belarusians about the war and the image of Belarus that has long been established in the mass consciousness. This is an attempt to rethink the past at the national level, taking into account the 80 years lived after the Great Patriotic War. In the anniversary year, on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the Victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, many new materials are appearing in the Belarusian media, government structures, and educational institutions, making us to take a new look at the events of the war years and their influence on the entire subsequent development of the Republic of Belarus. The unambiguity in the assessments of this or that event and factor of wartime is on the wane, information previously known only to a narrow circle of people is becoming public, as a result of which the historical memory of those citizens of Belarus whose ideas about the war were formed long ago is being updated, and the perception of the war by the younger generations is arguably becoming multifaceted and well-reasoned national narrative.

The article presents a critical review of the debate on civilizational identity in contemporary social science. The theory of clash of civilizations is discussed as an example of the essentialist approach to that problem. It is argued in the article that this approach did not make a substantial theoretical contribution to civilizational analysis and lacks empirical confirmation. Social constructivism represents an alternative to the essentialist approach. From the constructivist perspective civilizations are characterized as imagined communities. However, that perspective displays some limitations in conducting empirical research. It has been argued that civilizational identity can be studied with the same methodological tools as any other form of identity. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that civilizational identity in today’s societies is generally weaker than its national or regional forms. The article highlights the peculiarities of civilizational analysis in contemporary historical sociology. It is emphasized that this approach occupies an intermediate position between essentialism and constructivism. The article makes a conclusion that historical civilizations – from the axial age to modern times – can be discussed from the essentialist perspective although these civilizations were more changeable than essentialism supposes. At the same time studies of civilizational identity in today’s societies should draw on a moderate version of constructivism.

The study and description of the consequences of military actions in the territory of Donbass impacting changes in the main spheres of DPR public life, in comparison with the events of the Great Patriotic War, are the subject of paper. The task of assessing public consciousness changes of the Republic residents after the end of the SVO can be solved by comparing and jointly studying two similar social transformations’ processes in society: (1) during the Great Patriotic War, and (2) military actions to liberate the territory of Donbass in 2014–2025. The destruction of industrial and social infrastructure, as well as the loss of labor resources during the Great Patriotic War and during military actions to liberate the territory of the DPR are comparable and relevant. The socio-demographic conditions in the DPR, as a resuylt of military actions, is influenced by other reasons and factors than in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War. As author found a most significant factor in changing the socio-demographic situation in the DPR is labor migration. While liberating the territory of the DPR, one of the most significant among the social and moral priorities is the attitude towards the small Motherland – Donbass. Patriotism, inherent to the population of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, was reflected in the public consciousness of the citizens of the Republic, both in terms of voluntary mobilization and in the restoration of the Donbass social and industrial infrastructure. The author describes consequences of martial law and military operations in the Donbass territory in 2014–2025, and also stresses the tasks and actions in the main spheres of public life in the DPR (political, economic, social and spiritual).

Today, there are 34 flagship (regional) universities in the most developed and promising regions of Russia. These are “second-tier” universities following the leaders – National Research (29) and Federal (10) Universities. The specific and main task of the flagship university is to become the “engine” of the socio-economic development of the region by training the required professional personnel, developing and implementing innovative technologies. In addition to implementing higher professional education (HPE) programs, they master new technologies, including digital ones, within the framework of additional professional education and advanced training (APE) for the personnel of local (regional) knowledge-intensive (innovative) enterprises. At the same time, it turned out that the use of digital teaching methods (machine learning) in APE is especially effective and, in many ways, anticipates their use in APE. This turned out to be possible because the APE (corporate education) sphere is a least regulated and formalized, and enterprises have the best understanding of their needs for qualified personnel and are not inclined to spend extra time and money on their (re)training. The article examines features of interaction between flagship universities and local enterprises and businesses including through digital educational technologies. The conceptual framework of the study is defined by the “Triplex” model of Henry Etzkowitz: universities/research institutes – enterprises/business – state/regional administrations. The novelty of the study is seen in a comprehensive approach to the current analysis of the flagship universities role as drivers of territorial development.

The author addresses the discussion of the current state of Russian ethnosociology. This discussion has sharpened the confrontation between constructivist and primordialist cognitive positions and has drawn attention to the role of this confrontation in the development of ethnosociology and other disciplines dealing with the problems of ethnicity. Attempts to synthesize primordialism and constructivism are considered and their criticism is made. With this in mind, the author analyzes the ontological and epistemological foundations of primordialism and constructivism, but relies on the theoretically unloaded category of ethnic activity. This category is taken in the tradition of cultural-historical approach and its interpretation corresponds to the thought of Lev Vygotsky. The used theoretical and methodological technique of refocusing the research optics allowed us to reveal the dispositions of primordialism and constructivism in relation to each other in a new way. Based on Mikhail Rozov’s principle of reflexive symmetry, it is shown that primordialism emphasizes external-social forms of relations and focuses on the ways of mediating the surrounding world through collective ethnic activity. Constructivism focuses on the issues of personal regulation of activity, which have to do with the mediation by a person's behavior in acts of activity and the expansion of mental arsenal by including the dimensions of ethnicity. It is concluded that primordialism and constructivism are not opposite to each other, but reflexively symmetrical. This means that they can be synthesized. The synthesis of primordialism and constructivism can be realized through building up their heuristic potential by approaches that can expand the empirical field of ethnosociology. Such approaches include those focused on the macro level of ethnic activity – world-system analysis and geopolitical theory. In conclusion, the author hopes arguments will indicate a possible horizon for expanding the theoretical and methodological foundations of ethnosociology and will smooth the opposition between primordialism and constructivism.

Актуальность проблематики идентичности была ярко продемонстрирована на очередном заседании Научного совета ООН РАН «Новые идеи в социологической теории и социальной практике» 10 февраля 2025 г. в Институте социологии ФНИСЦ РАН. Были представлены доклад М. Ф. Черныша, а также выступления дискутантов Ю. В. Попкова и С. А. Ляушевой. Рассматривались теоретико-методологические подходы, агенты и субъекты идентичности, разнообразные формы ее проявления и интерпретации. Дискуссия показала неоднозначность трактовки понятия и сложность измерения идентичности в социологической практике.