No 12 (2024)

The materials of the round table dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the famous Russian sociologist Samuel Aronovich Kugel are presented. S. A. Kugel (1924, Minsk – 2015, St. Petersburg) – Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Honored Scientist, one of the first organizers of the sociology of science and science studies in Soviet and Russian sociology. The round table was held on October 30–31, 2024 at the St. Petersburg branch of the S. I. Vavilov Institute of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it was attended by colleagues, friends, and students of S. A. Kugel. The key aspects of the scientist’s scholary heritage were discussed, including his contribution to the sociology of science and technology, the study of the professional structure of scientific personnel, as well as his organizational activities, in particular the creation of a sociological and scientific center in Leningrad. Attention was paid to S. A. Kugel’s international academic relations and his role in the development of the sociological community in the USSR and Russia. The memoirs are presented, the characteristics of his personality are given, including his attention to perpetuating the memory of the Great Patriotic War.

Interest in artificial intelligence and specifically in neural networks is not declining in society, but there is a noticeable change in the emphasis that attracts the attention of Russians. Mass availability and vast opportunities initially gave rise to fears about the displacement of ‘live’ labour force from the labour market and mass replacement by artificial intelligence in all easily algorithmised industries. Changes in the labour market have indeed occurred, but these changes, as well as user experimentation with neural networks, have brought new concerns to the forefront. Based on data from the annual monitoring of permanent and current socio-political indicators conducted by the Institute of Socio-Political Research of FCTAS RAS, as well as other available generative artificial intelligence research, the authors trace the social sentiment associated with the mass adoption and use of artificial intelligence and neural networks. Data from June 2024 shows that concerns about employment have been replaced by fears about the penetration of digital reality into social reality in the form of misinformation, scams, spoofs and dipfakes. The change in the information agenda has not reduced the level of citizens’ anxiety and requires attention from researchers.

In this interview with Franco Ferrarotti, our magazine discusses the meaning of sociology and its interpretative essence, showing that it cannot be a science about society in general, rather it tries to explain the interdependence of its various aspects, representing the discovery and collection of interpretations. Professor Ferrarotti raises topical questions about interdisciplinarity and the establishment of post-disciplinary social research. Professor reflects on the loss of the transcendent meaning of meta-human value in a market society, because it is it that there appears gives meaning to human coexistence. He associates the development of digitalization with the fact that a person of the digital future in whom the traditional logic of books and reading is replaced by an alternative one – audiovisual logic, which allows the emotional to prevail over the reasonable, changing communication to continuous externalization. These reflections on society provide the basis for raising questions about the future and the role of sociology in it.

The processes of adaptation of Central Asian labor migrants to the transformations in the Russian labor market during the pandemic and after its end are analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the latter period, when foreign workers were forced to adapt to extraordinary changes in the labor market as a result of foreign policy sanctions after February 2022 and the resulting reduction in the labor force after the start of the military operation. During the pandemic, migrants adapted to the transformations of the Russian labor market, not seeking to leave the Russian labor market, hoping for a quick return to jobs despite lockdowns and mass layoffs, which they managed after the first wave of the pandemic. The vertical and intersectoral mobility of Central Asian migrants is analyzed. The achievements of migrants from Central Asian countries (diversification of economic activities, reduction of the wage gap with Russian citizens, improvement of working conditions and transformation of relations with employers) were largely due to their high mobility during the pandemic. Serious problems of the Russian labor market remain its segmentation with the accompanying overqualification, underutilization of human capital, discriminatory practices limiting access to specific types of economic activity. The article is based on sociological surveys of labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan conducted in 2020–2023.

The article shows that during the last “crisis” decade some changes have occurred in the subjective social structure of Russian society. They are associated with the growing number of subjective upper strata. A significant increase was also recorded in the assessments of their previous status and the status of the parental family as high. The status claims of Russians are also increasing. However, despite these changes, Russian society remains a society of mass subjective middle strata. The high role of life goals related to getting a prestigious job, good earnings, as well as career and educational prospects for assessing one’s own status position and for status reproduction was also noted. Special attention is focused on the high significance of the educational status of parental families. The property differences of status groups and some characteristics of the lifestyle of their members are analyzed. They testify to the relatively favorable situation of the upper strata and subjective middle strata in comparison with the subjective lower strata and the transition group. The main empirical base was the data of the 15th wave of the monitoring study of the Institute of Sociology of the FCTAS RAS, conducted in 2024.

The article attempts to characterize Armenian society in the aftermath of the Karabakh War as a “society of trauma.” The topic and its conceptual deliberation in frames of the “society of trauma”, or a “traumatic society”, is applicable to those modern societies living in conditions and after prolonged armed conflicts. Conducted between October and December 2023, the study utilized in-depth interviews with individuals across different age groups and regions, expert interviews with professionals, and analysis of previous sociological studies. The study aims to uncover deep-seated value judgments regarding societal transformations before and after the war, factors influencing these shifts, the impact of ruling elites and foreign actors on Armenian domestic and foreign policy, and the overall dynamics of Armenian post-conflict society. Findings reveal a society grappling with declining trust in government institutions, pessimism about the future, nostalgia for the past, political apathy, and a reshaping of collective memory. The term “society of trauma” encapsulates these significant characteristics, reflecting the enduring impact of the conflict [1].

[1] The authors thank G. Poghosyan and D. Bdoyan for supporting the field research.

The article develops a hypothesis about the gravitational nature of societal security shocks as the phenomena of destabilizating the value core of societies because of critical changes at their geographical and cultural “borders”. The category of “reference countries/societies” is introduced, the gap in the results of development with which leads to the loss of legitimacy of the path of development chosen by society. The societal security level of Russia is assessed basing on GDP per capita and HDI difference with the groups of countries historically and geopolitically connected with Russia (the “West World”, the former “Socialist Bloc”, the countries of the former USSR, the countries of the EAEU, BRICS and SCO). The difference of these indicators is adjusted to the Russians’ interest to the countries. Then the gravity model of Russians’ interest to other countries is estimated, using as the indicator of interest the statistics of Internet queries on Google Trends and Yandex Wordstat, and as an indicator of the distance the “cultural distance” between the countries, calculated basing on Hofstede’s indices. It is shown that the level of social security for Russia is maximal in relation to the SCO countries and minimal in relation to the “West World” countries. Herewith Russian’s interest is strongest for the group of geopolitical rivals (the “West World”) and is moderate for the friendly countries (BRICS and SCO). The marginal interest in countries monotonically decreases with the growth of tourist flows to them (as a proxy-variable of saturation of information or experience about them). Finally, the inverse dependence of Russians’ interest for countries on their “cultural distance” with Russia in the “West World” – “Global South” – other countries’ system is demonstrated.