Explanation of inversions in Russian history causes major conceptual problems. The traditionally used conceptual apparatus and its theoretical schemes does not seem to really “grasp” this reality, at best, it only describes the Russian reality to some extent. It simply fails to capture the nature and mechanisms that lie in the specifics of Russian society and its dynamics. Hence, there are widespread conclusions about “pathology,” historical “rut,” constant matrix, and endless reproduction of the “predetermined” characteristics of social life in Russia. (...) However, expanding the conceptual apparatus with a constructive approach, combined with a specific historical approach, makes it possible to single out more than one agent of modernization processes (political elite, merged with state authorities), but at least two - authority and society taken discreetly. From this point of view, the inverse nature of Russian modernization has two causes. One of these is social, associated with the peculiarities of Russian society, where underdeveloped social forces are dominated by the imperious will. The second cause is related to modernization attempts based on external historical experience. However, due to the former cause, these attempts turn out to be premature and ill-conceived, giving rise to new conflicts and deformations in society. Both causes are complementary and intertwined. At the same time, there are general civilizational processes, such as urbanization and formation of a mass society, modernization processes in Russian society, including the formation of national identity. This creates prerequisites for a qualitative change in the development of society. If the main factors of inversion “from top down” are hasty and imitative, then doing things “from bottom up” presupposes slow development of the middle class, which, nevertheless, creates conditions for real mediation. (shrink)

Modern humanities are in an ambiguous situation. Their organization is experiencing a radical challenge from the expansion of science-based assessment methods from modern business. We are talking about evaluating the results of researchers’ work on indicators from scientometrics. As a result, the evaluation subject is not the content of the research result, but their popularity and relevance to dominant views and approaches. The science organization turned upside down: it turns out not scientometrics for science, but rather science for the sake (...) of scientometrics. At the same time, digitalization and related information and communication technologies are a great achievement of civilization. Therefore, it is all the more important and useful to resist the thoughtless digitized bureaucracy using the digitization itself. This article is an attempt not to criticize digital methods, but to consider the possibilities of using blockchain technology, its advantages and the problems it generates. There are such opportunities as transparent self-organization of scientific communities, assessing the contribution and its priority, encouraging researchers. At the same time, the implementation of the blockchain implies the interest of a critically significant group of scientists with a high reputation. It is equally important to demonstrate the convenience and effectiveness of scientific work using the blockchain. The article draw attention to the significance to propose and discuss approaches to methods for assessing the quality of humanitarian and interdisciplinary studies that are adequate to the scientific practice itself, that arouse the general confidence of scientists. (shrink)

This article presents the research on three issues. First, revealing the features of Russian culture’s semantic picture of the world in relation to a person’s positioning in society and attitudes t...