The article investigates the mechanisms shaping a new quality of social development in contemporary Russia amidst growing societal challenges. Four key mechanisms are explored: mediation, social dialogue, polysubjectivity, and convergence. These are analyzed for their role in fostering novel forms of social integration and development. The mechanisms serve as tools for studying and shaping the current interplay between tradition and innovation, cultural stasis and social dynamics across various sociocultural contexts and transitional processes. The paper draws upon works presented at the (...) All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society,” offering an original interpretation that synthesizes and structures these studies. Notable contributions include V.A. Lektorsky’s concept of “the supra-individual as social universality,” which advances our understanding of socio-individual meaning formation and transcends the individual-society dichotomy. A.A. Auzan’s analysis of the dual-core structure of Russian culture aptly captures the unique challenges of social development in Russia. O.V. Aksenova’s examination of the contradictory nature of social action subjects in an increasingly technologized society illuminates the complexities of balancing freedom with necessity, and uniformity with diversity in social action. V.M. Rozin’s approach is considered for its potential to facilitate mediational social dialogue in Russian society. The author argues that neither the individualistic nor the collectivist cores of Russian culture can independently drive effective modernization. Instead, the concept of convergence is proposed as a means to transcend the extremes of ego-individualism and totalitarian collectivism. Three primary directions for implementing convergent strategies are identified: synthesizing individual and social aspects in social action and dialogue, optimizing center-periphery interactions in governance, and developing public-private partnership models as a form of economic convergence. The study emphasizes the need for new forms of social integration and concludes that Russia’s sustainable social development requires an integrative socio-individual model, combining elements of individual freedom and collective solidarity. (shrink)

The article examines the impact of contemporary intellectual technologies on human subjectivity through the lens of 20th-century philosophical reflection. It explores the transformation of the relationship between humans and technology in a context where technological systems transcend the traditional understanding of technology as merely an extension of human capabilities. Drawing on the conceptual framework of the philosophy of technology (M. Heidegger, J. Ortega y Gasset, J. Ellul, H. Marcuse), the author identifies three key aspects of this transformation. First, the article (...) considers the process by which various facets of human activity – cognitive processes, emotional reactions, social relationships, and creativity – are transformed into “standing-reserve” (Bestand) for technological systems. Second, it analyzes the phenomenon of the erosion of practices that reproduce and develop human experience, as evidenced by the standardization of cognitive processes, the emergence of intellectual dependency, and cultural homogenization. Third, it investigates the problem of technological determinism, which, in the context of intellectual technologies, takes on the character of not merely an external constraint but an active construction of human subjectivity, agency. Special attention is given to the mechanisms through which intellectual technologies transform processes of identity formation, decision-making, and social interaction. Furthermore, the article considers the intersubjective interaction between humans and intellectual technology, emphasizing that an imbalance in this relationship may lead to the erosion of human subjectivity. In closing, the article advocates for the development of new approaches to the legal regulation of intellectual technologies to preserve the balance between technological advancement and the maintenance of human autonomy. The author concludes that the relationship between humans and intellectual technologies has become a central issue in contemporary philosophical anthropology: preserving human subjectivity in the era of artificial intelligence will require a critical rethinking and partial transformation of traditional conceptions of human nature, values, and the normative foundations of human activity. (shrink)

The article examines the challenge of achieving sustainable mediational equilibrium within the Self–Other relationship. It argues that the mere pursuit of mutual understanding among dialogue participants is insufficient to guarantee productive communication, particularly in contexts where interactions are driven by competition for scarce resources and opportunities. Under such conditions, subjects risk becoming dependent on instrumental reason – the logic of control and suppression – which transforms both the Self and the Other from fully-fledged personalities into functions of reified rationality. The (...) analysis introduces a distinction between two roles of the individual: the person as a bearer of unique values and meanings, and the individual as a subject of social relations, an actor immersed in practical interactions. It is demonstrated that the capacity of the former to exert control over the latter is limited, and that interactions are shaped not only by the personal qualities of the participants but also by the impersonal logic of instrumental reason. This logic is conceptualized as a kind of third subjectivity that mediates the dialogue between the Self and the Other. Achieving mediational equilibrium becomes possible through the development of autonomy among the parties, through their transformation, mutual recognition, and the search for a measure of compatibility. This approach is traced through examples from A.S. Akhiezer’s theory of sociocultural mediation, A.P. Davydov’s concept of inter-subjective dialogue, and R. Bush and J. Folger’s theory of transformative mediation. Key concepts in the latter include empowerment (strengthening participants’ ability to clearly recognize their goals and make responsible decisions) and recognition (willingness to hear and understand the Other’s perspective). The essence of transformative mediation lies in the transition from imposing one party’s position to a collaborative search for new possibilities, allowing the realization of both Self and Other’s interests through dialogue. In conclusion, the article asserts the importance of overcoming the logic of mutual accusations by shifting the focus from the opponent’s personality to the impersonal structures limiting the self-determination of all parties. (shrink)

The article explores the concepts of individualism and collectivism through the lens of fundamental transformations occurring within the individual as a subject of social action. The author introduces an original framework conceptualizing social action as a dichotomous unity of freedom and algorithm, or free and algorithmized action. Within this paradigm, the subject of social action is understood as a synthesis of actor (acting subject) and agent (subject-function). The unfolding and resolution of this contradiction manifest differently in Western and Russian contexts, (...) which are analyzed as two distinct versions of modernity, differentiated by the degree of market relation development. It is demonstrated that technological development within market conditions engenders a technological system that colonizes society holistically, including its cultural sphere. Free action is replaced by algorithmized action, leading to the displacement of the actor by the subject-function. Consequently, the individual is reduced to a functional element of the technological system, transformed into an atomized unit capable of equally executing programs of individualism or collectivism. In contrast, Russian (Soviet) modernity, characterized by a limited market, exhibits a reverse colonization, or symbiosis, between culture and system, which preserves a space for free action and the actor. Under these circumstances, the dialectic of individualism and collectivism becomes a nuanced process, potentially encompassing individualists oriented toward the common good. Collectivist orientations emphasize alignment with a “good collective” and the value of friendship. Contemporary trends are marked by contradictions, as the expansion of the technological system coexists with the persistence of individualism and collectivism rooted in Russian (Soviet) modernity. The article concludes by suggesting that the Russian experience of modernization offers valuable insights into achieving a balance between individualism and collectivism, algorithm and freedom, technological development and the preservation of human individuality under current conditions of global transformations. (shrink)

The article examines negotiations as dialogues concerning conflicting interests among participants. It argues that negotiations represent the primary and most socially significant type of dialogue. This is evidenced by the disproportionate volume of research dedicated to negotiations compared to other forms of dialogue, as well as the multidisciplinary approach to their study. The purpose of the article is to investigate negotiations through the lens of epistemology, one of the disciplines involved in their analysis. The author contends that negotiations are epistemological (...) processes governed by epistemological principles. To elucidate these principles, the article explicates key categories serving as research instruments, primarily focusing on the concepts of “negotiation” and “interest.” The relationship between “interest” and related concepts such as “desire,” “need,” and “benefit” is explored. There are two types of dialogue: those concerning the veracity of descriptions and those focused on the rationality of prescriptions. The article elucidates the distinct nature of negotiations as dialogues about prescriptions. The article also underscores the importance of the categories of “research” and “communication” in understanding the nature of negotiations. Since negotiations are fundamentally a form of communication, the examination of conflicting interests and the search for solutions to these conflicts do not fall within the negotiation process itself. These tasks are addressed prior to negotiations, during the research phase. The purpose of negotiations is to discuss and either accept or reject the outcomes of these preliminary investigations, particularly pre-drafted agreements on resolving conflicts of interest. Based on this framework, the article explores the epistemological mechanisms underlying negotiations related to the division, consolidation, and exchange of benefits. Additionally, the Harvard Negotiation Program, which seeks to transform negotiations from a confrontation of positions into a collaborative search for a shared solution, is subjected to epistemological analysis. The role of empathy in facilitating this transformation is also discussed. In conclusion, it is argued that an epistemological analysis of negotiations not only deepens our understanding of their nature as a distinct form of communication but also offers tools for enhancing negotiation practices, promoting the resolution of conflicts of divergent interests in various social conflicts without resorting to physical confrontation. (shrink)