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 examines the processes of individualization in relation to the emergence and existence of various forms of collectivity. It analyzes the complexities of this process, which, while a necessary characteristic of modern society, can lead to atomization, frustration, and loss of meaning in life. Particular attention is paid to the nature of individualization: on one hand, it presupposes the uniqueness of each individual; on the other, it is inextricably linked to an individual’s association with certain collectives and the internalization (...) of supra-individual values. The article asserts that new forms of collectivity are emerging in the modern era that, rather than suppressing individuality, foster creative self-realization. The research explores issues of depersonalization and pseudo-collectivity, as well as the interplay between freedom and responsibility in the context of global digitalization. The author elucidates the dangers associated with the virtualization of personality, the erosion of boundaries between private and public spheres, and the potential for total control over individuals. Contemporary forms of virtual individualization, while creating an illusion of freedom, may in fact lead to a loss of personal individuality. The article further explores the impact of digital technologies on the transformation and evolution of both individual and collective memory, as well as their role in shaping identity. It underscores that digitalization not only offers new opportunities but also poses significant anthropological challenges. Dialogue is examined as a means of resolving conflicts and facilitating both individual and collective self-realization. The author contrasts M.M. Bakhtin’s dialogical approach with J.-P. Sartre’s existentialist interpretation of the relationship between the Self and the Other. It is emphasized that genuine dialogue requires mutual recognition and respect among participants, a shared space for communication, and a willingness to reconsider one’s own position. In conclusion, the study posits that addressing many of the problems generated by modern processes of individualization and collectivization in the age of global digitalization necessitates the creation of conditions conducive to interpersonal, intergroup, and intercultural dialogue. (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 Branch of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center for Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the RAS, the RAS Institute of Philosophy, and the RAS Institute of Psychology are arranging “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society” scientific conference, to be held in Moscow, April 2024. The event marks the 300th anniversary of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the 95th birth anniversary of the Russian philosopher and social theorist (...) A.S. Akhiezer. Its primary objective is to foster the development of criteria for analyzing intersubjective relations within the act of social development. The conference’s focus on the investigation of social development is grounded in the dominants of contemporary philosophical-sociological non-classics and proposes several topics for discussion. These include the transition from the absolutization of Kant’s categorical imperative, which mandates the consideration of humans solely as the ultimate end in the system of intersubjective communication and the knowledge process, to an alternative consideration of humans as means of self-improvement and a crucial resource for social development (V.S. Bibler). It encompasses the rejection of absolutizing the function of contrasting faith and knowledge, the Self and the Other, the “own” and the “foreign,” scientific and everyday consciousness (V.A. Lectorsky, I.T. Kasavin, V.N. Porus). The interpretation of the meaning of personality shifts from concepts like cogito ergo sum, “pure Self,” “Self,” “Ego,” “Super-,” to the “ability of the Self to respond to the call of the Other,” thereby forming the smallest cell of the socio-individual as a synthesis of the social and the individual (M.M. Bakhtin, V.A. Lectorsky, R.S. Grinberg). Overcoming the established inequality of economic systems is addressed through the socio-individualism of small and medium-sized enterprises (A.S. Akhiezer, R.S. Grinberg). The conference also anticipates discussions on the following topics: How do the transfer and exchange of accumulated global knowledge from the individual to the other, and vice versa, contribute to the formation of small creative groups, serving as a communicative platform for nurturing socially oriented individuals – agents of social development? Moreover, how can dialogue be effectively constructed among participants of partnership relations who operate on differing premises (J.-P. Sartre)? The discussion is aimed at contemplating the contradictory, oxymoronic, yet dialogue and synthesis-oriented concepts of “individualization of the social,” “socially oriented individual,” and “socio-individualism.”. (shrink)

The article examines the efficacy of social dialogue as a mechanism for addressing societal issues. While social dialogue was once viewed with great optimism, its effectiveness has waned in recent years, despite participants employing various persuasive strategies. The study distinguishes between two forms of dialogue: formal and substantive (productive), emphasizing that only the latter genuinely catalyzes shifts in participants’ perspectives. By analyzing historical examples and contemporary cases, the study identifies key factors that influence the success of social communication. Employing J.L. (...) Austin’s speech act theory, the article frames dialogue not merely as an exchange of information but as a form of social action, where the utterances of participants are performative, possessing the power to directly transform social reality. A historical case study is presented, examining the dialogue between Western-oriented Russian liberals who viewed their nation as socially and economically backward, and thinkers who challenged this assessment, perceiving Russia’s unique spiritual potential to address pan-European challenges. The statements of P.Ya. Chaadaev and F.M. Dostoevsky are analyzed as performative acts that shaped a new vision of Russia’s role in world history. Additionally, the author explores the role of identity in social dialogue, showing through examples from the lives of A.S. Pushkin and M.I. Tsvetaeva how identity structures can influence one’s openness or resistance to personal transformation in the face of internal conflict. The study hypothesizes that dialogue effectiveness correlates with participants’ ability to integrate new values into their identity without compromising its core. Furthermore, the author argues that rhetorical commitment to mediation alone is insufficient for bridging deep social divides and examines the historical social conditions required for effective mediation, such as a shared cultural foundations, formal dialogue platforms, robust legal frameworks, and flexible power structures. In conclusion, the author considers the question of whether it is inherently possible to create effective mechanisms for social dialogue under the current conditions of globalization and information society. (shrink)