Culture, Institutions, Politics


Fedotova V.G.,

Principal Researcher, Sector of Social Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, valentina_fedotova@front.ru

Fedotova N.N.,

Professor, Department of Sociology, MGIMO-University, nnfedotova@rambler.ru

Chugrov S.V.,

Professor, Department of International Journalism, MGIMO-University, new-polis@politstudies.ru

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.01.10
ID of the Article: 5362


For citation:

Fedotova V.G., Fedotova N.N., Chugrov S.V. Culture, Institutions, Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No 1. P. 143-156 (In Russ.) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.01.10



   Buy a digital version in Polismag

Abstract

Authors analyze from the viewpoint of social philosophy and political sociology the historical implications of cultural approaches in political science as well as diverse prospects of their application, which consist in the possibility of promoting new ideas concerning correlation and interaction of culture and politics. The concepts considered in the article are aimed at the formation of a cultural paradigm in political science, which has various approaches that create conditions for the development and practical implementation of this insufficiently researched issue. Just as culture in general is a set of symbolic programs of human activity, political culture, in particular, is a special type of orientation toward political vision and action, reflecting both the specifics of each political system and the values of society, their philosophical justification and criticism. Culture and institutions, according to the authors, are closely intertwined with each other and can be separated only for analytical and methodological purposes. They act as two sides of the same coin: institutions are the product of culture and society, and culture and society, in turn, result in the action of institutions. The authors argue that the relations between institutions and culture acquire significance mainly in the following cases. First, this is the case of borrowing foreign institutions, if the cultural context of the new institutions is different from that of the recipient society. Secondly, it happens in an attempt to force changes in their own institutions due to changing cultural preferences or cultural conflicts. In any of these cases, we are talking about the design of new institutions or about changing cultures. This situation is examined with the application and development of the “intermediate institutions” concept. 

Keywords
globalization; institutions; institutional approach; culture; culturological paradigm; modernization; Art Nouveau; paradigm; policy; political science; political culture.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Alesina A., Giuliano P. Kul’tura i instituty [Culture and Institutions]. – Voprosy ekonomiki [Issues of Economics]. 2016. No. 10. C. 82-111. (In Russ.)

Almond G.A., Verba S. The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage. 1963. 339 p.

Blondel J. About Institutions, Mainly, but Not Exclusively, Political. – The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Ed. by R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder, B.A. Rockman. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 2006. 816 p.

Chugrov S.V. Russia and Japan: Some Parallels in Political Culture [Rossiya i Yaponiya: o nekotorykh parallelyakh v politicheskoy kul’ture]. – Zapad i zapadnyye tsennosti v rossiyskom obshchestvennom soznanii [The West and Western Values in the Russian Public Consciousness]. Moscow: IMEMO, RAS. 2002. P. 112-123. (In Russ.)

Eagleton T. Ideya kul’tury [The Idea of Culture]. Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House. 2012. 192 p. (In Russ.)

Eisenstadt S. Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. (Russ. ed.: Eisenstadt S. Revolyutsiya i preobrazovaniye obshchestv. Sravnitel’noye izucheniye obshchestv. Moscow: Aspect Press. 1999. 416 p.)

Eisenstadt S.N. Multiple Modernities. – Daedalus. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 3-29.

Fedotova N.N. Izucheniye identichnosti i konteksty yeye formirovaniya [The Study of Identity and the Contexts of Its Formation]. Moscow: Cultural Revolution. 2012. 200 p. (In Russ.)

Fedotova V.G. Globalizatsiya i modernizatsiya: faktor kul’tury [Globalization and Modernization: the Factor of Culture]. – Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. 2017. No. 4. (In Russ.)

Fedotova V.G. Modernizatsiya i kul’tura [Modernization and Culture]. Moscow: Progress-Tradition. 2016. 335 p. (In Russ.)

Fedotova V.G., Kolpakov V.A., Fedotova N.N. Global’nyy kapitalizm. Tri velikiye transformatsii: Sotsial’no-filosofskiy analiz vzaimootnosheniy ekonomiki i obshchestva [Global capitalism. Three Great Transformations: A Socio-Philosophical Analysis of the Interrelations between Economy and Society]. Moscow: Cultural Revolution. 2008. 607 p. (In Russ.)

Huntington S. Politicheskiy poryadok v menyayushchikhsya obshchestvakh [Political Order in Changing Societies]. Мoscow: Progress-Traditsiya. 2004. 480 p. (In Russ.)

Huntington S. Tret’ya volna demokratizatsii v kontse XX v. [The Third Wave of Democratization in the Late XX Century]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 2003. 368 p. (In Russ.)

Huntington S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1996. 367 p.

Huntington S.P. Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. N.Y.: Simon and Schuster. 2004. xvii, 428 p.

Lejphart A. Democracy in Plural Societies. A Comparative Exploration. (Russ. ed.: Lejphart A. Demokratiya v mnogosostavnykh obshchestvakh. Sravnitel’noye issledovaniye. Moscow: Aspect Pess.1997. 287 p.)

Modernizatsiya i globalizatsiya: obrazy Rossii v XXI veke [Modernization and Globalization: Images of Russia in the 21st Century]. Ed. by V.G. Fedotova. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, RAS. 2002. 208 p. (In Russ.)

North D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. (Russ. ed.: North D. Instituty, institutsional’nyye izmeneniya i funktsionirovaniye ekonomiki. Moscow: Nachala. 1997. 189 p.)

Olson L.R. The Essentiality of “Culture” in the Study of Religion and Politics. – Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2011. No. 50(4). Р. 639-653.

Politicheskaya sistema sovremennoy Yaponii [Political System of Modern Japan. Ed. by D.V. Streltsov]. Moscow: Aspect Press. 384 p. (In Russ.)

Wedeen L. Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science. – The American Political Science Review. 2002. Vol. 96. No. 4. 713 p.

Welzel C. Political Culture Paradigm. – Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.67 

Content No 1, 2018

See also:


Glinchikova A.G.,
Democratic modernization and national culture. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Fan I.B.,
Theoretical model of the phenomenon of citizen: socio-cultural approach. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Karelova L.B.,
Experience of the Cultural and Civilizational Approach to the Problem of Modenization in the Studies of V. Fedotova and its Heuristic Potential. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No6

Bezvikonnaya Ye.V.,
Systemico-Synergetic Model of a Political System. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3

Alekseyeva T.A.,
Strategic culture: evolution of the concept. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No5

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
No 2 2012


Lurie S.V., Kazaryan L.G.
World politics and its prognostic indicators

 The article text
 

Archive

   2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991