print

Recognizing politics:
epistemic divisions and contours of the political science of the future

Solovyov A.I.,

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, solovyev@spa.msu.ru

elibrary_id: 75920 |

Article received: 2025.04.22 19:55. Accepted: 2025.06.02 19:55


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.05.05
EDN: BUMCOH

Rubric: Theme of the issue: Contours of the future in the optics of political science

For citation:

Solovyov A.I. Recognizing politics: epistemic divisions and contours of the political science of the future. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.05.05. EDN: BUMCOH

Abstract

Historical and current day forms of self-actualization of politics are constantly transforming the image of this social force, intervening in the settlement of internal and interstate conflicts, initiating strategies and projects that affect the changing position and identification patterns of various groups and individuals. The complexity of this phenomenon is reflected in its numerous theoretical and intellectual versions, risk reflections and outright misconceptions of the scientific mind. The co-existence of various theoretical interpretations of politics in the article is explained by its multisubstantial nature, combining within its “human” nature naturalistic, social, technical and even those substantive characteristics that are inexplicable from the point of view of modern science. In this context, the article concludes that in the future, scientific reflection on politics will retain both essentialist and “controversial” (family) interpretations of this concept, suggesting its simultaneous interpretation in different ways. In this regard, the author considers it justified to further deepen knowledge about politics by developing separate epistemes, each of which retains the possibility of updating references reflecting the volatile nature of the evolution of the political in social and natural contexts. Despite the fragmented nature of the theoretical search, this situation allows us to see a number of priority areas of modern “disenchantment” of politics, in particular, concerning the study of latent structures and relations in the space of power. As applied to the description of the contours of political science of the future, this allows us to link its epistemic perspectives with the dominant forms of government organization, as well as with the state of the scientific community, which preserves the internal conflicts of political scientists and the diversity of ethical standards linked to their professional activities.

Keywords

politics, power, political ontology, political epistemology, latent sphere of politics, political science of the future.

Almond, G.A. (1960). Public opinion and the development of space technology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(4), 553-572. https://doi.org/10.1086/266972

Baland, J.-M., Guirkinger, C., & Mali, C. (2011). Pretending to Be Poor: Borrowing to Escape Forced Solidarity in Cameroon. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 60 (1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1086/661220

Bourguignon, J.-P. (2017). Scientists, power, and the power of scientists. European Research Council. 18.04. https://erc.europa.eu/news/scientists-power-and-power-scientists

Cerny, Ph.G. (2012). Globalization and the transformation of power. In M. Haugaard, & K. Ryan (Eds.), Political Power: The Development of the Field (pp. 185-214). Leverkusen Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvddzgbm.10

Esposito, R. (2021). Instituting thought: three paradigms of political ontology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gerlach, Ph., Teodorescu, K., & Hertwig, R. (2019). The truth about lies: a meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174

Gillespie, A., & Martin, J. (2014). Position exchange theory: a socio-material basis for discursive and psychological positioning. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.05.001

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Haugaard, M., & Clegg, S.R. (2009). Introduction: why power is the central concept of the social sciences. In S.R. Clegg, & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Power (pp. 1-24). London: Sage.

Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: a research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040472

Kapstein, E.B. (2008). Economic justice in an unfair world: toward a level playing field. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ledeneva, A. (2001). Unwritten rules. How Russia really works. London: Center for European Reform.

Ledeneva, A. (2013). Russia’s Practical norms and informal governance: the origins of endemic corruption. Social Research, 80(4), 1135-1162. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/541990/summary

Ledeneva, A. (2023). Informal politics. In G. Gill (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society. 2nd ed. (pp. 410-423). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003218234

Ledeneva, A., Teague, Е., Matijevic, Р., Moisé, G.M., Majda, P., & Toqmadi, M. (Ed.). (2024). The global encyclopedia of informality. Vol. 3. A hitchhiker’s guide to informal problem-solving in human life. London: UCL Press. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10187134/1/The-Encyclopaedia-of-Informality-Volume-3.pdfLukes, S. (1974). Power: a radical view. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: a radical view. Second ed. London; Houndmills; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mershon, C.A. (1994). Expectations and informal rules in coalition formation. Comparative Political Studies, 27(1), 40-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414094027001002

Minbaeva, D.B., Ledeneva, A., Muratbekova-Touron, M., & Horak, S. (2023). Explaining the persistence of informal institutions: the role of informal networks. Academy of Management Review, 48(3), 556-574.

North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925

Rich, B. (2021). Political extremism, conflict identities and the search for ontological security in contemporary established democracies. Academia Letters, 602. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL602

Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Roskin, M.G. (2024). Political science. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-scienceScott, P.D. (1972). The war conspiracy: the secret road to the Second Indichina War. Indianpolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Stuart, E., Samman, E., & Hunt, A. (2018). Informal Is the new normal: improving the lives of workers at risk of being left behind. Working Paper. Overseas Development Institute Global, 530. https://odi.org/en/publications/informal-is-the-new-normal-improving-the-lives-of-workers-at-risk-of-being-left-behind/

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: political decision making in modern democracies. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Alekseenkova, Ye.S., & Sergeev, V.M. (2008). The dark well of power (on the boundary between the private sphere of the state and the person’s private sphere). Polis. Political Studies, 3, 148-165. (In Russ.)

Astashova, N.D. (2018). Aspects of gender perception of knowledge. In I.T. Kasavin, & N.N. Voronina (Eds.), Epistemology Today. Ideas, Problems, Discussions (pp. 26-31). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod State University. (In Russ.)

Badiou, A. (2005). Metapolitics. (Russ. ed.: Badiou, A. Meta/Politika: mozhno li my`slit` politiku? Kratkij traktat po metapolitike. Moscow: Logos).

Barsukova, S.Yu. (2006). The splicing of informal economy with informal politics. Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, 15(3), 158-179. (In Russ.)

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Espace social et genese des “classes”. (Russ. ed.: Bourdieu, P. Sotsial’noe prostranstvo i genezis “klassov”. In Bourdieu, P. Sotsiologiya politiki (pp. 14-48). Moscow: Socio-Logos).

Castoriadis, C. (2003). The imaginary institution of society. (Russ. ed.: Castoriadis, C. Voobrazhaemoe ustanovlenie obshhestva. Moscow: GNOSIS).

Gaman-Golutvina, O.V., & Nikitin, A.I. (Eds.). (2019). Contemporary political science. Methodology. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Gel’man V.Ya. 2010. “Podryvnye” instituty i neformal’noe upravlenie v sovremennoi Rossii [“Subversive” institutions and informal governance in modern Russia]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.)

Goffman, E. (2019). Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. (Russ. ed.: Goffman, E. Total’nye instituty. Moscow: Elementary form Press).

Donskikh, O.A., Logunova, L.Yu, & Utkina, A.N. (2023). Professional dignity of the professor. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political science, 71, 192-203. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/71/18

Jessop, B. 2019. The state: past, present, future. (Russ. ed.: Jessop B. Gosudarstvo: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee. Moscow: Delo RANEPA).

Kasavin, I.T. (1999). Migration. Creativity. Text. Problems of non-classical theory of knowledge. Saint Petersburg: RHGA. (In Russ.)

Kasavin, I.T. (2010). Sotsial’naya ehpistemologiya: k istorii i postanovke problem [Social epistemology: on the history and formulation of the problem]. In I.T. Kasavin (Ed.), Sotsial’naya ehpistemologiya: idei, metody, programmy [Social Epistemology: Ideas, Methods, Programs] (pp. 3-14). Moscow: Kanon+. (In Russ.)

Kasavin, I. (2018). What does it mean to know? This is, my friend, the question... In I.T. Kasavin, & N.N. Voronina (Eds.), Epistemologiya segodnya. Idei, problemy, diskussii [Epistemology Today. Ideas, Problems, Discussions] (pp. 37-42). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod State University. (In Russ.)

Kerimov, T.Kh. (2025). Politicization of social ontology and its paradoxes. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 39-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.01.04

Koktysh, K.E., & Sergeev, V.M. (2025). The rise of the American deep state. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 76-95. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.06

Kon’kov, A.E. (2022). Latentnoe prostranstvo publichnoi politiki v sovremennom gosudarstve: v poiskakh teoreticheskoi modeli [Latent space of public policy in a modern state: in search of a theoretical model]. Moscow: Argamak-Media Publishers. (In Russ.)

Kupryashin, G.L. (2025). Latentnye instituty v gosudarstvennom upravlenii [Latent institutions in public administration]. In S.N. Glaz’ev, & S.D. Bodrunov (Eds.), Sovremennoe gosudarstvennoe upravlenie [Modern Public Administration] (pp. 278-284). Мoscow: URSS. (In Russ.)

Kurillo, V.E. (2013). Latentnaya politika. Politicheskaya latentologiya [Latent politics. Political latentology]. Moscow: Sputnik+. (In Russ.)

Levicheva, V. (2021). Institutional and informal lobbying practices: the problem of separation and interpretation. Sociological Studies, 10, 50-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250017165-4

Mannheim, K. (1998). Ocherki sotsiologii znaniya. Teoriya poznaniya. Mirovozzrenie. Istorizm [Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Theory of knowledge. Worldview. Historicism]. Moscow: INION RAN. (In Russ.)

Neklessa, A. (2014). Politologiya budushchego. Strugatskie: futur-tekst i rossiiskii kontekst [Political science of the future. Strugatsky: future-text and Russian context]. Novy Mir, 7, 121-142. (In Russ.)

Nikiforov, A. (2018). Poznaniye i istina [Cognition and truth]. In I.T. Kasavin, & N.N. Voronina (Eds.), Epistemology Today. Epistemologiya segodnya. Idei, problemy, diskussii [Ideas, Problems, Discussions] (pp. 43-61). Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod State University. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V. (Ed.). (2024). Institutsional’naya politologiya 2.0. Transformativnaya politika v Rossii: sotsial’nye aktory i politicheskie instituty v prostranstve vlasti i gospodstva [Institutional political science 2.0. Transformative politics in Russia: social actors and political institutions in the space of power and domination]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/monogr.978-5-8243-2582-9.2024

Patzelt, W. (2018). Is political science in crisis? Political Science (RU), 1, 68-92. (In Russ.)

Pyatigorsky, A.M. (2007). Chto takoe politicheskaya filosofiya. Razmyshleniya i soobrazheniya [What is political philosophy. Reflections and considerations]. Moscow: Evropa. (In Russ.)

Savchenko, A.V. (2008). Latentnoe upravlenie: sushchnost’ i mekhanizm ispol’zovaniya [Latent management: essence and mechanism of use]. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata ehkonomicheskikh nauk [Abstract of dissertation for the degree of candidate of economic sciences]. Moscow: State University of Management. (In Russ.)

Sсhmitt, С. (2000). Politische Theologie. (Russ. ed.: Sсhmitt, С. Politicheskaya teologiya. Moscow. Kanon-Press-C; Kuchkovo Pole Publishing).

Shestakov, D.A. (2011). Criminal law as a paradox of criminology of law. Kriminologiya: vchera, segodnya, zavtra, 1, 16-29. (In Russ.)

Smirnova, N.M. (2010). Intersub”ektivnost’ kak problema sotsial’noi ehpistemologii [Intersubjectivity as a problem of social epistemology]. In I.T. Kasavin (ed.), Sotsial’naya ehpistemologiya: idei, metody, programmy [Social Epistemology: Ideas, Methods, Programs] (pp. 94-115). Moscow: Kanon+.

Solovyov, A.I. (2021). Politika i upravlenie gosudarstvom. Ocherki teorii i metodologii [Politics and state administration. Essays on theory and methodology]. Мoscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Solovyov, A.I., & Kon’kov, A.E. (2024). Latentnye mekhanizmy formirovaniya gosudarstvennoi politiki [Latent mechanisms of public policy formation]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Solovyov, A.I., & Miller, T.V. (2017). Latent policy area: an attempt at theoretical identification. E-journal Public Administration, 63, 212-232. (In Russ.)

Timofeeva, L.N., & Klimova, G.S. (Eds.). (2024). Politologiya i politicheskoe upravlenie: traditsii i novatsii v nauke [Political science and political management: traditions and innovations in science]. Moscow: Academic alliance. (In Russ.)

Zhuravleva, T.A. (2016). Latent networks in public policy. The Authority, 6, 22-28. (In Russ.)

See also: