Political Culture in Russian Scientific and Public Discourse

Malinova O.Yu.,

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Professor, Professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE); Principal Researcher, Department of Political Science of the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, omalinova@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 197217 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2006.05.08
For citation:

Malinova O.Yu. Political Culture in Russian Scientific and Public Discourse . Polis. Political Studies. 2006. No. 5. P. 106-128. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2006.05.08


It is peculiar features of Russian academic and public discourses about “political culture” that are analyzed in the article. While in Anglo-American political science discourse the concept – which was ambitiously introduced in the 1960s by G.Almond and S.Verba – now occupies a relatively modest place, in the Russian one it is regarded as one of the most plausible explanations of the post-Soviet transition. Though Russian and Western scholars face the same methodological problems, their experience with “political culture” is, besides, in a significant way determined by the different political context, as well as by specific intellectual traditions, standards of research practices and argumentation. In particular, the po-pularity of “political culture”, in the broad sense of the term, in Russia is partly due to its consonance with national intellectual traditions, to its apparently interdisciplinary character, to its ideological connotations. However, these same factors put obstacles in the development of the more advanced methodological approaches to the topic and impede accumulation of the results of various theoretical and empi-rical researches. The notion of “political culture” is actively used also in the public discourse of post-Soviet Russia. Being exploited by politicians and party ideologists, it implements two principal (and interrelated) functions: it works for construction of collective identities (of citizens, members of the nation, ‘majority’ etc.) and is used for justification of programs of political development. In both cases there is a competition of different interpretations. In conclusion the urgency of clarifying the boundaries of public and academic discourses, as well as of further developing empirical research of political culture is stressed.


Content No. 5, 2006

See also:

Peregudov S.P.,
Transnational Corporations on the Way to Corporate Citizenship. Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No3

Fyodorov K.G.,
The Policy in the Sphere of Local Taxation in Russia. Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No4

Peregudov S.P.,
Corporate Capital and Power Institutions: Who Plays the Master?. Polis. Political Studies. 2002. No5

Kazantzev A.A.,
Intelligentsia and Structural Innovations in Political Expanse (An Essay of Comparative Analysis). Polis. Political Studies. 2007. No1

Sergeev V.M.,
How Are Social Changes Possible? (Prolegomena to a Statistical Theory of Social Networks). Polis. Political Studies. 2001. No6



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
4 2010

Melville A.Yu.
Postponed and/or failed democratizations: why and how?

 The article text


   2020      2019      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