Diagnostics of risks to the formation of new Russia: the demand for integral and sovereign knowledge of socio-political sciences

Diagnostics of risks to the formation of new Russia:
the demand for integral and sovereign knowledge of socio-political sciences

Kravchenko S.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia; Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, sociol7@yandex.ru

elibrary_id: 77019 | RESEARCHER_ID: H-5769-2016

Article received: 2022.11.26. Accepted: 2023.03.02

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2023.03.12

Rubric: DIXI!

For citation:

Kravchenko S.A. Diagnostics of risks to the formation of new Russia: the demand for integral and sovereign knowledge of socio-political sciences. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No. 3. P. 165-180. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.03.12. EDN: IRPWDE

The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2022-327), and the grant for the implementation of the program of strategic academic leadership “Priority 2030”.


The author offers a comprehensive diagnosis of risks associated with the processes of the formation of a new Russia and analyzes possible ways to solve it. The methodological basis for studying the nature of these risks is the theory of non-linear development of complex systems, applied to the analysis of risk culture (risk management culture, including man-made, staging, hybrid and “strategic” risks), the whole complex of values, beliefs, knowledge, practices of risk assessment and understanding that characterize this culture. Assessing the risks of the uncontrolled openness of Russian society in the process of transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world, the author pays special attention to diagnosing the implications of “new barbarism”, as well as the risks threatening national human capital. The author proceeds from the fact that scientific diagnostics involve not only the analysis of risks, but also the search for optimal responses to the challenges they present to society. In the context formulated by Academician M.K. Gorshkov of the concept of the “genotype of culture” (considered as a root system of moral values and life meanings conditioned by civilization), the author puts forward the idea of integrating socio-political, ideological and theological knowledge. Based on the results of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that the necessity to preserve the political, economic and technological sovereignty of Russia (in order to find optimal ways to reproduce national human capital and form a comprehensively developed and socially responsible personality) sets the trend for the country’s movement in two main directions. First, to form more efficient structures for the production of sovereign, nationally-oriented knowledge, developing nationally-oriented theoretical concepts and appropriate methodological tools for studying Russian society. And secondly, to integrate the entire diversity of cultures, ideological, spiritual, moral values of a multinational Russian society based on the reproduction of the genotype of Russian civilization.

new Russia, non-linear development, complexity, hybrid and staged risks, national human capital, civilization, social responsibility, sovereign socio-political knowledge.


Bauman, Z., Obirek, S. (2015). Of God and Man. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, U. (2008). World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a Post-traditional Society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (pp. 56-109). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (2009). The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (2015). Turbulent and Mighty Continent. What Future for Europe? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holton, R.J. (2014). Global Inequalities. London: Bloomsbury Academic; Palgrave.

Kravchenko, S.A. (2021). New transmission mechanism for the sustainable and humanistic development of human capital: demand for the ‘rigidity turn’. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 21(3), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2021-21-3-433-443  

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Perrow, Ch. (1999). Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Perrow, Ch. (2011). The next catastrophe: reducing our vulnerabilities to natural, industrial, and terrorist disasters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Popper, K.R. (2020). The open society and its enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Urry, J. (2008). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Urry, J. (2011). Climate change and society. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.


Alekseeva, T.A., Mineev, A.P., Loshkarev, I.D., & Anan'ev, B.I. (2018). “Kvantovyi podkhod” k mezhdunarodnym otnosheniyam [“Quantum Approach” to International Relations]. Moscow: Znanie – Sila.

Chugrov, S.V. (2017). Post-truth: transformation of political reality or self-destruction of liberal democracy? Polis. Political Studies. 2, 42-59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.02.04

Dmitriev, A.V. (2017). Ponyatie provokatsii [The concept of provocation]. In Dmitriev A.V., & Sychev A.A. Provokatsiya: sotsiofilosofskie ocherki [Provocation: sociophilosophical essays] (pp. 9-27). Moscow: CSFaM. (In Russ.)

Dmitriev, A.V., & Sychev, A.A. (2014). Skandal. Sotsiofilosofskie ocherki [Scandal: socio-philosophical essays]. Moscow: CSFaM. (In Russ.)

Erasov, B.S. (2002). Tsivilizatsii: universalii i samobytnost' [Civilizations: universals and originality]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Freud, S. (1997). Psikhoanaliticheskie ehtyudy [Psychoanalytic studies]. Minsk: PopurrI.

Giddens, A. (2020). Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our lives (Russ. ed.: Giddens, A. Uskol'zayushchii mir: kak globalizatsiya menyaet nashu zhizn'. Moscow: Ves' Mir).

Gorshkov, M.K. (2020). “Est' takaya professiya – obshchestvo izuchat'”. Izbrannye stat'i, interv'yu, biograficheskie otkroveniya [“There is such a profession – to study society”. Selected articles, interviews, biographical revelations]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. (In Russ.)

Gorshkov, M.K., Komissarov, S.N., & Karpukhin, O.I. (2022). Na perelome vekov: sotsiodinamika rossiiskoi kul'tury [At the turn of the century: the sociodynamics of Russian culture]. Moscow: FCTAS RAS. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/monorg.978-5-89697-390-4.2022

Gorshkov, M.K., Krumm, R., & Petukhov, V.V. (Ed.). (2009). Russia on a new turn: fears and worries. Moscow: ALFA-M. (In Russ.)

Gorshkov, M.K., Li, Pehijin', Golenkova, Z.T. (Ed.). (2012). Rossiya i Kitai: izmeneniya v sotsial'noi strukture obshchestva [Russia and China: changes in the social structure of society]. Moscow: Novyi khronograf. (In Russ.)

Ivanov, V.N. (2018). Sotsiologiya v SSSR. Zapiski direktora institute [Sociology in the USSR. Notes of the Director of the Institute]. Moscow: U Nikitskikh Vorot. (In Russ.)

Kovalevskii, M.M. (1997). Sotsiologiya. Sochineniya v 2-kh t. [Sociology. Works in 2 vol.]. St. Petersburg: Aletheia. (In Russ.)

Kravchenko, S.A. (2019). Spiral of the complication of violence: a demand for a humanistic policy. Polis. Political Studies. 5, 43-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.04

Kravchenko, S.A. (2022). The ambivalences of digitalization: the demand of its national-cultural model for sustainable development. Sociological Studies, 9, 29-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250020181-2 

Lapin, N.I. (2021). Slozhnost' stanovleniya novoi Rossii. Antroposotsiokul'turnyi podkhod [The complexity of the formation of a new Russia. anthroposociocultural approach]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. (In Russ.)

Lebedeva, М.М. (2017). Soft power: the concept and approaches. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 3, 212-223. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2017-3-54-212-223 

Mannheim, K. (1994). Ideologie und Utopie. In Mannheim, K. Diagnosis of Our Time: Wartime Essays of a Sociologist (Russ. ed.: Mannheim, K. Ideologiya i utopiya. In K. Mankheim. Diagnoz nashego vremeni (pp. 7-276). Moscow: Yurist).

Mikhailovskii, N.K. (2001). Chto takoe progress? [What is progress?]. In Sotsiologiya v Rossii XIX – nachala XX vekov. Obshchestvo. Zakony istorii. Progress. Tseli i normy zhizni. Teksty [Sociology in Russia XIX – early XX centuries. Society. Laws of history. Progress. Goals and standards of life. Texts]. Moscow: International University of Business and Management. (In Russ.)

Osipov, G.V., Kuzyk, B.N., & Yakovets, Yu.V. (2007). Perspektivy sotsiokul'turnoi dinamiki i partnerstva tsivilizatsii [Prospects for socio-cultural dynamics and partnership of civilizations]. Moscow: Institute of Economic Strategies. (In Russ.)

Parsons, T. (1998). The system of modern societies. (Russ. ed.: Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv. Moscow: Aspect Press).

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of Chaos. Man's new dialogue with nature. (Russ. ed.: Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. Poryadok iz khaosa: Novyi dialog cheloveka s prirodoi. Moscow: Progress).

Shubkin, V.N. (2010). Sotsiologiya i obshchestvo: nauchnoe poznanie i ehtika nauki [Sociology and society: scientific knowledge and the ethics of science]. Moscow: CSFaM. (In Russ.)

Stepin, V.S. (2011). Tsivilizatsiya i kul'tura [Civilization and culture]. Saint Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences Publishers. (In Russ.)

Toshchenko, Zh.T. (2020). Obshchestvo travmy: mezhdu evolyutsiey i revolutsiei (opyt teoreticheskogo i empiriticheskogo analiza) [Society of trauma: between evolution and revolution (experience of theoretical and applied analysis)]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. (In Russ.)

Wallerstein, I. (2020). World-systems analysis: an introduction. (Russ. ed.: Wallerstein, I. Mirosistemnyi analiz. Vvedenie. Moscow: URSS).

Zarubina, N.N., & Kravchenko, S.A. (2022). “New barbarism” in a civilizational perspective: impact on human capital. Polis. Political Studies. 1, 31-44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.01.04 

Content No. 3, 2023

See also:

Kravchenko S.A.,
The emergence of the synergistically complex power in digital era: challenges to human capital. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No2

Zarubina N.N., Kravchenko S.A.,
“New barbarism” in a civilizational perspective: impact on human capital. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No1

Selezneva A.V., Rogozar-Kolpakova I.I., Filistovich Ye.S., Trofimova V.V., Dobrynina Ye.P., Streletz I.E.,
Russian political elite: analysis from the perspective of the human capital concept. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No4

Simonyan R.Kh.,
Russia after the reforms: sources for the formation of mass consciousness. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5

Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Fedotova N.N., Sizemskaya I.N., Kanarsh G.Yu., Dmitriyev A.V., Korolev S.A., Kolpakov V.A., Petrenko N.S., Shabanov D.S., Oleynikov Ju.V., Kuznetsov D.A., Lamajaa Ch.K., Chugrov S.V.,
So different Russias. Part II. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No3



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
5 2004

Fenenko A.V.
The Future of Nuclear Deterrence: Discussions and Realities

 The article text


   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   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