Release:2020, Vol. 4. № 1 (11)
About the author:Dmitry O. Trufanov, Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Institute of Education, Psychology and Sociology, Siberian Federal University (Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation); ORCID: 0000-0002-5946-7479; WoS ResearcherID: AAJ-6463-2020; email@example.com
Abstract:This article discusses the concept of “social landscape” and studies the structure of the social landscape and its elements’ functions. The author analyzes the relationship between the concepts of “geographical landscape”, “socio-cultural landscape”, and “social landscape”. The defining feature of the social landscape is the value-normative structure that regulates the social relations of actors who act in the social space of a particular location. Changing this structure leads to the movement of the social landscape and its transition from one state to another. In the social landscape, the author identifies such structural elements as the center and the periphery, where the center is associated with the value-normative institutions of the state, and the periphery is expressed in the form of multiple alternative value-normative structures and identities that are formed in local communities. From the position of state-centered discourse, the center of the social landscape is associated with civilization and civilizational development, while the periphery is associated with barbarism in its modern interpretation. Barbarism in social space is a set of practices of social behavior caused by alternative value-normative structures that go beyond state institutions. Areas of barbarism in the social landscape are associated with an increased level of deviation, weakened social control, and weak penetration of state norms and values. Such areas carry risks of destruction of value-normative structures of the center of the social landscape. The resistance of the social landscape is a barrier of communication that prevents the penetration of value-normative structures of the center in the peripheral areas. Barriers are associated with the existence of alternative state value-normative structures and identities. The areas of barbarism and civilization in the social landscape are in a relationship of complementarity and perform a number of necessary functions in relation to each other. Such functions are the formation and maintenance of socio-cultural identity, strengthening and development of forms of social control, and the function of social exchange.
Bagdasaryan N. G., Koloskov S. S. 2015. ‘Engineering elite in Postnonclassical Era: activity paradigm shift’. Humanities Bulletin of BMSTU, no. 11 (37). http://hmbul.ru/catalog/hum/socio/322.html [In Russian]
Bauman Z. 2008. Liquid Modernity. Translated from English; edited by Yu. V. Asochakov. St. Petersburg: Piter. 540 pp. [In Russian]
Bourdieu P. 2007. Sociology of Social Space. Translated from French; the translation edited by N. A. Shmatko. Moscow: Institut eksperimentaalnoy sotsiologii; St. Petersburg: Aleteya. 288 pp. [In Russian]
Wallerstein I. 2001. Analysis of World Systems and the Situation in the Contemporary World. Translated from English by P. M. Kudyukin; edited by B. Yu. Kagarlitsky. St. Petersburg: Universitetskaay kniga. 416 pp. [In Russian]
Vasilenko V .I., Shtanyko M. Yu. 2013. ‘Analysis of migration processes under globalization’. Questions of National and Federative Relations, no. 3 (22), pp. 147-155. [In Russian]
Galiullina S. D., BreslerM. G., Suleymanov A. R., Rabogoshvili A. A., Bayramgulova N. N. 2018. ‘Social lending system in China as an element of the digital future’. Bulletin USPTU. Science, Education, Economy. Series Economy, no. 4 (26), pp. 114-120. [In Russian]
Dirin D. A. 2015. ‘The main approaches to the study of cultural landscapes in Russian cultural geography’. Social and Economic Geography. Bulletin of the Association of Russian Geographers — Social Scientists, no. 4, pp. 24-37. [In Russian]
Zborovsky G. E. 2010. ‘The regional social space as a sociological phenomenon’. Society and Power, no. 4 (28), pp. 11-20. [In Russian]
Simmel G. 2002. ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’. Logos, no. 3 (34), pp. 1-12. [In Russian]
Ionin L. G. 2012. Rise of the Minorities. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga. 237 pp. [In Russian]
Isachenko G. A., Reznikov A. I. 1999. ‘Landscape and social boundaries: two sides of interaction (north-west of European Russia)’. RFBR Newsletter, no. 7. [In Russian]
Kirillov A. 2018. ‘How the system of social trust in China works’. TASS. 29 May. https://tass.ru/opinions/5225841 [In Russian]
Malashenko A. V., Nisnevich Yu. A., Ryabov A. V. 2018. ‘Modern barbarism: reasons and consequences’. Politeia, no. 2 (89), pp. 6-22. [In Russian]
Skorik A. P. 2011. ‘Installation of the modern Cossacks in the social landscape of Russian society’. Proceedings of the All-Russian Research Conference “Russian Cossacks: History, Problems of Revival and Development Prospects” (October). Edited by V. N. Ratushnyak. Pp. 235-242. Krasnodar. [In Russian]
Scott J. 2017. ‘The art of not being governed: orality, writing, and texts’. RUDN Journal of Sociology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 267-288. [In Russian]
Scott J. 2017. The Art of Not Being Governed. An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Translated from English by I. V. Trotsuk. Moscow: Novoe izdatelstvo. 568 pp. [In Russian]
Torkunova A. V., Malygina A. V. (eds.). 2017. The Handbook of Contemporary International Relations. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 688 pp. [In Russian]
Sokolova T. V. 2010. ‘Social landscape of the post-Soviet space in the context of globalization processes of the contemporary world’. In: Social Factors of Post-Soviet Integration. Series “International Economic and Political Studies”, pp. 221-241. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Economics. [In Russian]
Sorokin P. A. 1992. Person. Civilization. Society. Edited and foreword by A. Yu. Sogomonov; translated from English. Moscow: Politizdat. 543 pp. [In Russian]
Nevirko D. D. (ed.). 2017. Social Order in the Context of Modernity: Problems of Existence and Development. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University. 176 pp. [In Russian]
Standing G. 2014. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. 328 pp. [In Russian]
Urry J. 2012. Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. Translated from English by D. Kralechkin. Moscow: Publishing. House of the Higher School of Economics. 336 pp. [In Russian]
Ufimtseva E. I. 2016. ‘Social landscape of religious socialization of the older generation’. Proceedings of the 6th International Research Conference “Sociology of Religion in the Society of the Late Modern” (19-20 September, Belgorod), pp. 205-211. Belgorod State University [In Russian]
RF Federal target program “Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia” 2014-2020. Approved by the RF Government Decree of 20 August 2013 No. 718. http://docs.cntd.ru/document/499040473 [In Russian]
Shumkin G. N., Shumkina T. G. 2017. ‘Social landscapes of the Russian empire in the mid-nineteenth century’. Issues of World History, no 19, pp. 312-322. [In Russian]
Ferguson S. J. 2017. Mapping the Social Landscape: Readings in Sociology. SAGE Publications. 712 pр.
Friedmann J. 1966. Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. MIT Press. 279 pp.
Livingstone S. 2002. ‘The changing social landscape’. In: Lievrouw L. A., Livingstone S. (eds.). Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs, pp. 17-21. London, UK: Sage.
Sweetman P., Knowles С. (eds.). 2004. Picturing the Social Landscape. Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination. London: Routledge. 216 pр.
Rokkan S. 1987. ‘The center-periphery polarity’. In: Center Periphery Structures in Europe: An ISSC Workbook in Comparative Analysis, pp. 17-50. Frankfurt a. M.; N.Y.: Campus verl.