Sociological Research, vol. 50, no. 1, January–February 2011, pp. 78–95.

© 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1061–0154/2011 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/SOR1061-0154500105

N.V. Romanovskii

Contemporary Sociology
The Determinants of Changes

The discipline of sociology is experiencing a crisis as theoretical devel-

opment has halted, the field of investigation has fragmented into a series
of unrelated endeavors, and the goal of objectivity has been abandoned.
Sociology in Russia has not escaped this, and the situation there is fur-
ther complicated by a failure to become knowledgeable in sophisticated
techniques of research and analysis, the dying out of the most creative
sociologists, and reluctance to address issues that may be politically
dangerous.
Is a scientific picture of the state of sociology, which is chaotic and dis-
ordered, possible at first glance? Is it reasonable to combine the endless
routine of everyday concerns into generalized, reliable conceptions that
make it possible to judge the present and construct proposals for the pos-
sible future of national and world sociology? Is there a way to go beyond
the framework of flat, polar opposite assessments such as bad/good? It is
necessary to find answers to these questions. The current state of sociol-
ogy has recently been characterized in speeches and in the literature. I

English translation © 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2009 the
author. “Sovremennaia sotsiologiia: determinanty peremen,” Sotsiologicheskie
issledovaniia, 2009, no. 12, pp. 26–35. A publication of the Russian Academy of
Sciences; the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, and Law, Russian
Academy of Sciences; and the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.
Nikolai Valentinovich Romanovskii is a doctor of historical sciences, professor,
and deputy editor in chief of the journal Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia.
Carried out with the support of the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RGNF),
Project no. 09–03–001109a.
Translated by Kim Braithwaite.

78
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  79

will address these assessments below. International sociology today, even

in countries that are the acknowledged leaders in the field (the United
States, Germany, France, and Great Britain), is not experiencing the best
of times. Descriptions of its condition are restrained, at best. Even now,
the crisis of Western sociology predicted by A. Gouldner at the beginning
of the 1970s is being discussed [1]. In the opinion of Veverka, “social
science is actually in a state of mutation rather than a crisis” [2, p. 258].
A. Giddens uses the term “slump” [3, p. 4]. The campaign for a “public
sociology,” which was initiated by M. Buravoi, was dictated by concerns
about the current state of sociology in the United States [4]. There have
been pessimistic forecasts: “in the twenty-first century there might not
even be any sociology,” if it remains “an American discipline” [5, p. 9].
Some proposals have suggested a new stage in the history of sociology:
D. Kalekin-Fishman has argued at length in favor of the thesis that “a
different sociology” is not just possible but is actually in the process of
formation [6].
Changes in international and Russian/Soviet sociology in recent
decades have meanwhile, undoubtedly, transformed the problem of
“changes” in sociology as a whole and in its national communities into
a task of making explicit the “growth points” and/or the points in which
impediments are hidden. I have in mind the task of identifying the fac-
tors that are actually at work in the progress of sociology; it is possible
on this basis to demonstrate the specific components of potential growth
in which sociologists are not doing all they should be doing. These are
the aims of the article.
The research potential of sociology itself can be applied to the analy-
sis of contemporary sociology. The common-sense approach of even a
well-informed sociologist and a momentary picture of the sociology of
everyday life do not meet the corresponding standards of science report-
ing. A natural approach to “understanding” and “explaining” looks at
the situation in sociology as a whole and at its national components as
a sociological task. As a theoretical foundation here, a multiparadigm
approach suggests itself, as material for the skeletal framework of sci-
entific concepts of the nature of changes in contemporary sociology,
a means of overcoming subjectivism and a lack of sufficient common
sense, figurativeness of artistic creativity, the description of what is vis-
ible on the surface. In addition to the cognitive side of the question, a
full understanding of the situation in sociology is essential, at least for
someone who is only charting his trajectory in the field of our science,
80  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

as it is indeed for everyone who is not indifferent to the situation in it.

The theories of T. Parsons and R. Merton make it possible to represent
sociology today as a complex of functioning structures (aggregate sets)
or as an independent functioning structure. It is supplemented by concep-
tions of the interactions of individuals, groups, and institutions, the theory
of exchange and the networks that form out of exchanges (in the variant
proposed by B. Latour, actor networks—those consisting of actors, or,
alternatively, actors unified in a network), networks of interactive rituals
(R. Collins) and communication sociology (J. Habermas, M. Castells).
Actions and interactions by active agents of sociological science give
rise to structuration (A. Giddens), are accompanied by conflicts that,
in part, act as a reflection of social struggle, and so on. Added to this
are influences from the past: the paths of history, traditions (historical
sociology), and also framework conditions that are determined by the
energy of the sociologists themselves and by circumstances external to
any science (I. Goffman), and so on. Obviously, each of these named
and unnamed theories allows an understanding of a specific facet of so-
ciological science, and at the least, in the aggregate, they do not permit
any unilateral assessments.
The main thing insisted on by Max Weber is that sociology is built
from the “social actions” of the scientists and specialists of the profes-
sion; to understand and explain what is specifically needed, in our case,
are the purposes and motives of these people and actions. The central
role played by scientists and by their actions and interactions in the
history of sociology is unquestioned. Clearly, this is why the authors
of textbooks on the history of sociology do not write them, as Comte
does, “without names and dates”; on the contrary, in most of these text-
books the development of sociology is presented via the theories and
personalities of the classics of sociology. The actions of the people, the
actors, and the agents, whether individual, group, or institutional, shape
the life of sociology and the changes in it. Actions become transformed
into events (C. Tilly). Events, as the results of action, involvement, and
agency, structure, shape, and form the real life of sociology, and become
transformed into processes of change (N. Elias). Just the mere listing of
the classic and contemporary theories demonstrate the analytical poten-
tial of a multidimensional (multiparadigmatic) representation of today’s
sociology, and thus the possibility of creating reliable representations of
its dynamics.
This approach is addressed, in particular, to teachers of the history
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  81

of sociology; it is extremely vital to bring students up to the present.

At what point should a course come to an end? Is it actually possible
to bring a course in the history of sociology to the point of setting forth
the situation in contemporary sociology (especially considering that, for
understandable reasons, most of the textbooks are literally unable even
to bring the course up to the present)? The objections of professional
historians about the possibility of a modern, ongoing history in general
are referred to. They maintain that only after fifty years is a scientist
able to write scientific history. Let us reword the question: Is it actually
possible not to end a course in the history of sociology with a scientific
analysis of contemporary sociology? Not very likely. First, if the history
of sociology is not brought up to the present time, a large part of the
reason to study the history of the discipline is lost, as the French would
put it, its raison d’être is lost (literally—its purpose for being). In this
case, sociology would remain unintelligible. What would this mean? That
we should trust documents fifty years later but not the abilities of the
professional sociologist? History (scientific knowledge of the past) has
the right to exist as an instrument of reliable knowledge of the present
and prediction of the future.
Second, the objection about the reliability of the history of the socio-
logical present seems to be a misunderstanding. In our case, we are not
talking about state or personal archives in which the secrets of fateful
decision making are hidden, and so on. The historian of contemporary,
current history is, in fact, not able to turn to any archive, for such an
archive has not yet been compiled. In political history, the history of
key state decisions, we have a “black box,” and we must wait for the
opening of materials stored in the secret archives. When it comes to
sociology today, excuses referring to inaccessible archives are not very
convincing. Sociology is a public science. What data are closed to the
historical analysis of contemporary sociology? Especially considering
that we have the Internet. People who arrange national, world, and con-
tinental forums provide timely information about the basic directions
of their work and that of particular sections, except that the informa-
tion is not in real-time mode. The life of the sociological community is
transparent, and it is open, in fact, to sociological analysis. Even in the
“secret proceedings” of incomprehensible or uncomprehended elections
to academies, award conferrals, grant distributions, and similar actions
(which, moreover, do not determine the development of sociology here),
nothing is inscrutable.
82  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

It is necessary to touch upon the question of terminology. Is it really the

case that sociology is developing: does the use of that verb mean sociol-
ogy is moving forward, making progress? Optimism is not very justified
in this regard. The arrangers of world professional forums for 2009–10
(in Erevan and Göteborg) talk about sociology on the move and sociology
at a crossroads in the global era: old problems, new prospects; it is in
the same “liquid” or “fluid” state as today’s “modernism” (A. Giddens).
P. Sorokin’s idea about the cyclical development of culture and science
also comes to my mind. Obviously, giving up on the idea of movement
that proceeds inexorably and boldly forward and further forward, the
idea of progress, and the conception of cyclical development (which
creates the possibility of repeating the same old mistakes) does not rule
out movement backward. Other terms that are in the same category are
evolution, devolution (movement backward), revolution (literally, rota-
tion), involution (reverse development), growth, and stagnation; and the
neutral variant—changes.
Contemporary sociology has recently progressed in the “spatial” di-
mension, by (a) spreading to many new countries, and (b) assimilating
new disciplinary “spaces” of knowledge about society.
A. The traditional European-North American area of the “place of
development” of sociology is retreating before the consequences of soci-
ology’s expansion to different countries and continents. An increasingly
larger part of the world is entering a stage of evolution in which growing
importance is attached to the scientific study of society and communities,
the behavior and interactions of individuals and groups of people. This
is evidenced in the geography of countries that have held international
sociology forums in the past ten years: Australia, Armenia, the People’s
Republic of China, and the Republic of South Africa. Substantial suc-
cess has been achieved by sociologists in India and in Arabic countries.
Lively and varied debates are going on in the Islamic world. Here the
emergence of sociology and its public role are meeting resistance from
the forces of tradition, values, and cultures as well as from corporations
(often transnational) squeezing maximum profit via taking away peas-
ants’ land, a cheap and easily manipulated workforce, and so on. This
tendency is indirectly but very definitively linked to the shift of centers
of economic growth in the twenty-first century from Europe and North
America to the BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India, and China], to
the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to the far from linear expansion of
globalization processes. In several of our own republics, we also find
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  83

similar objections in regard to the compatibility of sociology and native

traditions, people’s life styles, and unwritten laws.
B. Specialized sociological disciplines have begun to multiply as a
consequence of the appearance of Merton’s idea of middle-range theories
(the radius of action). It hardly makes sense to tally their total number
at present. A joke characterizes the situation: sociologists argue, What
else can be declared as independent sociological disciplines? There are
dozens of specialized disciplines; it is likely that the various research
areas that have formed total at least a hundred. There must be close to a
hundred sessions, sections, and subsections of international and national
sociological associations and forums, and a number of specialized courses
(and also departments, research units, etc.) being conducted in sociology
departments at world universities.
The expansion of the subject matter of sociological research is driving
forward the institutional component of sociology. The profile sections
of associations and more or less regular conferences and symposiums,
and nonperiodical publications and thematic headings in journals, are
giving rise to new specialized sociological journals and bulletins, many
of which are in electronic format. The appearance of new scientific
journals illustrates the growth and renovation of sociology, its striving
to react to the most urgent problems of society. It has been announced
in the past two to three years that new (only “print”) journals will be
launched focusing on cultural research, citizenship research, the study
of memory, ruling authority, and social movements (and protests). This
is an ongoing process in the Russian Federation as well, which has
journals on the sociology of ruling authority, politics, medicine, military
sociology, and so on.
But the proliferation of disciplines poses the danger that the boundaries
of sociological knowledge will become eroded. According to Giddens,
one reason (although, indeed, far from the main one) the public has lost
interest in sociology “is that the field has broken up into a whole set of
‘specialisms,’ such as mass media studies, gender studies, industrial
sociology, political sociology, and so on” [3, p. 4]. Nazrul Islam sees
in the rise in the number of magazines and specializations a sign of the
possible end of sociological theory [5, p. 5]. Preelection surveys, public
opinion polls, and market research are already done outside the field of
sociological science in all respects except methods. Sociology has not
suffered a loss from this, but research in these fields of knowledge has
not yielded good-quality progress.
84  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Circulating in Russia are ideas calling for splitting independent

branches of scientific knowledge from sociology branches, for example,
“pressology,” “mass media studies,” “imageology,” “public relations”
(PR—“PR-ology”), and so on. It would be unreasonable to reduce the
problem merely to [stating] that such studies create competition for soci-
ology. Something else is more important. The pretenders to the status of
an independent science are borrowing their epistemology and ontology
from sociology, which shows that their pretentions to the status of an
independent scientific discipline are not well founded.
Recently, as always, historical shifts in the world community have
prompted notable impetuses for the development of sociology. In
the years after World War II, there were youth, women, demography,
scientific-technical, and information revolutions; there was the end of
colonial empires, a rise in technological dangers, the emergence of the
Internet, globalization, the end of the communist regimes in the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, and the financial and economic crisis. Soci-
ologists have played a notable role in interpreting and exploring these
shifts. The result has been the expansion of the spheres of application and
further growth of sociology. Stimuli have fostered the development of
whole areas of research that are more or less recognized and somewhat
perfected, such as feminist and postcolonial sociology, the sociology of
risk, transitology, and so on.
The present author has focused earlier on the task of characterizing
what are called “turns” and assigning them their place in recent sociologi-
cal history [7]. They reflect rising interest on the part of sociology and
other social sciences in the approaches and methods formerly relegated
to the periphery of sociologists’ attention. It has been possible to find
mentions of twelve turns in the scientific literature, the content of which
falls into at least three groups. The ontological turn, the relational turn,
and the everyday turn (Sztompka [8]) have touched upon the general
scientific, methodological changes in approaches to the object and focus
of the research. Others have signaled the rise and development of new
interest in formerly ignored resources of sociological knowledge, such as
historical and cultural turns and the memory turn of people. The narrative
turn has touched upon the sphere of the method of recording empirical
information. Affective, linguistic, pragmatic, semiotic, and ethical turns
have widened and enriched sociologists’ approaches to the interpretation
of social action and interaction.
On the subject of turns, we can end our exposition of the most recent
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  85

changes in sociology, in order to take the next step toward the aims of
this article. The (empirical) material presented above makes it possible
to identify a complex of factors that determine the changes occurring
in contemporary sociology, as well as to add to them a group of factors
from the history of sociology when its scientific and social potential in-
creased. The sum of the data on the present period and the past provides
an adequate understanding of which factors help in the development
of sociology at present and which factors are interesting because their
potential is not in demand.
It is possible a priori to divide the determinants that have been detected
into internal and external. I will attempt to describe these determinants
with a minimum of commentary and with no “weighing” of their signifi-
cance. The personal efforts of sociologists or any individual sociologist
constitute a factor that has been and remains the driving force of the sci-
ence. Today, it is inconceivable that a sociologist could do successful work
outside of a collective of colleagues, pupils, assistants, and institutional
structures. Obvious here, is the primary role played by the many years
of operation of the “schools” of sociology. Looking back over the path
traveled by sociology it is easy to see how often schools of sociology
have played a breakthrough role in its development. Although there are
plenty of pretenders to the status of a school of science at present (often
as a result of lowering the bar of requirements on the concept of a school
in sociology), so far no one has even come close to the role that has been
played in the development of sociology by celebrated schools of the past
(the Chicago School, the sociologists of the Frankfurt School, and those
of the Annales School).
Rivalry between sociologists, theories, and institutions has always
existed in the field of sciences (the name of our discipline emerged
from the competition between A. Quetelet and A. Comte). And rivalry
is certainly still with us at present among sociologists, rivalry between
their theories and concepts of present and future sociology. Comparing
debates in European sociology of the 1970s–1980s to a civil war did not
come out of nowhere [9]. New lines of research were added to the dividing
lines of those years (the neo- and post-Marxists/critical sociology against
the anti-Marxists, the Parsonians and their critics, etc.): feminist sociology
and the sociology of postcolonial countries. It should be emphasized that
personalities and ideologies are not contending; disputes are not flaring up
over status and resources, although elements of both are part of debates
about the renovation of sociology. The main field of contention involves
86  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

the basic principles of future sociology, the applicability of classic and

modern theories in countries outside Europe and North America, the
paths that sociologists have to follow in the new century. Especially harsh
rejection concerns theories of modernization and rational choice, Euro-
centrism, the ideas of marketeers and globalizers; doubts are expressed
about Weber’s interpretation of rationality and the overall significance
of Hegelian and Marxist approaches. Not only sociology finds itself at
a crossroads. Societies, countries, and lifestyles all over the world are
changing, dictating interests, objectives, and agendas to sociologists
more often than scientific logic does.
Over its entire history, the growth of sociology has been significantly
stimulated by the appearance of new sociological theories—for example,
Parsons’s and Merton’s theories of structural functionalism as well as
Marxist influences. The role of sociological theories in the development
of sociology is determined by the fact that they demonstrate (in Veverka’s
terminology) the diagnosis and prognoses for current and prospective
policy, and, indeed, for humanity. Contemporary sociological (and social)
theories have been unable to rise to this level: modernism and post-
modernism are not suited to the role; risk theory has an obvious special
character; I. Wallerstein’s world system theory does not go beyond the
limits of a probable forecast. The crisis that developed in 2007 virtually
eliminated people’s euphoria about the triumphant march of moderniza-
tion, transition, marketization, rational choice, and so on. This was graphi-
cally reflected in a series of articles about the changes in Eastern Europe
after 1989 [10], which reached their apogee in 1990–2000. Attempts were
made to construct a synthetic grand theory out of a set of recognized
theories, and thus to overcome multiparadigmality [11], but obviously
they did not change the situation; multiparadigmality persists.
In this connection I focus attention on reminders expressed by J. Al-
exander and A. Giddens about the societal role of utopias. Both are well
known for their youthful Marxist enthusiasms: they are acquainted with
the utopia forecast for Lenin and Stalin by Marx. Giddens comments
on “the feeling of helplessness that many have in the face of the future.
There are no more utopian projects to impart direction to social reforms
and motivate their ideas” [3]. Alexander asserts: “The entire project
of utopia, on the contrary, must be understood more broadly and, in
principle, differently,” specifically as a civil society that is being “over-
hauled” constantly [12, p. 4]. Activism, being developed by M. Burawoy
(another sociologist close to Marxism), reminds world sociologists that
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  87

their mission is to deliver the future to humanity. At the same time, for
these lofty masters of sociology, the idea of utopia is purely utilitarian.
For them, it is a link in the movement from aspirations to plans, projects,
and practices for perfecting social life.
The problem of utopias is a task of sociological construction, of
mapping possible paths to the future. In this sense as well, sociology is
entirely a “public” science. However, any interest in utopias entails a
social demand for a better future; this problem goes beyond the limits
of contemporary values. In the current situation, I believe it is likely that
the low-income portions of the Russian (and world) populations, who
are concerned about their survival, care little about utopias or values.
In a best-case situation under today’s circumstances, ordinary people in
the street will automatically accept the values offered by tradition and
religion. It is symptomatic in this regard that the project of modernization
has not become a model for the rest of the world, having added arguments
to those advocating the idea that not only sociology but also the world
community are at a crossroad.
The problem of utopias in the Russian context, where there is abun-
dant experience in implementing utopian projects (almost a century of
pursuing the specter of communism), emphasizes the existence of a kind
of vacuum in public attitudes toward the model of the future. This was
clear even to the initiators of the first post-Soviet measures. But the idea
of “Great Russia” so far translates to a maximum claim of hegemon in
the “near abroad.” Up to now, this ideo(a)logy provides only a buildup
for potential conflict on the country’s perimeter. What is more serious
is the firmly established tradition in Russia of proclaiming steps into
the future that are perfectly correct and vitally essential for the country
(e.g., renovating the material and technical base of production) and not
carrying them out (turning them into utopias), then returning them re-
peatedly (without analyzing the causes of the previous failures). This is
exactly the kind of algorithm of actions that is described by the theory
of “path dependence,” which dooms Russia to serving in the role of an
appendage that provides raw materials to countries that are able to see
the future and act effectively in accordance with the ideals and values
that are shared by most citizens. If Russia cannot succeed via technical
progress, wise rule, or legal government, it can seek utopia in solidarity,
honor, mercy, truth, unselfishness, and justice. Adam Smith warned that
the world needs an alternative to the driving forces of capitalism—greed,
envy, and malice [13].
88  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

In looking through the contents of foreign sociological journals, my

attention was drawn to the article “The Coming Crisis of Empirical Soci-
ology.” The authors’ main thesis in the article is that polls and interviews,
even in-depth ones, were created to fit the poll-based sociology primarily
of public opinion in the time of Parsons, Merton, and Lazarsfeld. By
this logic, the renovation of theoretical potential and epistemological
and ontological conceptions in sociology in the past decade require
different ways of working with databases that are better able to convey,
in particular, aspects of interactions [14]. For my part, I would add that
in the history of sociology, major changes have actually coincided with
substantial changes in the set of methodological instruments: for example,
the convergence from “armchair” sociology to “field” sociology. In
particular, connections between theory and methods have recently been
demonstrated by P. Sztompka, who has shown that new techniques and
methods are also serving as an adjunct to his new theoretical paradigm
(in his case, this refers to photography) [8, 15]. Indeed, Smelser’s ideal
(comparative, interdisciplinary, and international research [16]) is still
far from the norm. It is possible that a new stage in the development of
sociological methods will be linked to techniques that do not include
questionnaires. For a long time in world practice, no impressive achieve-
ments in empirical sociology have astonished the community. And such
achievements might be capable of astonishing the public imagination
and dramatically enhancing the authority of sociology in society, as
happened in the case of Gallup’s prediction that Franklin Roosevelt
would win the election in 1936. The use of sampling enabled Gallup to
make an accurate prediction. This is another factor in the development
of sociology, just as the appearance of resonant sociological bestsellers
(Suicide, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Lonely
Crowd, etc.).
Interdisciplinary exchanges of achievements expand the space of
the professional influence of sociology and strengthen its connections
with other sciences. In turn, interaction among the sciences enriches
sociology—for example, information science, synergetics, culturology,
semantics, and so on—up to and including geography and paleobotany.
Its interdisciplinary nature has always been an important resource for
the growth of sociology, demonstrating its empirical capabilities and
successes. Unfortunately, in Russia in recent years the intensiveness of
exchanges in the social sciences—both within the country and in the
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  89

world scientific community—has declined perceptibly, and has become

an individual matter.
The resource factor has taken on a more important role under con-
temporary conditions. To grow sociological knowledge it is necessary
to obtain and process large files and databases. Today, the professional
sociologist must know how to process and compare massive volumes
of information, and must have the appropriate equipment. Added to the
cost of surveys are substantial expenses for equipment, for processing
archival data, for acquiring information and communication equipment
and technologies. In addition, it is becoming more and more costly to
combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Today’s standards re-
quire comparative studies, research between countries, and so on, all
of which increases the cost of the sociologist’s professional work. For
the most part, our sociologists do not work with large amounts of data,
which restricts interdisciplinary research and access to past sources
and lessons. In the expert opinion of A.A. Davydov, few have mastered
the necessary techniques.1 As a rule, unfortunately (and regrettably for
domestic sociology), requirements are often minimized with respect to
the amount and quality of the empirical component of publications and
dissertation projects.
Here we can end the story of determinants that take shape within
sociology, although I will return to this story below. The second set of
factors of the dynamics of contemporary sociology (and over its entire
history, which is not very long) forms outside of it. The most important
impetuses to sociological development are imparted by society itself—
its specific problems and demands are capable of fostering or hindering
sociological progress. The development of sociology is linked to the level
of democracy in the country and to the maturity of its civil society. It is
difficult to imagine the development of sociology without the necessary
resources and the willingness of society and the state to provide them. Ma-
jor discoveries in fields that are often distant from the social sciences (the
computer) can, if not overturn, then at least somewhat enrich sociologists’
ideas and capabilities. Finally, global techtonic shifts, forces majeures,
or evolutionary changes in the world create demands on sociology and
determine the external boundary conditions of its functioning.
Society’s need for knowledge of itself, people’s interest in self-
understanding, and striving toward the ideals of a civil system lie at the
sources of sociology [18]. The needs of society and of humanity are now
90  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

among the decisive factors in the dynamics of sociological science. For

example, in England, to address the problems of older people, sociolo-
gists are conducting “ELSA” [English Longitudinal Study of Aging]
[19]. And in Russia?
From the standpoint of the problems confronting Russia, even at the
level of common sense, it appears be a paradoxical country. A diagnosis
was voiced long ago: “we do not know the society in which we are liv-
ing” (Iu.V. Andropov, 1982). Later came another one: “we did the best
we could, but it turned out as always.” Years have passed, but has there
been any analysis of what Sorokin has called “regularities” (“the same
old mistakes” in our history) as an objective of scientific knowledge?
Have we learned the lessons of the consequences of the failure to know
and understand the important societal boundary conditions? Or is there no
demand for such knowledge by society, ruling authority, or the “ordinary”
individual? But why? Allow me a couple of hypotheses. (1) Perhaps A.S.
Pushkin was right when he said that the Russian is not curious: “the less
you know the better you sleep,” “the more you know the sooner you get
old”—this is the advice of folk wisdom. It is hardly likely that this com-
mon sense has diminished among people. (2) We can probably not omit
from the account the “cultural” traumas of the twentieth century, from
January 9, 1905, to August 18, 1998, from the Japanese attack on Port
Arthur to the New Year’s march on Grozny, from Tsar Nicholas to “Tsar
Boris.” Do Russians have a kind of subconscious criterion: “as long as
there is no war,” as long as they do not kill us, everything else can be
endured? These hypotheses explain something. But what about the abil-
ity of the Russian land, of those who are “quick to reason,” to decide no
longer to endure the rule of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?
Hypotheses (and hypotheses have been stated here, not complaints about
the country and its people) must be verified scientifically.
There is a demand for sociology in the Russian Federation—demand
from the public (and the state). But primarily this is a demand for the
empirical component of the science in its questionnaire survey and
information formats. The state (the bureaucracy) looks no further than
public opinion, and corporations look no further than marketing, while
everything else is the work of the devil. Try to conduct a survey in a
corporation! Or consider our corporate culture: is everything to be kept
under lock and key? True, not only sociologists are in this situation. In
the 1990s, the civic role of an entire social group declined, including the
scientific, technical, and military intelligentsia. The scientific intelligentsia
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  91

permitted the desacralization of its institutional procedures and rituals; the

uninitiated gained access to mechanisms by which to acquire degrees and
rise in the academic ranks. There were attempts (and not from scratch)
to close down the higher degree certification commissions (VAKi) and
academies of sciences in the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth
of Independent States. The situation of sociology is quite varied in the
Russian regions, just as the regions themselves are endlessly different.
Some places have no resources, some have no professionals, some tra-
ditionally permit a pollster to question a woman only in her husband’s
presence, and so on. More than one congress of sociologists in Russia
can still be conducted under the slogan “Sociology and Society.”
Sociology here has lost a great deal, and it continues to lose because
it lacks a national sociology association similar to those in many coun-
tries. To what extent is this a problem of Russian civil society—another
unmanageable task? It would have been more natural if, instead of a
department of science in the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union as a part of emerging processes around the end of
the 1980s, the role of an organizing and management center had been
taken on by a self-governing collegial association of sociologists, which
alone would have been capable of intelligently handling the issues of a
professional “guild.” Instead, half a dozen centers were established in
the capital cities, and moreover, they did not aspire to the role of a na-
tional association. As a result, issues of the quality of products generated
by sociologists, such as “standardization,” interaction, discussions of
community problems, maintenance of the level of professionalism [see
the example of Canada, 20], and finally, Russia’s worthy representation
in international organizations of sociologists, and so on, are either not
resolved or resolved here and there (“as always”). The situation that has
taken shape is understood in the capital cities and in the regions, but
people prefer not to take risks, and their basic reasoning is: “Better to
leave things as they are, let them take their own course; maybe someday
we will be united.” In fact, it is even possible to detect a kind of interest
in maintaining that status quo: my hands are untied, I do what I want
and what I can; sociology as a whole can get along without us. Surveys
(in particular, at the All-Russian Congress of Sociologists in 2008) have
shown that the main reason for restrained reasoning about this situation
is likely based on sociologists’ fears of a possible authoritarian vertical
command: they do not want it to turn out “as always.”
The national context will determine, define, and form long-term
92  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

national sociology trajectories with respect to institutional and group

factors and the whole science of sociology. Quite heated debates are go-
ing on with respect to the situation of sociology here. One could say that
sociology has been revived and is successful: “the science of sociology is
developing dynamically, is appreciably influencing Russian sociopoliti-
cal life, and is helping to solve key socioeconomic problems”—as stated
in the welcoming speech of the Russian president to the All-Russian
Congress of Sociologists in 2008 [21]. Pessimistic assessments have
also been expressed [e.g., 22].
In our opinion (although this is little consolation), the situation in so-
ciology differs little from the situation in all sciences about society (and
not only about society). Judging from the mass of “crude” (drab? [a play
on the words syroi and seryi]) submissions to the editors of this journal,
the worry is justified. This branch of knowledge has not exhibited any
breakthrough achievements in recent years. But the situation is far from
hopeless. Recent years have seen the authorities’ reaction to the demo-
graphic catastrophe posing such a threat to the country, and also to the
spread of alcohol abuse. Indeed, this is little consolation to sociologists.
It is hardly likely that their role was decisive in the measures taken by the
government—after all, threats of drunkenness and depopulation are all
too obvious. Moreover, sociologists could also make recommendations
to the authorities on more fundamental issues of Russia’s future.
Russia illustrates how the situation in the social sciences must defi-
nitely be correlated with the current state of society. The fate of ideas
that promised so much to the future of Russia is being repeated (without
achieving the ideas, the country might not even have a future). Recall
the attempts made to accomplish the strategic tasks of the country’s
development: scientific and technical progress, the recovery of agri-
culture, renovation of the ruling elite, a civil society, citizens’ active
civic involvement, a middle class, the election of the vice president and
regional governors, the rule-of-law state, law enforcement, the “oil and
gas dependency,” corruption, and so on. And who knows what else?
Issues of professionalism are not good, even in the elite domain of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, judging from the jubilee of A.A. Gromyko
in the summer of 2009, which was marked by nostalgia for that profes-
sional minister.
The change of generations is ongoing in the country’s sociology. The
leaders of Soviet and post-Soviet sociology—G.S. Batygin, B.A. Grushin,
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  93

I.A. Golosenko, T.M. Dridze, A.G. Zdravomyslov, Iu.A. Levada, N.F.

Naumova, V.D. Patrushev, M.N. Rutkevich, and R.P. Shpakova (I list
those whose works are most familiar to me)—are leaving. The stars equal
in magnitude to those departing are only on the rise. A new generation
of specialists is forming; most likely, only by going through this stage
will it be possible to expect an appreciable rise in the overall level of
sociology and its authority in society.
Today, however, a “big” sociologist is expected to advance to a
leading position in the world. The new generation in the time that has
passed has obviously not been able to fully occupy a dominant posi-
tion. Many scientists who have entered sociology from other disciplines
are experiencing difficulties in becoming professionals. The level of
requirements demanded of sociologists has increased substantially,
especially because of the emergence of new research methods, comput-
erization, the Internet, digital databases, and so on. New impediments
are also present. Work in the science sphere has ceased to yield material
benefits; promising scientists frequently have to leave science or take
on organizational, management, and resource chores. Many difficult
problems are being experienced by relatively young university facul-
ties of sociology. This ambiguous stage in our sociology cannot be
surmounted in one leap.
International sociology associations have their own role. I always
closely follow their work in publications in the interests and benefits of
our own concerns. Their powerlessness in the face of problems in rela-
tively new (in terms of sociology) countries is another matter: it makes
sense to help those who want help, those who are permitted to receive
help from outside, and so on. No one will solve our problems for us. Our
sociologists are not taking full advantage of the opportunities offered
by international communities of sociologists. The timely exchange of
opinions between professors L.G. Titarenko and N.E. Pokrovskii in our
journal has correctly emphasized this matter [23]. Our colleagues must,
indeed, participate fully in international exchanges. The question of
what to bring out to the space of “exchange” in international sociology is
hampered by the shortcomings and problems of this country’s sociology,
which I have tried to show. The register of factors cited as determining
the dynamics of sociology makes it possible to determine exactly the
sources of its growth, which have not been fully implemented in specific
places and times. Readers will decide whether I have been successful in
94  SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

demonstrating the gaps and problems of Russia’s sociologists, and where

reserves can be tapped. The pages of Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia are
open to an exchange of opinions.

Note

1. “The empirical qualifications of this country’s sociologists are not in keeping

with the present level of development of empirical sociology. . . . The graduates of
sociology faculties are often helpless in collecting and analyzing information on the
contemporary level!” [17, p. 5].

References

1. Gouldner, A. Nastupaiushchii krizis zapadnoi sotsiologii. St. Petersburg:

Nauka, 2003 (originally published in 1971).
2. Current Sociology, 2009, vol. 24, no. 2.
3. Giddens, E. [A]. “K sotsiologicheskomu soobshchestvu!” (the original is
more strident: “A Call to Arms” [K oruzhiiu!]). Sotsiologicheskie issledo-
vaniia, 2007, no. 9.
4. For example, Buravoi, M. “Chto delat’? Tezisy o degradatsii sotsial’nogo
bytiia v globaliziruiushchemsia mire.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2009,
no. 3, pp. 3–9.
5. Islam, Nazrul. “Sociology in the 21st Century: Facing a Dead End.” Bangla-
desh e-Journal of Sociology, 2004, vol. 1, no. 2.
6. Kalekin-Fishman, D. “Inaia sotsiologiia vozmozhna—v zavisimosti ot soder-
zhaniia poniatiia ‘inaia.’” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2009, no. 7.
7. Romanovskii, N.V. “O sovremennom etape razvitiia sotsiologii.” Sotsiolo-
gicheskie issledovaniia, 2007, no. 1, pp. 23–24.
8. Shtompka [Sztompka], P. “V fokuse vnimaniia povsednevnaia zhizn’: novyi
povorot v sotsiologii.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2009, no. 8.
9. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, December 2003, vol.
65, no. 4, p. 819.
10. Tsapf, V. [Zapf, W.]. “Teoriia modernizatsii i razlichie putei obshchestven-
nogo razvitiia.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 1998, no. 8; Allard, E.
“Somnitel’nye dostoinstva konseptsii modernizatsii.” Sotsiologicheskie issle-
dovaniia, 2002, no. 9; Miuller [Muller], K., and A. Pikel’ [Pickel]. “Smena
pardigm postkommunisticheskoi transformatsii.” Sotsiologicheskie issledo-
vaniia, 2002, no. 9.
11. This refers to the attempt by German sociologist N. Esser to overcome the
multiparadigmality of contemporary sociology. See Romanovskii, N.V.
“Mul’tiparadigmal’naia sotsiologiia—auf Wiedersehen?” Sotsiologicheskie
issledovaniia, 2005, no. 12, pp. 23–32.
12. Aleksander, Dzh. [Alexander, J.]. “Prochnye utopii i grazhdanskii remont.”
Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2002, no. 10, p. 4.
13. See Smith, D. “Editorial: Beyond Greed, Fear and Anger.” Current Sociology,
2008, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 347–50.
 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011  95

14. Savage, M., and R. Burrows. “The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology.”
Sociology, 2007, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 885–89.
15. Shtompka [Sztompka], P. Vizual’naia sotsiologiia: fotografiia kak metod
issledovaniia. Moscow: Logos, 2007.
16. Smelzer [Smelser], N. “O komparativnom analize, mezhdistsiplinarnosti i
internatsionalizatsii v sotsiologii.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2004, no.
11, pp. 3–13.
17. “Sud’by i perspektivy empiricheskoi sotsiologii. XII Kharchevskie chteniia.”
Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, no. 10, p. 5.
18. Podvoiskii, D.G. “O predposylkakh i istokakh rozhdeniia sotsiologicheskoi
nauki.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2005, no. 7, pp. 4, 5–10.
19. See www.ifrs.org.uk/elsa/.
20. Butenko, I.A. “Professionalizm: garantii kachestva.” Sotsiologicheskie
issledo­vaniia, 2009, no. 1, p. 193.
21. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2009, no. 3, p. 3.
22. Filippov, A. “Teoreticheskaia sotsiologiia v Rossii” and Gudkov, L. “V
otsutstvii ‘obshchestva’: empiricheskie sotsial’no-politicheskie issledo-
vaniia v Rossii.” on Mysliashchaia Rossiia. Kartografiia sovremennykh
intellektual’nykh napravlenii. Moscow: Nasledie Evrazii, 2006, pp. 185–200,
201–20.
23. Titarenko, L.G. “Sovremennaia teoreticheskaia sotsiologiia. Razmyshleniia
posle kongressa.” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2009, no. 1; Pokrovskii,
N.E. “Otkrytoe pis’mo professoru L.G. Titarenko,” Sotsiologicheskie issledo-
vaniia, 2009, no. 9.

The following Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation is provided in accor-

dance with the requirements contained in 39 USC 3685. Sociological Research (Publication
no. 1061–0154) appears bimonthly and the annual subscription price is $1,242.00. It is
owned, managed, and published by M.E. Sharpe, Inc., which is located at 80 Business Park
Drive, Armonk, Westchester County, NY 10504–1715. The Owner and Publisher is Myron
E. Sharpe, at the same address. The Editor is Professor Anthony Jones, Northeastern
University, Boston MA 02115. The Managing Editor is Patricia A. Kolb, M.E. Sharpe, Inc.,
80 Business Park Drive, Armonk, NY, 10504. During the preceding twelve months the
average number of copies printed for each issue was 217; the average paid circulation (by
mail subscription) was 117; the average free distribution, 17; the average number of copies
distributed, 134. Corresponding figures for the issue published nearest to the filing date:
total number of copies printed, 216; total paid circulation (by mail subscription), 119; total
free distribution, 22; total distribution, 141. Filed by Carmen Chetti, Vice-President.
Copyright of Sociological Research is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.