Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification

Nedyak, Irina L.; Pavlova, Tamara V.; Patrushev, Sergey; Philippova, Liudmila

doi:10.31857/S013216250008323-8

Home

Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya

Issue 1

Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification

Annotation
Reviews
References

Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification

PII

S013216250008323-8-1

DOI

10.31857/S013216250008323-8

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Irina L. Nedyak

Occupation: Leading Researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Tamara V. Pavlova

Occupation: Leading Researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Sergey Patrushev

Occupation: Head of Department of Comparative Political Studies
Affiliation: Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Liudmila Philippova

Occupation: Senior research fellow
Affiliation: Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Journal name

Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya

Edition

Issue 1

Pages

42-53

Abstract

In the article, the concepts “political field” and “zone of power” are analyzed in order to evaluate their applicability for the sociologacal study of conditions for emergence of modern-type politics in Russia – based on goal-setting and competition. The attempted conceptualization was based on neoinstitutional, deliberative and neo-republican approaches. Models developed by the authors were verified using the data of a 2018 nationwide representative population survey. It is demonstrated that, according to different understanding of rules and their role in politics, political sphere in Russia is precepted either as a closed and deformalized zone of power or as an open political field. These perceptions influence how the possibility of interests’ realization in politics is assessed and how attitudes towards participation are formed. The approaches used in the article also help to reveal how the zone of power can potentially be transformed into political field.

Keywords

modern-type politics, power, domination, citizens, political field, zone of power, neoinstitutional analysis, neoclassical republicanism, deliberation, reflectivity, dialogicality

Received

19.02.2020

Publication date

10.03.2020

Number of characters

31187

Cite

GOST	Nedyak I., Pavlova T., Patrushev S., Philippova L. Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – 2020. – Issue 1 C. 42-53 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/socis/s013216250008323-8-1-en (circulation date: 26.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008323-8
MLA	Nedyak, Irina L, Pavlova, Tamara V, Patrushev, Sergey, Philippova, Liudmila "Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification." Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 1 (2020):42-53. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008323-8
APA	Nedyak I., Pavlova T., Patrushev S., Philippova L. (2020). Political Field and Zone of Power: Varieties of the Ideal Type and Attempt at Empirical Verification. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (1), pp.42-53 DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008323-8

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1357

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Andersen V., Hansen K. (2007) How deliberation makes better citizens: the Danish Deliberative Poll on the euro. European journal of political research. Vol. 46. Iss. 4: 531–556.

2. Fishkin J. (2003) Consulting the public through deliberative polling. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 22. No. 1: 128–133.

3. Bureaucracy and power in new Russia: population’s position and experts’ assessment. Analytical report. (2005) Moscow: IS RAN. (In Russ.)

4. Gronlund K., Setala M., Herne K. (2010) Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review. Vol. 2. Iss. 1: 95–117.

5. Inozemtsev V. (2018) Non-modern country. Russia in the 21st century world. Moscow: Alpina-Digital. (In Russ.)

6. Kozyreva P.M., Smirnov A.I. (2010) Trust and its role in Russian society’s consolidation. In: Gorshkov M.K., ed. Social factors of Russian society’s consolidation: sociological dimension. Moscow: Novyi khronograf: 160–199. (In Russ.)

7. Lovett F. (2010) A general theory of domination and justice. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

8. Mansbridge J. (1983) Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Рress.

9. Mendelberg T., Oleske J. (2000) Race and public deliberation. Political Communication. Vol. 17: 169–191.

10. Mutz D. (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

11. Patrushev S.V., ed. (2016) Mass politics: institutional bases. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiclopediya. (In Russ.)

12. Patrushev S.V., ed. (2013) The civic and the political in Russian social practices. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

13. Patrushev S.V. (2001) Institutionalism in political science: stages, currents, ideas, problems. Politicheskaya nauka [Political science]. No. 2: 146–186. (In Russ.)

14. Patrushev S.V., Khlopin A.D. (2007) Sociocultural split and problems of Russia’s political transformation. In: Gorshkov M.K., ed. Reforming Russia. Yearbook. Moscow: IS RAN. Vol. 6: 301–318. (In Russ.)

15. Pettit Ph. (2016) Republicanism. A theory of freedom and government. Moscow: In-t Gaidara. (In Russ.)

16. Viroli M. (2014) The liberty of servants. Moscow: VShE. (In Russ.)