The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Sketch of political microhistory of sociology: Russian and French sociology of a part of one discipline?



Laboratorium. 2009. No. 1: 98-123

98 I

SOCIOLOGY MICROHISTORY: The RUSSIAN AND FRENCH SOCIOLOGY — PARTS of ONE DISCIPLINE?

SKIZ POLITICAL

Alexander Bikbov

Possibly, the student's performance at sociological faculty of MSU against reactionary administration (2007) became the brightest event in the history of the Russian sociology after the decree of 1988 ("About increase in a role of Marxist-Leninist sociology in the solution of key problems of the Soviet society") which finally legalized discipline. Two events outlined almost twenty-year interval throughout which the discipline avoided the opening shaking habitual bases, the model researches entering the new methodological principles, the explosion-like growth of cross-disciplinary and public authority. Contrary to all hopes laid on sociology since the end of the 1980th to the middle of the 1990th years (on assurances of sociologists, this period was the ideal platform for observation over the changing social structures), professionals added to understanding of Post-Soviet society little. Publicly criticizing the Soviet command management system, in private conversations they lamented the lost rush and social usefulness of discipline more than once: enthusiasm of pioneers, scope of all-Union polls, the state importance which was attributed to results of researches despite their open administrative censorship, and it is possible also owing to the last.

First the subject of intellectual insolvency (Soviet) sociology steadily accompanied plans its methodological and moral pereustroystva1, however openly ceased to discuss this problem in the professional environment already to the middle of the 1990th years. At first as if playing a trick on itself, and then more and more seriously former Soviet sociologists like consciousness of responsible work for the customer. However, office definition was given to discipline already at the time of its late Soviet genesis when the program of an empirical research was recommended to be developed "in cooperation with administrative authorities and the public of those enterprises and institutions where [its] carrying out is supposed" (The workbook of the sociologist... 1977) 2. It is not surprising that in the early nineties — at the time of a repeated institutionalizing of discipline when the most multidirectional trends adjoined and were crossed — on classes in the course "Introduction to Specialty" inspired in students of newborn sociological faculties that the sociology is a science which problems are defined zakazchikami3.

Alexander Takhirovich Bikbov. The address for correspondence: Centre Maurice Halbwachs, École normale supérieure, 48 boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France. abikbov@gmail.com.

1 Such reformist plans can be found, in particular, in the draft of the Professional code of the sociologist (Poisons 1987). Among others it included declarations of professional liability, similar to this: "The sociologist has no moral right to decline all responsibility for economic, social, political and moral and psychological consequences of application (introductions in practice) the results received by it" and so on.
2 This book served as one of key disciplinary grants for professional sociologists; about an administrative position of her editor, Gennady Osipov, see further.
3 It is necessary to notice that the same formula accompanies the course "Introduction to Specialty" and today, in particular at sociological faculty of MSU.

Only their circle changed: the center was inevitably displaced from imagined "public" to various "administrations".

This shift, at all not "especially technical" on the investigations for structure of discipline and meanings made by it, anew defined its informative borders. The Soviet sociology was never public criticism of a "big" political order or local forms of domination and inequalities. It seemed, with change of political circumstances, in the early nineties it had a chance that to become. The repeated adoption of service function as dominating minimized this chance and turned the most critical self-characteristics of sociologists of the beginning of the 1990th years into self-fulfilling prophecies for years of the 2000th: range of theoretical preferences poorly consistent with the international scientific context; simplicity of the transfer of disciplinary systematization to the set of moral instructions; the "Soviet" model of an empirical research, at the heart of the created to the middle — to the end of the 1970th godov4.

Plans of repeated professional expansion of the end of the 1980th years, on a sample posleottepelnoy5, seriously restrained a methodological/informative loop of the 1970th years with which it was pulled hardly together postperestroika sotsiologiya6. At the time of formation of primary intellectual market of the end of the 1980th — the beginning of the 1990th years former disciplinary hierarchies adjusted in view of stunning cross-disciplinary demand to heterodox (in the Soviet context) theoretical receptions which public offer was in many respects prepared by already late Soviet reception of "the western theory" in certain disciplinary sectors, such as "philosophy history", "sociology history" or "economic theory". Not so much the total absence of similar late Soviet "preparations" (which were available also in sociology), how many impossibility to dispose of them from positions of professional monopoly quickly enough confirmed the subordinated provision of sociology among related subjects: philosophies, stories, economies. The extreme rarity of cross-disciplinary references to sociological texts, in addition, demonstrates to it. The low course of conversion of informal inheritance of the late Soviet sociology in intellectual Post-Soviet dividends acted not only as an indicator, but also an active factor of further dynamics of discipline.

The question of intellectual solvency of sociology more than a decade, from the middle of the 1990th to the middle of the 2000th years, was institutionally forced out for disciplinary granitsy7. Fundamental result of this long replacement were so long public silence professional-

4 One of professional fractions localized mainly on a pole of the small intellectual centers with indistinct borders of disciplinary accessory acts as the carrier of this critical look today. It is divided first of all by those who are focused on imperatives of professional technical competence and model of sociology as the international science, that is the closest to actually scientific pole in discipline which resists to a pole of official cooptation. Less others obliged by the career to "big" academic institutions, they are able to afford to sound these observations in a public form. See, for example: Patrimonial trauma of the Russian sociology. Interview with Victor Voronkov (www.polit.ru/science/2007/05/08/voronkov.html); Vladimir Malakhov. About force of institutes or why we have so many supporters of conspiracy theory (www.polit.ru/analytics/2007/11/20/malahov.html); Alexander Bikbov. Useless benefits of external observation (www.polit.ru/sdence/2007/04/06/bikbov.html).
5 The political turn in the late fifties made sociology — new science of the 1960th years — a synonym not only

an informative alternative, image, paradoxical for the sociology, releasing the personality from collective, but also way of alternative determination of political freedom it is not less paradoxical for the relevant perception sending to Lenin ideals (in more detail about it (Bikbov 2007).

6 As one of graphic evidences of high dependence of sociological common sense on genetically initial mode of "big science" and "big figures" attempts of exposure of "qualitative methods" as unscientific, still in the mid-nineties undertaken by methodologists of average generation, in particular appear (Batygin, Devyatko 1994).
7 Theses which localize "problem points" of the Russian sociology of discipline outside are more suitable cause for institutsionalizovanny discussions, finding them in lack of public request for sociological knowledge: "The absence it [theoretical sociology] is not so much a condition of science, how many a condition of society" (Filippov 1997: 5). Rare attempts of the critical analysis of own mechanisms of discipline meet institutional rejection what also the own experience of the author of the present text, whose article "The Russian sociology testifies to: autonomy questionable" became a subject of so attentive reading and fast administrative sanctions as diligent disciplinary default.

ny sociologists about conditions and point of own activity, avoiding of internal intellectual criticism and a self-reflection which remained destiny of peculiar "academic clowns" 8. The student's performance of 2007 caused scandal, having returned forced out public character and having made it a plot for mass media before it served as a subject for an intra professional discussion.

Many colleagues are forced to agree with similar diagnozom9, but much less obvious are conditions of cancelled intellectual (critical) break in Post-Soviet sociology. Whether it is possible to explain informative weakness of discipline with the speed of change of social structures which in the late eighties — the beginning of the 1990th years exceeded the most courageous expectations and became an objective obstacle to creation of new social science? Whether she is called by rapid degradation of big Soviet institutions? And maybe, on the contrary, is explained by their preservation which turns "Post-Soviet exclusiveness" into the next illusion? Again it is difficult to make a question of intellectual solvency of sociology a subject of a critical self-reflection today doubly as bashful replacement and formation of ultracompromise intra disciplinary consensus were followed by operation of other protective mechanism — maintenance of feeling of exclusiveness in the power of which appeared as furious critics of the Soviet / Russian sociology (unprecedentedly "irreparable" situation), and her not less ardent defenders on a position ("a special way"). To begin return to actually sociological self-criticism of sociology — means to set other prospect of the description and assessment of discipline. And it is necessary to begin with installation of right chronological and structural scale of the analysis.

CHRONOLOGICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL LIMITS of the ANALYSIS

As well as any other institutionalized intellectual education, sociology not just set of knowledge. It is discipline in the broadest sense, that is a kind of micropolicy with means of fight, control and production, specific to it, avtoriteta10. It generates knowledge chains coordinated with the mode of "big" policy via mechanisms scientific a pit. In other words, the sociology is not only the place of reproduction of knowledge, but also a place of application of forces. Therefore it is necessary to describe this place in its modern configuration in several interconnected measurements: 1) as institutional routines academic mira11 which fix current state of forces, forming difficult balance with structures of public administration; 2) as the prevailing forms of participation of representatives of discipline in public political (is wider — diskursivny) a competition; 3) as means of assignment of new cultural resources, available from within discipline, and relevant to them ways of establishment / updating of disciplinary borders.

The description of sociology in these parameters removes it for a framework of any logic of exclusiveness, opening an opportunity for comparison of various chronological configurations, in particular Soviet and Post-Soviet, and these two — from pre-revolutionary. It saves the Russian sociology from a complex of national originality, allowing to consider the local version of discipline in the international context also freely, as well as in historical. In a limit form this set of parameters pozvolya-

8 On eccentric, in terms of disciplinary classifications, stylistics of critical arguments, on the verge of literature or metaphysics that served as an additional argument not in favor of the practice of a self-reflection in discipline. As an example see (Kachanov 2000).
9 See, in particular, indicative selection of judgments of a number of sociologists in the wake of a student's performance prepared the author of article together with Valery Anashvili on the Полит.ру portal: http://www.polit.ru/analytics/2007/11/20/socfak1.
10 At the same time not always and not necessarily corresponding to definition of the field as autonomous structure (Pierre Bourdiio). Even for lack of intellectual autonomy any discipline and an institution generate nyuansirovanny forms of the local power.
11 Hereinafter in article a concept "academic" is used as the general designation both for educational, and for research institutions and structures.

et to ask about whether are the Russian, French or American sociology of one period various national versions of the same discipline that for convenience postulate numerous types of theoretical history of sociology.

Starting the micropolitical analysis of sociology, we should take into consideration that any academic discipline is an intellectual complex which borders are defined by work of institutions, first of all obrazovatelnykh12. Developing the analysis, I will use a concept of "an intellectual complex", designating by it coupling semantic and power a component within discipline. The place of the last in intellectual space is a summarizing vector of a polyvalent tactical situation in which institutional routines support the dominating set of intellectual preferences, and the appearing intellectual differences, in turn, in some cases can be institutionalized and turned into dominating. As a result, the first step in the critical analysis of sociology as places of forces and meanings should be made in the direction of a basic imperious configuration — key elements of institutional structures which discipline knowledge and its producers, along with key elements of a political disposition which report to disciplinary results the most probable forms of the public address.

Can seem that so general scale is disproportionate to the analysis "only" of a condition of discipline for the last twenty years. This doubt would be justified if we were limited to the description of the Russian sociology as the isolated case. An attempt of such description was made in our earlier article (Bikbov, Gavrilenko 2002, 2003) in which as it is represented, some mechanisms of reproduction of the dominating theoretical horizon of discipline after disintegration of the Soviet political regime which brought this type of the theory to life are designated. However if to try not describe modern Russian sociology in the attitude towards themselves and to local political conditions, but also to consider it as one of national versions of science of sociology, then we will find out that we have not enough habitual conceptual means, in turn derivative of a local micropolitical environment of discipline. To analyze "the" discipline as one of versions of international science — means to transfer realities of the Russian intellectual sociology complex to the international system of coordinates, having completed that, in particular, in the direction of the Western European realities.

Correct configuration of a new coordinate system demands preliminary fixing of imperious microstructures which determine the content of sociological practice in each of national versions. That is distinctions not only at the level of the dominating theoretical preferences, how many at the level of the dominating / marginal institutional routines (and relevant to them practical categories) created historically. This article enters some of these distinctions and a basis to further, more strict international comparison. For contrast correlation with the Russian case another is used, "exemplary" — a case of the French sociology.

SOCIOLOGY AS POLITICAL choice of BELLE Époque: REPUBLICAN / ANTIMONARCHICAL DISPOSITION

It is known that at the end of XIX — the beginning of the 20th century the French sociology is institutionalized by group of intellectual nonconformists led by Emil Durkheim as university discipline, ut-

12 As an illustration of this thesis the organization of university faculties in medieval Europe which not only nominally (through the charter), but also practically (through all system of lectures, debates and final exams) approved the right for further transfer of a complex of knowledge acts. This right was granted in the form of universal licentia docendi as compliance of individual intellectual discipline of the former student to disciplinary instructions and privileges of which the corporation in general disposed. The state system of licensing of scientific specialties, gradually with (since 17th century) replaced corporate, at all did not cancel (but only unified) this principle of an institutional statement of intellectual borders. Extensive material for studying the matter, among other things, gives the proceeding edition: A History of the University in Europe/General editor W. Ruegg.

verzhdayushchy the legitimacy first of all in philosophy and in the face of philosophers (Ringer 1992, Karadi 2004). At the same time in formation of informative structures of sociology, this child of Belle époque, essential though not always an obvious role is played by political involvement of its founders (Emil Durkheim, Marcel Moss, Maurice Halbvaks): a position of republican sociologists of the Jewish (not only) origin in the case of Dreyfus, their socialist sympathies and cooperation with socialist organizatsiyami13. These preferences and alliances seldom receive openly political expression owing to a high level university intellectual (itself) censorship which interfered with transformation of sociology into a kind of the left republican journalism. At the same time they will well be coordinated with reformist and expansionist installations which the new type of knowledge shows in the face of traditional university disciplines.

A circumstance of primary institutionalizing of the Russian sociology at a turn of the 19-20th centuries is existence of a ready sample. As in absolute majority of similar cases, this sample is moved to the new soil not as a working prototype at all, and as the regulatory idea. The decisive empirical difference between the first, French and Russian, versions of discipline is defined by the place in university space associated with the name "sociology". In the Russian case this place, strictly speaking, marginally as the sociology is formed as extra disciplinary, and first even exterritorial intellectual practice. The Russian higher school of social sciences opened in 1901 in Paris a darkness and for those who first of all for the political reasons cannot teach or get an education in Rossii14 becomes the first sociological institution. The fact of an institutionalizing is far from attempt of united group of adherents to be fixed in university hierarchies: creation of School developed success of series of lectures given by the Russian intellectuals at the World Parisian Fair of 1900. Maxim Kowalewski and Yury Gamba-rov and also Yevgeny De Roberti, Ilya Mechnikov together with a number of publicists from conditionally friendly political camps which did not stand on the uniform research platform were among organizers of School and immeasurably were more interested in the public platform providing freedom of a statement than in formation of the disciplinary kernel assigning to them the place in academic iyerarkhiyakh15. The natives of the provincial nobility first sponsoring work of an institution from own means, united first of all by "system" opposition against autocracy, founders of School faced the growing politicization and disorganization zanyatiy16 which became one of the reasons of its self-dissolution at the beginning of 1906.

It is indicative at the same time that on the formal structure the Russian higher school approaches the European university model: the personnel and thematic policy is defined by collegial body, the Council uniting all professors. The administrative committee gets out of it; the program of classes — completely to the discretion of teachers (Gutnov 2001). Direct transfer of this model of self-government in the state Russian universities which were under ministerial control was as improbable as a university institutionalizing of suspicious knowledge, much more openly, than in the dyurkgeymovsky version, closed with radical political journalism.

13 See, for example (Charles 2005; Karadi, Halbvaks 2000). The socialist sensitivity of a number of university intellectuals plays an important role and in folding of sociology as intellectual project in Germany. So, Max Weber carries out the empirical researches of the agrarian and working world by the invitation of association of the teachers "The union of social policy" setting as the purpose distribution of socialist criticism in the environment of the academic youth (Weber 2007).
14 An institution represented the free university, teaching was conducted in Russian (Gutnov 2001).
15 For characteristic of a situation at School and around it, besides D. Gutnov's article, see also (Golosenko, Kozlowski 1995).
16 "Political addictions of students of school... were generally distributed between adherents of revolutionary socialists and social democrats", fighting for influence at School through the invitation as lecturers of political figures from different camps, such as radical social democrat V. Lenin, revolutionary socialist V. Chernov, populist K. Kocharov-sky, conservative liberal to P. Struva, etc. As a result of the polemic and disagreements reaching the fights partly provoked by agents of the Russian police, work of School in 1904 appeared questionable" (Gutnov 2001).

Having arisen as the institutional answer to the monarchic mode, including as the direct answer to the Russian university policy, the Russian sociology in exile showed that the general for the diverse list of participants the antimonarchical disposition gives extremely far academic investigations in comparison with the general republican disposition of narrow group of intellectual adherents. The last became a basis of the academic discipline properly (research school); the first formed a basis for temporary tactical alliance between free intellectuals and political publicists. Eventually, Durkheim or Moss became employees of the republican state; Kowalewski and De Roberti — intellectual freelancers behind an ambit of public service.

The sociological department (1908) headed by Kowalewski and De Roberti at other private institution — Psychoneurological institute of Vladimir Bekhterev becomes the following institution after closing of School in Paris. The proximity of sociology to free journalism and political journalism is fixed, in addition, that the state universities opening a way to professional career allow classes sociology only in the form of amateur circles (Naked senko, Kozlowski 1995). As well as professionally, in political the distinction of the French and Russian cases is defined first of all by extent of integration of new knowledge and its carriers in the central educational institutions. Remaining political threat at the left till 1917, the sociology is insufficiently left soon after the revolution. Without having become, thus, a part of the normalized and rutinizirovanny academic classifications, along with history or philosophy, "sociology" gets to a new circle of the history — a repeated institutionalizing in the poststalin USSR — with the status university marginal and politically doubtful.

limit institutional frame of the post-war PERIOD: joint self-government of versus bossy management of discipline

In comparison with Belle époque from 1950th years the political regimes of France and the USSR approach as a result of technocratic centralization of management and a gradual universalization of the mode of social security. At relative rapprochement of "big" political structures the difference between two national versions of sociology even more noticeably is expressed in dissimilarity of the academic structures of microlevel. Even without attaching crucial importance to a chronological gap in a repeated university institutionalizing of sociology (1958 in France and 1989 in Russia) what Charles not unreasonably points Sulye17 to, and comparing more close located repeated "beginnings" of sociology within research institutions French (1946)18 and Soviet (1960)19, we appear before a serious dilemma. May we speak about establishment of the same discipline (as indissolubly intellectual and institutional complex) if it is anew formed in France and the USSR not only in various image the focused theoretical horizons (in particular, in relation to American sociological meynstrimu20), but also in essentially dissimilar configurations of the academic micropower?

17 See its article published in this issue of the magazine (footnote 22).
18 Creation of the Center of social researches by Georges Gurvich within only the founded confederation of the research centers CNRS which in many respects was guided by a sample of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
19 Simultaneous creation at the Leningrad state university of sociological laboratory under the leadership of Vladimir Yadov, and at Institute of philosophy of Academy of Sciences of the USSR — sectors of new forms of work and life under the leadership of Gennady Osipov.
20 Slightly in more detail the question of a role of the American samples in establishment of the Soviet sociology in the conditions of Cold War and in connection with the French intellectual situation is considered in the first part of article (Bikbov 2009).

In post-war France the sociology is established in the academic space where the policy a pit and knowledge leans on bodies of joint self-government: frame National center of scientific research (CNRS, 193921), the Higher practical school of social sciences (EPHESS/EHESS, 1947). Here confederations of scientific centers which task — to overcome fragmentation of researches and also to help with permission of material problems are created (as self-governed) ("roughness" research a pit at the universities, lack of rooms for scientific work and so on). Repeated establishment of sociology as independent and mass university specialization in 1958 in many respects represents reassignment of the initial dyurkgeymovsky position predetermined philosophically and politically. With active participation reformist of the adjusted Minister of Education Gaston Berger, the admirer Edmund Gusserl, a characterology and the American model of applied science, some central humanitarian faculties (lettres) will be transformed to faculties of humanitarian and sociological sciences (lettres et sociologie) with the right of a thesis defense in "Sociology" 22. Within new technocratic turn the imperative of intellectual progress and modernization of the university connects to institutional activity of scientists — participants of Resistance, political reformists, partly the communists who are quickly enough getting the state and international support. Along with social history the sociology becomes one of the disciplines defining specifics of post-war republican model of the organization in social and the humanities.

In the post-war USSR the academic institutions are quite often created "on a turn-key basis", with a ready set of official rates and the building. However weakening of joint mechanisms of management, first of all the authorities of the academic councils becomes the price for direct state providing. From 1930th years the academic power goes managers at constant positions: directors of institutes and rectors of the universities, their deputies, chiefs of departments and laboratories. And genesis of disciplinary structures of sociology as new science becomes a model example of an institutionalizing at all "on the contrary" when creation of bodies of disciplinary representation and management advances formation of the academic case (see further).

It is possible to explain this divergence with the appeal to "big" political regimes: initially militarized mobilization in the Soviet case and associative / republican in French. This explanation will not be completely false, but it is far not enough. Formation of any "big" — that is centralized, in a limit state — the mode happens through resistance of the relevant dominating structures to separate nonconformist and radical fractions which seek to intercept them and monopolizirovat23. If with strengthening in the 1920-1940th years of universal tendencies to the state centralization the formation of the mobilization mode appeared perhaps in one case and it is impossible in another, means in various national contexts in a set of local points resistance to it had unequal force.

One of the steadiest obstacles for centralized (the militarized type) mobilization become micropolitical structures of the academic world of France, unlike structures of the intellectual world of Russia (Graham 1967). And how to explain this circumstance if not to take into consideration such fact which was, at first sight, remote on time that in France basic intellectual institutions — the universities — arise in the 12th century in the form of independent corporations and slowly adapt to attempts of the government to reassign control over them, without having lost the spetsi-

21 Officially founded in two weeks prior to World War II, CNRS resumes work as the coordination center after Release (1944). For more details see (Picard 1999).
22 In more detail institutional innovations of this period in connection with a biographic context of Gaston Berger are described in (Bikbov 2006).
23 The Eliasovsky model of the competition of forces for the exclusive center of the power (Elías 2001) is represented satisfactory and in this case: applicable not only to the state, but also to separate nationalized disciplines.

fik? In Russia the university is established in the 18th century as the instance with administrative type of management preparing for public service.

This question can seem abstract only for the observer who is on considerable removal from a modern routine and political-scientific fight in both national contexts. If to peer into them it is equally attentive, between modern forms of the academic organization the distinct distinctions caused genetically will be found. Historical structures and oppositions not just continue the existence in modern institutions, they anew become more active during the current fight.

around neoliberal reform24 the academic sphere (2006-2009) "corporate remnants" of the university organization serve as one of decisive arguments for Nicolas Sarkozy's government in favor of reforms In the French political debate and collisions. For the French sociologists and, more widely, teachers and researchers besides their disciplinary accessory one of the main threats of reforms is concluded in destruction of structures academic samoupravleniya25. The strengthened by effect of reciprocal criticism of critics, solidary intellectual opposition is formed on the mobile platform of participation in the versatile joint and associative structures existing already in the routine mode of reproduction of the academic institutions, such as academic councils of divisions, or national commissions on assessment of scientific career, or created in the urgency mode extra institutional and interinstitutional dvizheniya26. This platform is formed by general meetings of laboratories, faculties, universities, graduate students, teachers and/or students, initiative groups and days of a reflection, critical reports of professional associations and mass participation of members of the academic institutions in street protests and demonstrations. The major role in exchange of the courses and in a debate about reforms belongs to labor unions which, without being joint and even actually academic bodies, act as a form of the counterpower in relation to institutional hierarchy of the academic world. They are included legislatively (in case of majority) or practically in disciplinary and inter-institutional academic politiku27. Challenging anti-egalitarian orientation of reforms, the left labor unions support also preservation of a role of bodies of professional representation and self-government in scientific and educational institutsiyakh28.

Otherwise the field of a debate over educational changes in Russia, including the debate over the reforms determined Bologna and Lisbon by agreements on creation of uniform educational space which the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation ratified in 2003 is structured. Here not the academic associations, movements and labor unions are involved in fight for model of the academic management along with government officials, but the administration of higher education institutions and scientific institutions borrowing about - or counterreformist positions is almost exclusive. In other words, it is the fight between various fractions of the management of the academic institutions which is developed in clearly hierarchical

24 The decrease in the public expenditures which is the cornerstone of reforms on social and cultural spheres (it is equal as promotion of social inequality) also characterizes them as neo-Conservative.
25 One of the most representative subjects and oppositions on set became the conference devoted to the critical analysis of reforms at the Paris-VIII university: "Université critique pour tous", December 1, 2007, Paris VIII Vincennes-Saint-Denis.
26 In particular, "Let's save researches" [SLR], "Let's save the university" [SLU] or national body (itself) of representation — National coordination of the universities. A little more in detail about these initiatives see in the last section of article.
27 At the disciplinary level — defining a third of structure of the scientific commissions of CNU and CoNRS (see further) making decisions on pits; on interinstitutional — being a representative in the multilateral conciliation and consulting commissions preparing or challenging decisions of the Ministries of Education and Science.
28 The academic labor unions make active opposition to government reforms on absolutely, apparently, to technical questions which, in practice, have a direct bearing on principle of collective leadership. So, the largest majority labor union FSU-SNESUP addressed against the automated assessment of activity of researchers and teachers on the basis of the rating of magazines where articles estimated are published, and the pit and scientific efficiency by scientists (press release of SNESUP of October 3, 2008) demanded preservation of collective forms of assessment.

logic. And in a smaller degree, than administrators from philosophy or stories, are involved administrators from sociology in a public debate.

Involvement issues of management of discipline — a strategic point in the organization of an intellectual complex of sociology which in the Russian context is habitually put outside brackets under the guise of especially technical. Already therefore primary characteristic of model of management of discipline and conditions uchast?

Harry Flowers
Other scientific works: