Advertisement

Structure in Bourdieu’s Fields and Realities of Contemporary Russia

  • Aleksandr Shevelev
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter suggests that Soviet-era habits and worldviews have persisted, but they have also been reshaped after the 1990s. Inequality, gain, and an almost cynical approach to economic relations and practices seem to have emerged out of the “wild 1990s.” Put differently, the existence of fields and field rules might create a stable equilibrium of economic strategies and practices, but these need not automatically translate into innovation or growth. Rather, they can reproduce rent-seeking or predation and latent conflict. This suggests that the potential for real reform and development faces not only entrenched interests but also entrenched practices and identities—a problem that plagued the USSR in its last decade as well.

Works Cited

  1. Acemoglu, Daron. 2009. Krizis 2008 goda: strukturnye uroki dlia ekonomiki. Terra Economicus 7 (2): 9–17.Google Scholar
  2. Akinin, A., and A. Shevelev. 2012. K voprosu o prirode gosudarstva i praviashchego klassa v sovremennoi Rossii: otvet ‘Ekspertu. Filosofiia khoziaistva 6: 61–77.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Prakticheskii smysl. St. Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2014. Formy kapitala. In Klassika novoi ekonomicheskoi sotsiologii, ed. V.V. Radaev and F.B. Iudin, 293–315. Moscow: Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2015. Dukh gosudarstva: genezis i struktura biurokraticheskogo polia. In Sotsiologiia sotsialnogo prostranstsva, ed. N.A. Shmatko, 243–245. St. Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
  6. Castells, Manuel. 2016. Vlast’ kommunikatsii. Moscow: Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  7. Epshtein, M. 2016. Poeziia i sverkhpoeziia: O mnogoobrazii tvorcheskikh mirov. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Attikus.Google Scholar
  8. Furs, V. 2000. Filosofiia nezavershennogo moderna Iurgena Khabermasa. Minsk: Ekonompres.Google Scholar
  9. Grinberg, R.S. 2010. Strategicheskie orientiry ekonomicheskogo razvitiia Rossii. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, Jurgen. 2005. Politicheskie raboty. Moscow: Praksis.Google Scholar
  11. Illarionov, A. 2017. Lovushka nesvobody. Vedomosti (July 3).Google Scholar
  12. Inozemtsev, V. 2013. Poteriannoe desiatiletie. Moscow: Moskovskaia shkola politicheskikh issledovanii.Google Scholar
  13. Kapeliushnikov, R. 2017. Neravenstvo: kak ne primitivizirovat’ problem. Voprosy ekonomiki 4: 117–139.Google Scholar
  14. Kordonskii, S. 2008. Soslovnaia postsovietskoi Rossii. Moscow: Institut fonda “Obshchestvennoe mnenie”.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2012. Kak ustroena Rossiia. Russkii reporter, 8 (February 29): 237.Google Scholar
  16. Mzokov, A. 2016. Sushchestvuiushchie sposoby otsenki kachestva gosudarstvennogo upravleniia. WGI и BTI//«Science. Thought: electronic periodic journal»—scientific e-journal #12: 127–128.Google Scholar
  17. Oleinik, A. 2011. Vlast’ i rynok: sistema sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo gospodstva v Rossii “nulevykh” godov. Moscow: Rospen.Google Scholar
  18. Panarin, A. 2003a. Iskushenie globalizmom. Moscow: Eksmo.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2003b. Pravoslavnaia tsivilizatsiia v globalnom mire. Moscow: Eksmo.Google Scholar
  20. Raskov, D. 2011. Institutionalnye issledovaniia kak budushchee sotsialnykh nauk. In Nasilie i sotsialnye poriadki. Kontseptsualnye ramki dlia interpretatsii pismennoi istorii, ed. Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry Weingast, 9–31. Moscow: Gaidar Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Rogov, Kirill. 2016. Politekonomiia reaktsii: ekonomicheskaia dinamika i sotsialnye nastroeniia v 2014–2016 gg. In Politicheskoe razvitie Rossii 2014–2016: instituty i praktiki avtoritarnoi konsolidatsii, ed. Kirill Rogov, 76–98. Moscow: Fond “Liberalnaia missiia”.Google Scholar
  22. Shevelev, A. 2015. Evraziiskaia politicheskaia ekonomiia v kontekste tsivilizatsionnogo i formatsionnogo podkhodov. Problemy sovremennoi ekonomiki 3: 95–98.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2016. Sotsialnye struktury rynkov i setei: novye institutsionalnye podkhody. Problemy sovremennoi ekonomiki 2: 64–65.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2017. Institutsionalnyi analiz v epokhu chetvertoi promyshlennoi revoliutsii: stanovlenie konvergentnoi metodologii. Problemy sovremennoi ekonomiki 2: 40–43.Google Scholar
  25. Shmatko, N.A. 2005. Sotsialnoe prostranstvo Piera Burde. In Sotsialnoe prostranstsvo: polia i praktika, ed. N.A. Shmatko, 554–567. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia.Google Scholar
  26. Zaostrovtsev, A. 2008. Neft, pogonia za rentoi i prava sobstvennosti (obzor kontseptsii). In “Resursnoe prokliatie”: Neft, gaz, modernizatsia obshchestva, ed. N.A. Dobronravin and O.L. Marganiia, 3–30. St. Petersburg: Ekonomicheskaia shkola.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandr Shevelev
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics, Department of Economic TheorySt. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations