Ideological models of modern Russian society: theoretical and methodological construct of the study

Konstantinov Mikhail Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0003-2781-789X PhD in Politics Associate Professor; Department of Theoretical and Applied Political Science; Institute of Philosophy and Socio-Political Sciences; Southern Federal University 105/42 Bolshaya Sadovaya str., Rostov-On-Don, Rostov region, 344006, Russia konstantinov@sfedu.ru Other publications by this author

One of the key problems of studying the phenomenon of worldview is the extreme vagueness and uncertainty of its scientific and philosophical concept. More than two hundred years of research in this field (starting with Kant's Weltanschauung in the Critique of the Faculty of Judgment (1790)) have led to an extreme expansion of this concept. As a result, it began to cover virtually all aspects of human vision of the world, which resulted in a significant loss of its explanatory and heuristic power. Nevertheless, in recent years, the interest of representatives of the social sciences in the concept of worldview has been increasing again. And this is primarily due to the fact that, with proper operationalization of this concept, it allows us to identify and describe various connections between rational and emotional, cognitive and value, utilitarian and deontological, etc. aspects of human perception of social and natural reality, in all the complexity, completeness and volume of this perception. Therefore, it seems somewhat premature to abandon the concept of a worldview. On the contrary, it should be operationalized in applied research, which will clarify and concretize the philosophical abstraction. Actually, this article is devoted to the development of the concept of worldview operationalized in the context of a specific sociological study and the associated theoretical and methodological construct of worldview models.

The evolution of the concept of worldview in the history of philosophy and social sciences begins with the "Critique of the Faculty of Judgment" by I. Kant, where in the second book "Analytics of the Sublime" the "mathematically sublime" was discussed, and in particular, the possibility of thinking the infinite as one whole. According to I. Kant, the presence of this possibility in itself indicates a certain ability of our thinking to rise above sensory experience: "... This would require such a connection that would give as a unit a scale having a definite relation to the infinite, expressed in numbers, which is impossible. But in order nevertheless to be able at least only to think without contradiction of the given infinite, an ability is required in the human soul, which is itself supersensible. ... Only through her and through her idea of the noumenon, which itself does not allow any contemplation, but nevertheless relies as a substrate on the basis of contemplation of the world only as a phenomenon, the infinite of the sensually perceived world is completely encompassed in the pure intellectual definition of quantities under one concept, although it cannot be thought of entirely in the mathematical definition of quantities by means of numerical concepts" ^{[1, pp. 261-262]}. However, for Kant, this concept was only outlined as a simple perception of nature, "observation of the world given in feeling", i.e. literally in the form of a worldview [see, for example: 2, p. 693], but not elaborated in detail.

This Kantian idea was further developed in the works of F.W.J. Schelling "Introduction to the outline of the system of natural philosophy, or On the concept of speculative physics and on the internal organization of the system of this science" (1799), "Philosophical studies on the essence of human freedom and related subjects" (1809), etc. [3 4]. The original Kantian meaning of the worldview as a contemplation of the world was interpreted by Schelling in the context of the doctrine of the intelligentsia, which can be "productive in two ways: either blindly and unconsciously, or freely and consciously; unconsciously it is productive in contemplating the world, consciously – in creating an ideal world" ^{[3, p. 182]}. Thus, Schelling preserved the original Kantian intuition that the worldview is based on experience, which is the main source of knowledge carried out by the intelligentsia by means of contemplation of the world. Later, this concept will be developed by Schelling in the context of his connection with the scientific worldview ^{[4, p. 88]}, as well as with the concept of human freedom ^{[4, p. 90]}. As a result, in Schelling, this concept "turns out to be the unconscious material of natural philosophy with which our consciousness works using the methods of transcendental philosophy, i.e., how we contemplate the world is our starting point in its study a priori" ^{[2, p. 695]}. Schelling's schematism of the worldview is also connected with this direct contemplation, which does not need a theoretical explanation ^{[5, p. 7; see also: 6]}.

The moral aspect of the worldview in its contemplative contradiction between the world of natural necessity and the world of human freedom was developed by G.V.F. Hegel. In particular, in his "Phenomenology of the Spirit" (1806), a whole paragraph is devoted to the definition of the concept of "moral worldview" [see: 7, pp. 306-313]. According to Hegel, the moral worldview arises as a result of free self-consciousness, "moral consciousness in general" and it consists "in the correlation of moral in-itself and for-itself being with natural in-itself and for-itself being. This correlation is based on both the complete indifference and self-independence of nature and moral goals and activities in relation to each other, and, on the other hand, the consciousness of the sole materiality of duty and the consciousness of the complete lack of independence and insignificance of nature" ^{[7, p. 307]}. In connection with this quote, researchers rightly note the internal dialogue about the concept of worldview, which Hegel conducted on the one hand with Kant's moral philosophy, but on the other hand with the idea of Schelling's world–contemplating intelligentsia [see: 2, p. 695]. But unlike Kant's attitude to the contemplation of the empirical world, Hegel's moral worldview is quite active, since it is the continuation of human freedom, it "consciously creates its own object", and the moral worldview addresses this object quite actively: "the object does not open to it unconsciously, it everywhere acts according to some basis, based on which it establishes the objective essence; therefore, it knows the latter as itself, for it knows itself as the active one that creates it" ^{[7, p. 314]}. Here we see a departure from both the Kantian attitude towards contemplation of the world and from Schelling's thought about the intelligentsia unconsciously contemplating the world. In Hegel's interpretation, the moral worldview dialectically removes the contradiction between morality and education, and itself becomes a stage in the development of morality.

The next most important stage in the development of the concept of worldview was its psychological dimension, which was introduced by V. Diltey. However, as N.S. Plotnikov rightly noted, Dilthey's doctrine of worldviews was misinterpreted by his followers in the spirit of the "renaissance of metaphysics", while according to V. Dilthey himself, this doctrine "had an essentially anti-metaphysical impulse" [see: 8, p. 223]. Dilthey's main idea was to conduct a comparative analysis of worldviews in the history of worldviews, rather than looking for some transcendent entities: "The task of this analysis was to uncover the main cognitive fallacy of metaphysics: what metaphysics defines as a statement about reality is at best an expression of a person's attitude to reality" ^{[8, p. 223]}. However, for Dilthey, this concept remained largely unclear and contradictory. On the one hand, according to him, the worldview is rooted in life itself, which implies a genetic connection with the life experience of the bearer of the worldview. On the other hand, and Dilthey himself recognized this, the richness and infinite variety of life experience, the presence of various shades and semitones in this experience does not allow us to properly systematize this experience in the typology of worldviews, although this is exactly the task set by V. Dilthey. Dilthey chose philosophy as a starting point and on this basis identified three types of worldview, which, in fact, represent three types of philosophical orientation [9-11; for this reason, see also: 12, pp. 100 and sl.]: naturalism, pantheism (objective idealism) and subjective idealism.

There is also a methodological problem here: the assumption that the worldview is rooted in the "stock of life", and philosophical concepts are "improvised means for constructing and proving their [philosophers'] worldview", then a circle in proof turns out: to identify the ideological foundations of philosophical concepts, we turn to the analysis of the elements of their philosophy, and then the result of this analysis – we declare a certain idea of the "worldview" of a philosopher to be the basis of their philosophical system. This methodological difficulty became a "curse", which largely determined the problems of the study of worldviews for the next centuries.

An important contribution to the history of the concept of worldview was made by Max Scheler in his philosophical anthropology [see, for example: 13; see also: 14, etc.]. He sought to find an answer to the main and central question "What is man, and what position does he occupy in the hierarchy of the world system?"; it was this question that formed the vanguard of anthropological transformations of the foundations of his philosophical worldview and laid the foundation for a "new project of philosophy."

So, based on a brief digression into the two-hundred-year history of the study of the worldview, it is possible to identify the main approaches to its interpretation:

- philosophical: emphasizes the conceptual formalization of the worldview; in particular, in the "Modern Philosophical Dictionary" edited by V.E. Kemerov, the concept of worldview is defined as "a conceptually expressed system of human views on the world, on oneself and on one's place in the world. [...] Assumes the image of the "world as a whole", which is achieved when it is possible to "rise" above the ordinariness of existence and when entering the sphere of universality. That is, the worldview is metaphysical in its own way [...] The worldview is always personal, it represents a reflexive understanding of one's life, revealing the meaning of being in the world. That is, the worldview is the highest level of self–awareness of an individual" ^{[15, pp. 488-489]}. Soviet dictionaries added a class dimension to this: "a system of principles, views, values, ideals and beliefs that determine the direction of activity and attitude to reality of an individual, social group, class or society as a whole" ^{[16, p. 284]}. It is equally important in Soviet philosophy to point out the variety of sources that make up the worldview, it "consists of elements belonging to all forms of social consciousness; philosophical, scientific, political, moral and aesthetic views play an important role in it" ^{[16, p. 284]}. Among the types of worldview, mythological, religious, philosophical and scientific were usually distinguished.

- sociological: "a system of views on the world and a person's place in it, a person's attitude to the surrounding reality and to himself, as well as the basic life positions of people conditioned by these views, their ideals, beliefs, principles of cognition of their activities, value orientations" ^{[17, p. 18]};

- culturological is very close to philosophical: "the complex of a person's ideas about himself and the world, the unity of knowledge, assessment and life position (worldview), the totality of his moral, philosophical, political and other value ideas realized in human deeds and deeds" ^[18]. However, in the authoritative dictionary "Cultural Studies. XX century. Encyclopedia in two volumes" edited by S.Ya. Levit, there is no article on the worldview. There is no such article in the "Great Explanatory Dictionary of Cultural Studies" ^{[19, 20]}.

- psychological: this concept is missing in the "Psychological Dictionary" edited by V.P. Zinchenko and B.G. Meshcheryakova ^[21]. However, this does not mean at all that psychologists do not work with this concept. For example, K.G. Jung wrote about the "psychology of the Eastern worldview" ^[22]; the famous Russian psychologist G.E. Zalessky was engaged in the "psychology of the worldview" ^[23].

Such a range of meanings of the concept of worldview makes it extremely difficult to study this phenomenon, endowing it with the properties of an abstract construction, rather than a phenomenon of reality. Nevertheless, in the history of social and humanitarian knowledge, there was a quite successful precedent for the conceptualization of a worldview based on the antinomic connection of individual experience and objective reality. And it was done by the German philosopher and psychologist Karl Jaspers. It is noteworthy that the concept of worldview in Jaspers was associated with the idea of traumatism, even some pathology, since the idea of worldview as an antinomic process of reconciling individual experience with the phenomena of objective reality generates, according to Jaspers, tension from understanding this reality. This concept was developed by him in the work "Psychology of Worldviews", published in 1919. ^[24]. In itself, the worldview, Jaspers wrote, is not a mental phenomenon, but only a "prerequisite and consequence of mental existence" ^{[24, S. 141]}. In this context, a worldview is understood as "the whole set of objective content that a person possesses [...], a shell [Gehäuse], in which the mental life is partially enclosed, capable of partially creating itself from itself and placing it outside" ^{[24, S. 141]}. "When we talk about a worldview," Jaspers wrote, "we mean ideas, the last and all–encompassing for a person, both in a subjective sense – experience, energy, way of thinking, and in an objective sense – a subjectively designed world" ^{[24, S. 1]}.

And here two extremely important points stand out. First of all, the connection of Jasper's concept of worldview with the construction of ideal types by M. Weber, the presence of which Jaspers himself draws attention to in the introduction to his work ^{[24, S. 14]}. With reference to Weber, Jaspers sees the task of his research as "building types" (eine Konstruktion von Typen), rather than describing specific cases [ibid.]. Jaspers speaks in more detail about Weber's influence on his research of worldviews in his philosophical autobiography ^{[25, p. 234]}.

As Jaspers wrote, "worldview is not a sphere of existence, unlike worldview and psychological types. In itself, it (worldview) is not mental, but is a prerequisite and consequence of mental existence. It is only when absorbed by the forces of psychological types that they become elements of life. I can see all the worldviews in front of me in the form of images, think with them and at the same time exist without them. They are just content and only potency from a psychological point of view [...] By worldview we mean the whole set of objective content that a person possesses. We see a person as the center, so to speak, in the periphery of the circle: from a human point of view, in the attitudes of the mind we see functions that take over the objective, the periphery is the world of the objective, in which a person is included in the subject-object split. Or we can call the worldview a shell [Gehäuse], in which the mental life is partially enclosed, capable (shell) of partially creating itself from itself and placing it outside" ^{[24, S. 141]}. And further: "since worldviews are objectification, the creation of people, they are subjective, but provided that with each such act of creativity a person grows into a universal world developing according to his own laws, and provided that a person immediately takes possession of what he has created, any worldview is simultaneously objective" ^{[24, S. 143]}.

It is this Jasper concept of worldview that can become the starting point for the development of a methodology for the study of worldview. If we accept the Jasper concept as the initial one, then the theoretical and methodological construct of the study of worldview models will include the following concepts:

- "worldview" as a conceptually formed system of human views on the world, on oneself and on one's place in the world;

- generation is a community of people based on the collective experience of significant events, commitment to the key values of a particular period, ideologically colored symbols, collective memory, etc.;

- cognitive-value dominant is a conceptually formed value dominating in the system of human views on the world, which determines the specifics of his worldview model;

- the principle of "metacontrast" – a key principle in the theory of self-categorization ^{[26, 27]}, which allows an individual to reflect on his own generation in comparison with older generations and younger ones;

- the "worldview model" is a four–dimensional mental model of the space-time continuum internalized by an individual in the process of socialization and reflexively adapted by him to everyday interactions, determined by several key value dominants and determining an individual's understanding of his own place in the universe, his social group (generation), as well as relationships with significant others.

Schematically, a four-dimensional mental model of the space-time continuum can be represented along four key axes.

1. The social axis of relationships with others ("I-WE-THEY"). It represents the specifics of an individual's perception and understanding of his relationships with significant individuals and social groups, including family, close circle of friends, work colleagues, representatives of his ethnic group/nation, up to the ideas of the unity of all mankind. Schematically, this worldview subsystem is presented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. The social axis of relationships with others

2. The axis of relations with the universe ("I/WE/THEY are the UNIVERSE"). The second dimension of the worldview model adds a cross-section of relations with the universe of both the individual himself and other individuals significant to him, as well as social groups with nature, the cosmos, higher spiritual entities, etc. It involves not only interpretation, but also an assessment of the relationship of "I", "WE" and "THEY" with the universe, for example, whether the cosmos or Providence favors me or my social group; or why "THEY" are more fortunate than "WE" (which often becomes the basis for resentment, etc. Schematically, this subsystem is shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. The axis of relations with the universe

3. The axis of hierarchies ("I/WE/THEY ARE HIERARCHIES (POWER/ELITES/AUTHORITY)"). In this worldview subsystem, the individual's ideas and assessments of the vertical projection of socio-natural relations, including relations with power, authority, elites, etc., are localized, whatever is understood by these terms (an individual may well "dissolve" power in the universe, refusing to localize it in the human community). The world itself (cosmos) can be understood by an individual as a place where equality relations prevail or it can be represented as hierarchies. The space of interpretations is extremely large here, and it is all the more interesting to look at the connections that exist between the three described ideological subsystems. Schematically, the hierarchical dimension of the worldview is presented in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. The axis of hierarchies

4. The time axis. This measurement introduces a time variable into the worldview model. For the worldview, it is extremely important to understand the nature of time in nature and society (cyclic, linear, directional, etc.). This axis is a projection of the other three axes onto a time vector. This is schematically shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. The time axis

Actually, the model presented in Fig. 4 became working in the process of an empirical study of the worldview models of modern Russians conducted by employees of the Southern Federal University in the fall of 2023 [see: 28]. Methodologically, this study began with a series of focus groups in order to preliminarily identify the cognitive-value content of worldview models and clarify the working theoretical and methodological construct. Focus groups were conducted online in early November 2023. using Microsoft Teams software tools. Preference was given to this form of focus groups in order to ensure the participation of not only urban but also rural residents. Four focus groups were conducted with the participation of 10 to 15 people in each of the age cohorts.

The focus group scenario assumed as the main goal the identification of cognitive-value dominants (hereinafter KCD) in the consciousness of Russian society, as well as the basic ideas of Russians about their modern generations in Russia, about the specific characteristics of these generations, about the key events around which the ideological models of generations in Russia are formed according to the principle of "metacontrast" in theory self-categorization ^[27]. The realization of this goal involved solving five key tasks, which subsequently made up the five main substantive sections of the questionnaire:

- to identify the main characteristics that representatives of different generations give to their own generation, as well as other generations in modern Russia; to identify the key events around which Russians' ideas about their generation, its characteristic features and value dominants crystallize; to apply the principle of "metacontrast", inviting focus group participants to compare their generation with others. On this basis, to identify the key CDCs, with the help of which reflection on one's own generation is carried out.

- to identify key worldview variables and KCD in the self-categorization of generations along the first horizontal axis of the worldview model ("I-WE", "I-THEY", "WE-THEY");

- to identify key worldview variables and CDC in the self-categorization of generations along the second horizontal axis of the worldview model ("I am THE WORLD", "WE ARE THE WORLD", "THEY ARE THE WORLD");

- to identify key worldview variables and KCD in the self-categorization of generations along the vertical axis of the worldview model ("I am HIERARCHIES", "WE are HIERARCHIES", "THEY ARE HIERARCHIES");

- identify key worldview variables and CDC along the time axis (past, present and future for "I", "WE", "THEY").

One of the key results of the focus groups was the formulation of a matrix of generational qualities based on the principle of "metacontrast". 17 pairs of key characteristics were identified, which were preferred by the participants of the focus groups: efficiency/idleness, responsibility/irresponsibility, patience/impulsivity, activity/passivity, optimism/pessimism, conservatism/openness to new experiences, thrift/extravagance, collectivism/individualism, etc. The resulting matrix was refined and refined in accordance with the results of research by colleagues from the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (T.A. Nestik, T.V. Drobysheva, T.P. Yemelyanova, P.Y. Pisarenko, etc.), from the Levada Center [ANO "Levada Center" entered by the Ministry of Justice in the register of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent], as well as Western scientists S. Schwartz, G. Hofstede, G. Triandis, D. Rotter, etc. [29-36, 37, etc.]

In accordance with the main methodological setting of self-categorization based on the principle of "metacontrast", this matrix was used as the basis for a series of questions in the questionnaire, where respondents were asked to characterize their own generation, as well as to characterize younger and older generations than themselves.

No less important result of the focus groups were the main significant historical events for the interviewees, which, from their point of view, had the greatest impact on the formation of the worldview of their generation. Already at this stage, the most common historical events were identified, which were later confirmed in a questionnaire survey (despite the fact that the second question on this topic in the questionnaire was open and assumed that the respondents independently entered the three most significant events): - The Great Patriotic War; - the collapse of the USSR; - perestroika 1985-1991; - space exploration; - unstable 90s of the XX century; - annexation of Crimea to Russia in 2014; - pandemic of coronavirus infection COVID-19; - Special military operation of Russia in Ukraine, etc.

According to the results of the focus groups, all five blocks of the questionnaire were fully formed and clarified. The described theoretical and methodological construct for the study of worldview models was further tested on the materials of a questionnaire survey on an All-Russian representative sample (N= 1600) in eight regions of Russia: Luhansk Region (LNR), Moscow region, Novosibirsk Region, Primorsky Territory, Republic of Tatarstan, Rostov Region, Ryazan region, Sverdlovsk region.

Based on the results of the analysis of empirical material collected during the questionnaire survey (November-December 2023), it was possible to identify six basic worldview models of modern Russians associated with six main CDC (the idea of stability/instability of the world and, accordingly, its predictability; the idea of justice/injustice of the world and society; the idea of hierarchy/egalitarianism of the world and society):

1. A worldview model with a cognitive-value dominant on the stability of the world and society. It is quite expected to be combined with ideas about the hierarchy and harmony of the world, with the high value of traditions and other stabilizing social institutions. Along the "I-WE-THEY" axis, it emphasizes the strength of social ties, the attitude towards acceptance (rather than challenging social norms), moderation in relation to social changes, and often puts the interests of the community above the interests of the individual.

2. The second model is also based on the idea of the stability of the world, but combined with the idea of its injustice and some fatalism. Unlike the first model, this combination generates pessimism and a certain criticism of current social institutions and authorities, as well as claims against the world because of its injustice.

3. The third of the studied worldview model, on the contrary, proceeds from the ideas of the instability of the world, its randomness. Some paradoxical feature of this model is that under Russian cultural influence it turns into its opposite, actually merging with the first model in its specific implementation: the idea of the instability of the world generates in most respondents not liberal or even more anarchic attitudes, but the desire to reduce this instability by designing and designing their own lives, on the one hand on the one hand, and the delegation of significant powers to the authorities on the other hand. Power in this context, as well as in the first model, is considered as a single organizing principle, ordering the chaos of the universe in the institutions of social organization. And the sphere of activity of an individual remains private life, and above all, family and a close circle of friends and acquaintances, in which he can realize his life plans.

4. The fourth model is distinguished based on the respondent's positive assessment of the cognitive attitude towards the instability of the world. Instability means additional opportunities and social lifts to quickly change one's own social status. Therefore, this cognitive-value attitude is often combined with a tendency to challenge social norms, to be critical of social institutions, with a desire to resist power, with an assessment of the world as unfair.

5. Another model that emerged in the process of analyzing the worldview of the generations of modern Russia can be considered the dominant hierarchy. If in previous models this cognitive-value attitude could appear as a dependent variable, then here it is the defining and central one. There are not many unambiguous and consistent supporters of this idea in Russia, but if it begins to dominate the individual's consciousness, the hierarchy of the world is projected onto society as a whole, on the authorities, various social groups and even the family.

6. Finally, the opposite of the previous model is the model based on the dominance of the value of equality. One of the most widespread worldview models in Russian society. And not only because of the Soviet past, where the ideals of equality were fixed at the level of official ideology, but also because Soviet society was essentially the implementation of the Modern project [see, for example: 38, 39, 40, pp. 194-266, etc.], and the modern dominance of left-liberal worldview values (with emphasis based on the independence and self-worth of the human personality, its rights and freedoms, but with substantial protection of the state, etc.) was formed precisely in Soviet society [see, for example: 41]. It can be assumed that this was the main reason for the formation of the sixth worldview model of modern Russians.

Thus, based on the analysis carried out, it can be concluded that the developed theoretical and methodological construct for the study of worldview models has shown a sufficiently high heuristic potential according to the results of its operationalization in a specific sociological study has been tested for validity. Further clarification and specification of the specified construct is currently taking place within the framework of another project. But this is already the subject of other publications.