Abstract: The subject of this article is modern innovative trends occurring in the context of communication between Russian state and municipal authorities and civil society. The essence of this transformation, taking place in the conditions of the digital information society, lies in the progressive reconfiguration of the “traditional” public sphere into a digital public sphere, civil society into a digital civil society, and the usual offline dialogue between government and society into a digital online dialogue. Unfortunately, many of these changes until now remain a completely unexplored and poorly researched aspect of info-communicative reality. The main goal is to clarify the ontological foundations of both the digital transformation of the public sphere and the reconfiguration of discursive practices from offline dialogue formats of communication into a digitalized online dialogue between government and society. The main methods that the authors used when writing the article are a systems approach, a structural-functional method and discourse analysis. The result of the work done is the conclusion that the digitization of the media, the rapid development of Internet communications and the digital information society at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries allowed the public sphere to enter into the process of digital transformation. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that it specifies the infocommunication trend aimed at increasing dominance in the public sphere of digital online communications in the format of intersubjective interaction between government and society.

Abstract: The subject of the research of this article is the theoretical and methodological aspect of the transformation of dialogical interactions between government and society in the digital public sphere. The essence of this transformation, taking place in the context the digital information society, is the reconfiguration of the "traditional" public sphere into a digital public sphere, civil society into a digital civil society, the usual offline dialogue between the government and society into an intersubjective digital online dialogue. Unfortunately, many of these changes up to the present time remain completely unexplored by Russian political science and related fields and branches of socio-humanitarian knowledge. The scientific novelty of the article consist in the question of choosing the most adequate theoretical and scientific-methodological means for the study of the transformations occurring in the digital public sphere in the contest of the dialogue between government and society. The main purpose of writing this article is focused on the study and selection and choosing the most appropriate theoretical and scientific and methodological tools for the study of transformations occurring in the digital public sphere, in the dialogue between government and society, tools that make it possible to comprehend the leading transformational trends in the field of communication technologies.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the genesis phase of the dialogue between state and civil society in the sphere of public policy of modern Russia. Such dialogue initially took place on the context of social dialogue. The beginning of Perestroika in the Soviet Union created the prerequisites for genesis of the dialogue between state and civil society. Analysis of evolution of the civil society institutions and formation of innovation, and simultaneously contradictory practices of dialogue interactions in the area of public policy are in the author’s center of attention. The main conclusion lies in the empirically substantiated periodization of institutional theory of the dialogue between state and civil society. Its main stages are the following: social dialogue in Russia prior to the emergence of mature civil society; genesis phase of the dialogue between state and civil society that transformed into the stage of institutionalization. These are namely the determined by the author key stages in institutional history of the dialogue between state and civil society in the Russian Federation.

Abstract:  
The subject of this research is the institutional history of social dialogue. The author examines the key institutions of the dialogue, beginning with Ancient Rus’ and all the way until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The article indicates the main stages of evolution of the dialogue. Institutional history of the dialogue is viewed as a fight between monologism and dialogism in the field of public discourse, which affects the level of propensity towards conflict or constructivism in the context of interaction between the Russian authorities and society.  Social dialogue manifests as an imperative part of Russia’s social history. The main conclusion consists in the thesis that social dialogue played an exceptionally crucial role throughout the Russian and Soviet history. It included all of the subsequently emerged types and varieties of social dialogue, the genesis and institutionalization of which are associates with the beginning of Perestroika process.
 

Abstract: The research subject is the problem of management of the dialogic model of public relations in the sphere of political communications between state and civil society. The author considers the main clusters of dialogue, which help passing from conflict types of discourse to more constructive types of communication. Special attention is given to the topicality of this problem from the position of the Public safety doctrine (2016). Dialogic communications help make Russia’s public policy mutually beneficial. The main research methods are the system approach, discourse-analysis and social risks management. The scientific novelty of the research consists in the need for targeted management of public relations on the basis of differentiation of dialogic interactions and establishment of trust relationships between all the participants of communication. This dialogic PR-technology will help increase the level of public safety and harmonize the sphere of public policy. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the criteria and stages of the process of institutionalization of dialogue between the state and civil society. In the author’s perspective, supported by the empirical and theoretical material, such dialogue has overcome the pre-institutional and initial stages, and now remains on the state of institutionalization. However, the criteria of institutionalization, which are one of the polemical aspects, are yet to be determined. Thus, the article formulates the criteria on institutionalization of dialogue between the state and civil society, as well as determining the stage at which the process currently resides. The neo-institutional and comparative methods allow successfully resolve the set task on ranging the process of institutionalization of dialogue between the state and civil society within the public policy of modern Russia. The main conclusion consists in possibility of formulation of the objective criteria and their application towards examination of the dialogue interaction between the state and civil society. Based on the expert survey, the author underlines that institutionalization of the aforementioned dialogue is currently on the average/below average level of the institutionalization process.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the typology of dialogue between the state and civil society in the area of public policy. There is no similar classification of dialogical interactions within the modern political science. The majority of modern researchers prefer to review the dialogue between state and civil society as something integral, deprived of the inherent to it internal differentiation into typologically homogeneous, but at the same time distinct from each other groups. For the target management of communicative processes in the sphere of interaction between the state and civil society, it is extremely necessary to understand the presence of various dialogical types. In order to eliminate this objectively existing gap, the author applies an innovative to the political science methodology in form of cluster approach for extraction of the seven typological ranks of the dialogue between the state and civil society. Thus, the conclusion is made that the habitus of such dialogue represents an extensive cluster formation, which includes an entire number of normative types, subtypes (varieties), and mixed dialogues located in the continuum of public policy between two of its extremes: confrontation and partnership. Practical importance of the cluster typology of the dialogue between the state and civil society can be implemented in comparative discursive analysis, public relations, political management, applied conflictology, management of socio-communicative processes, and other fields and disciplines.

Abstract: The subject of this study is the innovative paradigm of dialogue management. The author examines the viewpoints on dialogue - dialogue as a conflict and dialogue as cooperation. Thus the idea is formed that conflict and cooperation are ambivalent clusters of dialogue. Between conflict and cooperation lie five more clusters that differ from eachother by their degree of conflict potential. Each subsequent cluster, starting with confrontational dialog, all the way to its polar opposite, is more constructive than the previous one. Thus emerges the opportunity for managing the dialogue. The basis of the methodology used in this article includes systemic and comparative methods, elements of discourse analysis and conflict management theory. The author's personal contribution to the conflict management theory is the development of the dialogue model of overcoming contradiction and conflict. This approach may be used in public politics (the dialogue between the state and the civil society, intersectoral partnership, PR and GP communications, lobbying), as well as international relations.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the multitude of dialogue formats of dialogue interactions between the state and the civil society that span across the communication and dialogue area of public policy, from confrontational dialogue all the way towards cooperation, agreement, partnership, constructive discussion. In-between conflict and cooperation, there is a multitude of types (clusters) of dialogue, the understanding of which has high praxiological value. The approach studied in this work plays an important role in communication strategies of interaction between the state and the civil society concerning political conflict resolution. For the methodological basis, the author chose cluster differentiation and the typology of dialogue interaction between the state and the civil society in public politics.
The scientific novelty of this approach to the dialogue between society and the state is that the author, for the first time in political science, attempts to view different variants (types, clusters) of their interaction. The dialogue between the state and the civil society is examined from the point of view of differentiation and potential transition between cluster types. This approach allows to manage political interactions, lowering the degree of conflictness and allowing to reach constructive interaction, cooperation and partnership.
 

Abstract: The author considers the concept "dialogue", along with political science, also in a number of interdisciplinary sciences. the author notes that dialogue, to be exact public dialogue, possesses numerous types and versions. It is noted that such specific features of "dialogue" still didn't involve a little close attention from outside of the Russian scientists-social scientists.The author notes that interdisciplinary character of an object of research, specifics of the tasks solved by this or that branch of scientific knowledge, feature of research and methodological tools, initial prerequisites and other aspects of studying of dialogue cause objectively existing diversification of the scientific paradigms inherent in this problem. Thus, at the heart of clarification of specifics and a place of dialogue of the state and civil society among other types and kinds of public dialogue, the author uses the tools inherent in a komparativny method of the analysis of political practice. Using a comparative method the author investigates political reality, seeking to unite empirical and theoretical levels of the analysis, having formulated on this basis valid judgments about the universal phenomena and interrelations in the sphere of the political relations and processes. Research of political dialogue is carried out in correlation to communicative theories of democracy. It is approved that there are two forms of dialogue: conflict and consensual. The author considers that dialogue of the state and civil society, having political lines, at the same time represents a special, most important look, the public dialogue affecting both social, and moral, both humanitarian, and the legal, and many other problems relating to the sphere of public policy.

Abstract: Logical methods of the subject - subject interaction in the political sphere in general and, in particular, in management of political PR communications, are used extremely seldom, inefficiently and carefully, with a big share of suspiciousness and mistrust to bilateral technologies of public relations. The dialogical model still is on the periphery of the theory and practice of public relations. Thus many practicians are skeptical about possibility of its institutionalization in modern Russia where at the sphere of an interaktion of the state and civil society still there are monological, propaganda, manipulative, broadcasting and asymmetric dialogue communications. From here the problem of theoretical judgment and scientific and methodological representation of dialogical model of public relations follows. In this article as an object of research the principles of dialogue in the context of dialogical model of communications of the state and civil society act.As methodology for this research are used diskursivny, institutional, comparative, system, standard and other general scientific methods. Use of this methodology allows to formulate the basic principles of PR dialogue in the sphere of political communication and public relations of the state and civil society. To a problem of dialogue of the state and civil society, its institutionalization in the sphere of public policy and public relations, it is devoted some articles written by the author of this research. However up to the present research of the principles of dialogue in the context of dialogical model of communications of the state and civil society none of the Russian and foreign authors wasn't carried out. Therefore this article fills objectively existing gap in the theory and practice of the political dialogue which is, in turn, an object of research of modern political science. 
 

Abstract: The institutionalism is now one of the leading directions of scientific thought which unites the scientists studying practically any system (state and legal, economic, sociological, political, etc.) in development, in interaction with social, political, legal, psychological and other public institutes. The perspective of formation of institutional mechanisms of dialogue communication of the state and civil society is based on the theory and practice of their interaction as institutes and is considered within interdisciplinary approaches in the sphere of political science, sociology, social philosophy, political science and the right, political linguistics (lingvopolitologiya), kommunikavistika, conflictology, social psychology, cultural science, a mediyevistika, social management, a piarologiya and so on. At the same time, in modern social sciences there is quite motley picture in definition of basic fundamental concepts of the institutional theory, including even such concepts as "institute" and "institutionalization". Relying on mezhdistsiplinargy methodology and an institutional method of research, we set a research problem of a problem of a nstitutsionalization of dialogue of the state and civil society in the context of standard model of dialogical democracy. In political science and sciences and disciplines, adjacent to it, there is a huge number of works how there are institutes as they function as they keep stability as are transformed and, at last, as they deinstitutsionalizirutsya, die away and disappear. This circumstance induces to investigate in more detail both process of an institutionalization in general, and conditions, factors and prospects of an institutionalization of dialogue of the state and civil society in the context of dialogical (diskursivny, deliberativny) standard model of democracy. In this article, continuing a series of articles about a dialogue institutionalization, for the first time brings up a question of dialogical democracy.

Abstract: In article it is told about need of an institutionalization of dialogue of the state and civil society. Thus the author relies not only on theoretical judgment of this problem, but also on the basis of the komparativny analysis addresses to experience of modern France and an institutionalization of public debate in this country. Unlike the concept "dialogue of the state and civil society" of France the concept of "public debate" which are institutionalized in public policy by a number of laws and regulations is used. Unlike France, the institutionalization of dialogue of the state and civil society is in public policy of modern Russia at the initial stage. Development and acceptance of the corresponding legislative and legal base is necessary for giving to this process of bigger dynamics. The term "institutionalization" in political science is considered doubly: first, as establishment, creation, formation of new institutes; secondly, as fixing, rooting and stabilization of already existing institutes. It means that the institutionalization is treated at the same time both as establishment, and as rooting of institutes [3]. The village of Huntington of which in the western literature quite often call "father" of concept of an institutionalization, belongs its classical definition: "The institutionalizing is a process by means of which the organizations and procedures get the value and stability" [13, page 32]. On the Village of Handington, "institutes are steady, significant and reproduced forms of behavior [13, page 32]. Thus institutes it not only the organizations, but also "procedures which can possess various level of an institutionalization" [13, page 32]. In order that level of an institutionalization was considered high, in society stability, repeatability, and the importance have to take shape of behavior of people. Proceeding from it, the institutionalization can be considered as process or, more precisely, set of the processes, proceeding during a certain interval of time and society expressing these or those requirements [4].Necessary condition of typification or process of emergence of institutes is the habitualization [1, page 32 page]. Habitualization, that is an oprivychnivaniye (from English Habitual, an oprivychnivaniye) precedes emergence of institute, but typification is the beginning of emergence of new institute. Thus the institute is defined by P. Berger and T. Lukman as "mutual typification of customary actions"

Abstract: The article tells about the difference between deliberative democracy model of electoral and liberal democracy, and its proximity to the representative democracy and participatory democracy. We consider the origin of concepts "deliberative democracy" and "deliberative politics", their semantic, semantic and epistemologichesie shades. In this case, the author describes the deliberative model of democracy even as an institutionalized dialogue between the government and society, the state and civil society. The role and value of deliberative process, the exchange of ideas, views, opinions, including dialogue in the formulation and adoption of a reasoned and balanced political solution. This procedure allows to legitimize this discourse-communicative process. Provides views of deliberative politics by different authors, with a focus on political philosophy S.Benhabib that deliberative process links to the procedure of legitimizing decisions. In conclusion, we consider the problem of the relevance of deliberative democracy for Russia.

Abstract: This article describes the process of transformation of definitions of 'dialogue' anda new term 'negotiations'. In this regard, the dialogue between the state institution and civil society in modern Russia is viewed as a negotiation process. At the same time, these terms are not only similar but also different in some way. Political negotiations and the dialogue between the state institution and and civil society have a significant impact on the political language and political practice of modern Russia .

Abstract: This article describes the establishment of institutional structured civil dialogue between the EU institutions and civil society at the European, national and local levels. This process is seen as part of the legimization of the emerging political system of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty. The process of institutionalization of civil dialogue in the EU is compared with the process of dialogization of the interaction between state and civil society in modern Russia. 

Abstract: The present article describes the process of institutionalization of the dialogue between the state institution and civil society in modern  Russia. The emphasis is made on the theoretical and methodological basis of institutionalization of the dialogue-oriented interaction between the state institution and civil society. Dialogue between the state institution and civil society in modern Russia is compared to the civil dialogue in the EU. The author of the article also describes the mechanisms of feedback in the process of communication between the government and society.
 
 

Abstract: The article describes the communicative philosophy and dialogics of Jurgen Habermas. The author of the article defines Jurgen Habermas' dialogics as the intention to overcome conflicts, aggression and contradictions in the form of discussion, i.e. not by force but by the means of rhetorical persuasion, argument and influence through dialogue that allows to reach mutual understanding and consensual approval of certain rules or regulation. 

Abstract: The article deals with the institutionalization of dialogue between the state and civil society in contemporary Russia in terms of structural and functional methodology. During the presentation of the material shows the structure of the dialogue, its actors, the elements that stage of the flow, level, as well as basic functions of Institutional dialogue between the state and civil society.Keywords: dialogue, the government, civil society, structural functionalism, the institutionalization.The institutionalization of the dialogue in Russia compared to the institutionalization of civil dialogue in the EU.

Abstract: This article examines the institutionalization of civil dialogue in the EU, regarding its constitutional law and political aspects. Despite not having an established definition, Civil dialogue is perceived as one of the most important tools of democratic participation and dialogue in the EU. The article describes the main forms of civil dialogue and explains the role of civil society in transnational processes of integration in the EU. Those communicatory and integration processes of the EU are viewed side by side with the dialogue between the state and the civil society in Russian Federation and other Eurasian post-Soviet countries.

Abstract: The article tells about the differences that exist between lingvopolitical and political-linguistic approaches to political communication and political dialogue. Political linguistics view political communication as a struggle for power, influence and mind control and actually exclude interaction between the government and society. This approach is opposed to the lingvopolitical point of view according to which modern political communication is based not on the subject-object relation but on the subject - subject interaction, i.e. the dialogue between the goverment and civil society.