Zaitsev Dmitrij Viktorovich, Doctor of sociological sciences, professor, sub-department of psychology and applied social sciences, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov (77 Politechnicheskaya street, Saratov, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Dylnova Zoya Mikhaylovna, Doctor of sociological sciences, рrofessor, sub-department of regional sociology, Saratov National Research State University named after N. G. Chernyshevsky (83 Astrakhanskaya street, Saratov, Russia), email@example.com
Selivanova Yuliya Viktorovna, Doctor of sociological sciences, рrofessor, head of sub-department of correctional pedagogy, Saratov National Research State University named after N. G. Chernyshevsky (83 Astrakhanskaya street, Saratov, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. The article is devoted to sociological analysis and sociological conceptualization of the phenomenon of social cohesion. Social cohesion is seen as immanent, terminal value, which is caused, in some cases, by the inability to individual, for a comprehensive study of the formation of this phenomenon as a social concept.
Materials and methods. The novelty of the research approach is determined by the author’s methodology, the original interpretation of the conceptual foundations of social cohesion, scientific substantiation of factors, conditions, principles of its formation, introduction into scientific use of a new concept of “social cohesion policy”.In the sociological study if the phenomenon the mix-strategy appears to be quite productive, which is a set of empirical methods presented by a secondary analysis, interviews and a questionnaire.
Results. The level of social cohesion is not constant and varies depending on the determining of its conditions and factors, and the goal of its formation can be both positive and negative. On the basis of structural functionalism and the conflictological paradigm the article reveals the structure of the formation of social cohesion, stages and features of social construction of mechanisms of the genesis of socialintegration and inclusive practices in the aspect of social inequality prevention.
Сonclusions. The results of the secondary analysis of empirical data allowed the interdisciplinary research to design a critical image of the modern social policy implemented by the authorities and yet providing no improvement to the level of solidarity of the Russian society. The priority role in achieving social cohesion, management of this process and its regulation is given to the state.
1. Konkolevski Kh. Sotsial'noe obespechenie – sodeystvie sotsial'noy splochennosti i rostu ekonomiki [Social welfare – assistance to social cohesion and economic growth]. Available at: http://www.gfss.kz/ru/Konferenciya/Tezisy_i_Doklady/interview/Hans-Horst Konkolewsky.php
2. Galabuzi G., Teelucksingh Ch. Social cohesion, Social exclusion, Social capital. Toronto: Region of Peel, 2010, 150 p.
3. Nikolaeva U., Pokrovskiy N., Kozlova M., Yarskaya-Smirnova E., Gofman A., Lazebnaya K. Sotsial'no-kul'turnye praktiki splochennosti v sovremennykh obshchestvakh [Sociocultural practices of cohesion in modern societies]. Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga, 2015, 372 p.
4. Pavlenok P. Otechestvennyy zhurnal sotsial'noy raboty [Russian journal of social work]. 2010, no. 1, pp. 8–12.
5. Yarskaya V., Yarskaya-Smirnova E. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial'noy antropologii [The journal of sociology and social anthropology]. 2014, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 41–61.
6. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya: khrestomatiya [Social psychology: reader]. Compl. by E. Belinskaya, O. Tikhomandritskaya. Moscow: Aspekt-press, 2003, 475 p.
7. Zaytsev D. V., Korogodova N. P. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial'noekonomicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Saratov State Socioeconomic University]. 2015, no. 5 (59), pp. 205–208.
8. Omariba W., Stanley D. Development and change. 1996, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 108–127.
9. Chan J. et. al. Social Indicators Research. 2006, January, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 216–231.
10. Merton R. Sotsial'naya teoriya i sotsial'naya struktura [Social theory and social structure]. Moscow: AST, 2006, 873 p.
11. Goncharenko O. Vlast' [Power]. 2008, no. 2, pp. 79–90.
12. Andreenkova A. Institut sravnitel'nykh sotsial'nykh issledovaniy «CESSI». [The Institute of Comparative Social Research “CESSI”]. Available at: http://www.cessi.ru/ index.php?id=171/
13. Kosharnaya G. Vlast' [Power]. 2015, no. 9, pp. 125–129.
14. Rosstat. Neravenstvo i bednost' [Russian Statistical Agency. Inequality and poverty]. Available at: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/ population/poverty/
15. Stepanov G. Novye izvestiya [New proceedings]. Available at: http://www.newizv.ru/ economics/2015-04-16/215017-srednego-ne-dano.html
16. Lapin N. Nezavisimaya gazeta [The Independent Newspaper]. 2016, 2 October. Available at: http://www.ssa-rss.ru/files/File/Conference/VSK-V/Navstrechu%20VSK-V/ Lapin%20statya%10.02.2016.pdf
17. Svanidze N. Argumenty i fakty [Arguments and facts]. 2011, 2 November, p. 9.