Section introduction. On May 23–24, 2024, the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society” took place at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the Institute of Philosophy of RAS, and the Institute of Psychology of RAS in Moscow. The conference was dedicated to the 300^th anniversary of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The collection of articles presented in this issue includes contributions specifically from the fields of social philosophy and sociology.

Section introduction. The Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences presents to its readers a selection of articles addressing the issues of intersubjective relations through the lens of mediative thinking. The thematic focus of the articles is inspired by the agenda of the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society,” held on May 23–24, 2024. However, the contributors to this journal issue are not limited to the participants of that conference. The primary goal of the research program, whose outcomes will be featured in this and upcoming issues of the journal, is to explore mediation as a precondition for dialogue, as well as dialogue itself as a mediative process. The authors examine individualization and collectivism in contemporary Russian society, focusing on their transformations, the extent of their mutual integration, and their complementarity in intersubjective relations. Special attention is given to the dialogue between collectivism and individualism, which gives rise to socio-individual forms. Through dialogue, the epistemological foundations and the current degree of synthesis between the individual and the collective are revealed. The Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences invites collaboration from philosophers, sociologists, economists, psychologists, and legal scholars who share the research aims of this project. It is through the convergence of various scientific disciplines and approaches that we may arrive at the forms of socio-individuality that will enable the self-realization of individuals as agents of social development.

The article examines the processes of individualization in relation to the emergence and existence of various forms of collectivity. It analyzes the complexities of this process, which, while a necessary characteristic of modern society, can lead to atomization, frustration, and loss of meaning in life. Particular attention is paid to the nature of individualization: on one hand, it presupposes the uniqueness of each individual; on the other, it is inextricably linked to an individual’s association with certain collectives and the internalization of supra-individual values. The article asserts that new forms of collectivity are emerging in the modern era that, rather than suppressing individuality, foster creative self-realization. The research explores issues of depersonalization and pseudo-collectivity, as well as the interplay between freedom and responsibility in the context of global digitalization. The author elucidates the dangers associated with the virtualization of personality, the erosion of boundaries between private and public spheres, and the potential for total control over individuals. Contemporary forms of virtual individualization, while creating an illusion of freedom, may in fact lead to a loss of personal individuality. The article further explores the impact of digital technologies on the transformation and evolution of both individual and collective memory, as well as their role in shaping identity. It underscores that digitalization not only offers new opportunities but also poses significant anthropological challenges. Dialogue is examined as a means of resolving conflicts and facilitating both individual and collective self-realization. The author contrasts M.M. Bakhtin’s dialogical approach with J.-P. Sartre’s existentialist interpretation of the relationship between the Self and the Other. It is emphasized that genuine dialogue requires mutual recognition and respect among participants, a shared space for communication, and a willingness to reconsider one’s own position. In conclusion, the study posits that addressing many of the problems generated by modern processes of individualization and collectivization in the age of global digitalization necessitates the creation of conditions conducive to interpersonal, intergroup, and intercultural dialogue.

The article examines negotiations as dialogues concerning conflicting interests among participants. It argues that negotiations represent the primary and most socially significant type of dialogue. This is evidenced by the disproportionate volume of research dedicated to negotiations compared to other forms of dialogue, as well as the multidisciplinary approach to their study. The purpose of the article is to investigate negotiations through the lens of epistemology, one of the disciplines involved in their analysis. The author contends that negotiations are epistemological processes governed by epistemological principles. To elucidate these principles, the article explicates key categories serving as research instruments, primarily focusing on the concepts of “negotiation” and “interest.” The relationship between “interest” and related concepts such as “desire,” “need,” and “benefit” is explored. There are two types of dialogue: those concerning the veracity of descriptions and those focused on the rationality of prescriptions. The article elucidates the distinct nature of negotiations as dialogues about prescriptions. The article also underscores the importance of the categories of “research” and “communication” in understanding the nature of negotiations. Since negotiations are fundamentally a form of communication, the examination of conflicting interests and the search for solutions to these conflicts do not fall within the negotiation process itself. These tasks are addressed prior to negotiations, during the research phase. The purpose of negotiations is to discuss and either accept or reject the outcomes of these preliminary investigations, particularly pre-drafted agreements on resolving conflicts of interest. Based on this framework, the article explores the epistemological mechanisms underlying negotiations related to the division, consolidation, and exchange of benefits. Additionally, the Harvard Negotiation Program, which seeks to transform negotiations from a confrontation of positions into a collaborative search for a shared solution, is subjected to epistemological analysis. The role of empathy in facilitating this transformation is also discussed. In conclusion, it is argued that an epistemological analysis of negotiations not only deepens our understanding of their nature as a distinct form of communication but also offers tools for enhancing negotiation practices, promoting the resolution of conflicts of divergent interests in various social conflicts without resorting to physical confrontation.

The article presents the results of the initial stage of a systemic-dialectical problematization of dialogue. The study aims to establish a transdisciplinary theoretical and cognitive model of dialogue. The research addresses the problem of rethinking the conceptual framework of dialogue and the attribution of its special forms due to the inclusion of artificial intelligence in the communicative architectonics of post-culture. The primary focus is on the applicability of philosophical ideas about dialogue and its epistemology in exploring the essence and existence of dialogue within the context of technologically updated intersubjectivity. By juxtaposing the concepts of M. Buber, M.M. Bakhtin, V.S. Bibler, J. Lotman, N. Luhmann, J. Habermas, and other scholars, the article outlines the contours of areas that have not yet been problematized in philosophical interpretations of dialogue and communication. A hypothesis is proposed that dialogue may be conceptualized as a post-non-classical universal of a distinct nature. The research substantiates the efficacy of employing a systemic approach and dialectical methodology for the problematization of dialogue in epistemological and methodological aspects. The study identifies categories and concepts germane to dialogue analysis. It elucidates the transformations of dialogue into dialogue systems, the subject into a dialogue agent, and meaning-constitution into meaning-construction. Furthermore, the research posits a qualitative shift in dialogue within the context of artificially intelligent communication in media reality. It reveals that the comprehension of these processes in philosophical and scientific knowledge about dialogue creates a new epistemological situation that can be problematized. This, in turn, necessitates a robust theoretical and methodological problematization grounded in a systemic-dialectical approach, facilitating reflection on both the content of dialogue-related knowledge and its research methodology, as well as on dialogue itself, which ceases to be a phenomenon of purely human communication.

The article examines the efficacy of social dialogue as a mechanism for addressing societal issues. While social dialogue was once viewed with great optimism, its effectiveness has waned in recent years, despite participants employing various persuasive strategies. The study distinguishes between two forms of dialogue: formal and substantive (productive), emphasizing that only the latter genuinely catalyzes shifts in participants’ perspectives. By analyzing historical examples and contemporary cases, the study identifies key factors that influence the success of social communication. Employing J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, the article frames dialogue not merely as an exchange of information but as a form of social action, where the utterances of participants are performative, possessing the power to directly transform social reality. A historical case study is presented, examining the dialogue between Western-oriented Russian liberals who viewed their nation as socially and economically backward, and thinkers who challenged this assessment, perceiving Russia’s unique spiritual potential to address pan-European challenges. The statements of P.Ya. Chaadaev and F.M. Dostoevsky are analyzed as performative acts that shaped a new vision of Russia’s role in world history. Additionally, the author explores the role of identity in social dialogue, showing through examples from the lives of A.S. Pushkin and M.I. Tsvetaeva how identity structures can influence one’s openness or resistance to personal transformation in the face of internal conflict. The study hypothesizes that dialogue effectiveness correlates with participants’ ability to integrate new values into their identity without compromising its core. Furthermore, the author argues that rhetorical commitment to mediation alone is insufficient for bridging deep social divides and examines the historical social conditions required for effective mediation, such as a shared cultural foundations, formal dialogue platforms, robust legal frameworks, and flexible power structures. In conclusion, the author considers the question of whether it is inherently possible to create effective mechanisms for social dialogue under the current conditions of globalization and information society.

The article explores the concepts of individualism and collectivism through the lens of fundamental transformations occurring within the individual as a subject of social action. The author introduces an original framework conceptualizing social action as a dichotomous unity of freedom and algorithm, or free and algorithmized action. Within this paradigm, the subject of social action is understood as a synthesis of actor (acting subject) and agent (subject-function). The unfolding and resolution of this contradiction manifest differently in Western and Russian contexts, which are analyzed as two distinct versions of modernity, differentiated by the degree of market relation development. It is demonstrated that technological development within market conditions engenders a technological system that colonizes society holistically, including its cultural sphere. Free action is replaced by algorithmized action, leading to the displacement of the actor by the subject-function. Consequently, the individual is reduced to a functional element of the technological system, transformed into an atomized unit capable of equally executing programs of individualism or collectivism. In contrast, Russian (Soviet) modernity, characterized by a limited market, exhibits a reverse colonization, or symbiosis, between culture and system, which preserves a space for free action and the actor. Under these circumstances, the dialectic of individualism and collectivism becomes a nuanced process, potentially encompassing individualists oriented toward the common good. Collectivist orientations emphasize alignment with a “good collective” and the value of friendship. Contemporary trends are marked by contradictions, as the expansion of the technological system coexists with the persistence of individualism and collectivism rooted in Russian (Soviet) modernity. The article concludes by suggesting that the Russian experience of modernization offers valuable insights into achieving a balance between individualism and collectivism, algorithm and freedom, technological development and the preservation of human individuality under current conditions of global transformations.

The article explores the phenomenon of polysubjectivity as a factor of social development from the perspective of post-non-classical scientific methodology. The author proposes conceptualizing polysubjectivity (multiple subjectivity) as a category describing the multifaceted nature, diversity, and dynamics of the social environment. This environment is formed through the dialogue of managed subjects who are bearers of diverse value-goal structures, possess certain resources, and are interconnected with other subjects of social action. Attention is drawn to the dual nature of poly-subjectivity. On one hand, it is viewed as the subjectivity of multiple individuals and social groups united within a localized social environment, for example, in the context of interactions between government and business, authorities and the population, or the federal center and regions. On the other hand, polysubjectivity is interpreted as the multifaceted and plural subjectivity of an individual. The author draws upon the methodology for analyzing sociocultural modernization of regions (N.I. Lapin), the activity-structural paradigm (A.V. Tikhonov), concepts of mediation and sociocultural dialogue (A.S. Akhiezer, A.P. Davydov), and the subject-oriented approach in social systems management (V.E. Lepskiy). Special attention is given to the role of the polysubjective approach in the context of differentiation among Russian regions and the implementation of their socio-economic development strategies. The article argues that the objective complexity of the Russian Federation's regional composition and the unevenness of modernization necessitate a polysubjective approach to structuring relations between the center and regions. Invoking W.R. Ashby’s law of requisite variety, it is demonstrated that effective management of regional system diversity requires a corresponding diversity of management approaches at the central level. Barriers to the formation of polysubjectivity are analyzed, particularly the absence of genuine dialogue between the center and regions. The conclusion posits that polysubjectivity can serve as a key characteristic of a certain stage in the institutionalization of post-industrial type management and as a form of interaction that ensures an adequate measure of collaboration among representatives of government, business, science, and various communities.

The article examines the challenge of achieving sustainable mediational equilibrium within the Self–Other relationship. It argues that the mere pursuit of mutual understanding among dialogue participants is insufficient to guarantee productive communication, particularly in contexts where interactions are driven by competition for scarce resources and opportunities. Under such conditions, subjects risk becoming dependent on instrumental reason – the logic of control and suppression – which transforms both the Self and the Other from fully-fledged personalities into functions of reified rationality. The analysis introduces a distinction between two roles of the individual: the person as a bearer of unique values and meanings, and the individual as a subject of social relations, an actor immersed in practical interactions. It is demonstrated that the capacity of the former to exert control over the latter is limited, and that interactions are shaped not only by the personal qualities of the participants but also by the impersonal logic of instrumental reason. This logic is conceptualized as a kind of third subjectivity that mediates the dialogue between the Self and the Other. Achieving mediational equilibrium becomes possible through the development of autonomy among the parties, through their transformation, mutual recognition, and the search for a measure of compatibility. This approach is traced through examples from A.S. Akhiezer’s theory of sociocultural mediation, A.P. Davydov’s concept of inter-subjective dialogue, and R. Bush and J. Folger’s theory of transformative mediation. Key concepts in the latter include empowerment (strengthening participants’ ability to clearly recognize their goals and make responsible decisions) and recognition (willingness to hear and understand the Other’s perspective). The essence of transformative mediation lies in the transition from imposing one party’s position to a collaborative search for new possibilities, allowing the realization of both Self and Other’s interests through dialogue. In conclusion, the article asserts the importance of overcoming the logic of mutual accusations by shifting the focus from the opponent’s personality to the impersonal structures limiting the self-determination of all parties.

The article investigates the mechanisms shaping a new quality of social development in contemporary Russia amidst growing societal challenges. Four key mechanisms are explored: mediation, social dialogue, polysubjectivity, and convergence. These are analyzed for their role in fostering novel forms of social integration and development. The mechanisms serve as tools for studying and shaping the current interplay between tradition and innovation, cultural stasis and social dynamics across various sociocultural contexts and transitional processes. The paper draws upon works presented at the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society,” offering an original interpretation that synthesizes and structures these studies. Notable contributions include V.A. Lektorsky’s concept of “the supra-individual as social universality,” which advances our understanding of socio-individual meaning formation and transcends the individual-society dichotomy. A.A. Auzan’s analysis of the dual-core structure of Russian culture aptly captures the unique challenges of social development in Russia. O.V. Aksenova’s examination of the contradictory nature of social action subjects in an increasingly technologized society illuminates the complexities of balancing freedom with necessity, and uniformity with diversity in social action. V.M. Rozin’s approach is considered for its potential to facilitate mediational social dialogue in Russian society. The author argues that neither the individualistic nor the collectivist cores of Russian culture can independently drive effective modernization. Instead, the concept of convergence is proposed as a means to transcend the extremes of ego-individualism and totalitarian collectivism. Three primary directions for implementing convergent strategies are identified: synthesizing individual and social aspects in social action and dialogue, optimizing center-periphery interactions in governance, and developing public-private partnership models as a form of economic convergence. The study emphasizes the need for new forms of social integration and concludes that Russia’s sustainable social development requires an integrative socio-individual model, combining elements of individual freedom and collective solidarity.