Section introduction. This journal issue presents a third collection of articles from participants of Section 4, “Problems of Mediation and Dialogue,” at the All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society,” held at the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, May 24, 2024). The first and second collections appeared in issues 2 and 3, respectively, of the Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences (Vol. 67). The present works address the challenge posed during the section meeting: to contribute to the study of mediatory processes antecedent to dialogue and to the scholarly elaboration of the preconditions and foundations for dialogue among subjects whose interests are divergent, overlapping, or fully aligned. Naturally, by focusing on the relationship between Self and Other, we operate within the non-classical Self–Other framework, extending the mediatory analyses of M. Foucault, Z. Bauman, A. Giddens, B. Latour, and N. Luhmann, and drawing inspiration from Confucius's concept of the Middle Way. We term our research approach “mediatory thinking,” an inquiry into the interpolar middle ground, or mediation itself. In attempting to articulate the social content of this middle ground, we draw upon recent advancements across diverse disciplines, including economics, sociology, political science, theology, philosophy, and the field of artificial intelligence.

The article discusses the influence of collectivism and individualism as cultural and value characteristics on the country’s institutional system. Studies of sociocultural specifics at the regional level demonstrate the presence of two distinct cultural cores in Russia: individualistic Russia (I-Russia), which includes metropolitan areas, the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East, and collectivist Russia (C-Russia), covering the remaining territories of the country. Adherence to different cultural models creates certain challenges for institutional building. I-Russia generates demand for institutions of democracy and free enterprise, while C-Russia is oriented toward institutions of social protection and state support. The contradictory nature of these demands leads to the formation of a weak institutional environment and the need for manual control by the authorities. However, both cultural cores can contribute to modernization processes given mediation and dialogue between them. As a solution to the problem of cultural division, the concept of three D’s (3D) is proposed: development of long-term perspective, development of social trust, and development of consensus-building capability. Special attention is paid to developing a long-term vision as a foundation for building trust and the capacity to reach agreements. The 3D system aims to bridge the gap between cultural cores by establishing effective dialogue between holders of different value systems, which should contribute to the formation of collaborative institutions ensuring sustainable social and economic development.

The article explores the essence of cooperation philosophy as an alternative to competitive mechanisms of social interaction. The author presents arguments concerning the potential widespread adoption of this new philosophical approach to institutional design, analyzing their validity and feasibility. The philosophical foundation of this new methodology is explored through the lens of dialectical unity between two aspects of human behavior: cooperation within social groups to ensure effective competition with other groups. The biological basis of cooperation is examined within the framework of contemporary multilevel selection theory, demonstrating that cooperative and competitive traits are typically distributed across different social levels, with their proportions fluctuating continuously during adaptation to changing conditions. The article proposes a simple theoretical framework for describing the phenomenon of cooperation, based on the hypothesis that the level of consensus in decision-making depends on the aggressiveness of social group members, which is determined by both ecological environment (external condition) and cultural attitudes (internal condition). The author discusses the prospects for the widespread implementation of the philosophy of cooperation in institutional design in the modern world. Through the analysis of anthropological data, it is shown that sustained peace among different nations and cultures is not a natural phenomenon and requires deliberate efforts to overcome inherent behavioral patterns. The possibility of cultivating a new worldview based on the philosophy of cooperation is substantiated through the integration of appropriate cultural attitudes. The conclusion drawn is that, in the near term, the widespread adoption of this model appears unlikely due to escalating geopolitical tensions and deteriorating living conditions, which lead to increased societal aggression. However, achieving this objective is feasible in the long term, allowing sufficient time for changes in the biological nature of humans.

The current phase of socio-economic development, characterized by accelerated scientific and technological change, urgently raises the question of balancing three crucial components: technological, institutional, and cultural. In this context, comprehensive studies of societal processes are particularly relevant, especially focusing on their primary subject – the individual – and identifying the optimal interplay between individualistic and socially oriented aspirations that can mitigate crises arising from imbalances between technological advancement and human values. As Academician V.M. Polterovich argues, attempts to develop a generalized theory of socio-economic development based on monocausal frameworks have proven inadequate. The article explores various interdisciplinary theoretical approaches to address this challenge. It analyzes the framework developed by D. North, J. Wallis, and B. Weingast, which emphasizes the significant role of culture and values in shaping societal institutional structures. Attention is also given to V.M. Polterovich’s theory advocating a transition from a philosophy of competition to a philosophy of cooperation, which posits the reconciliation of individual interests with collective goals. The sociological research of V.S. Magun and M.G. Rudnev, which identifies a population segment embracing “growth values” that combine individualistic aspirations with social responsibility, is given significant attention. Furthermore, the article considers the theory of economic synergetics proposed by L.P. and R.N. Evstigneev, which offers a reinterpretation of traditional economic categories by incorporating anthropological, value-based, and sociocultural factors. The Evstigneevs’ concept aims to transcend the dichotomy between state and market by viewing them as components of a broader societal system comprising numerous interacting agents at different levels, united by a communicative space of development. We conclude that successful social transformations hinge on achieving a balance between technological progress and sociocultural development, which, in turn, requires the formation of new types of social bonds and communicative spaces, and the cultivation of a mediation mindset.

The article addresses the issue of conceptualizing social dialogue as both a mechanism of interaction among various social actors and as an instrument of social development. While social dialogue was initially associated with labor relations, contemporary social changes necessitate expanding its scope and institutionalization. The paper presents the philosophical foundations of dialogue, which establish the groundwork for understanding it as a means of achieving mutual understanding and creating new meanings. Organizational dialogue theories offer specific strategies and methodologies for conducting effective dialogue. The authors also explore deliberative governance and deliberative democracy approaches, enabling the comprehension of dialogue within a broader political and social context. Analysis of key conceptualization issues in social dialogue requires defining its participants, objectives, subject matter, and conditions for effectiveness. Various types of social dialogue are identified and analyzed, including transformational, consensus-based, cognitive-innovative, and monitoring dialogues. Each type is examined in terms of its potential and limitations in addressing different social challenges. The article also raises questions about the boundaries of the applicability of dialogical approaches and their relationship with other forms of social interaction and governance. The authors discuss the demarcation between the realm of social dialogue and administrative management, as well as the integration of dialogical processes into existing managerial structures. Issues regarding the role of the state in social dialogue and the balance between formal and informal dialogue mechanisms are also considered. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the study of social dialogue, arguing that it can serve as a powerful tool for bridging the gap between individual aspirations and collective interests, thereby fostering socio-individual convergence.

The article discusses the role of social dialogue in Russia as an instrument of institutional governance in social development. The author analyzes the distinctive features of social dialogue as a unique social institution with transformative potential for overcoming societal fragmentation and polarization. The search for adequate forms of social participation becomes particularly acute in light of the growing threat of sociocultural divisions between modernization-oriented and traditionalist analytical frameworks of social development. The study explores two main aspects of the functioning of social dialogue: its role in securing public support for governmental programs and in forming effective mechanisms for social participation within the system of relations between the federal center and the regions. Social dialogue in the “center – regions” system emerges when the negotiation process involves not only governmental (authority) structures but also public representatives. Citizen participation in negotiations represents a specific form of self-determination by population segments either supporting or opposing particular joint project between the center and the region. The absence of comprehensive social dialogue may lead to significant challenges in implementing state programs, while its proper organization enhances their effectiveness. The author provides an example of unifying mechanisms for implementing the principle of social participation through the formation of a poly-subject interaction environment and the “assembly of subjects” (V.E. Lepsky’s term) in regional development. The article concludes that the institutionalization of social dialogue facilitates the transfer of certain rights and resources from the center to the regions in managing socio-economic processes, promotes the development of flexibility and adaptability in dialogical practices while simultaneously abandoning the rigid command-administrative management model, and strengthens partnership interactions among participants in social development.

The article discusses scholarly foundations of social dialogue as a mediative process and as a mode of interaction between the individual and the collective. The author justifies the transition from dualistic to ternary thinking, emphasizing the necessity of a new dominance based on the interaction between the Self and the Other. Classical philosophical ideas from the European Enlightenment and Romanticism gradually lose their relevance, giving way to alternative concepts that advocate a mediative approach to understanding social processes. Central to this research is an analysis and sociological reconstruction of V.A. Lektorsky’s philosophical paradox: the more universal the character of an individual’s activity, the more personally individual it becomes. The author explores the psychological and sociological ontogeny of this paradox, demonstrating its significance for comprehending contemporary social processes. Special attention is given to the concept of a mediative middle as a space for the interpenetration of the individual and the collective, wherein a new type of subjectivity is formed. The article illustrates how mediation mechanisms can overcome sociocultural divides and foster productive social dialogue. It addresses the challenge of finding the appropriate balance of shared understanding in social partnerships as a methodological tool for contemporary social theory. The author introduces the notion of the “non-classical deliberative Self,” contrasting it with traditional syncretic meanings and status roles. A concept of polysubjective partnership “I/We” is proposed, founded on the synthesis of the the socio-individual through personal-individual meanings and the individually-personal content of societal activity. The conclusion formulates the condition for such polysubjective partnership: the more societal activity aligns with individual personal interests, the more this activity becomes personally socio-individual.

The article dicusses the theologico-political relationship in modern liberal democracies. The author contrasts two approaches to understanding the relationship between religion and politics: political religion, which strives for complete coincidence of religious and political spheres, and the theology of the political, based on the principle of their de-coincidence. Exploring the historical evolution of these relations from Antiquity through medieval Christianity to modernity, the author demonstrates how Christianity first introduced the principle of de-coincidence between theological and political dimensions, which was subsequently lost in the modern era. Special attention is paid to analyzing the works of modern philosophers (Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau) who laid the foundations for the contemporary understanding of relations between religion and politics. The central thesis of the article is that modern liberal democracies suffer from the absence of a legitimate form of relationship between religious and political dimensions. The author proposes the concept of “theology of the political,” based on the principle of de-coincidence, as a way to overcome this crisis. This approach allows avoiding both complete separation of religious and political spheres and their merger in the form of civil religion. The article argues that the legitimacy of theological discourse in the public sphere should be based not on the external authority of religious dogma, but on theology’s ability to create space for critical reflection on political order and social norms. This is particularly important in the context of contemporary challenges such as the migration crisis, bioethical debates, multiculturalism, and religious pluralism. The author concludes that overcoming the current crisis of liberal democracies requires revisiting both the principles of modernity and the role of religion in the public sphere. The author concludes that genuine autonomy of the political subject paradoxically requires recognition of its fundamental non-autonomy, which constitutes the essence of the democratic paradox most fully expressed in the Christian tradition.

The International Conference on Modern Education Development (ICMED’2025) “Education of the Future and the Future of Education” invites scholars, government officials, staff members of educational and research institutions, and students who are interested in developing scientific methodologies for shaping the future of education.
The development of future education represents a fundamental contemporary challenge, one that directly impacts the welfare of nations, societies, and individuals. ICMED’2025 will bring together experts from diverse fields of knowledge to conceptualize and formulate visions of future education. The Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences serves as the conference’s media partner.