The article presents a critical analysis of the evolution of the theory of Economic Sociodynamics over the last quarter-century, framed within contemporary interdisciplinary scholarship. The author argues that Economic Sociodynamics and its subsequent developments are underpinned by a foundational premise: that the public interest is irreducible to the mere aggregation of individual preferences. This perspective allows the legacy of Economic Sociodynamics to be understood as a body of thought that substantially broadens the traditional boundaries of economic analysis and provides a compelling alternative to prevailing models. The theoretical findings from the period 2000–2025 are further substantiated by insights from contemporary philosophy and theoretical sociology. This synthesis has enabled the author to transcend the long-standing dichotomy between methodological individualism and holism, introducing the principle of methodological relativism into scholarly debate. Drawing upon an analysis of key relativist doctrines – including cultural and conceptual relativism, social constructivism, and postmodernism – the article articulates the core tenets of this methodology. At its core, this methodology treats individual interests and the state’s autonomous interests as coequal, rejecting the a priori primacy of either and requiring context-dependent analysis. The application of this relativist methodology, combined with the recognition of the state’s autonomous interest, has opened new avenues for reconceptualizing the state itself. The study advances a new paradigm in which the state is defined as a complex social entity functioning as a meta-system comprising “political authority – economy – civil society.” The article concludes that the tension between individual and societal interests should be understood not as a dichotomy but as a design problem: constructing a balanced structure wherein these diverse interests operate as interconnected and integral components of a unified social whole.

The article draws on sociological data to analyze the principal trends and challenges affecting the formation of trust in contemporary Russian society, with a particular focus on mediation processes. The analysis centers on the relationship between generalized and interpersonal trust, especially during periods of crisis. The findings reveal a significant trust deficit in Russian society, a condition that undermines a critical resource for social consensus and cohesion. At present, a majority of Russians report considerable distrust or heightened wariness toward strangers. Despite this trend, levels of generalized trust have shown a notable positive shift in recent years. This improvement is attributed to a shrinking share of respondents who believe one must always be cautious with others and by the expansion of a “middle” cluster – those who judge whether to trust others depending on the person and context. These shifts largely reflect a greater public readiness to foster solidarity in response to mounting internal and external threats. Notably, this period has also seen a strengthening of inter-ethnic trust, a key component of national consolidation. Under conditions of prolonged instability and uncertainty, mass consciousness has become increasingly contradictory and susceptible to situational factors. At the same time, while Russians report rising satisfaction with their lives and high levels of subjective happiness, interpersonal trust has shown some decline. An increased willingness to help others and to engage in collective action now coexists with a diminished expectation of receiving support from one’s immediate social circle. From the perspective of mediation processes, these trends indicate a potential shift away from a rigid trust–distrust dichotomy toward a more rational, discerning basis for social trust. This underscores the need for social mechanisms that translate orientations toward generalized trust into everyday interpersonal practice.

The article examines the types and mechanisms of social dialogue to determine the extent to which they align with the concept of mediation. The author proposes that mediation can be understood as a methodological framework, which can then be specifically applied to various forms of dialogue. The analysis begins with dialogue in the context of open communication where delimitation (separation) is possible, demonstrating that this form of interaction cannot be classified as mediation. The second type of dialogue occurs within a constrained communication environment, leading to two polarized outcomes: the renunciation of one’s position or a compromise, the latter of which can be considered a type of mediation. The third form of dialogue is one that can culminate in either formal or substantive mediation. As an example of formal mediation, the article considers the historical signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where the solution was a middle ground in name only and ultimately undermined the dialogue itself. Substantive mediation, which constructs new semantic foundations for reconciliation, is illustrated through Mikhail Gefter’s interpretation of Stalin as a figure occupying a middle ground between the extreme views of Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. The article posits, however, that dialogue leading to genuine mediation is a rare phenomenon. More common is a fourth type – dialogue as reappraisal – in which the outcome is not a compromise but rather a fundamental shift in one’s perspective on the issue and a transformation of one’s own position. This mechanism is analyzed through an early study by Sigmund Freud and the personal transformation of Alexander Pushkin, who radically altered his lifestyle following dialogues with his friends. The article concludes that, while dialogue is an effective tool for achieving delimitation, compromise, and reappraisal, only to a limited degree does it foster the coexistence of individuals and communities with opposing viewpoints.

The article examines the trend toward reconceptualizing the subject in post-non-classical philosophy and analyzes how the problem of responsibility transforms within contemporary human–machine interaction. Reconceptualizing the subject involves conceptually rethinking the classical philosophical subject while accounting for critiques advanced by the deconceptualization project. The authors identify three stages of conceptual engagement with the subject: classical conceptualization undertaken by early modern philosophy; the deconceptualization project pursued by non-classical philosophy; and the contemporary reconceptualization project, which the authors situate within post-non-classical philosophy. The problem of responsibility emerges as one of the most critical junctures in the transition from deconceptualization to reconceptualization. The deconceptualization project attempted to replace the classical subject with external objective forces that systematically influence and ultimately strip it of agency. This has prompted efforts to rethink both the deconceptualization project and the subject itself, manifesting as a refusal to refuse the subject. The authors propose the concept of reassembling the subject, whereby the subject emerges as an agent capable of autonomous action through a complex process of ontogenetic and phylogenetic development alongside the internalization of various components. Through reassembling, the subject retains responsibility for its actions because, despite lacking a fixed center or “natural” essence, it remains capable of self-reprogramming and autonomous agency. Particular attention is given to actualizing the subject reassembling project within human–machine interaction. The development of artificial intelligence systems generates a complexity continuum wherein the traditional subject–object dichotomy gives way to a dynamic network of distributed subjectivity (agency). The concept of the subjective membrane describes the selective permeability of subjective boundaries, allowing for the integration of technical elements without sacrificing the subject’s capacities for reflection and responsibility. The authors discuss the problem of delegating responsibility to technical systems and establishing ethically permissible boundaries for constructing techno-subjectivity. The reconceptualization project not only rehabilitates the concept of responsibility but expands its scope, shifting it from individual morality to systemic architectural ethics.

The article explores the phenomenon of consciousness through the lens of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and of contemporary neurobiological theories, each offering a distinct account of the architecture of conscious processing. This theoretical landscape allows us to identify several specific properties – such as a global workspace, recurrent processing, metacognitive monitoring, predictive processing, and high-level information integration – as functional signatures of cognitive processes inherent to biological consciousness. While certain AI systems exhibit some of these properties, they currently manifest in a fragmented and poorly integrated manner. The transition toward hybrid, particularly neurosymbolic, architectures, coupled with the expanding use of neuroevolutionary and embodied approaches in robotics, is laying the groundwork for integrated systems that more closely approximate conscious cognitive functions. However, the necessary conditions for a “genuine dialogue” between humans and a potentially conscious technosubject – including elements of intersubjectivity, empathy, mutual ethical responsibility, and lived bodily and social experience, or at least functional analogues thereof – suggest that the capacity for such interaction transcends the mere simulation of functional properties. The potential emergence of artificial general intelligence (AGI) in the near future, an entity capable not only of performing all human cognitive functions but also of demonstrating autonomous behavior and engaging in genuine dialogue, necessitates a proactive discussion of the technosubject’s normative status (the bounds of agency and responsibility, rights, duties, and safeguards for humans), along with the development of appropriate ethical principles and regulatory mechanisms.

The article examines the nature of volunteering and the conceptual approaches to its study as an agent in social dialogue with key stakeholders in social policy, namely the state and the business sector. Foundational concepts of volunteering typically address the composition and modalities of participation. At a higher level of analysis, however, researchers frame volunteerism as an activity through which individuals fulfill higher-order needs (in Maslow’s sense) for self-actualization, partnership, and altruism. Furthermore, the volunteer movement serves as a platform for social dialogue between volunteer groups and the state, as well as within society at large, enabling social development and the resolution of pressing social problems. This dialogue proceeds on an equal footing and is characterized by mutual critique that is constructive and generative, not destructive. As an active agent, volunteerism gives rise to a novel form of social action, the “socio-individual” (as conceptualized by A.P. Davydov and V.A. Lektorsky). This form is predicated on a shared social responsibility, realized through partnerships dedicated to addressing critical social issues and advancing the self-realization of participants. Within such partnerships, shared social responsibility is exercised through cooperative action and by integrating innovation into the co-production of public goods. In this cooperative process, the state partially devolves its functions to citizens, who in turn fill functional gaps in the domains of social security, protection, and welfare. The joint activity of diverse actors, grounded in trust and creative problem-solving, gives rise to a “third agency.” This emergent agency represents the synergy of the participants, unlocking new capacities for responding to complex societal challenges.

The article discusses the nature of social dialogue by contrasting two fundamental and conflicting dimensions of human nature: archaic needs that impede dialogue and higher values that foster it. This antagonism is analyzed by juxtaposing two distinct methodological frameworks. First, Freudian psychoanalysis is employed to explore “lower needs” – such as survival, aggression, and submission to a leader – which cultivate a “mass individual” culture and obstruct dialogue through archaic mindsets like parochialism, syncretic thinking, eschatological anxiety, Manichaean thinking, world-renunciation, and the sacralization of power. Second, Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology provides a lens to investigate “higher needs” and values – including cooperation, respect, trust, and self-actualization – which form the intellectual bedrock of genuine social dialogue. These higher needs are interpreted as the basis of dialogical openness to the Other (M.M. Bakhtin, V.A. Lektorsky) and as the foundation of socio-individualism as an alternative to individual and collective egoism. Social dialogue is defined as the interaction among macro-social actors (the state, society, and the individual) that is grounded in higher values and functions simultaneously as both an object and an agent of governance. Several cases illustrate effective social dialogue: mediated implementation of national projects with the participation of local communities; the concept of “individual budget allocations” as a form of direct citizen involvement in state decision-making; and the volunteer movement as a model of state–society partnership that builds trust and shared responsibility. These examples show how practical mechanisms can translate abstract humanistic ideals into concrete policy and administrative choices. The article concludes that social dialogue, when rooted in higher values, transcends mere communication to become an independent “third subjectivity.” Emerging in the space between interacting parties (e.g., the state and society), it establishes a new common ground for collective action – irreducible to the interests of either original side – and serves as a mediating actor capable of bridging socio-cultural divides. Deliberate cultivation of such dialogical practices, the author contends, underwrites the humanistic evolution of society, enhances the quality of governance, and fosters the development of a substantive civil society.