The article explores the social dimension of dialogue as manifested in the joint search for truth, the overcoming of alienation, the formation of social institutions, the reproduction of linguistic forms of communication, and the enactment of social action. The study of dialogue lies at the intersection of several fields of social inquiry, including philosophy, sociology, and psychology. In Plato’s works, dialogue serves as a means of jointly seeking truth, justice, and virtue, linking the interlocutors’ movement through physical space with the intersubjective movement of thought. In the philosophy of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, dialogue is understood as a relation to the Other that opens up the possibility of self-knowledge and provides the foundation for an ethics of mutual responsibility. In the Russian intellectual tradition, these questions were further developed by Mikhail Bakhtin, who described the dialogical organization of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s works as an interaction among the autonomous voices of the characters, the author, and the reader. The disruption of dialogical relations leads to alienation, various forms of which are examined in Robert Merton’s sociological theory and in the Marxist tradition. Alienation restricts the possibility of mutual understanding, reinforces relations of domination and subordination, and may result in institutional domination, whereby the individual becomes subordinated to a norm embodied in the Generalized Other. At the same time, dialogue creates conditions for the transformation of social institutions, the expansion of social rights, and the reconciliation of institutional norms with the experiences of individual subjects. In the theoretical framework of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, norms are reproduced and transformed within the intersubjective space of everyday interactions. In contemporary society, internal dialogue also plays an important role, enabling individuals to relate the demands of the Generalized Other to their own experience, needs, and interests. Dialogue remains an underestimated resource in the social sciences: on the one hand, as an independent object of inquiry that allows for a more precise understanding of the formation of solidarity, institutional change, and social development; and, on the other hand, as an instrument of social regulation that cannot be reduced to administrative intervention but is capable of creating a space for social transformation and for the coordination of meanings, positions, and norms. Dialogue is an immanent form of social life and is indispensable to its key domains, including politics, civic self-organization, and artistic and other forms of creative activity.

The article develops a polycausal approach to explaining socioeconomic evolution, based on an analysis of the interplay of five groups of factors: technological progress, prosperity, civic culture, population characteristics, and institutions. The study examines the ascending and descending branches of the evolution of the mechanism of social development in Western countries. It is demonstrated that a number of countries that had lagged behind achieved an “economic miracle” by employing catching-up development institutions, chief among which are indicative planning, a general development agency, and a corporatist management system. These institutions also underpin the success of certain modern economies. The proposed economic development strategy for Russia under sanctions entails establishing such institutions. To foster technological progress, the strategy calls for forming domestic value-added networks comprising research, design, manufacturing, sales, and intermediary organizations, as well as civil society entities. These organizations form specialized consortia managed through collaborative interaction among their members. Initially, the consortia’s main task is to develop and implement projects to adopt more advanced technologies; over time, it shifts toward creating and introducing innovations. The general development agency coordinates the projects and integrates them into indicative plans. The operation of catching-up development institutions involves collaboration among the state, business, and civil society; as prosperity grows and civic culture strengthens, the state’s role should gradually diminish. In Russia, it is crucial to refine mechanisms of competition and, at the appropriate time, supplement or even replace them with mechanisms of collaboration to prevent degradation. It is shown that the proposed strategy is consistent with Russian economic governance practices and that the use of artificial intelligence and additive technologies could facilitate its implementation.

The article discusses the transformation of the social market economy in the context of digitalization, automation, and the growing use of artificial intelligence. Contemporary economic activity increasingly produces not only goods, services, and income but also social relations themselves: forms of communication, trust, recognition, reputation, community participation, and access to socially significant opportunities. This gives rise to an “economy of the social”: not a separate sector, but a mode of economic organization in which social ties and positions become objects of allocation, evaluation, and competition. The production of social relations thus becomes a distinct concern of economic policy. Its significance grows as productivity rises and material needs are more fully satisfied. Competition persists, but its focus broadens: people increasingly compete for meaningful work, high-quality education, recognition, status, influence, and the opportunity to be heard. The article shows that digital technologies create new opportunities for communication and cooperation while also generating new forms of dependence and social stratification. Social media may deepen social fragmentation, while artificial intelligence and robotics may polarize employment and concentrate economic power. Universal basic income is considered as a possible safeguard of material independence, but not as a solution to the problems of social inclusion and meaningful activity. The study draws on the theory of economic sociodynamics and the concept of socio-individualism. The author argues that regulating the economy of the social requires a competitive order, social guarantees, limits on the power of high-tech monopolies, and institutions of dialogue. This, in turn, requires a system of relations in which competition remains compatible with recognition of the Other and the shared values that sustain social life. Within such a system, dialogue, mediation, and communicative law acquire a role in economic governance. The article concludes by proposing that monetary valuations of economic outcomes be complemented by a social measure that takes account of their effects on human development, agency, and the character of social relations.

The article introduces the concept of socio-individualism into scholarly discourse by offering an epistemological justification for the author’s model of the “Self – Tri-D/communication – Other” system, here referred to as the Lektorsky–Auzan system. The proposed system brings together Vladislav Lektorsky’s nonclassical epistemology and a socio-individual interpretation of Alexander Auzan’s Tri-D concept, which includes long-term orientation, trust, dialogue, agreement-building capacity, mutual understanding, and related principles. This synthesis is examined as a mechanism of intersubjective cooperation within Victor Polterovich’s theory of social evolution and Ruslan Grinberg’s theory of the social market economy. At the conceptual center of the system is the author’s notion of socio-individualism, understood as a mediating alternative to Sigmund Freud’s ego-individualism and Zbigniew Brzeziński’s egocentrism. At the same time, socio-individualism is presented as a substantive extension of the Enlightenment concept of the individual personality that evolved in European thought between the 17th and 19th centuries. The article develops the socio-individual foundations of the system in several stages. First, it critiques the absolutization of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and advances a dynamic conception of the human being as the subject of their own development, drawing on Vladimir Bibler and Confucian thought. Second, it elaborates a nonclassical understanding of personality through the capacity of the Self to respond to the call of the Other, with reference to Mikhail Bakhtin and Vladislav Lektorsky. Third, it interprets Lektorsky’s philosophical paradox as a mechanism through which the individual is transformed into the social. Particular attention is given to the communicative and sociological dimensions of the proposed system. Its structure and internal mechanisms are analyzed through Niklas Luhmann’s concept of autopoietic communication, Michel Foucault’s idea of a “network of relations,” and Vladimir Arshinov’s principle of “thinking together-with.” The article concludes by outlining possible directions for the further development of the system, including the theory of communicative law as a sociology of the “sphere between,” the construction of a dual index for measuring social development, and a dialectical approach to the mutual complementarity of unification and diversity.

The article examines the relationship between the individual and socially conditioned factors in institutional research. Drawing on the works of D. North, J. Wallis, B. Weingast, and C. Welzel, it analyzes the debate between institutional and values-based approaches to socioeconomic development. It argues that opposing institutions to values obscures the mutual dependence of social processes. The article considers V.M. Polterovich’s polycausal analysis, which accounts for the interplay of technology, institutions, value preferences, and welfare. Particular attention is paid to D. Acemoglu, J. Robinson, and S. Johnson, the 2024 Nobel laureates in economics. In the work of Acemoglu and Robinson, the distinction between extractive and inclusive institutions develops into an analysis of the balance of power between the state and society and their mutual restraint in the concept of the “narrow corridor.” In Power and Progress, Acemoglu and Johnson further examine the value-based and ethical grounds for choosing directions of technological development. Their concept of inclusive vision calls for consideration of the interests of broad sections of society and the social consequences of innovation. Relating such a vision to inclusive institutions is presented as an important step toward polycausal analysis. The article shows how individual agency is connected with culture, social norms, and public dialogue. Existing social regulators often lag behind rapid technological development, increasing the risks of inequality, manipulation of public opinion, and the reduction of people to passive components of a technological system. The article concludes that a transition to polycausal analysis requires interdisciplinary synthesis and an examination of the conditions in which agents of social action emerge. The unity of the individual and the social underpins the agency needed for meaningful dialogue, the reconciliation of interests, and a combination of social stability with substantive innovation.

The article examines the conditions under which civic culture develops through practices of local self-government. The author discusses the dual public-authority and civic nature of local self-government and the tension between the diversity of local life and the centralization of public administration. Horizontal interaction is understood as residents’ participation in collective decisions and joint action for the common good. The theoretical framework draws on social-philosophical approaches to the relationship between the individual and society developed by A.P. Davydov, A.A. Auzan, V.A. Lektorsky, S.V. Patrushev, and other scholars. A conceptual analysis of dialogue, deliberation, and mediation is used to examine how differing interests can be coordinated while participants retain their autonomy. Particular attention is paid to collective reflection as a way for local communities to interpret everyday experience and reconsider the grounds for joint action. The article analyzes formal and informal interactions and the possibilities and limits of online communication. It emphasizes the link between discussing a local problem, implementing a decision, and assessing its consequences. Civic culture develops when the experience gained through participation informs later interactions. This requires connecting discussion with the implementation of decisions, evaluating outcomes, and revising agreements. Mediation becomes relevant when such revision concerns the very grounds on which interests are coordinated. Institutionalizing dialogue means establishing procedures that give residents influence over decisions while preserving opportunities to raise objections and revise the rules of joint action. The civic potential of local self-government depends on whether individual initiatives build residents’ lasting capacity to determine and change the conditions of their shared life.