The strength of the ideological explosion of the beginning of the last century, which led to the destruction of the principles of structural-matrix thinking, standard-stereotyped behavior, undoubtedly also reached the education system. However, according to the author’s opinion, the reason for the beginning of transformations in the sphere of education is not an external impact on the education system. External factors of influence, undoubtedly, contributed to the corrosion of the shell of the education system, but the breakthrough of “mantle of education” could occur due to the centrifugal force of the accumulated internal energy. The boundaries of the closed educational space were unable to keep the critical mass of problems accumulated in education. The implosion of education, as one of the most inertial social systems, was inevitable.If the changes that have taken place in the societies of European countries in the New Age, in particular, led to the transition to a new type of university with a new content, while maintaining its old form, the changes that are currently observed, both in the higher and school education, attest to the gradual destruction of the form of educational institutions, their disclosure from within. The evidence of that is cloud schools, flipped classroom, flipped learning, MOOC with its educational resources and teaching methods: Podcast, Vodcast, Pre-Vodcasting. Despite criticism from representatives of the classical educational system, the popularity of modern teaching models continues to grow.

The article explores the analytical relations between traditional (these are termed “partial”) and “total” ideologies. Traditional ideologies originated in 18th-19th century Bourgeois revolutions; as such, they embody social and political aspirations of certain social groups (conservatism, liberalism, socialism). Those ideologies which we termed “total” are of technocratic type: they follow the route of progress and embrace those of etatist attributes which are appropriate to it. At present, partial ideologies are in crisis; the latter resulted from disintegration of the social entities which used to form the foundation of democratic states. “Total” ideologies undergo intensification insofar as technological progress continues; they may be anonymous (Jürgen Habermas “Technology and Science as Ideology”) or, otherwise, receive corresponding theoretical fulfillment. They may coexist with traditional ideologies and influence them or strive to supersede them. “Total” ideologies (they are epitomized by science and technology) are a cause of a heavy stress which oppresses people, deprives them of alternative thinking capacity insofar as the present state of society is concerned (Herbert Marcuse). The above mentioned themes are analyzed with reference to early technocratic theories (C.-A. Saint-Simon, A. Comte, A. Bogdanov), as well as to contemporary technocratic systems the authors of which (G. Ellul, K. Kastoriadis, A. Gorz), better than anybody, perceive the anonymous pressure of technology and administrative state.

Basing on the results of his own study of resource and territorial factors of modernization, the author analyses the laws of social macroevolution formulated by the Russian scientists A.V. Korotayev and L.E. Grinin. The paper reveals both possibilities and difficulties of their application to the problem of modernization as a large-scale socio-historical transformation. It analyzes the concept of aromorphosis, reveals contradictions of the world-system approach in its application to the problem of modernization, and examines the hierarchy of social macroevolution factors and critical theses on classical evolutionism as a unilinear model of history. The “classical” approach to modernization is argued for, as well as the classical principles of evolutionism, which presumes the relative monolinearity of the historical process that reveals itself, for example, in the intensification of nature-society interaction under the influence of resource constraints. It is also maintained that determinism is stricter, and the laws of social development manifest themselves more steadily than A.V. Korotayev’s and L.E. Grinin’s conception assumes. An objection is raised against their understanding of “aromorphosis” that narrows the concept of modernization to recurrent economic, political and cultural rises. Instead, modernization is considered to be a long-term naturally determined historical process.

In ordinary experience, voluntary movement is perceived as the expression of human ability to make decisions, of free will. Neuroscience now has instruments to check the popular concept of elementary connection between decision-making and movement. It demonstrates that brain processes causing movement can precede the subjective experience of free will. However, the neuroscientific experiment puts its subject into an unnatural situation, breaks her down into neural mechanisms that interest it, and limits her to the definite number of elementary reactions. Clinical cases on the other hand show that people are never a set of functions, because damage to any function changes an individual as a unity. The author believes that the resistance of this unity to illness is a manifestation of the will to life - the true freedom of will.

The aim of this article is to introduce Russian readers to the noteworthy publication by Editions Verdier of Logique de Lévinas, a text in which Jean-François Lyotard expresses the value he attributes to the former’s philosophy. Picking up the Levinasian idea that the Other is incommensurable with the same, wherein the act of saying is opposed to what is said, Lyotard brings the pouvoir-dire (stating power) of semantics up to date by demonstrating its applicability in shedding light on Lévinas’s text. The aim here, then, is to lay out the principle axes of this dialogue between Lyotard and Lévinas, investigating, notably, the role of linguistic analysis in the ethical deduction of alterity and its incommensurability. However, the anti-Hegelianism that runs through Lévinas’s position vis-à-vis the ontological incommensurability of the Other brings out a certain number of tacit political and religious implications. By following the path traced out by these implications, we have sought to reconstruct the particular and contradictory place Judaism holds in the ethical thought of both philosophers.

The author shows the cultural meanings of modernization of social system and proves that the main strategic objective of the latter is to satisfy the challenge of human progress, which implies the development of culture as one of its fundamental prerequisites. The progress of culture as the most important factor of social modernization, in turn, is based on the solution of the problems of disalienation, negation of the narrow frameworks of the human and social development, created by the modern model of globalization. The preconditions for doing so are to overcome the alienation of the individual from his or her essential social role - a subject of social transformations and from culture, because it must be based on the involvement of human being in the appropriation of cultural values and their creation.

A distinctive feature of the “Atlas of modernization of Russia and its regions” presented by the team under the leadership of corresponding member of the Russian academy of sciences N.I. Lapin is that it considers the modernization of Russia as an organic part of the mainstream of the medium-term evolution in the world development which saves from revolutions. Due to civilizational (i.e. largely heuristic) approach for the first time in the exploration of contemporary Russian society, we had the opportunity to explore modernization as measurable, comparable and expansive process.

The article formulates proposals for supplementing the toolkit evaluation phases and conditions of modernization of Russian regions and a list of indicators for evaluating the performance of the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The article reviews the results of studies conducted over a period of ten years within the framework of the All-Russian project “Sociocul-tural Portraits of Russian Regions” in the Urals Federal District. The author compares different approaches, including alternative ways: criti-cal philosophy (epistemological realism), neoclassical Economics, new institutional Economics, economic sociology, critical sociology. She raises the fundamental question of how legitimate is coordination of the interests of the region’s residents and authorities and concludes on the contingency of historical, authoritative, and socio-cultural contexts of the experience of implementing the new industrialization.

The article devoted to the evolution of P.P. Suvchinsky’s political views during his participation in the Eurasianist movement in 1920s. His role in so-called “the Clamar schism” is especially underlined. This “schism” was especially inspired by theoretical, not only organisational contradictions. The separation of Leftist Eurasianist from the “Right wing” was affected by the radicalization of Souvchinsky’s pre-Eurasianist views and also by the refusal of supremacy of religion in the public life. Besides, Souvchinsky also had started avoiding problem of the “East” and underlined the role of the “West”. Despite to the “Right-wing” of Eurasianism, Souvchinsky rejected Eurasianism as a dogmatic, formulated at the beginning of 1920s. He characterized Eurasianism as a multitude of ideas, which could be changed during the time. Afterwards, N.S. Trubetskoy characterised these Suvchinsky’s views as “aestetisation” of political position, usage of ideas as a palette for someone’s drawing. Previously, Souvchinsky interpreted “Ideology” in “Ideocratic way”, as a strict system of ideas, which dominated over the everyday activity. He grounded “Ideology” in the historical context, this mood inspired him to the legitimisation of status quo in the USSR. Pro-Soviet problematic, asserted by Suvchinsky, was consequently of special interest in the writings of “Right-wing” Eurasianists during the first half of 1930s.

The article devoted to P.P. Suvchinsky and his activity in 1920s. The author of article analyzes Suvchinsky’s articles and letters, the influence of Suvchinsky on the development of Eurasian movement. In author’s opinion, Suvchinsky’s esthetic, literary and historiosophical views were one of factors which determined the content of eurasianism. In his letters Suvchinsky discussed contents of articles in Eurasian publications, general direction of Eurasian movement. The author of article researched Suvchinsky’s cooperation with various scientists wich wrote for Eurasian magazines and newspapers. Suvchinsky pursued the selection of authors for Eurasian publications, aspired to thematic variety of articles. For example, the author of article studied Suvchinsky’s editorial policy in the magazine “Versty” and the newspaper “Eurasia”. In the magazine “Versty” Suvchinsky united new literature of Soviet Russia and Russia abroad. Besides, in two articles Suvchinsky developed original historiosophy with interpretation of Russian revolution and future development of Russia. In the newspaper “Eurasia” Suvchinsky expressed political position. He based on his personal interest for Marxism and the doctrine of N.F. Fedorov. For Suvchinsky Marxism and the doctrine of N.F. Fedorov were the prospects for development of eurasianism. In the article considered P.P. Suvchinsky’s correspondence with N.P. Ottokar who lived in Italy and wrote about the Italian policy for the newspaper «Eurasia». In the articles Ottokar analyzed Italian fascism, the state and public life of Italy, the union of Italian state and Vatican. Ottokar’s letters to P.P. Suvchinsky are published in the annex of the article.