imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2024-15-2-18-35imi-549Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESСущее и должное: социология изучения России в СШАWhat Is and What Should Be: Sociology of Studying Russia in the U.S.ЦыганковА. П.TsygankovA. P.

Андрей Павлович Цыганков, профессор международных отношений и политических наук 

94143, Сан-Франциско, 1600, Холлоуэй Авеню

Andrei P. Tsygankov, Professor of International Relations and Political Science

1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132

andrei@sfsu.eduКалифорнийский университетСоединённые Штаты АмерикиSan Francisco State UniversityUnited States2024170920241521835Copyright © Цыганков А.П., 20242024Цыганков А.П.Tsygankov A.P.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/549

В статье рассматривается процесс формирования знаний о России в американской академической науке после завершения холодной войны. Гипотеза статьи заключается в том, что формирование знания в основном отражает социальные и национально-культурные условия страны и ее исследовательского сообщества. При том, что немало ученых стремятся к объективности и этической отстраненности от объекта своего исследования, они чаще всего подходят к его изучению с позиций, отражающих и проецирующих интересы и ценности обществ, в которых работают. Эта гипотеза сформулирована в рамках предпринимаемого в статье социологического подхода к формированию знания, предполагающего осмысление условий его формирования и социальных запросов, которым оно отвечают. Американские знания о России, которую они длительное время рассматривали и продолжают рассматривать как угрозу и вызов интересам и ценностям США, несут на себе печать национальных допущений, предпочтений, убеждений и эмоций. Изучая сущее, они далеко не всегда способны освободиться в своем сознании от американского понимания должного, проецируя в свои исследования то, как, по их мнению, следует развиваться России. Со второй половины 2000-х гг. – данный разрыв углубляется. По сравнению со временем холодной войны, знания о России в Америке утратили прежний статус приоритетности и привилегированности, стали более политизированными, особенно, в вопросах, затрагивающих международную безопасности и политику ценностей. Кроме того, эти знания вписаны в общепринятые на Западе теории международных отношений и сравнительной политики. Эти изменения отражают снижение статуса России в международной иерархии в сравнении с США и возросшую убежденность американских ученых-обществоведов в универсальной значимости своих подходов и теорий. Современная Россия все чаще воспринимается как развивающаяся в неверном направлении, угрожая западным «либерально-демократическим» ценностям и безопасности, а своим стремлением быть «империей» - и самим структурам модерного общества. Хотя не все американские исследователи разделяют такого рода концепты и теории, последние выражают настроения мейнстрима как в политике, так и в науке.

Заключительная часть подводит итоги, а также обсуждает возможности формирования менее предвзятых и идеологически нагруженных знаний о России. Подходы к получению таких знаний в США существуют, хотя и не доминируют.

The article examines the process of knowledge formation about Russia in American academia since the end of the Cold War. The article’s hypothesis is that knowledge formation largely reflects the social and national and cultural conditions of the country and its research community. Although many scholars strive for objectivity and ethical detachment from the object of their research, they most often approach its study from positions that reflect and project the interests and values of the societies in which they work. This hypothesis is formulated within the framework of the sociological approach to knowledge formation undertaken in the article, which involves understanding the conditions of its formation and the social demands that it meets. American knowledge about Russia, which they have long viewed and continue to view as a threat and challenge to the interests and values of the United States, bears the stamp of national assumptions, preferences, beliefs, and emotions. In studying reality, they are far from always able to free themselves from the American understanding of what should be, projecting into their research how, in their opinion, Russia should develop. Since the second half of the 2000s, this gap has been widening. Compared to the Cold War, knowledge about Russia in America has lost its former status of priority and privilege, and has become more politicized, especially in matters affecting international security and the politics of values. In addition, this knowledge has been integrated into generally accepted theories of international relations and comparative politics in the West.

These changes reflect Russia’s declining status in the international hierarchy compared to the United States and the growing conviction of American social scientists in the universal validity of their approaches and theories. Contemporary Russia is increasingly perceived as developing in the wrong direction, threatening Western “liberal democratic” values and security, and, with its desire to be an “empire,” the very structures of modern society. Although not all American researchers share such concepts and theories, the latter express the mood of the mainstream in both politics and science. The final part sums up the results and discusses the possibilities of forming less biased and ideologically loaded knowledge about Russia. Approaches to obtaining such knowledge in the United States exist, although they do not dominate.

социология знанияРоссияСШАлиберализмреализмимперияsociology of knowledgeRussiaU.S.liberalismrealismempireReferencesБжезинский, З. Великая шахматная доска. М., 1998.Brzezinsi, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Moscow, 1998 [In Russian].Цыганков, А.П., Цыганков, П.А. Кризис идеи «демократического мира» // Международные процессы. 2005. Т. 3, № 3. C. 33–44.Tsygankov, Andrei P., and Pavel A. Tsygankov. “The Crisis of the ‘Democratic Peace’ Argument.” International Processes 3, no. 3 (2005): 33–44 [In Russian].Цыганков, А.П., Цыганков, П.А. Социология международных отношений. М., 2006.Tsygankov, Andrei P., and Pavel A. Tsygankov. Sociology of International Relations. Moscow, 2006.Цыганков, А.П. Экспансионизм – не догма // Россия в глобальной политике. 2012. Выпуск № 3.Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Expansionism is not a Dogma.” Russia in Global Affairs 3 (2012) [In Russian].Цыганков, А.П. Отложенный полицентризм // Россия в глобальной политике. 2014. Выпуск № 4.Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Procrastinated Polycentrism.” Russia in Global Affairs 4 (2014) [In Russian].Цыганков, А.П. Гулливер на распутье: американская стратегия и смена миропорядка // Международная аналитика. 2020. № 11(2). C. 28–44. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-2-28-44.Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Gulliver at the Crossroads: America’s Strategy During the Global Transition.” Journal of International Analytics 11, no. 2 (2020):28–44 [In Russian].Boyd-Barrett, Oliver. Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda. London, 2016.Boyd-Barrett, Oliver. Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda. London, 2016.Brooks, Stephen, Ikenberry, John, and William Wohlforth. “Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment.” International Security 37, no. 3 (Winter 2012/2013): 7–51.Brooks, Stephen, Ikenberry, John, and William Wohlforth. “Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment.” International Security 37, no. 3 (Winter 2012/2013): 7–51.Charap, Samuel, and Timothy J. Colton. Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia. New York: Routledge, 2016.Charap, Samuel, and Timothy J. Colton. Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for PostSoviet Eurasia. New York: Routledge, 2016.Cohen, Stephen F. “Russian Studies Without Russia.” Post-Soviet Affairs 15, no. 1 (1999): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.1999.10641461.Cohen, Stephen F. “Russian Studies Without Russia.” Post-Soviet Affairs 15, no. 1 (1999): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.1999.10641461.Devlin, Judith. Slavophiles and Commissars: Enemies of Democracy in Modern Russia. New York, 1999.Devlin, Judith. Slavophiles and Commissars: Enemies of Democracy in Modern Russia. New York, 1999.Drezner, Daniel. The Ideas Industry. New York, 2017. Engelstein, Laura. Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia’s Illiberal Path. Ithaca, 2009.Drezner, Daniel. The Ideas Industry. New York, 2017. Engelstein, Laura. Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia’s Illiberal Path. Ithaca, 2009.Fish, Steven. Democracy from Scratch. Princeton, 1995.Fish, Steven. Democracy from Scratch. Princeton, 1995.Foglesong, David S. The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881. Cambridge, 2007.Foglesong, David S. The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881. Cambridge, 2007.Frye, Timothy. Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin’s Russia. Princeton, 2021.Frye, Timothy. Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin’s Russia. Princeton, 2021.Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York, 1992Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York, 1992Fuller, William S. Jr. Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600-1914. New York, 1992.Fuller, William S. Jr. Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600-1914. New York, 1992.Greene, Samuel A., and Graeme B. Robertson. Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia. New Haven, 2019.Greene, Samuel A., and Graeme B. Robertson. Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia. New Haven, 2019.Huntington, Samuel. Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New Yoek, 1996.Huntington, Samuel. Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New Yoek, 1996.Ikenberry, John. “Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony.” Political Science Quarterly 104, no. 3 (1989): 375–400.Ikenberry, John. “Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony.” Political Science Quarterly 104, no. 3 (1989): 375–400.Inayatulla, Naeem, and David Blaney. International Relations and the Problem of Other. London, 2004.Inayatulla, Naeem, and David Blaney. International Relations and the Problem of Other. London, 2004.The Culture of National Security, edited by Peter Katzenstein. New York, 1996.The Culture of National Security, edited by Peter Katzenstein. New York, 1996.Katzenstein, Peter. Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives. London, 2009.Katzenstein, Peter. Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives. London, 2009.Katzenstein, Peter, and Nicole Weygrant. “Mapping Eurasia in an Open World: How the Insularity of Russia’s Geopolitical and Civilizational Approaches Limits Its Foreign Policies.” Perspectives on Politics 15, no. 2 (2017): 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271700010X.Katzenstein, Peter, and Nicole Weygrant. “Mapping Eurasia in an Open World: How the Insularity of Russia’s Geopolitical and Civilizational Approaches Limits Its Foreign Policies.” Perspectives on Politics 15, no. 2 (2017): 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271700010X.Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. New York, 1986.Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. New York, 1986.Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, 1994. Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York, 2010. Kroenig, Matthew. The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy. New York, 2018.Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, 1994. Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York, 2010. Kroenig, Matthew. The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy. New York, 2018.Kroenig, Matthew. The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy Versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the US and China. New York, 2020.Kroenig, Matthew. The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy Versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the US and China. New York, 2020.Laruelle, Marlene. Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. Washington, DC, 2008.Laruelle, Marlene. Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. Washington, DC, 2008.Marten, Kimberley. “NATO Enlargement: Evaluating Its Consequences in Russia.” International Politics 57, no. 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00233-9.Marten, Kimberley. “NATO Enlargement: Evaluating Its Consequences in Russia.” International Politics 57, no. 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00233-9.Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, 2001.Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, 2001.Mearsheimer, John. Why Leaders Lye: The Truth about Lying in International Politics. New York, 2011.Mearsheimer, John. Why Leaders Lye: The Truth about Lying in International Politics. New York, 2011.McFaul, Michael. Russia’s 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics. Stanford, 1997.McFaul, Michael. Russia’s 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics. Stanford, 1997.Nye, Joseph. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, 2004.Nye, Joseph. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, 2004.Orenstein, Mitchell. The Lands in Between. New York, 2019.Orenstein, Mitchell. The Lands in Between. New York, 2019.Pipes, Richard. Russian Conservatism and Its Critics. New Haven, 2005.Pipes, Richard. Russian Conservatism and Its Critics. New Haven, 2005.Renz, Bettina. Russia’s Military Revival. Cambridge, 2018. Rieber, Alfred J. The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands. Cambridge, 2014.Renz, Bettina. Russia’s Military Revival. Cambridge, 2018. Rieber, Alfred J. The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands. Cambridge, 2014.Sakwa, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. London, 1998.Sakwa, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union. London, 1998.Stoner, Kathryn. Russia Resurrected: Its Power and Purpose in a New Global Order. New York, 2021.Stoner, Kathryn. Russia Resurrected: Its Power and Purpose in a New Global Order. New York, 2021.Suny, Ronald, and Valerie Kivelson. Russian Empires. New York, 2017.Suny, Ronald, and Valerie Kivelson. Russian Empires. New York, 2017.Suchkov, Maxim A. “Whose Hybrid Warfare? How ‘The Hybrid Warfare’ Concept Shapes Russian Discourse, Military, and Political Practice.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 32, no. 3 (2021): 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2021.1887434.Suchkov, Maxim A. “Whose Hybrid Warfare? How ‘The Hybrid Warfare’ Concept Shapes Russian Discourse, Military, and Political Practice.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 32, no. 3 (2021): 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2021.1887434.Toal, Gerard. The “Near Abroad.” New York, 2017.Toal, Gerard. The “Near Abroad.” New York, 2017.Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Lаurence Whitehead. Baltimore, 1991.Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Lаurence Whitehead. Baltimore, 1991.Transitions to Democracy: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kathryn Stoner and Michael McFaul. Baltimore, 2013.Transitions to Democracy: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kathryn Stoner and Michael McFaul. Baltimore, 2013.Tsygankov, Andrei P. Whose World Order? Russia’s Perception of American Ideas after the Cold War. South Bend, 2004.Tsygankov, Andrei P. Whose World Order? Russia’s Perception of American Ideas after the Cold War. South Bend, 2004.Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Assessing Cultural and Regime-Based Explanations of Russia’s Foreign Policy. ‘Authoritarian at Heart and Expansionist by Habit’?” Europe-Asia Studies 64, no. 4 (2012): 695–713. https://doi:10.1080/09668136.2012.671568.Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Assessing Cultural and Regime-Based Explanations of Russia’s Foreign Policy. ‘Authoritarian at Heart and Expansionist by Habit’?” Europe-Asia Studies 64, no. 4 (2012): 695–713. https://doi:10.1080/09668136.2012.671568.Tsygankov, Andrei P. The Strong State in Russia. New York, 2014.Tsygankov, Andrei P. The Strong State in Russia. New York, 2014.Tsygankov, Andrei P. The Dark Double. New York, 2019. Tsygankov, Andrei P., Tsygankov, Pavel A., and Haley Gonzales. “Putin’s ‘Global Hybrid War’: The U.S. Experts, Russia, and the Atlantic Council.” Russia in Global Affairs 1, January-March 2021. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-1-146-172.Tsygankov, Andrei P. The Dark Double. New York, 2019. Tsygankov, Andrei P., Tsygankov, Pavel A., and Haley Gonzales. “Putin’s ‘Global Hybrid War’: The U.S. Experts, Russia, and the Atlantic Council.” Russia in Global Affairs 1, January-March 2021. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-1-146-172.Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. New York, 1979.Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. New York, 1979.Wohlforth, William. “Realism and Great Power Subversion.” International Relations 35, no. 4 (2020): 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820968858.Wohlforth, William. “Realism and Great Power Subversion.” International Relations 35, no. 4 (2020): 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820968858.Zarakol, Ayse. Before the West. Cambridge, 2022.Zarakol, Ayse. Before the West. Cambridge, 2022.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.