Dear friends!

We are pleased to share with you the second issue of the second volume of the journal Patria. This issue is dedicated to Russian traditional values and timed to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

The issue opens with its main topic — a block of articles directly devoted to the Great Victory.

Denis Artamonov (Saratov National Research State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky) and Regina Penner (South Ural State University) in their article "The Value of the Great Victory: Emotional Optics" explore the role of emotions in shaping historical memory and axiological orientations related to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in the era of post-truth. The authors emphasize that conflicts in the sphere of historical memory reflect not a clash of facts but a struggle of values rooted in emotions—pride, grief, and unity. Through the lens of emotional axiology and epistemology, the article reveals the role of rituals (parades, the Immortal Regiment), media, and art in maintaining an affective connection with the past. The philosophical foundation of the work draws on the ideas of Max Scheler, Pierre Nora, and Gilles Deleuze, demonstrating how emotions construct value realities and serve as mediators between the past and present. In the post-truth era, Victory is interpreted as "living memory," resisting the erosion of historical truth. The authors argue that emotional optics overcome the binary of rational and emotional, revealing memory as a hybrid process where official narratives, personal stories, and collective myths interact. Thus, the Great Victory remains not only a historical event but also an ethical benchmark uniting society in an era of informational instability.

The topic of the media's role in preserving the memory of Victory is further developed in Anton Zhigunov’s (Omsk State University named after F.M. Dostoevsky) article "‘Unknown and Familiar’: The Image of the Hero in the Context of Celebration of the Great Victory." Based on internet texts, the author examines the features of representing the image of the Great Patriotic War hero in contemporary mass (media and political) discourse—a key means of transmitting and shaping mass perceptions of the present and past. The article analyzes sociological measurements, media texts, and legal acts related to the hero's image, as well as interpretations of collective and individual memory by Maurice Halbwachs, Paul Ricœur, and Karl Jaspers, revealing the possibilities of their existence, formation methods, and degree of influence on individual perceptions of the events of 1941–1945. The author distinguishes between the personalized and unknown hero and differentiates the principles of image creation, the tools used, including commemoration practices.

Concluding the block of articles on Victory is a study that addresses a question naturally arising within the journal’s thematic framework: how can Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and the category of victory in general, be understood as a value? Yuri Vetyutnev (Volgograd State University) in his article "The Victory as a Value" argues that since value is nothing more than a preference given to one thing over another, the acquisition of value by any phenomenon presupposes that it has withstood a certain cultural competition. The author highlights the paradoxical nature of victory’s value: by demanding an end to confrontation, it negates the structure of value with its inherent tension. Yet, the search for a topos occurs only through disagreements resolved by the triumph of some ideas over others. The Great Victory of 1945 is a historical imprint of another round of axiological confrontation in the mid-20th century. The positions of individualistic worldview were somewhat shaken by the impressive demonstration of collectivism’s strength, while the softening of strictly atheistic stances, replaced by moderate mutual loyalty between the state and the church, could be seen as a relative victory of Christian ideals. The short-lived and fragile synthesis of these principles, soon subjected to new attacks, nevertheless became the basis of Russian culture’s value self-determination, which has yet to find a worthy replacement.

The subsequent articles in the issue are devoted to traditional values in the history of Russian thought.

In "Slavophile Conceptions of ‘Russian’ and ‘Russianness’ in the Late 1830s and thr First Half of the 1840s," Andrey Teslya (Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University) introduces readers to the intellectual history of the concept of "narodnost" (national character) as key to Slavophile philosophy. This concept became central in Russian debates of the 1820s–1840s—first in literary criticism and later in official discourse. During this period, the term largely functioned as a question rather than denoting something relatively clear and defined; meanwhile, the Slavophiles’ immense contribution to concretizing the concept of "narodnost" in relation to Russia remains undisputed. The article focuses on the early period of Slavophilism—from the late 1830s, when the Slavophile circle began to form, to the mid-1840s, when Slavophilism produced texts perceived then and now as "manifestos" of the movement. The article analyzes texts by key Slavophile authors of the time: A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, K.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev, and I.V. Kireevsky—demonstrating the directions in which the concept was concretized. Special attention is paid to the logic of identifying Orthodoxy as a constitutive characteristic of "Russianness" and the tensions within this construct.

Another episode from Russian intellectual history is addressed by Yulia Popova (College of Urban Entrepreneurs) in her article "‘From Marxism to Idealism’—and to the Religious Search: The Trajectory of Critical Marxists at the Beginning and the Third Quarter of the 20th Century." The article identifies a line of continuity between the periods of Russian critical Marxism mentioned in the title. The author shows how representatives of critical, or legal, Marxism (Sergei Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky) sought to supplement Marxism, or "economic materialism," with universal, humanistic, and Christian ethics, ultimately arriving at idealism, liberalism, disillusionment with Marxism, and, finally, religious thought. A similar trajectory was repeated in critical Marxism during the Thaw. After the dominance of official party ideology, philosophical circles, diverse interpretations, debates, expectations, and hopes for the future emerged once again, as at the turn of the 20th century. The intelligentsia in these circles turned to ethical, moral, and religious reinterpretations of Marxism. Critical Marxists Evald Ilyenkov and his student Genrikh Batishchev emphasized the role of a comprehensively developed, creative, and critically thinking individual. By the end of the Soviet project, critical Marxists increasingly spoke of self-improvement, interpreting revolutionary practice as personal growth and the struggle for universal "humanization" in the moral sense.

Zhou Laishun (Heilongjiang University), in "Problem Consciousness and System Construction: New Progress in the Study of Russian Silver Age Philosophy in China," introduces Russian readers to the current state of Russian philosophy studies in China. The author notes that Chinese scholars have been examining Silver Age philosophy since the 1930s, meaning it has been studied for about 100 years. Since then, Chinese researchers have conducted in-depth studies of problem consciousness, theoretical characteristics, system-building, critiques of modernity, and other themes in Silver Age philosophy. Although the Silver Age thinkers’ project ended in practical failure, their emphasis on the unique spiritual value of the individual and their rethinking and reconstruction of modernity remain theoretically and practically significant.

Working at the intersection of Russian intellectual history and contemporary issues, Rustem Vakhitov (Ufa University of Science and Technology, Ufa State Petroleum Technological University) revives several ideas of classical Eurasianists. In "Eurasianism of the 1920s as a Scientific and Theoretical Basis for the Current ‘Turn to the East,’" the author argues that Russia’s current pursuit of Eurasian integration has objective causes: the EU’s shift to green energy would have necessitated a reorientation toward the East in any case, and Russia, as a Eurasian power, has historical ties with post-Soviet states, China, India, Iran, and Turkey. The ideology of this turn, the author suggests, could be a creatively developed Eurasianism. The Eurasianists of the 1920s (P.N. Savitsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, and others) substantiated the idea that Russia is neither Europe nor Asia but Eurasia—a synthetic civilization with Eastern roots. P.N. Savitsky demonstrated the trade benefits of an Eastern alliance, while N.S. Trubetskoy emphasized the need for Russian civilization’s self-knowledge and the identification of its non-European, Eastern origins.

Concluding the research block is Ilya Kanaev’s (Shandong University, Sun Tzu Institute) article "The Historical Development of Russia’s Traditional Values." Drawing on anthropology, cognitive science, and philosophy, the author theoretically justifies the necessity of maintaining a system of traditional values for a state’s existence and sustainable development. Applying these findings to Russian history clarifies the evolutionary nature of the Russian people’s collective identity. Close interaction with Western and Eastern cultures allowed Russia to synthesize a unique value system combining love for the Motherland and service to the Fatherland with mercy and humanity toward all people. The ability to hold such disparate moral principles in individual and collective consciousness was made possible by the constant need for new solutions and creative labor. In turn, creativity enables overcoming limitations, shaping the values of creation and will.

The review section, as usual, is also tied to the issue’s theme, featuring Konstantin Belov’s (National Research University Higher School of Economics) response to Maria Marey’s monograph on the political projects of late Slavophiles. The review introduces readers to the book’s structure, main ideas, and conclusions.

We would like to note that our journal features authors from across Russia—in this issue alone, they represent Saratov, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Volgograd, Kaliningrad, and Ufa. The issue also includes a small presence from Moscow and Jinan (China), among other countries. In a way, this underscores how the journal’s main themes unite Russia. The fact that leading scholars from the regions choose Patria as their platform is invaluable. On behalf of the editorial board, I would like to thank all authors whose works have already graced our pages and those yet to come. We eagerly await your submissions.

We dare hope that the materials in this issue will prove interesting and enlightening, as well as contribute to the broader celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism—an event whose significance for Russia and the world cannot be overstated. We congratulate all our readers on this commemorative date, bow our heads to the heroes’ feat, and wish everyone peaceful skies above.

Dear friends,

Together with you, we are embarking on the second year of the journal’s work and are pleased to present the first issue of the second volume of Patria. As expected, this issue is devoted to traditional values and their place in the lives of different societies.

The issue opens with works that demonstrate the limitations of understanding social life solely through individualistic theories, which ignore the complex balance between the interests of the individual and society as a whole in the modern era.

Nikolai Afanasov (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences), in his article "Time and Place for Modern Collectivism," addresses the problem of preserving, supporting, and developing collectivism as a traditional spiritual and moral value. The author shows that in modern society, where the normative foundation has become the pursuit of self-interest rather than the interests of the group, collectivism as a phenomenon and concept has come to be understood as historical. However, this perception does not correspond to reality, since collectivism and individualism are not independent of each other—there is a certain balance between them that corresponds to the adaptive needs of a particular society at a particular time. Nikolai Afanasov systematically examines three themes: the relationship between the concepts of collectivism and individualism from the perspective of social theory in the second half of the 20th century; the foundations of capitalist individualism; and, finally, the time and place for conscious collectivism that emerges from the imbalance between collectivism and individualism.

This same theme is developed by Konstantin Arshin (Center for Theoretical and Applied Political Science, Institute of Social Sciences, RANEPA) in his article "Justice as a Pillar of Nationalism," which analyzes the significance of the concept of justice in constructing nationalism as one of the fundamental practices of developed industrial society. Using examples from the social thought of Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Modern Era, the author demonstrates that reflections on the meaning of "justice" and the desire to implement it in practice have accompanied humanity throughout its history. In the Modern Era, within the framework of industrial society, the concept of justice acquired special significance, becoming the foundation that ensures the connection and balance between the values of liberal ideology (based on the idea of the free individual) and nationalism (postulating the values of collectivism), which became the basis of the modern democratic social order. However, the gradual abandonment of the welfare state since the 1980s serves as a visible sign of the erosion of the modern social order, caused by the disruption of the balance between liberalism (transformed into neoliberalism) and nationalism. Such a loss leads to an as-yet-unrecognized but no less significant atomization of societies, their disintegration into conglomerates of disparate parts.

The subsequent articles offer various perspectives for understanding traditional values within social theory.

Dmitry Davydov (Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences), in his article "Progressive Elites, Conservative Workers. Traditional Values from the Position of Class Analysis," shows that although Marxism and class analysis are today usually associated with modernity and everything opposed to traditional social foundations, this association primarily characterizes various variations of Western neo- and post-Marxism, as well as leftist concepts influenced by Western Marxism. At the same time, there is growing reason to believe that Western leftist agendas, involving systematic attacks on traditional values, are promoted mainly by representatives of new elites—the professional or educated class. Conversely, traditional values are either more often shared by representatives of the social "masses" or are a crucial factor in their economic well-being. In this regard, the author reinterprets class analysis as a tool for constructively understanding, rather than criticizing, traditional values.

The article "Social Norm as a Functional Foundation of Sociality: The Problem of Formation and Maintenance of Traditions" by Igor Baklanov and Olga Baklanova (North Caucasus Federal University) is devoted to the problem of tradition formation in the space of sociality through the functional potential and possibilities of social norms. The authors note that "tradition" and "sociality" are categories that reflect the structural organization of social reality, while "social norms" are associated with the dynamic and functional aspects of social reality. Tradition is grounded and rooted in the space of the social through the normative systems of society: it is interconnected with sociality and grows from it. The authors propose reducing the diversity of social norms to a triad of normative systems ("religious norms," "moral norms," "legal norms"), emphasizing that the relationships between them differ significantly in different historical eras and in various configurations of sociality, which leaves its mark on the systems of traditional values and forms of traditional, commonly accepted practices in societies and civilizations.

Oleg Agapov (Kazan Innovative University named after V.G. Timiryasov), in his article "Struggle for Tradition as a Form of Social-Anthropological Practice," demonstrates the potential of Sergei Khoruzhy’s synergetic anthropology for understanding the topic outlined in the article’s title. The author examines three methodological strategies for approaching tradition—fundamentalism, liberal post-traditionalism, and traditionalism—which reconfigure, at a new level, the debates about the historical perspective of Russia as a sovereign state-civilizational existence in a polycentric world. Within reflexive traditionalism, an approach the author develops based on the concepts of Sergei Khoruzhy, Alexander Panarin, Oleg Genisaretsky, and Alexander Shchipkov, a socio-anthropological approach to the phenomenon of traditions is proposed. Each tradition consists of personalities or subjects of history (state-civilizations, peoples, strata, classes) that testify to themselves through the form, content, and style of their lives. Thus, the world of traditions is a rich, interactive, intersubjective, interpretive, fundamentally dialogical sphere that allows a person to preserve and multiply practices of resilience and viability.

The research section concludes with an article by Ellina Suslova (Beijing Language and Culture University, China), "Traditional Values in the Upbringing of Chinese Children: Challenges and Adaptations in Modern Chinese Society." Although historically Chinese parents emphasized collectivism, filial piety, and academic success, in recent years, societal changes such as the rise of individualism, globalization, and progress in gender equality have led to shifts in child-rearing approaches. Despite the fact that women have achieved success in education and careers, traditional gender roles in the family persist—especially regarding household responsibilities. Women must balance professional success with domestic work, which indicates the preservation of previous cultural values. The article explores these contradictions and the ongoing adaptation of parenting practices in the context of social development.

In the "Practicum" section, we present Konstantin Zhigadlo’s (National Research University Higher School of Economics) text "Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values in the Context of the School Social Studies Course," in which the author justifies the need for high school students to study traditional Russian spiritual and moral values based on current Russian legislation. The article compares the content of old and new versions of social studies textbooks for 9th graders and provides a detailed description of the author’s empirical experience teaching social studies in 10th–11th grades at the HSE Lyceum, involving discussions with students about traditional Russian values. The author describes the connection between topics introduced into the new version of the social studies curriculum and the list of content elements tested in the Unified State Exam (USE). The experience of teaching social studies and preparing students for the USE in the context of current legislation leads to conclusions about the potential for further integration of the value aspect into the school social studies course.

The "Criticism and Reviews" section features Alexander Pisarev’s (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences) response to Boris Groys’s monograph "Philosophy of Care" (Moscow, 2024). The review examines the main points as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the monograph.

We dare to hope that this issue will contribute to a productive discussion of the problem of traditional values and an understanding of their role in society, continuing and developing the debates and research initiated by the journal last year. Happy reading!

Alexander Pavlov

We are pleased to present the fourth issue of the journal Patria to our readers. This edition is dedicated to the history of Russian thought.

The thematic section begins with a historical overview by Alexey Kozyrev (Lomonosov Moscow State University), “Russia and the West,” which examines the relationship between Russia and the West as civilizational projects, from the invitation of the Varangians and the Christianization of Rus to the present day. The author highlights the key milestones in Russia’s civilizational choices, emphasizing the role of religion. He discusses the perspectives of Westernizers and Slavophiles on Russia’s relationship with the West and traces the development of this discourse in the works of N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, and V. S. Solovyov. Concluding the article, the author critiques the phenomenon of Westernism as presented in the works of A. A. Zinoviev, acknowledges the current rupture in Russia-West relations, and expresses hope for renewed dialogue in the future, with Russia as an equal partner and a unique civilization.

Rustem Vakhitov (Ufa University of Science and Technology, Ufa State Petroleum Technological University) continues the exploration of Russian thought, intertwining it with the central theme of traditional values in his article “Traditionalism as a Reaction to the Revolution: The Origins of the Modern Ideology of “Traditional Values” and Eurasianism of the 1920s”. The author argues that traditional values are affirmed in society as a reaction to prior political and cultural revolutions. He examines modern Russian traditional values as a response to the nihilism of the 1990s, drawing parallels with the nihilism of the 1920s concerning imperial Russia and its values. Eurasianism, which emerged in exile, was a reaction to that earlier nihilism. The article delves into the relationship between Bolshevik ideology and Eurasianism, concluding that reactions never fully restore the past order — new traditional values both resemble and differ from the old ones.

In “Danilevsky’s Double Paradox: On the Contradiction between National Egoism and the National Idea”, Nikita Syuundyukov (North-West Institute of Management, RANEPA) revisits N. Ya. Danilevsky’s theory. The author identifies a contradiction in Danilevsky’s work: on the one hand, he adheres to a civilizational approach in historiography, advocating historical pluralism; on the other, his rhetoric incorporates a metaphysical concept of Providence organizing the destinies of nations into a unified and universal human path. This contradiction complicates Danilevsky’s description of the Slavic cultural-historical type and affects his relationship with Christian ethics. Drawing on B. N. Chicherin’s theory of “conservative liberalism” and studies by Slavist Robert McMaster, the author proposes a resolution: the possibility of Christian morality is conditioned by the existence of state sovereignty, which is grounded in political realism and pragmatism.

The research block on Russian thought concludes with Nikolay Chizhov’s (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences) article “The Idea of Providence in the Philosophy of History by N. M. Karamzin”. The article analyzes the role of Providence in Karamzin’s philosophical-historical concept, highlighting its connection to his division of laws into two types: the laws of nature (laws of the real world) and the law of the moral world (the law of freedom). The article notes that the idea of Providence varies across Christian traditions, and Karamzin’s understanding aligns with the Russian Orthodox tradition. Comparing the concepts of “Providence” and “fate” in Karamzin’s philosophy, the author concludes that they are not synonymous and, in some cases, even oppose one another. Providence influences nations, countries, states, and their leaders, while fate lacks higher meaning and represents a combination of chance events, which humanity resists.

Outside the main theme, the “Studies of Religion” section, one of the journal’s recurring features, presents Mikhail Khort’s (Kazan Federal University) article “The Thesis of the Omnisubjectivity of God in Linda Zagzebski’s
Philosophy of Religion”. The article critically examines Zagzebski’s monograph Omni-Subjectivity: Essays on God and Subjectivity and her related articles and lecture materials. The author explores the conceptual reasons behind Zagzebski’s introduction of the concept of “omni-subjectivity,” which denotes God’s ability to experience first-person perspectives of all conscious, rational beings. The article evaluates two primary arguments supporting this attribute, analyzes four models of omni-subjectivity proposed by Zagzebski, and considers potential theological implications. The author concludes with critical arguments challenging the necessity of attributing omni-subjectivity to God.

In the “Practicum” section, we publish Nikolay Afanasov’s (Institute of Philosophy, RAS) report on the expert roundtable organized by the School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Humanities, HSE University, titled “Traditional Values in the Perspective of National Philosophy.” The report summarizes the findings of two research projects on values presented at the roundtable, along with the general conclusions of the discussion. By publishing this report, we further connect the issue’s theme of Russian thought with the subject of traditional values.

The Criticism and Reviews section features Alexander Nesterov’s (Samara University) response to the collective monograph Contours of Russia’s Civilizational Future (ed. by A. P. Segal, Moscow: Fortis Press, 2024).

With this fourth issue, we conclude the first volume of the journal Patria. We hope that this issue, along with the others from the journal’s inaugural year, will engage our readers and provide a foundation for future research and discussions. Thank you for being with us!

Alexander Pavlov

We are pleased to present the third issue of the journal Patria to our readers. This issue, once again, focuses on traditional values, which is unsurprising given the journal’s primary emphasis.

The research section of the issue opens with an article by Lyudmila Baeva (Astrakhan State University named after V. N. Tatishchev), “Traditional Values: A Concept and Meanings”. Outlining the existing positions on the nature of values, the author explores values within the theoretical framework of existential axiology. Based on this approach, the article develops a revised typology of values and refines the definition of traditional values in contrast to liberal ones. The proposed reinterpretation offers a fresh perspective on the growing clash between liberal and traditional values amidst the civilizational rifts of the modern world.

Ilia Pavlov (HSE University), in his article “The Question of Traditional Russian Values in the Perspective of Ontological Hermeneutics”, presents a philosophical reflection on how the concept of Russian traditional values can be understood. Drawing from Martin Heidegger’s philosophy on the themes of world and being, the author diverges from Heidegger’s focus on death, steering instead toward a phenomenology of the past connected with the value of life. This approach reveals the possibility of conceptualizing Russia as a constellation of historical and spatial perspectives, which, following Leibniz’s ontology, Pavlov interprets as actual perspectives of Russia as a unified reality.

Alexey Maslov (Institute of Asian and African Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University), in his work “Russia in the East,” provides a detailed examination of Russia’s historical and contemporary relations with the East. The study offers a comprehensive historical overview of Russia’s eastern policies, encompassing both the incorporation of eastern territories into the Russian state and the establishment of relations with Eastern countries. Analyzing modern interactions, particularly with China, the author concludes that successful development of eastern policies requires an acknowledgment of Russia’s cultural uniqueness. Only then can the East be perceived not as “alien” or “similar,” but as a rich diversity of cultures, approaches, and economies with which equal and mutually beneficial dialogue is possible.

In the “Invitation to Discussion” section, we feature Artem Kosmarsky’s (HSE University) article, “The Rejection of the Other and the Catastrophe of Trinitarian Love as the Basic Structure of Modernity”. The author offers a new perspective on contemporary issues in romantic, familial, and sexual relationships, as well as shifts in values and attitudes, challenging the widespread notion that the primary focus of orientation, attraction, and identity is the sexual object. Instead, the article proposes that the fundamental aspect is whether relationships between people are binary or triadic. The concepts of “dyad” — relationships exclusively between two people, excluding a Third — and “triad” — relationships that make space for a Third, whether a child, another beloved, or a word—are introduced. The author demonstrates how, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the dyad has become the basic structure of relationships and worldview across various fields, from literature and art to ethics and politics, and how this is connected to the normalization of divorce and other societal changes.

The reviews and criticism section includes Viktor Martyankov’s (Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) response to Leonid Fishman’s monograph Inequality of Equals: The Concept and Phenomenon of Resentment, published by the HSE University Press. The review thoroughly examines Fishman’s reconstruction of the phenomenon of resentment in both historical and contemporary contexts, as well as his analysis of the causes behind the radicalization of mass resentment mechanisms during the modern era.

Alexander Pavlov

We are pleased to present the second issue of the journal Patria to our readers. This issue is dedicated to religion, examined not only through the lens of religious studies but also from the perspectives of cultural studies, the sociology of religion, and history.

The main research block opens with an article by Vsevolod Zolotukhin (HSE University, Institute of China and Contemporary Asia, RAS), “The Threefold Method of Studying Religion” — an outline of a potential methodological synthesis in the field of religious studies. The author proposes a model that integrates three complementary methods: cognitive religious studies, Marxist materialist historical analysis, and the history of concepts. Such a synthesis becomes feasible because cognitive religious studies describe the evolutionary-psychological predisposition of humans toward religious beliefs and movements, classical Marxism focuses on the political-economic factors influencing religion, and the history of concepts examines shifts in the humanities, which can be seen as consequences of changes in the socio-economic structure and socio-psychological transformations. The article offers an example of applying this synthesis to explain the characteristics of the philosophy of religion in German Idealism.

Alexey Appolonov (Institute of Philosophy, RAS), in his article “Does Weber Actually Live in Guatemala? Traditional Protestant Values in Contemporary Latin America” references Peter Berger’s article of a similar title. The author critiques Berger, who drew parallels between the ascetic ethic of contemporary Pentecostal communities and the Protestant ethic analyzed by Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Berger viewed the ethics of Pentecostals in Latin American countries as a driving force for a cultural revolution that would lead to accelerated economic and social development. Based on empirical data, Appolonov demonstrates that in Guatemala, where the Protestant population has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, this growth has had little impact on the country’s socio-economic processes.

Faris Nofal (Institute of Philosophy, RAS), in his article ‘“Man, Soil and Time”: the Civilizational Concept of Malek Bennabi” examines the legacy of the Algerian philosopher, public figure, writer, and journalist. The author analyzes two of Bennabi’s works, The Birth of Society and The Conditions of Renaissance, comparing them to theories of early 20th-century European cultural scholars. The article demonstrates that Bennabi, drawing on the systems of A. Toynbee and L. Lévy-Bruhl, developed his own defense of Arab-Muslim civilization. According to the ideologist of "Afro-Asianism," the Islamic world is neither genetically nor structurally distinct from European or Chinese historical cultures.

In the section “Studies of Modern Culture,” we present Arseny Platonov’s (University College London) article, “Deconstructing Western Culture: Stuart Hall’s Approach to Critical Theory.” The author explores the contributions of the renowned British thinker Stuart Hall to media studies and cultural studies, emphasizing his innovative approach to the concept of representation. This text is significant because Hall’s work remains insufficiently known in Russian academia. Platonov highlights how Hall’s integration of critical theory with media studies provided profound insights into the dynamics of culture and power in Western societies. The article critically examines Hall’s interdisciplinary application of Neo-Marxist theories to analyze contemporary media landscapes and assesses the practical implications of Hall’s theories for understanding inclusion and representation mechanisms in media.

In the “Practicum” section, we publish Oleg Glebov’s (HSE University) report, “On the Experience of Development and Implementation of the Course “History of Religions of Russia’”. The author discusses the guiding principles behind the course design, the challenges encountered by its creators, and the solutions adopted to address methodological issues related to incorporating value-based perspectives into the study of Russia’s religious traditions. The author situates his reflection on the course within the broader context of preserving traditional Russian values in a post-globalization era.

The issue concludes with Daniil Minaev’s (Institute of Philosophy, RAS) review of Pavel Nosachev’s monograph, The Enchantment of Mystery: Esotericism and Mass Culture—a book that explores not only contemporary popular culture but also the history of esotericism and its role in cultural history. The reviewer notes that studying esotericism enhances our understanding of the diversity of the world’s religious traditions. Nosachev’s perspective invites readers to consider how esotericism exemplifies the potential for contemporary reception of religious traditions.

Alexander Pavlov

The Higher School of Economics and the editorial team of the journal “Patria” are pleased to present to readers the first issue of our publication. The journal is conceived as a general humanities publication, but with a focus on a specific subject that increasingly occupies the minds of not only scholars but also society. Values, in all their diversity, are studied not only by philosophy but also by sociology, psychology, political science, and other disciplines such as religious studies, history, and cultural studies. While we plan to dedicate issues to various topics — religion, Russian history, and others — it is only natural to begin with the topic of values.

In recent years, the question of values (especially traditional ones) has become particularly pressing, considering the complex global situation. Beyond the mere turn toward traditional values lies a burgeoning discussion about what these values represent — not only in terms of their content and role in societal life but also, philosophically speaking, in their mode of existence.

The research section opens with Taras Varkhotov’s (Lomonosov Moscow State University) article, “The Unconventional Nature of Value.” The author asserts that existing approaches to the concept of value often understand it as derivative of subjective factors, showing that this perspective was embedded as early as Neo-Kantianism. The article offers an alternative view, proposing that values can be understood as ontologically self-sufficient, not defined by social conventions, which are often arbitrary. This perspective outlines an alternative to the Inglehart-Welzel program for value research.

The next two articles examine the relationship between traditional values and modernity. Nikolai Afanasov (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences), in his article “On the Modernity and Timeliness of Traditional Values,” highlights the relevance of addressing traditional values within the context of a crisis in contemporary social philosophy, which is oriented toward globalization values. The author notes that the lens of social philosophy is especially pertinent for discussing traditional values, particularly because it reveals the inadequacies of Neo-Kantian approaches to values. Dmitry Davydov (Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences), in his article “Progressivism Against Modernity: What Do Russian Traditional Values Oppose?” invites readers to consider Russian traditional values as not archaic but, on the contrary, more aligned with the modern project than progressive values. The latter, as the author shows, are oriented toward principles of expressive individualism and thus break with modernity’s hallmark principles of objectivity, universality, and scientific rationality, instead treating them as systems of oppression.

The research section concludes with articles on the sociology of values and memory. In “The Renaissance of Tradition: The Reception of Traditional Values by Active Russian Youth,” Ivan Gruzdev and Sergey Startsev (HSE University) present findings from an empirical study of participants in the World Youth Festival, held in March 2024, regarding their attitudes toward traditional Russian values. These findings are placed in the broader context of reflections on values in Russian history and social theory. Fyodor Nikolai (Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod), in his article “The Problems of Value Mapping in Memory Studies and Reconstruction,” examines how values intersect with practices of historical reconstruction and how these differ from other forms of commemoration.

In the “Invitation to Discussion” section, we are delighted to present an important essay by Valery Fadeev (Russian State University for the Humanities) titled “Toward a New Sociology: Values and the Sacred.” The author raises the question of creating a new social science. He critically assesses the state of contemporary academic sociology, which either entirely ignores the value foundation of society, deeming its consideration contrary to the principles of scientific rigor, or approaches values in the vein of Ronald Inglehart, whose method the author regards as ideologically biased. Fadeev argues that sociology must account for the sacred dimension of human life to adequately address values. He emphasizes that this perspective does not contradict classical sociology, as the role of the sacred in social life was thoroughly analyzed by Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Recognizing the sacred would reveal the significance of values in the long-term perspective of societal life, which cannot be adequately studied using the methods of sociological surveys alone. At the same time, Fadeev stresses that turning to the sacred does not require blurring the boundaries between science and religion.

The question raised in the “Invitation to Discussion” section finds immediate resonance. The first issue concludes with the “Criticism and Reviews” section, featuring Evgeny Moschelkov’s review of the 2023 collective monograph “Value-Semantic and Intellectual Foundations of Russia’s Strategic Development in the Context of Global Challenges,” edited by Valery Fadeev and Taras Varkhotov. It seems the first issue has turned out to be highly engaging, thematically cohesive, and defining some coordinates for discussions on values across the broad fields of humanities and social sciences.

We sincerely hope that reading this issue will be both enjoyable and thought-provoking and that the texts it features will serve as a starting point for academic research on traditional values in theoretical and empirical perspectives, as well as for broad public discussions on the topic of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values.

Alexander Pavlov