Power and society in the second quarter of the 19th century: Specific features of interaction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Based on the communicative approach developed by Jürgen Habermas, the article focuses on the main forms of interaction between power and society in the second quarter of the 19th century and investigates their features and inclusion in the space of the public sphere of the Russian Empire. The authors have made an attempt to clarify the point of view presented in historiography according to which the course of the Nicholaevan government towards “gradual improvement” of state life marked the refusal to cooperate with educated society, which in its turn had led to the mutual alienation between power and society by the end of the reign of Nicholas I. This view does not sufficiently consider the socio-cultural condition and the level of ambitions of the representatives of Russian society who began to see themselves as an active subject of the socio-political process in the period under research. Despite the desire of the Russian authorities to control the “work of thought” during the reign of Nicholas I, the main forms of interaction between the authorities and the public were outlined. By means of them, members of the public were able to convey to the authorities their vision of ways to solve pressing socio-political problems. Among these forms of interaction were literary circles and salons as well as the traditional practice of personal messages and letters addressed to the sovereign. In the 1840s, correspondents became more active in assessing government policy on the western outskirts of the Russian Empire. Government officials, writers and publicists sent their proposals for adjusting the national policy, and representatives of the authorities including Nicholas I himself responded to them, thus encouraging the public to intensify their activities. These proposals are assessed by the authors as a significant factor in the preparation of the course towards the Russification of national outskirts in the second half of the 19th century. The conclusion is substantiated that the views and proposals emanating from the representatives of the public outlined the contours of a possible model of interaction between power and society under the conditions of autocratic government.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».