NANOTECHNOLOGY AND SOCIOPOLITICAL MODERNITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; CASE STUDY OF IRAN

The article is devoted to the history of the Russian political modernization study by domestic authors. The relevance of the topic is due to the importance of political modernization for the development of Russian society and the need to systematize the results obtained in its research. The object of the research is concepts of political modernization of Russia in the works of Russian scientists 1990-2020. The subject of the research is the methodological foundations of the concepts of Russian political modernization that dominate in two time periods: 1990-2013 and 2014-2020. The purpose of the study is to identify the evolution of the dominant methodological approaches to the study of the political modernization of Russia in the works of domestic specialists in 1990-2020. The objectives of the study are the following: 1) to determine the methodological foundations of the Russian political modernization concepts that dominated in 1990-2013. 2) to analyze the distinctive features of the study of political modernization of Russia in 2014-2020 in the light of the local-civilizational approach. The author has used historical and comparative methodological approaches, hermeneutical method, methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction and abstraction. As a result of a huge number of foreign and domestic studies of Russian political modernization, its general patterns and specifics were identified, a methodological analysis of the concepts of modernization, democratization and Westernization was presented, as well as the methodological features of the formational and civilizational approaches to its study were analyzed. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that two periods in the study of Russian political modernization by domestic scientists are identified: 1990-2013 and 2014-2021, and a comparative analysis of the methodological approaches that dominate in these two historical periods is carried out. The author’s contribution is represented by the following results. The first period (1990-2013) is characterized by the dominance of studies that use the formational method and the stadial-civilizational method. At the same time, the sphere of production is recognized as the basis of society, and the main task of political modernization is to ensure economic modernization. In the second period, research based on the concept of multiple moderns and the local-civilizational method prevails. On the basis of this method, scientists have made the subject of research the civilizational features of Russia, its spiritual and cultural sphere, abstracting from the general patterns of production development and political modernization

From mobile phones and laptop computers to in vitro fertilization and social networks on the Internet, technological devices, products and services are increasingly shaping the lives of people around the world. The pervasiveness of technology and the underlying science that makes it possible has led to a certain ambivalence: most people trust that ‘science’ will eventually help them to live longer, healthier and happier lives. However, they also feel increasingly uncomfortable about certain new technologies, often those that challenge or improve on ‘nature’. Genetically modified crops, gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, renewed interest in nuclear power: the list of controversial topics involving science and technology is growing steadily and debates on these topics regularly occupy centre stage in public and political arenas. > …the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns Policy‐makers have responded by calling for increased attention to be paid to the ethical, legal and social aspects of scientific research and technological developments. In particular, new and emerging areas of research—such as genomics, synthetic biology and nanotechnology—have been accompanied by studies of their broader societal implications as well as public‐engagement efforts, in order to guide research and development in ways that respect societal concerns. Such attempts to shape technological trajectories have traditionally occurred both before scientific research, for example, through research policy, technology assessment or public participation, and afterwards, through regulations or market mechanisms. Although these stages are crucial points at which to intervene, the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns. Indeed, if one acknowledges the central role that scientific research has in the innovation process, this is an area well worth examining. Shaping technological trajectories will, at some point, include shaping the very research processes that help to characterize them (Fisher et al , 2006). Social and …

'Political Modernization' has become a sponge term. For some it has soaked up the process of building such centralized institutions as state bureaucracies, standing armies, and disciplined political parties. For others it is closely related to the breakdown of regionally independent agrarian economies into highly inter-dependent industrial economies. And yet for others, it is synonomous with the transformation of traditional cultures where subjects owe allegiance primarily to their parochial groups, and view themselves as distinctly detached from the central authorities, into modern cultures where citizens owe allegiance to the state, consider it their natural right and even civic duty to participate in public affairs, and feel that their political system whether democratic or totalitarian should have deep roots in the social system. But in whatever specific way 'political modernization' is used, it is invariably associated with the general process of national integration: the integration of traditional decentralized administrations into centralized modern state bureaucracies; the integration of agrarian economies where there are few direct links between the regional units into industrial economies where these units are fused into one unitary and directly linked social system; the integration of rulers and ruled through institutions that stretch from the centre to various areas and layers at the periphery; the integration of exclusive bonds such as to clans, tribes, religious sects, and regional groups into more inclusive ties to the nation; and the integration of multi-cultural, multi-tribal, multi-lingual empires into new nation-states often, if not always, with one political ideology, one culture, one language, and one national identity. 1 Although as early as the nineteenth century two such different minds as Marx and Durkheim both wrote on the transformation of independent agrarian units into inter-dependent industrial societies, it was not until quite recently that social scientists have focused their attention on the problem of political unification. This revival of interest is reflected in Clifford Geertz's much quoted article 'The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States' which first appeared nine years ago in a collection of essays entitled Old Societies and New Nations: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. 2 In this work Geertz showed how newly independent countries were invariably confronted by the agonizing problem of reconciling traditional affiliations such as ties to tribes, regions, religions, languages, and ethnic groups into modern nation-states demanding the political allegiances of all their

For social sciences to play their emancipatory as well as instrumental role in public policymaking, it is imperative that the social science research ecosystem is dynamic and vibrant, institutions governing the research ecosystem are robust and effective, and those producing good quality research and researchers are strong and well governed. Underlying these is a serious issue about funding and availability of data on social science research (SSR) to facilitate informed decision-making and enable design of program policies and strategies. In collaboration with the Think Tank Initiative (TTI) Program of IDRC, ICSSR led this work to examine the present status of social science in the country. This Volume examines the status of SSR with respect to its multiple dimensions and recommends the need for a comprehensive national social science policy in India that is adequately resourced and delivered through well-governed national institutions in order to create a credible research culture in social sciences.

We examine the evidence for the claim of an ‘ontological turn’ in STS. Despite an increase in references to ‘ontology’ in STS since 1989, we show that there has not so much been an ontological turn as multiple discussions deploying the language of ontology, consisting of many small movements that have changed the landscape within STS and beyond. These movements do not point to a shared STS-wide understanding of ontology, although it can be seen that they do open up STS to neighbouring disciplines. Three main thematic complexes are identified in this literature: constructivism and realism; instruments and classification; and the social sciences and the humanities. The introduction of ontology into the long-running constructivism-realism debate can be considered as an acknowledgement on both sides that objects are real (i.e. pre-existing the situation) and constructed at the same time. The second thematic complex focuses on the role of instruments and classification in establishing not only relations of heterogeneity but also of stability. The third thematic complex broadens the debate and actively seeks to promote an STS-driven ontological turn for research concerned with the humanities and the social sciences more generally. This study is based on both quantitative and qualitative interpretations of the literature.

We examine the evidence for the claim of an ‘ontological turn’ in science and technology studies (STS). Despite an increase in references to ‘ontology’ in STS since 1989, we show that there has not so much been an ontological turn as multiple discussions deploying the language of ontology, consisting of many small movements that have changed the landscape within STS and beyond. These movements do not point to a shared STS-wide understanding of ontology, although it can be seen that they do open up STS to neighbouring disciplines. Three main thematic complexes are identified in this literature: constructivism and realism; instruments and classification; and the social sciences and the humanities. The introduction of ontology into the long-running constructivism-realism debate can be considered as an acknowledgement on both sides that objects are real (i.e. pre-existing the situation) and constructed at the same time. The second thematic complex focuses on the role of instruments and classification in establishing not only relations of heterogeneity, but also of stability. The third thematic complex broadens the debate and actively seeks to promote an STS-driven ontological turn for research concerned with the humanities and the social sciences more generally. This study is based on both quantitative and qualitative interpretations of the literature.

This essay proposes a critique of Provincializing Europe. I argue that the project of Provincializing Europe is based upon a contradictory conception of political modernity. Modernity is defined in the text as both the ‘provincial’ product of the particular history of Europe and the universal norm of historical progress. This contradiction, I argue, is a result of the hermeneutic approach that Chakrabarty applies to the project of provincializing Europe. In this approach, abstractions like the Enlightenment notion of man are assumed to result from the denial of the particular practices in which they are embedded. Due to this opposition between practice and theoretical abstraction, Chakrabarty's analysis is unable to grasp the abstract character of (European) political modernity as precisely the particular feature that defines it as a provincial, or culturally and historically specific, phenomenon. This failure, I argue, leads paradoxically to an affirmation of the universality of the very particular conception of modernity that Chakrabarty seeks to provincialize.

The attention of students of modernization seems to be the very opposite of the focus of inquiry of other sociologists. The fact that they were ignored by modernization theory may add substance to the belief that much of this theory is but an extension of the American dream. The suspicion that some social scientists think otherwise may have led their critics to advance the charge of ethnocentric bias against the modernization subdiscipline. The results of the examination should help to discover whether the proposition that modernization is basically the replication of the process of change undergone by the United States can be substantiated. There is yet another apparent reason for those who suspect ethnocentric bias in modernization theory to be concerned with possible export of the American dream under the guise of modernity. The concepts of modernism and modernization denote empirical referents that include Americanism and Americanization; America is modern, but not all that is modern is American.

Problem settingw It has always been recognized by different scholars of social sciences that concepts are essential both to theory construction in different scientific realms as well as to applied research. A practical approach to concepts suggests that concepts, however complicated they might be, should be, in essence, boiled down to measurable indicators that, in turn, can be thoroughly studied by applying qualitative or quantitative approaches. Discussion around the nature of the concepts in social science in general and particularly in the political science brought about a number of terms to denote the concepts like «essentially contested concepts» or «nomadic concepts». In order to avoid the bothersome discussion of the meaning of concepts, a prominent American scholar of social science research methodology and international relations G. Goertz said that he preferred to define concepts implicitly through a discussion of how they could be constructed. He coined the term «semantic approach» to denote the traditional approach to concepts and his alternative approach is what this article critically analyzes in comparison to other approaches to concepts ’ studies, including the traditional ones.Recent research and publications analysis. A great number of scholars contributed to the studies of concepts, among them G. Sartori, J. Gerring, Ch. Ragin, D. Collier, M. Richter and others. After W. B. Gallie coined the expression «essentially contested concepts» in 1956, a discussion on the phenomenon of «contestedness» of social and political concepts has commenced and never stopped. Among the very recent contributions to analysis of concepts the papers of M. W. Spicer, F. Berenskoetter and C. Greene should be mentioned.Paper objective is to identify both advantages and disadvantages of applied approaches to political concepts’ construction that go beyond the traditional semantic approach and that, in turn, implies a closer examination of a causal, ontological, and realist view of concepts, suggested by G. Goertz, followed by a comparison with other perceptions of concepts, and supplemented by illustrations of why it is very difficult to provide a strict technical definition for the most important political science concepts.Paper main body. The approach of G. Goertz is analysed, contrasted and compared to other approaches to defining social and political concepts, including those that are not as pragmatic and utilitarian as the one suggested by Goertz. A number of illustrations are drawn from very recent (published 2017 and after) papers with examples of different concepts: ’authenticity’, ’friendship’, ’autogolpe’, ’modern politics’, ’reversibility’, ’culture ’, ’depoliticisation’, ’post-truth politics ’ and others. Some examples are taken from a clearly qualitative research traditions like an ethnographic approach to the study of ’clientelism ’ as ’everyday political practice ’ in order to demonstrate that not only a quantitative approach (G. Goertz is famous for using fuzzy-sets to deconstruct the concepts) can be pragmatic and utilitarian.Conclusions of the research A causal, ontological, and realist view of concepts, suggested by G. Goertz, has its advantages since it enables a practical empirical study of a concept after it is boiled down to a level of indicators that can be studied primarily by quantitative methods. The limitation of such a view is caused by refusal to go deeper into the theoretical and methodological discussions of the nature of a given political concept. Many concepts in political science cannot be defined in straightforward manner suggested by G. Goertz because they are «essentially contested» to use the terms of W. B. Gallie, but also because such contestedness is caused by the nature of the concept that has to be constantly redefined and re-evaluated through different ideological lenses. To provide a clear and ultimate definition for a political science would mean to stop the methodological and theoretical debate about such a concept and that would basically mean to halt the development of political science.

After the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), leading late Qing intellectuals such as Liang Qichao introduced modern political concepts in a highly affective fashion, making the passionate interest in and adoption of western-imported political concepts a hallmark of Chinese modernity. What are these highly personalized affective experiences like? What have given rise to them? How can the study of these experiences broaden our understanding of modernity, and myriad modernizing experiences, in China and other similar cultural contexts? More importantly, how can the use of affect and emotion as analytical categories offer us better insights into some of the most radical intellectual and political transformations that have taken place in China? To answer these questions, perhaps we need to look elsewhere than the semantic content of language. This article focuses on the incipient moments of this affective trend in late Qing China and studies the formation of discursive “text” as the production of sensational “object.” It examines musical and visual appeals Liang Qichao generated for two recently translated political concepts, “national citizen” (guomin) and “revolution” (geming), in historical biographies published in New Citizen Journal in 1902. By exemplifying that Liang’s semantic text was intended to be circulated as an audio text and pictorial text, and that modern concepts had been received as literary as well as auditory and visual experiences, I argue that Chinese modernity often teeters in a state of aesthetic ambivalence. It is displaced and suspended from discursive meanings of the constructed discourse resulting from cross cultural exchanges and consolidated by power relations on both the local and the international levels.

Modernity is a large concept that can be found in many disciplines, such as philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, political economy, and International Relations (IR). One of many significant infrastructures of modernity is the concept of nation-states, the definition of which can also be found in the aforesaid disciplines. This article will elaborate on the concept of modernity concerning relations between nation-states and non-nation-states such as native local communities in which rooted in those multi-disciplined courses. This article argues that imagined nation-states of the Westphalian system impose, imprison, and marginalize native communities from within. The birth of nation-states in the European Western discourse has created marginalization of native communities around the world. Using some examples of Indonesian natives, this article shows that modernity is political. The politics of modernity either instrumentalized or marginalized and forced the Indonesian natives to obey the standardization of the Indonesian Westphalian system. As a result, since the Dutch colonialization up to now, the Indonesian natives have not yet embraced full citizenship rights because they are marginalized, subjugated, and discriminated against politically, economically, and socially.

Contents: P.B. Baltes, Foreword. Introduction: M.G. Ash, Psychological Thought and Practice: Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Part I: Psychological Concepts in Different Domains: Shared or Divided Meanings? Attention: S. Luders, Fluctuations of Attention Between Physiology, Experimental Psychology, and Psychotechnical Application. Intention and Will: J. Brandtstdter, Causality, Intentionality, and the Causation of Intentions: The Problematic Boundary. W. Prinz, A Critique of Free Will: Psychological Remarks on a Social Institution. M. Heidelberger, Freedom AND Science! The Presumptuous Metaphysics of Free Will Disdainers. S. Maasen, Governing by Will-The Shaping of the Will in Self-Help Manuals. The Self: J.G. Morawski, Scientific Selves: Discerning Subjects and Experimenters in Experimental Psychology in the United States, 1900-1935. K.J. Gergen, The Self: Colonization in Psychology and Society. T. Sturm, The Self Between Psychology and Philosophy: The Case of Self-Deception. Part II: Roles of Instruments in Psychological Research. Instruments as Organizers of Research Practices: H. Gundlach, What Is a Psychological Instrument? F. Strack, N. Schwarz, Asking Questions: Measurement in the Social Sciences. Instruments at Disciplinary Frontiers: Psychology and the Neurosciences: G. Roth, T.F. Munte, H.J. Heinze, Can the Psyche Be Visualized by the Neurosciences? R. Bsel, Brain Imaging Methods and the Study of Cognitive Processes: Potentials and Limits. M. Hagner, Mind Reading, Brain Mirror, Neuroimaging: Insight Into the Brain or the Mind? Instruments as Metaphors for Psychological Objects: G. Gigerenzer, T. Sturm, Tools=Theories=Data? On Some Circular Dynamics in Cognitive Science. Conclusion: J. Capshew, Reflexivity Revisited: Changing Psychology's Frame of Reference.

The economic and legal development of society in recent decades is subject to the two bright trends of cross-border nature: first, these are the parallel processes of globalization and expansion of international integration relations – both global and regional ones – erasing the geographically defined boundaries of state jurisdiction, and secondly, it is the formation of the innovative type of economy – the knowledge economy, which is based on intellectual resources and high technology, including nanotechnology. Despite the progressive effects of these trends on the economy and competitiveness of the state, the list of possible negative consequences, unfortunately, inevitably includes serious environmental risks, which, in turn, significantly complicate the implementation of the concept of sustainable economic development. Meanwhile, the same nanotechnology activity can simultaneously act as a source of environmental risks, as well as an instrument for their neutralization or at least minimization. Thus, one of the ways to reduce cross-border environmental risks can be the use of nanotechnology developments in the production sector, for example, in the electrical industry including an alternative one. In this regard, the paper discusses the latest nanotechnology developments, which are overseen by AO “RUSNANO” (hereinafter – RUSNANO) and the Fund of Infrastructural and Educational Programs (FIOP), aimed at preventing and minimizing the effects of environmental harm, contributing to the economy of natural resources and efficient utilization of industrial waste. The recommendations on streamlining the state system of organizational, financial, legislative and infrastructural measures for nanotechnology development of the alternative energy sector are formulated.

Persian Literature and Modernity: Production and Reception

Rural Partnership: An Approach to Achieve Development and Poverty Reduction (Case Study: Saravan Dehestan of Rasht County)