Political Field and Zone of Power:
Ideal Type Varieties and an Empirical Verification


Nedyak I.L.

Dr. Sci. (Polit.), Leading Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia. iraned@mail.ru

Pavlova T.V.

Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Leading Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia. tamarapavlova@mail.ru

Patrushev S.V.

Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Head of Department of Comparative Political Studies, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia. servpatrushev@gmail.com

Philippova L.E.

Cand. Sci. (Polit.), Leading Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia. ludmila_filippova@hotmail.com

DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008323-8
ID of the Article: 7971


For citation:

Nedyak I.L., Pavlova T.V., Patrushev S.V., Philippova L.E. Political Field and Zone of Power: Ideal Type Varieties and an Empirical Verification. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2020. No 1. P. 42-53




Abstract

In the article, the concepts “political field” and “zone of power” are analyzed in order to evaluate their applicability to the sociologacal study of conditions for emergence of modern-type politics in Russia – based on goal-setting and competition. The attempted conceptualization was based on neoinstitutional, deliberative and neo-republican approaches. Models developed by the authors were verified using the data of a 2018 nationwide representative population survey. It is demonstrated that, according to different understanding of rules and their role in politics, political sphere in Russia is precieved either as a closed and deformalized zone of power or as an open political field. These perceptions influence how the possibility of interests’ realization in politics is assessed and how attitudes towards participation are formed. The approaches used in the article also help to reveal how the zone of power can potentially be transformed into political field.


Keywords
modern-type politics; power; domination; citizens; political field; zone of power; neoinstitutional analysis; neoclassical republicanism; deliberation; reflexivity; dialogicality
Content No 1, 2020