Adaptation to Anti-Crisis Measures: Individual Rights and Public Safety
Research Article
How to Cite
Mozgovaya A.V. 2022. Adaptation to Anti-Crisis Measures: Individual Rights and Public Safety — Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 134-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2022.10.3.9201
Abstract
The current stage of social development is characterized by natural and technological changes, the consequences of which can lead to both global and local shocks, taking the character of institutional crises, emergencies, catastrophes. Anti-crisis measures, post-disaster recovery concern all aspects of social life, include the macro level and the daily way of life of the population. The effectiveness of any measures developed by the subjects of the institutional environment is directly and directly related to the way the population chooses to adapt to them: accepts – ignores – rejects
The purpose of the analysis in the article is to identify personal characteristics, external factors, social positions and preferences associated with choosing the priority of personal ideas about ways to ensure security in crisis conditions or measures developed by professionals and institutional structures. The empirical basis of the analysis is the data of the 27th wave of the all-Russian monitoring of the economic situation and health of the population. The analysis is carried out on the basis of a representative sample, from which respondents aged less than 18 years have been removed. The selected indicators are grouped into several blocks: socio-demographic characteristics of respondents; adaptive capabilities; values; security; attitude to the social environment.
The analysis of empirical data undertaken in the article revealed a number of similarities and differences between target groups formed according to the criterion of accepting restrictions on rights and freedoms for the sake of ensuring public safety. Interpretation of the results obtained allows us to assert that the resources of “reformatting” the initially declared attitude to non-acceptance of environmental requirements are the development of personal adaptability, the growth of institutional trust, closer cooperation between the population and decision-making entities, a significant increase in the level of responsibility in relation to the laws.
Keywords:
adaptation, trust, security, crisis, rights restrictions
References
1. Avraamova E. M., Loginov D. M. (2018). Adaptacionnoe povedenie naseleniya kak faktor social`nogo razvitiya. [People’s adaptive behavior as a social development factor]. Vestnik Rossijskogo fonda fundamental`nykh issledovanij. Gumanitarnye i obshhestvennye nauki. № 3 (92). P. 36–44. DOI: 10.22204/2587–8956–2018–092–03–36–44. (In Russ.).
2. Giddens E. Posledstviya sovremennosti. (2011). [The consequences of modernity]. Moscow: Izdatel’skaya i konsaltingovaya gruppa «PraksiS». 343 p. (In Russ.).
3. Gudkov L. D. Doverie v Rossii: smysl, funktsii, struktura. (2012). [Trust in Russia: meaning, functions, structure]. Bulletin of Public Opinion. No 2 (112). P. 8–47. (In Russ.).
4. Kozyreva P. M. (2004). Protsessy adaptatsii i evolyutsii sotsial`nogo samochuvstviya rossiyan na rubezhe XX-XX1 vekov. [The processes of adaptation and evolution of the social well-being of Russians at the turn of the XX-XX1 centuries]. M.: Centr obshhechelovecheskix tsennostej publ. 320 p. (In Russ.).
5. Porfir’ev B. N. (2010). Krizisy i riski sovremennogo razvitiya: mesto i rol’ strategicheskikh riskov. [Crises and risks of modern development: the place and role of strategic risks]. Strategicheskie riski razvitiya Rossii: otsenka i prognoz (sbornik nauchnykh trudov). Ed. by B. N. Porfir’ev. Moscow: IEH RAN publ. P .9–31. (In Russ.).
6. Rostovceva M. V., Mashanov A. A. (2012). Osnovnye podkhody` k issledovaniyu adaptivnosti lichnosti. [The main approaches to the study of personality adaptability]. Vestnik KrasGAU. № 7 (70). P. 191–195. (In Russ.).
7. Tikhonova N. E. (2018). Sootnoshenie interesov gosudarstva i prav cheloveka v glazakh rossiyan: empiricheskij analiz. [Correlation of the interests of the state and human rights in the eyes of Russians: an empirical analysis]. Political studies. No 5. P. 134–149. (In Russ.).
8. Shlykova E. V. (2021). Uroven` adaptivnosti i porog adaptivnogo potentsiala vzroslogo naseleniya Rossii. [The level of adaptability and the threshold of adaptive potential of the adult population of Russia]. Rossiya reformiruyushhayasya: ezhegodnik: vy`p. 19. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Novy`j Xronograf publ. P. 360–383. DOI: 10.19181/ezheg.2021.15. (in Russ.).
9. Shtompka P. (2012). Doverie – osnova obshchestva. [Trust is the foundation of society]. Moscow: Logos publ. 445 p. (In Russ.).
10. Stern E. K. (1999). Crisis Decision making: A Cognitive Institutional Approach. Stockholm: University of Stockholm. 288 p.
2. Giddens E. Posledstviya sovremennosti. (2011). [The consequences of modernity]. Moscow: Izdatel’skaya i konsaltingovaya gruppa «PraksiS». 343 p. (In Russ.).
3. Gudkov L. D. Doverie v Rossii: smysl, funktsii, struktura. (2012). [Trust in Russia: meaning, functions, structure]. Bulletin of Public Opinion. No 2 (112). P. 8–47. (In Russ.).
4. Kozyreva P. M. (2004). Protsessy adaptatsii i evolyutsii sotsial`nogo samochuvstviya rossiyan na rubezhe XX-XX1 vekov. [The processes of adaptation and evolution of the social well-being of Russians at the turn of the XX-XX1 centuries]. M.: Centr obshhechelovecheskix tsennostej publ. 320 p. (In Russ.).
5. Porfir’ev B. N. (2010). Krizisy i riski sovremennogo razvitiya: mesto i rol’ strategicheskikh riskov. [Crises and risks of modern development: the place and role of strategic risks]. Strategicheskie riski razvitiya Rossii: otsenka i prognoz (sbornik nauchnykh trudov). Ed. by B. N. Porfir’ev. Moscow: IEH RAN publ. P .9–31. (In Russ.).
6. Rostovceva M. V., Mashanov A. A. (2012). Osnovnye podkhody` k issledovaniyu adaptivnosti lichnosti. [The main approaches to the study of personality adaptability]. Vestnik KrasGAU. № 7 (70). P. 191–195. (In Russ.).
7. Tikhonova N. E. (2018). Sootnoshenie interesov gosudarstva i prav cheloveka v glazakh rossiyan: empiricheskij analiz. [Correlation of the interests of the state and human rights in the eyes of Russians: an empirical analysis]. Political studies. No 5. P. 134–149. (In Russ.).
8. Shlykova E. V. (2021). Uroven` adaptivnosti i porog adaptivnogo potentsiala vzroslogo naseleniya Rossii. [The level of adaptability and the threshold of adaptive potential of the adult population of Russia]. Rossiya reformiruyushhayasya: ezhegodnik: vy`p. 19. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Novy`j Xronograf publ. P. 360–383. DOI: 10.19181/ezheg.2021.15. (in Russ.).
9. Shtompka P. (2012). Doverie – osnova obshchestva. [Trust is the foundation of society]. Moscow: Logos publ. 445 p. (In Russ.).
10. Stern E. K. (1999). Crisis Decision making: A Cognitive Institutional Approach. Stockholm: University of Stockholm. 288 p.
Article
Received: 15.05.2022
Accepted: 16.09.2022
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
Harvard
Mozgovaya, A. V. (2022) ’Adaptation to Anti-Crisis Measures: Individual Rights and Public Safety’, Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika, 10(3), pp. 134-147. doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2022.10.3.9201.
Section
Sociology of Risk
Publisher: Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FCTAS RAS)