The article is devoted to the problem of choosing the object of research of political science in modern conditions, due to the apparent narrowing of the subject field to forecasting of electoral prospects for political parties and development of technologies for pre-election campaigns. The ground for this situation is the inconsistency of the old methodology, which considered the center of attention of political science to be the state power, as a result of which the struggling for the distribution of the power resource became the sole object of the study. As a result, politology became tied to a historically and culturally limited type of socio-political system. Therefore, it is necessary to go away from the old methodology, and moreover, from the old object of study. The electoral process is losing its importance everywhere, but the process of articulation and aggregation of interests does not stop. This process cannot be considered in isolation from politics in its traditional sense. No significant change in social reality is possible without the participation of the state, and any public activity inevitably faces the need to communicate with the administration and political power, which inevitably politicizes any actions and movements aimed at changing social reality. The theoretical basis for further research can be a conventional two-part model of the social world, in which there are two spheres – the “political community” (or the political system) and the “non-political community”. The key research problem is precisely the quality of communication “power – society – power”. At the level of high theorizing, required are further development of the “two-part” model and the development of definitions of “politics” and “political process” that do not emanate from the struggle for power as a basis. At the level of fundamental research, the main research focus should be on the study of such institutions as citizens’ appeals, public chambers and councils, public reception rooms, non-profit organizations. At the level of the applied developments, the main attention should be paid to the technologies of using existing and designing new communication institutes to promote the interests of citizens.

politics, political science, power, influence, aggregation, modernization, social problems, civil movements

 1. Medvedev D. A. Poslaniye Federal’nomu sobraniyu 2010 g. [Message to the Federal Assembly 2010]. http://www.president.kremlin.ru/transcripts/9637 [date of visit: 28.03.2011] (in Russ.).

 2. Dal’ R. A. O demokratii [About democracy]. Transl. from Eng. Moscow, 2000 (in Russ.).

 3. Dzhekson D. I. Politicheskaya metodologiya: obshchiye problemy [Political methodology: common problems]. Politicheskaya nauka: novyye napravleniya. Pod red. R. Gudina i KH. D. Klingemanna. Transl. from Eng. Moscow, 1999 (in Russ.).

 4. Kozyreva P. M., Gurko T. A. et al. Rol’ sem’i v konsolidatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva [The role of the family in the consolidation of Russian society]. Sotsial’nyye faktory konsolidatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva: sotsiologicheskoye izmereniye. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Moscow, Novyy khronograf, 2010 (in Russ.).

 5. Galkin A. A. Individ, obshchestvo i struktury vlasti [Individual, society and power structures]. Razmyshleniya o politike i politicheskoy nauke. Moscow, ISP RAN, 2004 (in Russ.).

 6. Solov’yev A. I. Politologiya: politicheskaya teoriya, politicheskiye tekhnologii [Political science: political theory, political technologies]. Moscow, Aspekt-press, 2001 (in Russ.).

 7. Koen D. L., Arato E. Grazhdanskoye obshchestvo i politicheskaya teoriya [Civil society and political theory]. Transl. from Eng. Moscow, Ves’ mir, 2003 (in Russ.).

 8. Aristotel’. Politika, I, 1, 1 [Politics, I, 1, 1]. Politika. Afinskaya politiya. Moscow, Mysl’, 1998 (in Russ.).

 9. Gellner E. Usloviya svobody. Grazhdanskoye obshchestvo i ego istoricheskiye soperniki [Conditions of freedom. Civil society and its historical rivals]. Transl. from Eng. Moscow, MSHPI, 2004 (in Russ.).

 10. Popper K. R. Otkrytoye obshchestvo i ego vragi [Open society and its enemies]. Transl. from Eng. Vol. II. Moscow, 1992 (in Russ.).

 11. Andreyev A. L. Priyemlem li dlya Rossii zapadnyy put’ modernizatsii? [Is the Western way of modernization acceptable for Russia?]. Gotovo li rossiyskoye obshchestvo k modernizatsii. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov, R. Krumm, N. E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves’ mir, 2010 (in Russ.).

 12. Glebova I. I. Kak Rossiya spravilas’ s demokratiyey: zametki o russkoy politicheskoy kul’ture, vlasti, obshchestve [How did Russia cope with democracy: notes on Russian political culture, power, society]. Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2006 (in Russ.).

 13. Reyting odobreniya i doveriya. Mart 2011 [Approval and trust rating. 2010, Mart]. URL: http://www.levada.ru/press/2011032401.html [date of visit: 28.03.2011] (in Russ.).

 14. Kynev A. V., Lyubarev A. E. Partii i vybory v sovremennoy Rossii: Evolyutsiya i devolyutsiya [Parties and elections in modern Russia: Evolution and devolution]. Moscow, Liberal’naya missiya; Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye, 2011 (in Russ.).

 15. Institutsional’naya politologiya: sovremennyy institutsionalizm i politicheskaya transformatsiya Rossii [Institutional Political Science: Modern institutionalism and political transformation of Russia]. Ed. by S. V. Patrushev. Moscow, ISP RAN, 2006 (in Russ.).

 16. Sotsial’nyye tekhnologii mezhsektornogo vzaimodeystviya v sovremennoy Rossii [Social technologies of intersectoral interaction in modern Russia]. Ed. by A. S. Avtonomov. Moscow, Fond «NAN», 2003 (in Russ.).