Considering the paradoxes of freedom/liberty, the author proposes to correlate freedom and liberty as “abstract” and “concrete freedom” in 9 Hegel. The first involves the ability to do what you want, regardless of social rules and customs; the second is freedom, limited and at the same time supported by a set of social norms. The gap between these concepts constitutes the space of actual freedom, creating a tension between the universality of the law and attempts to formulate exceptions to it. There are prohibitions that can only be expected to be violated privately, and even those whose existence cannot even be publicly reported. An important function of such prohibitions is to maintain appearances, and not necessarily only in non-democratic regimes — a modern boss may demonstrate that they are only the first among equals, but in fact they remain our boss. Here relations of domination function through their negation: we are not only obligated to obey, but also obligated to act as if domination does not exist. Perhaps today more than ever, the mechanism of censorship intervenes primarily to enhance the effectiveness of the discourse of power itself. In modern capitalism, hegemonic ideology includes critical knowledge, thereby neutralizing its effectiveness: critical distance in relation to the social order is the very medium through which it reproduces itself. Thus, art biennales, positioned as a form of resistance to global capitalism, actually turn into an act of capitalist selfreproduction. Illustrating the way of liberation through giving up what you desire most, the author analyzes the case of Malcolm X. Choosing X as a surname is a demonstration of a new (lack of) identity, this gesture makes white dominance meaningless, turns it into a game without a partner, without whom the game itself is impossible. True liberation, then, by definition involves symbolic suicide.

The article presents the results of an analysis of perceptions of migrants in press releases and regulatory documents of law enforcement and civil government agencies. We considered these texts within the framework of a "soft" constructionist approach, as a tool for problematizing the social process and one of the key ways of producing the discourse of power. The purpose of the study was to use a combination of quantitative content analysis and discourse analysis to identify the "equivalence chains" that give meanings to the nodal sign "migration" in the texts of power. The objectives of the study were to collect a text array relevant to the topic and determine the social context in which the migrant is placed: the spaces in which they are present, the actions of which 120 they are the subject and object. In most of the 548 texts reviewed, the migrant is presented as a suspicious, impersonal object of state paternalism. The most extensive category of social actions in which a migrant acts as a subject are crimes, mainly related to violation of the regime of stay in the Russian Federation. The most common actions committed against a migrant are inspections and raids, as well as various kinds of punishment. The subject of action against a migrant in regional government texts is not the Main Directorate for Migration Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, but the Main Directorate for Public Order Maintenance, the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, and the courts. The article proposes a hypothesis according to which law enforcement agencies use press releases simultaneously as a way to problematize migration and maintain public attention to it. Having monopolized the problem, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor's Office, and the courts use it to repeatedly "sell" this issue to the public through the only tool available to them - symbolic and physical violence.

This article is dedicated to investigating rationality as one of the key characteristics of Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality and to related 30 contradictions inside and outside Foucauldian theory. Using risk theory, the author explores the possibility of the existence of multiple rationalities in governmentalities and offers a solution to the contradiction within Foucauldian theory. The article focuses on the question of how it is possible to resolve both methodological, practical, as well as theoretical, contradictions in the theory of governmentality, keeping its main characteristics, such as population-centeredness, intact. The author concludes that diversification is more effective within the framework of multiple rationalities, which is most consistent with the understanding of the governmentality of the population as a goal, as a mechanism of risk management. The article makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the relationship between rationality and irrationality in the theory of governmentality, putting forward new ideas for the research and development of effective forms of public administration. The author also suggests ways to solve the paradox of regulated freedom, which has practical implications for modern methods of governance and regulation in society. This more detailed analysis clarifies how Foucault's concept of governmentality can be applied in a contemporary context, and how the limitations of rationality can be overcome to achieve more flexible and adaptive forms of governance.

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the characteristics of the post-career of high-ranking PA officials who left their positions under President Yeltsin and in the post-Yeltsin period - and the factors that determine them. The empirical basis of the study is a database that includes biographical questionnaires on AP figures who at least once left a key position in this body. The study showed that the role of federal executive authorities (including the government of the Russian Federation and law enforcement agencies) as a channel of post-career has increased. Transitions to the federal parliament are rare in both eras, but the proportion of officials who ended up in the State Duma after their resignation (especially a year later) slightly decreased, while the proportion of those who moved to the Federation Council, on the contrary, slightly increased in the post-Yeltsin period as a whole. While transitions to regional administrations were rare in both periods, PA officials were noticeably more likely to become governors in the post-Yeltsin era, which was facilitated by a centralization of power. Finally, the share of transitions from government to business is similar in both periods, as are their other characteristics: the dominance of big business as a place of work and the distribution of firms that have adopted officials by form of ownership. The pantouflage was aided by high salaries in big business and the firms' interest in recruiting officials in the context of crony capitalism.

The article examines how the perception of historical time influences the dynamics of power relations and resistance. It draws on the concept of multitemporality, which posits that different 'temporal regimes' — different experiences of time and different temporal constructions of past, present, and future — can coexist. Drawing on the work of K. Mannheim, H. Rosa, and M. Foucault, the article illustrates that power and resistance operate in different temporal regimes, perceive social change at different speeds, and have different attitudes towards the past and the future. The article explores how the optics of multitemporality can serve resistance politics and have an emancipatory effect. Using Foucault's concepts of power and resistance, it describes specific multitemporal characteristics associated with power and resistance, such as power's tendency to slow down the passage of time and resistance's struggle against the determination of the future. The article considers how the temporal aspect helps power to maintain and strengthen its dominance, while enabling resistance to create alternative future scenarios. It emphasizes that resistance acts as a catalyst for social change and, drawing on the ideas of Foucault and Deleuze, underlines the primacy of resistance over power. It concludes that resistance not only seeks to outpace power in time, but represents a qualitatively different approach to time and history.

The article is devoted to a rethinking of the state as a political form from the perspective of Slavoj Žižek’s psychoanalytical understanding of ideology and Mikhail Reisner’s theory of the state. The paper systematically outlines Žižek’s ideas from the early period of his work and Reisner’s theory of the state. Žižek, rejecting the traditional understanding of ideology as false consciousness, presents it as a necessity that structures reality. In turn, Reisner views the state not only as an instrument of oppression but also as a psychological phantasm based on the ideas and unconscious attitudes of the masses. Synthesising Žižek’s ideas with Reisner’s legacy forms the main aim of this article. In combining the two perspectives, the state turns out to be the ideology that organises contemporary political experience and conceals a certain traumatic impossibility of symbolising the Real. The attempt to look at the state-as-ideology through the prism of psychoanalysis reveals the mechanisms of its functioning as the main signifier around which political-legal discourse and political practice are centered. It turns out that the state-as-ideology replaces other forms of political communities both temporally and spatially. Overcoming this situation is possible through bringing the phantasm of the state back to the human psyche. This, in turn, requires a recognition of the presence of an unsymbolised lack at the very heart of the symbolic order, undermining the absolute power of the state-as-ideology to determine the structure of political reality. The non-obvious intellectual connection between Žižek and Reisner and their original views on the nature of ideology and the state provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at the principles of the structure of the contemporary political form and to contribute to the ongoing debate on the state.

The article examines the problems of the genesis of political theology as a phenomenon and the specificity of political theology as a method based on the concepts of Jan Assmann and Carl Schmitt. Analysing the development of political religion in Jewish political theology as a phenomenon and political theology as a sociological method provides new insights into the tasks of political theology as a syncretic political, theological, anthropological and sociological method. This method not only explores the changing relationship between power and religious order, but also identifies its actual origins. The examination of this genesis is traversed through the key concepts of “theologization of politics” (Assmann) and “politicization of theology” (Schmitt). An analysis of Schmitt's method of political theology itself, with reference to Assmann's analysis of political theology, leads to the conclusion that Schmitt theologizes political theology by presenting it as a single mechanism and stripping it of the content that could legitimise secular power. The political theology that emerged in Judaism, conditioned by the gap between theory and practice, makes possible the act of legitimation circulating between divine law and its fulfilment. Schmitt, however, shifts the focus from the internal circulation of legitimation to the principle itself. This principle is enunciated by the sociology of legal concepts, a method that not only establishes the substantive identity of the metaphysical picture of the world and the legal system, but to some extent strips this identity of the intrinsic distinction of being-in-itself, which metaphysics/theology tries to think through, and being-for-itself, which political praxis arranges according to the metaphysical premise but does not coincide with it completely. The article therefore concludes that the notion of political theology in Assmann's theory is the most constructive and historically validated, whilst also having great potential for deconstructing both historical politicaltheological models and the political-theological method itself.