Editorial

ISSN 1019-3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022, Vol. 92, Suppl. 10, p. S909. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2022. Editorial DOI: 10.1134/S1019331622160055 Two “camps” have developed in the world humanities, which are based on different approaches: conventionally they are sometimes called “sociologists” and “anthropologists.” The former prefer to focus on “big” objects, trying to identify long-term trends and structural characteristics; the latter focus on specific, often unique, situations (cases), manifestations of subjectivity: attitudes, interests, motives, etc. Since a significant part of the second half of the 20th century in world historiography was accompanied by an increase in the popularity of historical anthropology, local history, microhistory, and the history of everyday life, naturally, the positions of supporters of the second camp were strengthened. However, interest in the plots of the “big” history, in macro-level processes, has recently begun to grow again, which, apparently, is explained both by the influence of globalization and by the obvious insufficiency of research focused only on the microscale. Although the interest in industrialization rather corresponds to the approach of “sociologists,” since industrialization is understood as a historically long multilateral process of replacing manual labor with technologies based on inanimate energy sources, the authors of this issue tried to use the cognitive capabilities of both approaches, focusing on both macroprocesses and microsituations; identifying trends; and taking into account the impact of cultural values, institutional practices, motives, and interests. Experts associate industrialization with the growth of the division of labor and the complexity of the professional structure and a shift from the concentration of the labor force in the agrarian economy to its concentration in industry and, ultimately, in the service sector. The effectiveness of occupational specialization increases as the size of economic organizations grows. Technological progress causes the need for new specialties that require higher qualifications and replace the former, less qualified ones. In addition, industrialization causes the emergence of new goods and services that did not exist before, which, in turn, also affects the structure of employment. trialization acts as a model of fundamental changes, but in a specific reality, it can take on various forms depending on the degree of complexity and synchronism of the included subprocesses, the impact of internal and external factors, and the level of “intervention” of the state in economic activity. Although the “peaceful conquest” of new spaces by the industrial mode of production, as modern scholars believe, was largely due to the transfer of industrial technologies and organizational experience, this does not reduce the importance of national cultures and institutional experience in the design of country-specific industrial orders. This circumstance highlights the appeal to the history of national and regional industrialization. The issue of the economic development of imperial Russia/the Soviet Union continues to remain debatable. The literature expresses various, sometimes polar, points of view regarding its economic dynamics: catch-up modernization, chronic backwardness, periods of advanced development, and so on. This problem is also relevant in terms of comparing the imperial and Soviet periods; the search for historical, institutional, and cultural roots; and prerequisites for the policy and practice of industrialization in the 20th century. The idea remains that the constant emphasis on the development of military technologies and defense industries was set by aggressiveness and expansionism, allegedly inherent in any form of Russian statehood, and was a characteristic feature of Russian modernization. In this regard, the clarification of the role of the military-strategic factor in the economic development of Russia is of particular relevance. It is known that industrialization, as it proceeds, has an impact on the distribution of income. On the other hand, the social dimensions and social policy can act as a factor in economic growth or, conversely, stagnation. Accordingly, these topics are also addressed in this issue. Numerous changes in demographic behavior, family, education, communication, culture, etc., are closely related to industrialization. In general, indusS909 I.V. Poberezhnikov, RAS Corresponding Member Institute of History and Archeology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia e-mail:  (...truncated)