Е. Э. Чеботарева


The article explores the prospect of considering humanitarian scientific research as a “soft power” of the state. Soft power is the ability to attract rather than by coercion, using the values and culture. The article shows how the possibility of soft influence can become the one of criteria for the potential effectiveness of humanitarian study. As an argument, the article analyses the work of the American researcher L. Roselle on the strategic narrative as a new means to understand soft power. Roselle demonstrates how the narrative can reflect the situation of international conflict and its resolution; the main conclusion of Rosel’s work is, according to author, the assertion that narrative is the force that imposes constraints on the imaginary and reality. In addition, the article examines one of the possibilities of using philosophical research as a resource of soft power on the example of K. Romano’s book “Philosophical America”. The article also attempts to show that the widespread idea of ability religious institutions, rather than scientists, to form the soft power by representing Russia’s culture and values is potentially full of conflicts. This article seeks to clarify the understanding of what hinders effective use of scientific research as sources of influence. The main problem, according to author, is a conflict between hard and soft forces, which results in devaluation of the cultural contribution of the losing party. The question of the true value of scientific research and artistic works and of the possibility of their consideration outside the geopolitical conjuncture becomes the key one. Also, the article focuses on the imperative of truth for scientific research and warns against the prospect of turning humanitarian disciplines into an advertising and ideological resource that will deprive them of any influence at all. This study is focused on an interdisciplinary field and uses research on both Western and domestic material.


humanitarian research; soft power; conflict; research evaluation; philosophy


  • There are currently no refbacks.