The author attempts to trace the formation of the concept of the subject, beginning with its conceptualization in classical philosophy up to its current state, i.e. reconceptualization. There are three projects of conceptualization of the subject in Western philosophy. The first one has to do with the conceptualization of the subject in classical philosophy from Descartes to Hegel. The concept of the subject was conceived as transparent and operative in regard to a passive object which can eliminate all subjective qualities. The second project is devoted to the deconceptualization of the subject that means the critique of the classical concept of the subject, the discovery of objective forces, such as power, language, the unconscious, society, which impact the subject and reduce its subjectivity to objectivity. The third one is about the reconceptualization of the subject: rethinking of the classical concept of the subject, given the critique undertaken within the deconceptualization project. The project of subject reconceptualization deals with a paradoxical situation: despite the objective determination of the subject, the subject remains the subject not reducible to an object. The subject appears non-substantial and non-transparent, disconnected, historical and temporal. The contemporary conception of the subject is constructed in such a way that the subject is never the subject yet, but always presupposes a future subject capable of freely choosing its subjectivity from a multitude of contradictory options. The article suggests a new perspective on the subject, which is seen not only as a human actor, but also as a complex of various objects that behave as subjects, that is, can make objects of themselves. The article shows that before the Cartesian moment the concept of the subject did not exist but was explicitly assumed. Referring to the concept of Foucault, Bourdieu, Althusser and Butler, the author shows the process of the formation of the subject as dependable on power, which is a condition and a possibility for subject to form. Therefore, power addresses to the absent subject as an already formed subject, thereby shaping it and bringing subjectivity into the currently forming subject. The following questions are thus raised: when does the subject become the subject? What precedes the subject? The author attempts to demonstrate that the subject is formed, in a void, since there was nothing before the subject, and it is the subject itself that is eventually formed. 

The phenomenon of politicization of humanitarian scientific thought is becoming increasingly noticeable in the modern philosophical, cultural and political science. Scientists and philosophers belonging to political parties are nothing new in the history of science. Today, however, this kind of division into separate groups reveals not only ideological, but also a pronounced political character. The example of the Western European, English-speaking humanitarian academic community appears to be particularly indicative in this regard. Apparently, the conflict between the increasingly radicalized left and right discourses within the English-speaking academic community is entering an active phase. To understand the nature of this confrontation, it is necessary both to consider these discourses as separate phenomena, and to delve into their historical roots. The political discourse of the New Left is most clearly revealed in the program of the so-called cultural studies that appeared among post-war English Marxist intellectuals and later took root in the USA. The term was popularized by Herbert Richard Hoggart a British academic who specialized in sociology, English literature, and British popular culture. In 1964 he founded the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham (CCCS). The history of CCCS is strongly associated with the name of Stuart Henry Hall, who was Hoggart's assistant and headed the Center since 1971. The connection between political action and cultural studies permeates the entire history of this field of knowledge. The very formation of the discipline and its institutionalization in the UK were influenced by such political and cultural events as the post-war Americanization of English popular culture, the spread of telecommunications, the new era of multiculturalism in Britain, and new critical theories. At the same time, many post-war European countries, such as Germany and France, showed interest in research, which ultimately shaped the apparatus of cultural studies. Within the framework of this program, we can see an increasingly nature perspective on culture that combines the Marxist view on the problem of culture and the sociological one but is not reduced to either of them. In this kind of paradigm, culture is understood as a consequence of people's social actions, and at the same time, as a certain system that fixes the ways of implementing these relations. This approach differs from both classical Marxism facosed on economic relations between people and from structural functionalism, in which the concepts of society and culture are almost synonymous. The author states that the discourse of the New Left and the program of cultural studies are different manifestations of a single methodological approach or worldview. At present, this is the dominant worldview in the Western academic community. The article examines the history and main methodological guidelines of this type of cultural studies, as well as today's criticism of this approach.

The object of the study is morality as a form of social consciousness, white its subject is the specific features of the manifestation of new ethics. The authors analyze the variety of phenomena included in the new ethics concept (each involves different groups of actors), and also identify the range of value judgments regarding this concept. The relevance of the topic stems from the need to determine the problem area of what is called new ethics. The questions raise: is the new ethics just a fashionable phrase or does this concept reflect important changes taking place in the life of modern society that affect the standards of behavior? Special attention, according to the authors, should be paid to the conclusions of E. Neumann, who wrote about the new ethics shortly after the Second World War, arguing for the individual right to a responsible ethical decision in the face of the impracticability of any old ethics prescriptions. A non-classical interpretation of the moral problem is suggesred by K. A. Svasyan, who emphasizes the personal-individual basis of viable morality. The new ethics as a principle of free choice can be seen as the opposite of the old ethics-prescriptive norms of behavior that are internalized at the cultural unconscious level in the process of individual socialization. A new ethical problem is emerging in a new — post-industrial, digital — era. This implies not only transformation of interpersonal communication skills, but also a changing (or disappearing) image of the working person. However, in some cases, the new ethics freedom to choose is limited to the adoption and implementation of new etiquette prescriptions. The result of the research is the recognition of the possible ontological status of the new ethics, which introduces new aspects of the changing social life of an individual into the moral problematic — not a person in general, but a specific here and now individual. The new ethics is considered not only as a protest against the impersonal cultural unconscious imposed by society, but also as an experience of individual and subjective reformatting of public morality. The ideas of human dignity and respect for the individual, which have long been discussed by moral philosophy, are moving from the theoretical sphere to the practical one. 

Cultural changes we see today call for a thorough study of servant leadership. They originate from the spread of conscious consumption and the formation of new norms. Within this novel set of expectations, the leader figure is not reduced to their professional characteristics but needs to meet specific personal qualities (virtues), for example, modesty and selfless willingness to serve one’s subordinates in their professional and personal growth. The literature review has revealed a growing number of works on servant leadership in English. At the same time, references to historical precedents indicate that imposing values outweigh a strictly theoretical analysis. The value-driven approach aims to impact means and instruments of governance at a conscious level, to match political leadership with sustainable development, and defy extensive consumption. We set to study prospects and limitations of applying new norms to modern societies and of assuming such a leadership style in various national cultures. The research focuses on governance discourse that embraces the concepts of service, humility, and modesty. The authors addressed the following research questions: what is the theory of servant leadership today? What is the role of value theory (axiology) in culture, both in its economic, political, and social dimensions? These questions are novel in modern Russian philosophy. Thematic analysis of literature on the topic has shown essential characteristics of a servant leader and made it possible to provide a compatible definition. The study concentrates on the understanding and functioning of the concept of service in Russian national culture and goes beyond its economic interpretation. The methods of anthropology and axiology, thick description, case study, and SWOT analysis were utilized. The paper finds conditions for implementing the servant type of leadership in Russia to achieve better results both in politics, and in business. Promotion of servant leadership is possible via PR strategies that exploit service as a general cultural phenomenon. 

In this article, we attempt to identify the topical issues of the religious movement Iron Din in socio-communicative, historical, cultural, and political discourses. The study applies on the interdisciplinary approach based on a systematic review of textual materials, scientific research devoted to Iron Din, and interviewing adherents of this movement. Iron Din has a dual nature, incorporating both the essence of the traditional Ossetian religion and the specifics inherent to new religious movements. In our opinion, this specific dualism and ambivalence are one of the key features of Iron Din. We have identified a number of prerequisites for the spread and popularization of Iron Din as one of the forms of religious self-identification in modern Ossetian culture. These are globalization, digitalization, the prevalence of visual culture over verbal culture (the so-called visual turn), and the mythologization of modern mass culture. The analysis of the data obtained from the source base enables us to identify key problem areas in the development of the Iron Din movement at the present stage. Among the most acute issues affecting the worldview basis of the movement are the following: firstly, the problem of religious self-identification (monotheism, paganism, syncretism), secondly, the problem of respondents' religious choices (family tradition, personal choice) and thirdly, the problem of inter-confessional conflicts (confrontation with Orthodoxy, mainly in digital format, i.e. on the Internet information platforms). All of them have enabled us to draw the following conclusion: at present, Iron Din is a syncretic movement including both loci of traditional Ossetian beliefs and a set of elements typical for new religious movements. Iron Din has absorbed the autochthonous customs, rituals, and norms of behavior of the Ossetian people, which acquired a new interpretation in terms of globalization. According to the respondents, the most important characteristics that an Iron Din believer should possess include courage, modesty, moderation, honesty, respect for seniors, etc. Religious illiteracy and a decline in morality appear among the shortcomings identified by the respondents. According to the survey, inter-confessional disagreements are not widespread and are accumulated exclusively within the digital discourse. The results of the interviews and the systematic review have shown that the cult of nature is not prevailing or autonomous in Iron Din: it is sacred natural loci (places of prayer) and a material expression of culture. It is better to define the Iron Din movement as a part of national identity, largely formed under the influence of religious syncretism and the fledgling movements of the new century.

Today, in the increasingly entangled, interdependent, and digital world, religion is still of utmost importance, and for some societies around the world its role is critical. The new reality poses novel challenges: issues we face today call for the investigation into current trends in the dialogue of religions. In this way, followers of various religions that would be willing to cooperate to solve major problems of religious diversity would have reference points to compare themselves with. Concerning the goals and objectives of social development, scientific analysis needs to study conceptual foundations and the most effective strategies for interreligious dialogue and communication. To that end, a case study of interreligious contacts and the newest trends serves this objective best. The article is devoted to studying the experience of a global interreligious dialogue, precisely the so-called religion of peace phenomenon with an emphasis on peace and prosperity. One of the most common practices of the religion of peace is joint prayers of members of different religions has entered the agenda of international forums on religion. An important source of information for the study was the author's first-hand experience of participating in interreligious events, including the 10th Assembly of the largest interreligious organization Religions for Peace (Lindau, Germany, 2019). Four main types of interreligious dialogue are described — polemical, cognitive, peacemaking, and partnership. It is noted that partnership and peace-making types dominate modern intercultural dialogue: helping the underprivileged, maintaining moral values and justice, integrating migrants, protecting the environment, etc. At the same time, the significance of polemical and cognitive (theological) types fades. Thus, the author concludes that intercultural dialogue is becoming a tool for increasingly peaceful coexistence of religions as social institutions, and therefore increases their positive social influence. 

This brief review of the first century of Russian-American relations seeks to explain why the profound conflict between the ideological foundations of the two states — an autocratic empire and a democratic republic — did not hamper the relations between them for a long time. Focusing on such events as the American War of Independence, Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, and the American Civil War, the study, informed by neoclassical realism and philosophy of culture, discusses the logic of political and sociocultural interactions between the two states over a period shaped by great historical upheavals and social transformations. Autocratic Russia despite its ideological basis welcomed the birth of the American republic, helped it to survive, grow, overcome its internal divisions, and rise to a world power status. This seeming paradox is explained primarily by the historical-specific configuration of the national interests of Russia and the USA. The geographical distance between the two countries precluded geopolitical conflicts between them, while Russia’s role in the rivalries between the great powers of Europe corresponded to the geopolitical interests of the USA. Unlike West European powers, Russia did not object to the US drive for hegemony on the American continent, and neither did the US obstruct Russia’s territorial expansion in Eurasia. Geopolitical cooperation was reinforced by the mutual interest in trade. The congruence between the two countries' national interests was discovered during the American War of Independence and continued to exist until the early 20th century. The ruling elites on both sides kept the inherent ideological conflict between Russia and America from undermining the two nations’ cooperation. In times of liberal reforms in Russia, regarded in the US as proof of the universality of American ideas, the ideological conflict seemed to wane, but Russian- American cooperation continued even under more repressive Russian regimes. The situation changed when a combination of international and domestic factors caused frictions between their national interests and spurred their ideological conflict. The two countries’ expansionist drives in the North Pacific region made them rivals in the struggle for regional influence. Meanwhile, turbulent changes in American society in the late 19th – early 20th centuries generated an intensive reaffirmation of the American national creed. The new ideologization of America targeted Russian crisis-stricken tsarism as a system opposed to democratic values. American public opinion shifted from friendship with Russian tsars to advocacy of Russian freedom. This case study contributes insights into the historical evolution of Russian-American relations and the general problem of the role of ideology in international relations. 

The strategy and tactics of Japan's contemporary migration policy are determined by the ethnocultural characteristics of the Japanese nation, recognized as the concept of national character (国民性 kokuminsei), which is both a political and scientific entity. The rapid changes in migration policy today expose the practical need to study the causes, consequences, and specifics of related social and political concepts such as national character and the factors that shape it. The accurate knowledge helps predict cultural, political, and socioeconomic changes and future agendas. This concept is a subject of paramount importance for international relations studies, as it is rooted in the Japanese nation's self-consciousness and represents core elements of national history within its interrelation with present policy. The study suggests that the Japanese national character, described and conceptualized in the late Edo period (1603–1868) and the Meiji period (1868–1912), still influences the attitudes of the Japanese towards migration and foreigners in general. The representatives of kokugaku (国学 national study) that originated at that time and nihonjin-ron (日本人論 theories about the Japanese) that developed further sought to assert the authenticity of Japanese culture and its history and construct a national identity. Assumingly, it would become an instrument of protecting the country from the influence of China and later the West. Today, researchers of Japanese culture, both in Japan and abroad, continue to refer to post-war nihonjin-ron, criticizing, rethinking, or adding to its major provisions. Content analysis of the vocabulary used in connection with the concept of national character in official documents regulating the relevant area of social policy, as well as in the media and social networks, has revealed some features of the modern interpretation of this concept. In particular, there are attempts to identify socially significant features of a member of Japanese society. Certain acculturation efforts required from migrants imply the development of the skills that are socially important from the point of view of Japanese society. The comprehensive analysis of measures for the integration and adaptation of migrants implemented by the local governments of Japan has shown that communicative phenomena associated with the concepts of meiwaku (迷惑 causing trouble), omoiyari (思いやり considerate caring for others), as well as the culture of gift-giving and apologizing play an important role in the relationships between Japanese and foreigners. In addition, the analysis of migration policy allows concluding that the concept of coexistence between Japanese and foreigners (多文化共生 tabunka kyousei) currently pursued by the government, despite its promising title, does not quite correspond to multiculturalism in its classical sense, in other words — does not imply deliberate government action to preserve and develop cultural differences within one society.

This article serves as a response to the need of developing a conceptual apparatus that would take into consideration the duality of religion. On the one hand, religion is an institution of a particular denomination and defines itself in terms of self-imposed norms, and on the other hand, religion is a living faith both popular and personal, directly experienced by individuals. We aim to study the transformation of approaches to the phenomenon of people’s religion, actualized by religious studies specializing in anthropological and folklore research questions. This study of people’s religion was conducted within the framework of semantic analysis of source materials (in Russian and in English) presented in linguistic corpuses. The novelty of the study is provided by the analysis of the understanding of religion through the prism of differences in the main connotations of the word people in Russian texts of the 11th–20th centuries. The study has revealed a change in the semantics: old disjunction of veche (popular assembly) and chern’ (lowest classes) gives way to the distinction of Russian subjects and Christians / peasants, bearers of folk wisdom and popular superstitious beliefs. Further the latter distinction turns into the construction of universal images of unanimity of people and of a builder of socialism/communism. Solidarity is understood as the religion of unanimity and transforms from the orthodoxy of Vladimir the Great who set Christianity against pagan superstitions, through the opposition of orthodox Christians and ungodly infidels, to the distancing of orthodox Christians and raskolniks (schismatics). The quest for solidarity took the form of a search for ways to implement the ideal of the 19th century ideology of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality and its later Soviet variation. We suggest using the concepts of vernacular religion (L. Primiano, A. A. Panchenko) and vernacular religiosity (D. A. Radchenko, N. V. Kryukova) to describe religion as individual, local and day-to-day manifestations of individual and group religiosity. The article traces the history of the inclusion of the term vernacular in social self-description, from ancient texts to the present, and reflects its prospects for religious studies, when religion is studied as a unique aspect of the daily practice of a particular social group or individual. 

The main political theatre of the 2010s in Estonia was Teater NO99 (2005–2019), which created several experimental projects. The performance Tallinn — Our City (2010) was a tour through the Old Town, during which the guide revealed corruption schemes with the real estate in which city government and personally mayor Edgar Savisaar were allegedly involved. The fictitious political movement Unified Estonia with the final performance United Estonia Assembly (2010) existed for 44 days and copied unfair campaigning of parliamentary parties, thereby predicting the rise of hyper-populism in the 2010s. The documentary production Meeting of the Leadership of the Reform Party (2012) was devoted to a real investigation into the suspicious financing of the ruling party. The musical Savisaar (2015), released during the parliamentary elections, foresaw the fall of the chairman of the Estonian Centre Party, Edgar Savisaar, who had held power for too long. At the same time, the performance activated the followers of the politician, which led to the fact that the year of the performance's release marked the highest level of electoral activity. Performances From the Second Glance (2016) and I’d Rather Dance with You (2016) gathered Estonian and Russian-speaking audience in theatre halls to talk about the problems that had accumulated in society. The play Will Be/Won’t Be: Estonia in 100 Years (2018) was based on the surveys of children and students: the younger generation should choose which way of development Estonia would take. By participating in interactive voting, viewers themselves decided what kind of Estonia they wanted to see: multicultural, technological, nationalistic, ecological Estonia. There could be distinguished three strategies of performativity in the political theater of Estonia: 1) role reversal, when the audience becomes participants in the production and realizes themselves as subjects of the political process, and the active political forces (government, party) turn out to be spectators of an unpredictable theatrical action; 2) usage of space outside the theater (city, media, social networks) to signify how public spaces become the stage for real politics; 3) erasing the line between art and reality, when a fictitious process exists along with the real political process and even affects it. 

Using the example of the exhibition Meet Them (Encontrarte con Ellos) at the J.M. Blanes Museum of Fine Arts (Montevideo, Uruguay), the article examines the process of reflection on the tragic events of national history, namely the crimes of the 1970s–1980s Uruguayan dictatorship. The research focuses on the question of whether the commemoration of painful experiences is able to consolidate societies by means of discussion and reflection. The process of the collective memory building within the Uruguayan society is considered on the example of the creative initiative of intellectuals undertaken within the framework of the exhibition. They created works, beyond specific genres and concepts, that told the stories of political dissidents who had been abducted and then disappeared. These works are based on real testimonies and designed not to let the history fade in silence. The data collection, which was mandatory for the artists participating in the project, is viewed as a significant and unique investigative feature that, while demanding additional effort from the artists, made the exhibition stand out. It appears as an elaborate sociocultural project that combines documentary evidence with visual images of the silent victims of political repression created by the artists, and the museum of affect in this case serves as a place of memory. Several pieces presented at the exhibition are considered from the point of view of symbolic and creative interpretation of memories and data gathered by the artists, as well as their impressions and sometimes personal stories and experiences intertwined with the story of a particular victim gone missing. However, the manipulative effect of collective memory as a phenomenon, which has historically been actively employed by certain political forces and leaders to increase popularity and gain support, is taken into account. The project is aimed at raising public awareness of the issues on which the artists elaborated through their work, so under certain conditions the exhibition can be conducive to the construction of national and local identities among Uruguayans. The concept of the exhibition favors the achievement of these objectives, but only over time will it be possible to evaluate the extent to which they have been met. At the same time, the reaction of some influential figures to this initiative, as well as significant steps taken by public institutions in order to provide support for commemorative initiatives have shown that a certain part of the Uruguayan elite is generally tilted toward the acceptance of such manifestations of civic engagement. 

Collective monograph published in Barcelona in 2019 under the title Las respuestas a las 10 grandes preguntas que todos nos hacemos sobre Vox (Answers to the 10 biggest questions we ask about Vox) was edited by John Müller, journalist of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. John Müller gathered a powerful team of nine researchers and journalists competent in the issue to provide answers to the major questions about the right-wing populist party Vox, which derives its name from the Latin word for voice. The book written in scientific-journalistic style comprises ten chapters, an introduction, and a conclusion. It opens with a sociological image of Vox partisans. The party is traditionally supported by the region of Andalusia where it first made itself known and widely recognized, as well as by the right-wing Spanish electorate. These voters are conservative-minded and disillusioned with the socialists and the People’s Party. The second chapter discusses the history of the Party, starting from its creation on December 17, 2013, by the former members of the People’s Party and its public presentation at a press conference in Madrid on January 16, 2014. Chapter 3 is devoted to the portrayal of the political leadership of the Party with an emphasis on its leader Santiago Abascal Conde. Born in Bilbao in 1976 into a family of prominent politicians, Santiago Abascal followed in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps and joined the People’s Party, then in opposition. Because of the political work, namely their staunch position against the separation of the Basque Country and Catalonia from Spain, the family was threatened by the terrorist group ETA. The feeling of an imminent threat might account for another vein of Abascal’s political aspirations – the right to defensive gun use and ownership for the Spaniards. In this part of the book, Abascal is depicted as ultra-right and xenophobic, though Abascal denies such allegations. Chapter 4 analyses the reasons for the split in the People’s Party that gave rise to the Vox party. The intraparty struggle revolved around Basque separatism, terrorism, and taxation issues. Further on the authors investigate the ideology of right-wing populism in Spain and explain the reasons for its wide support, the economic policy of neoliberalism, similar to Franco’s one, and tax cuts for large businesses among them. The book is based on Abascal’s public speeches and taps into the works of prominent political scientists. 

On December 17, 2021, MGIMO University held the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the memory of Lev Ivanovich Skvortsov, outstanding linguist, lexicographer, Doctor of Philology, professor, author of many dictionaries and books on the culture of Russian spoken language. In the opening speech, his son Yaroslav Skvortsov, the Dean of the Faculty of International Journalism of MGIMO University, organizer and the permanent host of the Readings noted that the topic Do we speak Russian Correctly? Dynamics of Language Norms is also the title of Lev I. Skvortsov’s book, published 40 years ago and still topical. The Russian language still faces an influx of borrowed words, idioms and is prone to stylistic transformations induced by the media. Linguists, language teachers, journalists, and economists — all those interested in the conservation and development of 

the Russian language — came to the Suzdal Kremlin to discuss the current trends in language use and language teaching. The participants presented their ideas and research on various topics: Media variant of the language: from the usage to the norm (N. I. Klushina), Speech of YouTubers (E. V. Bykova), The concept of literacy in the Internet folklore (G. G. Slyshkin), Business slang in 2004 and today (Pogrebnyak E. V.) and others. By tradition, many departments of MGIMO University were presented at the conference. Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Concept: Philosophy, Religion, Culture, MGIMO Professor, Head of the Department of World Literature and Culture, writer Yury Pavlovich Simonov (Viazemsky) delivered a guest of honor speech. He remembered the deeds and ideals of Lev Ivanovich and urged everybody to find inspiration in the beauty of Russian nature that can only be described in the beautiful Russian language. This idea resonated with the director of Vladimir-Suzdal Reserve Museum S. E. Rybakov: Suzdal is the center of Russianness and is the right place to discuss its language. In the changing world, L. I. Skvortsov’s work reminds us of the importance of inspecting and rethinking norms that are to be adequate rather than rigid.

On December 3-4, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the People’s Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), in cooperation with Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and the University of Texas at San Antonio, held the 7th International Conference Bilingualism, Multilingualism, Translingualism and Language Education. This unique research and practice project on bilingualism in post-Soviet countries takes place under the guidance of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (IATRLL). The initiators and hosts of the Conference are professors of the RUDN University U. M. Bakhtikireeva and V. P. Sinyachkin. The Conference opened with the speeches of A. V. Dolzhikova (Institute of Russian Language, RUDN University), N. S. Trukhanovskaya (Ministry of Science and Higher Education), S. Kellman (University of Texas), E. D. Suleimenova (Kazakhstanian ATRLL), L. G. Balasanian (Armenian ATRLL). Plenary papers concerned the issues of language crosscultural development, bilingualism, translation in intercultural communication. One of the key topics was the transformation of the institutional language discourse and its impact on education policy. Thematic sessions elaborated on these problems and covered the history and reality of group and individual bilingualism, theory and practice of language teaching and translation. Participants of the Knowledge Transfer workshop discussed possibilities of a systemic approach to teaching Russian for native and non-native speakers. Researchers and language teachers had a great opportunity to share their academic and practical expertise on language education and intercultural communication. In line with the previous conferences, theoretical issues of bilingualism, the study and description of its features attracted considerable attention. The Conference attracted specialists in numerous fields and served as a venue for cooperation: bilingualism today needs further discussion and searching for new answers to the long-standing questions.

On January 7–8, 2022, an event Après la déconstruction. Reconstruire les sciences et la culture (After the Deconstruction. Reconstruction of Sciences and the Culture) organized by the College of Philosophy, the Observatory of decolonialism, and the Committee Laïcité République, took place at the Sorbonne. The colloquium brought together prominent figures from around the world in the heart of Paris, in the historical Salle Louis Liard of Sorbonne University in which PhD theses are defended. Due to the constrictions of the venue — hence the COVID-19 restrictions — apart from 220 delegates to the symposium, more than 400 participants took part via the Internet. Minister of National Education Jean-Michel Blanquer delivered the opening speech. Speakers from France and the best universities of the USA, Canada, and Great Britain took part in three sessions and twelve thematic panels. Researchers, political scientists, sociologists, historians, economists, artists, and representatives of many other professions, mathematicians included, followed the lead of French philosophers present at the conference. The keynote of the symposium was the concern about the increasing politicization of science and education and the need to respond to its threats. The convention regarded the so-called woke ideology, or decolonization thinking, and cancel culture as the main threats to the world, science, and education, since this ideology may result in the cancellation of the very Western civilization. The participants discussed, darkly, pseudo-scientific approaches to the study of Islam, new taboos in mass culture, post-truth in the media, and knowledge transfer in educational training today. It was suggested that every fake or pseudoscientific paper should be countered with a scientific one, academics should back their peers confronted by student activists and university administration, resist deconstruction by transmitting knowledge and language to younger generations. The new axiological turn calls for facing the new ethics not only in everyday encounters but within the scientific discourse as well.