Nikovskaya L.I. The subject models of social change: what prevails in Russia? Local law. 2025. No. 4. Pp. 3-12. Nikovskaya L.I. The subject models of social change: what prevails in Russia? Local law. 2025. No. 4. Pp. 3-12.ISSN 2075-1788DOI нетРИНЦ: https://elibrary.ru/contents.asp?id=83040378Posted on site: 27.10.25 AbstractThe article examines the sociological aspects of the analysis of models of social change related to the socio-structural and subjective foundations of socio-political processes and relations. It is shown that many problems and contradictions of the social sphere, such as social polarization, excessive inequalities, poverty and violation of the principles of social justice, deprivation of basic needs and interests, unstable employment significantly affect the features and dynamics of social changes, aggravating their course and positive outcomes. The insolubility of social problems and contradictions, and their prolonged disregard, either cause a decrease in public interest in politics, in the effectiveness of institutions of public participation, contribute to widening the gap between "private" and "public", generate a sense of political alienation and impotence, or push to satisfy basic needs beyond existing social norms and political institutions, to destructive forms the resolution of political conflicts, which leads to a loss of manageability of society and a social catastrophe. A sociological analysis of the subjective cross-section of social change shows that a model based on group interests (in comparison with class and elitist ones) is more conducive to maintaining dynamic balance in society and realizing the positive potential of social change, as it is characterized by flexible intra-group ties and mobile intergroup barriers in the socio-political system. Class and elitist models tend more towards vertical polarization of society, which strengthens the "discontinuous" lines of interrelation between the "upper" and "lower" classes, makes the "domination-subordination" dichotomy rigid and reduces the possibilities of dialogic plasticity and flexibility of the political system.