Suchergebnisse

This article problematizes the relationship between the sociological and philosophical traditions of Russian social thought based on the material of the subjective school and of Slavophilism. The absence of direct ideological and conceptual continuity between these avenues is shown, albeit they do share common mental and world-view prerequisites. Slavophilism and the subjective school are compared along three lines — epistemological, social, and historiosophical. The distinguishing features that reveal the correspondence between the aforementioned schools are as follows: the orientation towards a holistic view of reality, unifying life and cognition; the ethical dominant of epistemological views and the inclination towards a practical and transformative attitude towards reality; anthropocentrism and personalism; a romantically ecstatic formulation of the popular/commoner issue; missionary and messianic motives of historiosophical quests, and journalism as a genre of theoretical reflection. It is suggested that the cultural codes of the national social mentality are reflected in the outlined worldview complex.

The article outlines the author's vision of the formation and development of "intersubjectivity" as a concept of socially oriented thought. Introduced into sociohumanitarian knowledge by E. Husserl's phenomenology, this notion initially possessed powerful sociological potential and was called to explain on an abstract-philosophical level the existence of social order from an egological perspective (which is the perspective of a subject with a sphere of consciousness that other participants of interaction have no access to). The main tendency inherent to the post-Husserlian change in the concept's semantic profile is linked to the gradual loss of its metaphysical potential, as well as its psychologization and instrumentalization. Intersubjectivity — which is something that was brought into sociology by A. Schütz's social phenomenology — gained a pragmatic interpretation, effectively becoming an axiomatically presupposed attribute of the "life world". Constructivist semantic valences of the analyzed concept were implemented in the social constructivism of P. Berger and T. Lukman, and at this point said concept had pretty much exhausted its initial analytical potential. The reinvigoration of sociological interest towards this category is associated with a postclassical redirection of attention towards interactive processes of generating meanings within situations of the "life world", processes that are multidimensional, conditioned by context and cannot be fully reduced to just the subject. The matter of whether returning to Husserl's intuitions is appropriate demands further consideration, in order to consider other interpretations of intersubjectivity, including those that focus on the historical course of the social process.

The subject of this article is the theoretical and methodological foundations for P.A. Sorokin's sociological concept, set forth in his work "The System of Sociology" (1920). The article analyzes Sorokin's interpretation of the dilemma of nominalism / realism and some general features of the vision of this dilemma in the field of sociological thought, namely: the failure to distinguish the notion "sociality" as an abstract concept and as an idea of society in the Platonic sense, the conversion of said dilemma into the form of the "atomism / holism" antitheses, and an anthropomorphic interpretation of holism. It is shown that in his attempt to establish a realistic view of the nature of social phenomena, while avoiding the extremes of its "literal" interpretation, Sorokin develops the methodology of analytical and material realism. From the author's point of view, the concept of the conductor proposed by Sorokin corresponds to the modern interest in nonverbal semiotics, while the instrumental interpretation of a person as a participant in social interactions corresponds to later developments, which maintain an "out-of-subject" line in sociological analysis.

Fragments of interdisciplinary tradition in Russian sociology related to understanding the phenomenon of sociality are considered in this article. A special place in this tradition belongs to A.V. Espinas, who anticipated in his work "Social Life of Animals" certain important ideas of sociology, as well as ethology, theoretical biology and system studies. Meanwhile, the socio-scientific potential of Espinas' work was not appreciated neither by the first Russian sociologists, nor in subsequent periods of the development of sociology, both Russian and Western. In explaining the lack of success of the dialogue between sociology and biology, several reasons have been suggested related to the excessively pragmatic position of sociologists when it comes to the results of interdisciplinary analysis, the dominance of the Darwinian worldview in social and scientific thought, the excessive claims of biology for a comprehensive explanation of universal forms of social life, and stylistic features of biological descriptions of the social interactions of animals.