Natural-scientific and social-humanitarian knowledge.
1. Briefly answer the questions.
1) What elements are included in the social structure?
Social society, social institutions, social groups, social organizations
2) What distinguishes a stratum from other social formations?
The stratum implies not only a commonality of features, but has a hierarchical structure.
3) What types of social groups do scientists distinguish?
Large, medium, small.
4) What is social inequality?
Some more than others get something illegally.
5) What areas of social mobility exist?
Vertical, horizontal
6) How are social status and social role related?
Status is the real position in society, and the social role is expected.
7) What types of social statuses exist?
Prescribed and achieved
8) What is the difference between an ethnic group and other social communities?
An ethnos is a group of people united by common features, objective or subjective.
A social community that unites various populations of people who are characterized by some of the same features of life and consciousness.
9) What behavior is called deviant?
Not in accordance with the norm.
2. Complete tasks. For each question, circle the number of the one correct answer.
1) On a professional basis, a social community is distinguished
a) workers b) townspeople c) doctors d) peasants
2) Are the following judgments about the social structure of society correct?
A. The social structure of society is the various types of social communities and the relationships between them.
B. Social structure reflects social inequality.
1) only A is true
2) only B is true
3) both statements are correct
4) both judgments are wrong
3) One of the signs of an ethnic group
a) have a constitution
b) common historical path
c) single citizenship
d) common ideology
3. In this series of examples, all but one are small groups. Find and underline an example that falls out of this series.
Group of friends; construction team; family ; Internet users; school student class.
4. The above list contains social roles. Select and write down in the first column of the table the serial numbers of social roles common to both the teenager and the adult, and in the second column the serial numbers of the adult's social roles.
1) bus driver
2) Internet user
3) voter
4) disco visitor
5. Establish a correspondence between the ways of behavior in a conflict situation and characteristics: for each position given in the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.
Behavior:
A) fixture
B) compromise
B) cooperation
D) ignoring
D) rivalry
Characteristics of the behavior:
1) the parties agree on mutual concessions
2) the parties work out a common solution together, discussing each step
3) one of the parties can give up their interests and change their position
4) the parties stubbornly defend their positions, not wanting to compromise principles
5) the parties pretend that the conflict does not exist
Write in the table the selected numbers under the corresponding letters
6. Read the text and do the tasks.
In the United States, the "smelting furnace" theory was popular. It was assumed that in America, immigrants from all over the world would "melt" into a completely new nation. Indeed, the second and third generation of immigrants have many similarities, for example, the English language, a sense of American patriotism. According to sociologists, the communities of migrants have common patterns of development. The first generation often lives in hopes of returning to their old homeland prosperous and rich, which almost never succeeds. The second generation is trying to prove its “Americanism”: they are defiantly not interested in the abandoned fatherland and speak only English. On the other hand, representatives of the third generation, who have nothing to prove, for whom English is their native language, begin to be curious about the culture of their non-American ancestors. They attend language clubs, go on excursions to their historic homeland, and usually return to America with relief. However, at home they try to maintain personal and business ties with people of kindred origin. Therefore, American society is divided into many ethnic groups, although they communicate with each other only in English.
The desire to "melt down" various ethnic elements is characteristic of any state. This applies both to countries with initially multinational populations and to countries where a large number of immigrants arrive. Since the middle of the 20th century, a stream of immigrants from the former Asian and African colonies poured into the countries of Western Europe, and in the last decades of the 20th century - from the countries of Eastern Europe. The number of immigrants is growing like an avalanche. Many of them are not going to give up their usual way of life, their native language. Often they are hostile to the new country of residence. This often causes conflicts with the local population.
(According to the materials of the Encyclopedia for Schoolchildren)
It was assumed that in America, immigrants from all over the world would "melt" into a completely new nation. Because it was the merging and unification of people and peoples of different nationalities that resulted in a single American nation.
2) What stages of development do the migrant communities go through, in the opinion of the authors (underline the relevant provisions of the text)?
It was assumed that in America, immigrants from all over the world would "melt" into a completely new nation. Indeed, the second and third generation of immigrants have many similarities, for example, the English language, a sense of American patriotism. According to sociologists, the communities of migrants have common patterns of development. The first generation often lives in hopes of returning to their old homeland prosperous and rich, which almost never succeeds. The second generation is trying to prove its “Americanism”: they are defiantly not interested in the abandoned fatherland and speak only English.
3) Why does any state, according to the authors of the text, seek to “melt down” various ethnic elements (underline the relevant provisions of the text)? Is a complete "remelting" possible? Explain your answer.
1. When cultures are mixed, it is easier to govern the state.
2. less likely that these elements will request autonomy.
3. unity always interferes with influence.
2) What stages of development do the migrant communities go through, in the opinion of the authors (underline the relevant provisions of the text)?
NATURAL-SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIO-HUMANITARIAN KNOWLEDGE
At first glance, everything looks simple. Natural sciences study nature, social and humanitarian - society. What are the sciences that study humans? It turns out that they are both. Its biological nature is studied by the natural sciences, and the social qualities of a person are social. There are sciences that occupy an intermediate position between the natural sciences and the social sciences. An example of such sciences is geography. You know that physical geography studies nature, while economic geography studies society. The same is true for ecology.
This does not change the fact that the social sciences differ markedly from the natural sciences.
If the natural sciences study nature that has existed and can exist independently of man, then the social sciences cannot cognize society without studying the activities of people living in it, their thoughts and aspirations. The natural sciences study the objective connections between natural phenomena, while it is important for the social sciences to discover not only the objective interdependencies between various social processes, but also the motives of the people who participate in them.
The natural sciences provide, as a rule, generalized theoretical knowledge. They characterize not a separate natural object, but the general properties of the entire set of homogeneous objects. The social sciences study not only the general features of homogeneous social phenomena, but also the features of a separate, unique event, the features of a single socially significant action, the state of society in a given country in a certain period, the policy of a particular statesman, etc.
In the future, you will learn much more about the features of the social sciences. But for all their specificity, social sciences are an integral part of big science, in which they interact with other subject areas (natural, technical, mathematical). Like other areas of scientific research, the social sciences are aimed at comprehending the truth, discovering the objective laws of the functioning of society, the tendencies of its development.
CLASSIFICATION
SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES
There are various classifications of these social sciences. According to one of them, social sciences, like others, are divided into fundamental and applied sciences depending on their connection with practice (or remoteness from it). The former clarify the objective laws of the surrounding world, while the latter solve the problems of applying these laws to solve practical problems in the industrial and social fields. But the boundary between these groups of sciences is conditional and mobile.
Generally accepted is the classification, the basis of which is the subject of study (those connections and dependencies that are directly studied by each science). From this point of view, the following groups of social sciences can be distinguished:
historical sciences(national history, general history, archeology, ethnography, historiography, etc.);
economic sciences(economic theory, economics and management of the national economy, accounting, statistics, etc.);
philosophical sciences(history of philosophy, logic, ethics, aesthetics, etc.);
philological sciences(literary criticism, linguistics, journalism, etc.);
legal sciences(theory and history of state and law, history of legal doctrines, constitutional law, etc.);
pedagogical sciences(general pedagogy, history of pedagogy and education, theory and methodology of teaching and education, etc.);
psychological sciences(general psychology, personality psychology, social and political psychology, etc.);
sociological sciences(theory, methodology and history of sociology, economic sociology and demography, etc.);
political science(theory of politics, history and methodology of political science, political conflictology, political technologies, etc.);
cultural studies(theory and history of culture, museology, etc.).
In the profile class, special attention is paid to historical, sociological, political, psychological, economic, legal, legal sciences and philosophy. Features of history, economics and law are revealed in independent courses. The essence of philosophy, sociology, political science, social psychology is considered in this course.
SOCIOLOGY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE
In the broadest sense sociology - It is a science that studies society and social relations. But society studies different sciences. Each of them (economic theory, cultural studies, the theory of state and law, political science) explores, as a rule, only one sphere of the life of society, some specific aspect of its development.
The modern sociological encyclopedia defines sociology as a science of general and specific social laws and patterns of development and functioning of historically defined social systems, of the mechanisms of action and forms of manifestation of these laws in the activities of people, social groups, classes, peoples. The word "social" in this definition means the totality of social relations, that is, the relations of people to each other and to society. The social is understood as the result of the joint activity of people, which is manifested in their communication and interaction.
Sociology is a science about society as an integral system, about the laws of its formation, functioning and development. It studies the social life of people, social facts, processes, relationships, activities of individuals, social groups, their role, status and social behavior, institutional forms of their organization.
The idea of three levels of sociological knowledge is widespread. Theoretical level represent general sociological theories that reflect general questions of the structure and functioning of society. On level of applied sociological research various methods are used: observation, survey, study of documents, experiment. With their help, sociology provides reliable knowledge about the specific processes taking place in society. Theories of the middle level(the sociology of the family, the sociology of labor, the sociology of conflicts, etc.) are the link between general sociological theories and applied research that provides factual information about the phenomena of reality.
Sociology as a whole is turned to modern life. It helps to understand and predict the processes taking place in society.
Political science (political science) is a generalization of political practices, the political life of society. She studies politics in its relationship with other areas of public life. The subject of political science is power, the state, political relations, political systems, political behavior, political culture. Political science studies the relationship of various social, ethnic, religious and other social groups to power, as well as the relationship between classes, parties and the state.
There are two interpretations of political science. In a narrow sense political science is one of the sciences that studies politics, namely, the general theory of politics, which studies the specific patterns of relations between social actors about power and influence, a special type of interaction between those who are in power and those who are subject, those who control and those who are controlled. The theory of politics includes various concepts of power, theories of the state and political parties, theories of international relations, etc.
In a broad sense political science includes all political knowledge and is a complex of disciplines that study politics: the history of political thought, political philosophy, political sociology, political psychology, the theory of state and law, political geography, etc. In other words, in this interpretation, political science acts as a single, integral science, comprehensively investigating politics. It draws on applied research that uses a variety of methods, including those found in sociology and other social sciences.
Political science allows you to analyze and predict the political situation.
Social Psychology, as you saw in the classification of branches of social science, belongs to the group of psychological sciences. Psychology studies the patterns, features of the development and functioning of the psyche. And its branch - social psychology - studies the patterns of behavior and activities of people, due to the fact of their inclusion in social groups, as well as the psychological characteristics of these groups themselves. In its research, social psychology is closely connected, on the one hand, with general psychology, and on the other, with sociology. But it is she who studies such issues as the patterns of formation, functioning and development of socio-psychological phenomena, processes and states, the subjects of which are individuals and social communities; socialization of the individual; activity of the individual in groups; interpersonal relationships in groups; the nature of the joint activity of people in groups, the forms of communication and interaction that develop in them.
Social psychology helps to solve many practical problems: improving the psychological climate in industrial, scientific, and educational teams; optimization of relations between managers and managed; perception of information and advertising; family relationships, etc.
SPECIFICITY OF PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE
"What do philosophers do when they work?" - asked the English scientist B. Russell. The answer to a simple question allows us to determine both the features of the process of philosophizing and the originality of its result. Russell answers this way: the philosopher, first of all, reflects on mysterious or eternal problems: what is the meaning of life and does it exist at all? Does the world have a goal, does historical development lead anywhere? Do laws really govern nature, or do we just like to see some kind of order in everything? Is the world divided into two fundamentally different parts - spirit and matter, and if so, how do they coexist?
And here is how the German philosopher I. Kant formulated the main philosophical problems: what can I know? What can I believe? What can I hope for? What is a person?
Human thought raised such questions a long time ago, they retain their significance today, therefore, with good reason, they can be attributed to eternal problems of philosophy. Philosophers formulate these questions and answer them differently in every historical epoch.
They need to know what other thinkers thought about it at other times. Of particular importance is the appeal of philosophy to its history. The philosopher is in a continuous mental dialogue with his predecessors, critically comprehending their creative heritage from the standpoint of his time, offering new approaches and solutions.
The created new philosophical systems do not cancel the previously put forward concepts and principles, but continue to coexist with them in a single cultural and cognitive space, therefore philosophy is always pluralistic,
diverse in their schools and directions. Some even argue that there are as many truths in philosophy as there are philosophers.
It is otherwise with science. In most cases, she solves the pressing problems of her time. Although the history of the development of scientific thought is also important and instructive, it does not have the same great significance for a scientist investigating a topical problem as the ideas of predecessors do for a philosopher. The provisions established and substantiated by science take on the character of objective truth: mathematical formulas, laws of motion, mechanisms of heredity, etc. They are valid for any society, do not depend "neither on man nor on humanity." What is the norm for philosophy - the coexistence and a certain opposition of different approaches, doctrines, for science - is a special case of the development of science, belonging to an area that has not yet been sufficiently explored: there we see both the struggle of schools and the competition of hypotheses.
There is another important difference between philosophy and science - the methods of developing problems. As B. Russell noted, philosophical questions cannot be answered through laboratory experience. Philosophizing is a kind of speculative activity. Although in most cases philosophers build their reasoning on a rational basis, strive for the logical validity of conclusions, they also use special methods of argumentation that go beyond formal logic: they reveal the opposite sides of the whole, turn to paradoxes (when, with the logic of reasoning, they come to an absurd result), aporias (unsolvable problems). Such methods and techniques allow us to capture the inconsistency and variability of the world.
Many concepts used by philosophy are extremely generalized, abstract. This is due to the fact that they cover a very wide range of phenomena, so they have very few common features inherent in each of them. Such extremely broad philosophical concepts covering a huge class of phenomena include the categories “being”, “consciousness”, “activity”, “society”, “cognition”, etc.
Thus, there are many differences between philosophy and science. On this basis, many researchers consider philosophy as a very special way of understanding the world.
However, one should not lose sight of the fact that philosophical knowledge is multi-layered: in addition to these issues, which can be attributed to value, existential(from lat. existentia - existence) and which can hardly be comprehended scientifically, philosophy also studies a number of other problems that are no longer focused on the proper, but on the real. Within philosophy, relatively independent areas of knowledge were formed quite a long time ago: the doctrine of being - ontology; the doctrine of knowledge epistemology; the science of morality ethics; a science that studies the beautiful in reality, the laws of the development of art, - aesthetics.
Please note: in a brief description of these areas of knowledge, we used the concept of "science". This is no coincidence. Analysis of issues related to these sections of philosophy, most often goes in the logic of scientific knowledge and can be evaluated from the standpoint of true or false knowledge.
Philosophical knowledge includes such important areas for understanding society and man as philosophical anthropology - the doctrine of the essence and nature of man, of a specifically human way of being, as well as social philosophy.
HOW PHILOSOPHY HELPS TO UNDERSTAND SOCIETY
The subject of social philosophy is the joint activity of people in society. Important for the study of society is such a science as sociology. History makes its generalizations and conclusions about the social structure and forms of human social behavior. What is new in the understanding of the world of people is introduced by philosophy?
Let's consider this using the example of socialization - the assimilation of values and cultural patterns developed by society by a person. The focus of the sociologist will be those factors (public institutions, social groups), under the influence of which the process of socialization is carried out in modern society. The sociologist will consider the role of the family, education, the influence of peer groups, the media in the acquisition of values and norms by the individual. The historian is interested in the real processes of socialization in a particular society of a certain historical era. He will look for answers to such questions, for example: what values were instilled in a child in a Western European peasant family of the 18th century? What and how were children taught in the Russian pre-revolutionary gymnasium? Etc.
What about a social philosopher? The focus of his attention will be more general problems: why is society necessary and what gives the individual the process of socialization? Which of its components, with all the variety of forms and types, are sustainable, that is, reproduced in any society? How does a certain imposition of social institutions and priorities on the individual correlate with respect for his inner freedom? What is the value of freedom as such?
We see that social philosophy is directed to the analysis of the most general, stable characteristics; it puts the phenomenon in a wider social context (personal freedom and its limits); gravitates toward value-based approaches.
Social philosophy makes its full contribution to the development of a wide range of problems: society as an integrity (correlation between society and nature); laws of social development (what they are, how they manifest themselves in public life, how they differ from the laws of nature); the structure of society as a system (what are the grounds for identifying the main components and subsystems of society, what types of connections and interactions ensure the integrity of society); the meaning, direction and resources of social development (how stability and variability in social development are related, what are its main sources, what is the direction of socio-historical development, what is social progress expressed and what are its boundaries); the ratio of the spiritual and material aspects of the life of society (what serves as the basis for highlighting these aspects, how they interact, can one of them be considered decisive); man as a subject of social action (differences between human activity and animal behavior, consciousness as a regulator of activity); features of social cognition.
Many of these issues will be discussed later.
Basic concepts: social sciences, social and humanitarian knowledge, sociology as a science, political science as a science, social psychology as a science, philosophy.
Terms: subject of science, philosophical pluralism, speculative activity.
| Test yourself |
1) What are the most significant differences between the social sciences and the natural sciences? 2) Give examples of various classifications of scientific knowledge. What is their basis? 3) Name the main groups of social sciences and humanities distinguished by the subject of research. 4) What is the subject of sociology? Describe the levels of sociological knowledge. 5) What does political science study? 6) What is the relationship between social psychology and related fields of scientific knowledge?
7) What distinguishes and what brings together philosophy and science?
8) What problems and why are they considered to be the eternal questions of philosophy? 9) What is the pluralism of philosophical thought expressed in? 10) What are the main sections of philosophical knowledge? 11) Show the role of social philosophy in understanding society.
1. Analyze the statements of two German philosophers.
“If the sciences in their fields have received convincingly reliable and generally recognized knowledge, then philosophy has not achieved this, despite its efforts over the millennia. It is impossible not to admit: in philosophy there is no unanimity regarding the finally known ... The fact that any image of philosophy does not enjoy unanimous recognition follows from the nature of its deeds ”(K. Jaspers).
“The history of philosophy shows ... that seemingly different philosophical teachings are only one philosophy at various stages of its development” (G. Hegel).
Which one do you find more convincing? Why? How do you understand Jaspers' words that the lack of unanimity in philosophy "follows from the nature of its affairs"?
2. One well-known position of Plato is conveyed as follows: “The misfortunes of mankind will stop no earlier than the rulers philosophize or the philosophers rule ...” Can this statement be attributed to the philosophy of what is or should be? Explain your answer. Remember the history of the origin and development of scientific knowledge and think about what Plato could mean by the word "philosophy".
| Work with the source |
Read an excerpt from the book by V. E. Kemerov.
Unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences are inevitably involved in a "subject-subject relationship" with what they study. Theories and discoveries made within the natural sciences are isolated from the universe of objects and events they describe. This ensures that the relationship between scientific knowledge and the objective material world remains "technological", that is, such that the accumulated information is applied to independently formed sets of phenomena. In the social sciences, the situation is radically different. Here is how Charles Taylor (Taylor) writes about this: “Although the theory of the natural sciences also transforms practice, the latter is not identical with the content of the theory ... As a rule, in these cases we are talking about the “application” of the theory.” In the social sciences, “practice is the goal of theory. Here the theory transforms its own object.” From the foregoing, very significant conclusions can be drawn concerning our assessment of the achievements of the social sciences, as well as their practical impact on the social world.
If we were to take the side of those who believe that the social sciences should become like the natural sciences, the former would undoubtedly be regarded as untenable. In the social sciences, there is no - and for reasons we have previously mentioned - there will never be an exact
zo*
ny laws found in more complex areas of the natural sciences. At first glance, it seems that the loss of the desire to create a "natural science of society" marks the end of the notion that the social sciences can ever act on "their realm" - the social world - in the same way that the natural sciences affect their own. For generations, those who supported naturalistic sociology did so on the basis of the notion that the social sciences should intellectually and practically "approach" the level of natural sciences. In other words, it is believed that in terms of their intellectual achievements, and hence their practical results, the natural sciences are clearly ahead of the social sciences. Thus, the social sciences are faced with the problem of recovering the lost foundations in order to be able to apply their own discoveries in the name of gaining a similar control over events occurring in the social
nome world. The program proposed by O. Comte proceeded from this position; subsequently she repeatedly
emerged in one form or another.
The following is a typical formulation of it, suggesting
wife of an author who is otherwise far from being considered a supporter of Comte's ideas:
As social scientists, we, like all properly educated people of our world, are anxiously aware that, by and large, progress in the field we study is much slower than in the natural sciences. The discoveries and inventions of the latter have contributed to radical changes in society, while ours - at least so far - have had much less significant consequences. The dangerous, unavoidable "lacuna" evident from this juxtaposition is increasingly troubling. While man's power over nature is progressing rapidly, and in fact very rapidly, the possibilities of his control over society, that is, primarily over his own attitudes, positions and social institutions, are far behind. At least in part, this is due to the slower pace of development of our ideas about man and society, in which
it exists - knowledge that will need to be put into action in the name of social reform.
At first glance, incomparably greater than in the case of the social sciences, the transformative influence of the natural sciences is beyond doubt. The natural sciences have their own paradigms, generally recognized discoveries, and knowledge that is distinguished by a high degree of universality, expressed with mathematical precision. Here the names of the "founders" are forgotten or remembered when it comes to the founders of ideas that are of exclusively historical interest. The confluence of science and technology has given rise to astonishing forms of astonishing material transformations. On the other hand, the social sciences constantly suffer as a result of numerous disagreements, are not able to ignore their "founders", whose works are considered to be relevant to this day. Sometimes modern authorities turn to the social sciences as a source of information necessary for making strategic decisions; but all this looks small and insignificant in comparison with the all-encompassing influence of the natural sciences. It seems to us that the higher social prestige of the natural sciences is consistent with their successes and their practical influence.
The question arises, is it fair - as is traditionally done - to consider the social sciences as "poor relatives"? At the very least, it can be said that it becomes more and more difficult to confirm this, if we take into account the significance of dual hermeneutics. At the risk of repeating ourselves, we note that the social sciences are not isolated from the "sphere of their own activity" in the sense in which the natural sciences are isolated from "their own". This fact certainly jeopardizes the acquisition of a body of abstract knowledge of the type sought by those who regard the natural sciences as their standard model. At the same time, this means that the social sciences penetrate into the very essence of the structure of "their own world", which is completely impossible for the natural sciences.
Let's look at the following statement:
A sovereign who has received power from the hands of the people, on the contrary, should try to retain his favor; it is not very difficult for the sovereign to achieve this, since the people strive only not to be oppressed. In the same way, having achieved power with the help of the aristocracy, as if against the desire of the people, the ruler must first of all try to win over the people in his favor; it is not difficult - for this you only need to take him under your protection. Then the people become even more devoted and submissive than even when they themselves handed over power to the sovereign, for people usually much more value the benefits they receive from those from whom they expect only evil, and consider themselves more indebted to them [†††† †††††].
The doctrine proposed by Machiavelli cannot be regarded solely as observations concerning power and the phenomenon of popular support in politics. It was intended and perceived as a contribution to the really working mechanisms of governance. It can be said without any exaggeration that ever since the works of Machiavelli became widely known, the practice of leadership has never been exactly the same. It is not easy to trace the influence of this author's work. To some extent, the pejorative sound of the term "Machiavellianism" is determined by reasons that are practically not related to the actual content of what Machiavelli wrote about - for example, the well-known behavior of rulers who interpret in their own way what was said in "The Sovereign". The principles that can be used by princes can be applied by their subjects and the opposition. The practical conclusions and significance of scientific works, akin to those written by Machiavelli, are usually complex and varied. They are very far from the situation when the discoveries of the social sciences are critically considered and evaluated in one environment (“internal criticism” of professional specialists), and “used” in another (in the world of practical activities).
sti). At the same time, their fate is much more typical for socio-scientific knowledge than the picture described in the last passage.
The question of whether we have the right to consider Machiavelli a "specialist in the social sciences" is debatable on the grounds that his work was written in an era when reflections on the nature of social institutions were not systematic. Let us turn, however, to the later period of the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. We can say that this was the time that marked the beginning of a thorough empirical study of social problems. This period has been seen by some as the first stage or stage of development in which the social sciences acquired an evidence base that bears some resemblance to that of the natural sciences. What is striking, however, is that the research methods and "information" obtained immediately became an important part of the society for the analysis of which they were used. A sign and at the same time a material result of this process is the flourishing of official statistics, the accumulation of which became possible thanks to the use of systematic methods of social research. The development of such methods is inseparable from the new forms of administrative control allowed through the collection of official statistics. Once appeared, official statistics gave rise to new types of social analysis - the study of demographic patterns, crime, divorce, suicide, etc. In turn, the emerging literature on the problem was again included in the practical activities of those who were engaged in obtaining relevant statistical data. For example, writings on the issue of suicide are widely used by coroners, court officials, and others, including those who intend or have attempted suicide.
Of course, the development of theoretical metalanguages and the specialization resulting from intensive research into certain areas of social life ensure that the social sciences do not merge with "the subject of their discussion" into a single whole. But if we are aware of the complexity, continuity and depth of the connection that exists between “pro
professional and unskilled social analysts, we will be able to understand why the fundamental influence exerted by the social sciences on the structure of modern societies is out of sight. Even the most interesting and promising "discoveries" made within the social sciences cannot exist permanently in this capacity; in fact, the more meaningful they are, the more likely they are to become an integral element of activity and, therefore, generally accepted principles of social life.
Theories and discoveries of the natural sciences stand with their "subject" in so-called "technological" relations. In other words, the information generated by them has practical significance, being a "tool" used to change the independently established and autonomous world of objects and events. In the case of the social sciences, this kind of attitude is not exclusively "technological": their penetration into worldly activities can be considered "technological" only in the smallest degree. Here various changes and transformations of knowledge and power are possible. In order to demonstrate that this is so, let us return to an example in which N. Machiavelli's remarks on the essence and nature of politics are given. The following describes the problems that arise from his reasoning: Perhaps for the most part it is only a special form of expression of what many rulers, and not only them, already knew - they could even represent it discursively, although, most likely , would not be able to express their thoughts as meaningfully as Machiavelli did. By writing his works and making them available to a wide audience, Machiavelli opened up a new factor that had not appeared before when the same things were (if they were) known. Those who got acquainted with the ideas of Machiavelli without referring to the primary sources used the term "Machiavellianism" as a curse word. The first English version of The Prince was published in 1640, until that time the British considered Machiavelli to be the personification of immorality and perversion.
The kind of discourse used by Machiavelli in his writings has become one of the elements or aspects of the fundamental changes taking place in the legal and constitutional systems of modern states. A special, essentially new look at "politics" and political activity largely predetermined their future fate. A ruler who was considered a follower of Machiavellian, striving to rule according to his commandments and instructions, could face more difficulties in using the latter than one who did not have the fame of a supporter of Machiavellianism. Thus, for example, subjects who know the commandment, according to which people usually value much more the benefits they receive from those from whom only evil is expected, may treat these benefits with distrust. For the most part, Machiavelli was aware of all of the above and explicitly warned in his work against careless and incorrect conclusions. Some of the points we have mentioned have become even more complicated, because the very awareness of them has become part of political activity.
But why do Machiavelli's views remain significant today and are seriously discussed by us as relevant from the point of view of modern societies that have essentially absorbed them? Why are those who work in the context of the social sciences unable to forget the names of the "Founding Fathers", just as they do in the natural sciences? The answer to these questions should be sought in the constructive, creative nature of the ideas formulated and expounded by thinkers, akin to Machiavelli. The latter provided us with a means of reasonable reflection on the concepts and practical orders that have become in modern societies an integral part of the essence of sovereignty, political power, etc. Turning to the works of Machiavelli, we begin to understand the main distinguishing features of the modern state, because the author wrote about the relatively early stages of its development. There is no doubt that he reveals or puts into a special, discursive form the principles of government applicable to states of various types. However, the main
the reason why Machiavelli's writings do not "become obsolete" is that we are talking about a series of (stylistically brilliant) discourses concerning phenomena in the formation of which they (the discourses) took a direct part. We are dealing with an exposition of ways of thinking and ways of acting that are relevant to modern societies, not only because of their origin, but also because of their unchanging organizational form. The outdated natural-scientific theory ceased to be interesting, as soon as more meaningful and well-founded doctrines appeared. Theories that have become part of their "subject" (although, perhaps, in other respects they resist such a merger) inevitably retain a significance and relevance that are not available to "antique" natural scientific theories.
The development of the critical character of the social sciences implies a deepening of the conceptual understanding of the practical content of their own discourse. That
the fact that the social sciences are integrated into what they study indicates the importance of the history of ideas. Yes, on-
^ example, research by Quentin Skinner (Skinner), according to
L. Sacred emergence of modern discursive
ideas about the state of the era that followed the Middle Ages, demonstrates how they (representations) become
C. whether a fundamental, integral element of what
defined by us as a state. By proving that the civilian population of the modern state is aware of what the state is and how it functions, Skinner helps to understand how specific this form of government is and how it is interconnected with the changes in discourse that become part of everyday social practices.
The social sciences are incapable of providing (relevant) knowledge that can be "contained" by preparing to reinforce appropriate social interventions where necessary. In the natural sciences, the criteria of evidence and conclusiveness used in the process of choosing certain theories or hypotheses are (in principle and, as a rule, in practice, with the exception of cases similar to Lysenkoism) in the hands of practitioners who develop them. The latter may
continue to work on carefully analyzing and screening evidence and formulating theories without interfering with the world to which these theories and evidence belong. But this is not the case in the social sciences - or, to be more precise, this situation is least suited to theories and discoveries that have the greatest explanatory value. Much of this explains why the social sciences are often thought to provide much less useful information to policy makers than the natural sciences. The social sciences inevitably and heavily draw on what is already known to the members of the societies they study, and offer theories, concepts, and discoveries that "return" to the world they describe. The "divergences" that may appear between the professional conceptual apparatus, the discoveries of the social sciences, and the meaningful practices that are part of social life are much less obvious and understandable than in the natural sciences. Thus, from a "technological" point of view, the practical contribution of the social sciences looks and is rather limited. However, if we evaluate the situation from the standpoint of penetration into the analyzed world, the practical conclusions of the social sciences were and remain very solid.
