ОППОЗИЦИЯ «ЗАПАД-НЕЗАПАД» В СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ МЫСЛИ: PRO ET CONTRA

The article considers the phenomenon of social science debates in the form of the opposition ‘West/Non-West’ and its social-political and identification consequences. The authors focus on the history of this opposition, the ways to overcome the scientific and social confrontations that were determined by it, and on the methodological significance of the concept ‘Non-Western theories’. The authors study the features of social and political knowledge of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America; compare social values of Western Europe, China and other countries to identify the ways for its integration in the course of postcolonial political and scientific development. In particular, the article compares the axio-logical triad of T. Heuss (democracy, Roman law, Christian ethics) and the Chinese dyad — the will of the people (minxin suoxiang) and three convents (sāngāng). Within the West/Non-West opposition, the Western European, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, African, Latin-American social-political constructs are considered to assess the productivity of some categorical oppositions and contaminations adopted in the sphere of social knowledge and to prove the theoretical inconsistency of multiculturalism. The authors also consider the issues of eurocentrism and Western-European messianism on the examples of their relationship with Sino-Centrism, and the ideas of African and Latin-American nationalism. Such comparisons prove the metatheoretical status of the ‘West/Non-West’ opposition that can be explained within the paradigm of the social construction of reality. The authors conclude that the concepts ‘West’ and ‘Non-West’ do not have a truly scientific status; they are rather markers of social values claiming a special identification value, i.e. having a direct relation to self-representation. The concepts ‘West’ and ‘Non-West’ are a kind of political declarations tather than an evidence of epistemological differences in the foundations of social knowledge in different parts of the globe. © K.V. Radkevich, A.V. Shabaga, 2017.В статье исследуется феномен противопоставления социального знания в форме оппозиции «Запад-Незапад» и его социально-политические и идентификационные последствия. Изучается история вопроса и рассматриваются пути преодоления порожденного им научного и социального противостояния. В этом аспекте рассматривается природа концептуальной оппозиции социальных доктрин Запада и Востока и возможности их конвергенции. Необходимость конвергенции западного и восточного социального знания существует давно, но особую остроту она приобрела в ходе распада колониальной системы, когда возникшие на ее обломках страны Латинской Америки, Азии и Африки стремились утвердить свою национальную и государственную идентичность не только в политической, но и в научной сфере. Такая последовательность (от политики - к науке) объясняет попытки объявить социальные и социально-политические доктрины, декларируемые или реализуемые в бывших колониальных странах, явлением уникальным и не имеющим надежных аналогов в западном научном знании. В силу этого установление методологической значимости концепции «незападных» теорий представляется весьма актуальным. Для решения этой задачи особенности социально-политического знания стран Азии, Африки и Латинской Америки сравниваются с социальными ценностями стран Западной Европы, Китая и других стран. В частности, сравнивается аксиологическая триада Т. Хойса (демократия, римское право, христианская этика) и китайская диада (воля народа (minxin suoxiang) - три устоя (sāngāng)). В контексте оппозиции «Запад-Незапад» рассматриваются западноевропейские, китайские, японские, индийские, африканские, латиноамериканские социально-политические конструкты. Анализируется продуктивность некоторых категориальных оппозиций и контаминаций, принятых в сфере социального знания. Показывается теоретическая несостоятельность концепции мультикультурализма. Исследуются проблемы европоцентризма и западноевропейского мессианизма на примерах соотнесения с китаецентризмом, концепциями африканского и латиноамериканского национализма. В рамках этих сопоставлений категории «Запад» и «Незапад» описываются как пример метатеоретического инструментария (и в силу этого они могут быть легко объяснены в парадигме социального конструирования реальности). В результате исследования делается вывод, что понятия Запада и Незапада не имеют подлинно научного статуса. Они выступают как своеобразные маркеры социальных ценностей, претендующие на особое идентификационное значение, т.е. имеющие прямое отношение к самопредставлению. Это - своеобразные политические декларации, а не свидетельство эпистемологических различий основ социального знания в разных частях земного шара

The opposition ‘West/Nonwest’ in the social thought: Pro et contra

The article considers the phenomenon of social science debates in the form of the opposition ‘West/Non-West’ and its social-political and identification consequences. The authors focus on the history of this opposition, the ways to overcome the scientific and social confrontations that were determined by it, and on the methodological significance of the concept ‘Non-Western theories’. The authors study the features of social and political knowledge of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America; compare social values of Western Europe, China and other countries to identify the ways for its integration in the course of postcolonial political and scientific development. In particular, the article compares the axio-logical triad of T. Heuss (democracy, Roman law, Christian ethics) and the Chinese dyad — the will of the people (minxin suoxiang) and three convents (sāngāng). Within the West/Non-West opposition, the Western European, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, African, Latin-American social-political constructs are considered to assess the productivity of some categorical oppositions and contaminations adopted in the sphere of social knowledge and to prove the theoretical inconsistency of multiculturalism. The authors also consider the issues of eurocentrism and Western-European messianism on the examples of their relationship with Sino-Centrism, and the ideas of African and Latin-American nationalism. Such comparisons prove the metatheoretical status of the ‘West/Non-West’ opposition that can be explained within the paradigm of the social construction of reality. The authors conclude that the concepts ‘West’ and ‘Non-West’ do not have a truly scientific status; they are rather markers of social values claiming a special identification value, i.e. having a direct relation to self-representation. The concepts ‘West’ and ‘Non-West’ are a kind of political declarations tather than an evidence of epistemological differences in the foundations of social knowledge in different parts of the globe. © K.V. Radkevich, A.V. Shabaga, 2017

Eurasianism and geopolitics: Social mythologemes of space

The article considers the origins of Eurasianism as a Russian social doctrine that emerged as an answer to the Western geopolitical concepts, in particular of the Anglo-Saxon and German geopolitical schools. Both concepts serve to justify social institutions and associations based on the difference between the spaces of the Eastern and Western parts of Eurasia. The authors argue that geopolitics of both the Western-European and Eastern-European types is based on mythologemes which claim to be of scientific importance but are not capable of achieving this status. The article shows that both theories claim (1) the invention of an ideal timeless homeland of society on the basis of a mythological interpretation of space; (2) possession of sacred knowledge (through the sacralization of space) which is actually profane. The key difference between Western geopolitical schools (Anglo-Saxon and German) and Eurasianism is the proposed connection between space and a specific society. Geopolitics proceeds from the constant spatial opposition as a factor of social-political competition. The geopolitical assessment of reality is based on the need to attack the ‘alien’ space due to its initial, ‘natural’ hostility. The geopolitical hostility and even aggressiveness contradicts the defensive nature of Eurasianism which declares that space unites peoples with similar values; therefore, their societies should defend their ‘space of development’ from the encroachments of the Western countries. Thus, Atlanticism as a global project of the contemporary Western geopolitics fundamentally contradicts Eurasianism which does not accept hegemonism and supports the principle of a multipolar world; today, the level of conflict between these projects is not high, although there are no prospects for this conflict resolution. © K.V. Radkevich, A.V. Shabaga, 2021

Personal characteristics of the focus group participants as a factor of the data quality

The article presents the results of the search for methodological ways to improve the quality of sociological information obtained in the focus group discussion. Today the scientific sphere is changing, and, in addition to the development of new methods, the existing interdisciplinary ones are being adapted to the specific research goals. An important way for improving sociological methods is the study of psychological aspects of respondents’ behavior during focus groups, since unconscious reactions can indicate the potential information bias and affect the quality of the project results. In the RUDN University, a three-stage methodological experiment was conducted based on the psychological technique “7 radicals”, the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) and the personal differential method. At the first stage, the experiment aimed at examining the ability of respondents without special knowledge in the field of psychotyping to identify the dominant radicals. At the second stage, representatives of different psychotypes assessed each other so that the researchers would develop recommendations for the seating of focus group participants. At the third stage, the quality of the data obtained in focus groups was assessed depending on the moderator’s special skills (knowledge of psycho-types, FACS and SPAFF). Thus, the recommendations for moderators were developed — to increase the efficiency of work with focus group participants and to improve the quality of sociological data. The moderator needs knowledge in three areas: respondents’ psycho-types, affects in SPAFF, and the proxemic component (seating of respondents). The authors assess the prospects for introducing psychological techniques into the training system for focus group moderators and provide recommendations for moderators based on the results of the multi-stage experiment. Its results partially solve the problem of the quality of the focus group data by explaining the need to teach moderators interdisciplinary techniques (SPAFF and psycho-typing of the focus-group participants).