Contemporary science and its place in the culture

Розин, Вадим Маркович; Lipkin, Anna M.; Sineokaya, Yu.

doi:10.31857/s023620070000823-2

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Устанавливали разные ее феномены, начали ставить вопросы о ее сущности, методах изучения, описания и практической реализации. В этом направлении вышли к осознанию, что антропопрактика не являет собой «вещь или движение… она начинает видеться и мыслиться посредством определений, чаще концептуализацией» [1]. Вследствие чего антропопрактику начали воспринимать как новейшее понятие, раскрывающее антропологический смысл практикоориентированного построения образования человека [2-5 и др.…”

Section: преамбулаunclassified

“…Антропопрактика видится антропополитикой -средством регулирования отношений между людьми, практикой работы с будущим [11]; понимается в качестве проектирования «человека возможного» [12]; как становление субъектности (формирование личностных знаний и освоение профессионального мастерства) и как условие соорганизации субъектов инновационной деятельности [2]. В духовных антропопрактиках обсуждается модель человека, построенная на нормах абсолютной ценности человека, его свободы и способности к коммуникативной открытости [13], и как «забота о себе» [1]. Антропопрактика становится предметом интереса СМИ в задачах конструирования идентичности человека в общественных процессах, влияющих на сознание и поведение людей «посредством формирования общественного мнения, нравов и морали» [14].…”

Section: предметно-тематический анализunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

To the introduction of the concept of “anthropopractice” in the system of socio-humanitarian knowledge. Refl exive and methodological analysis

Zverev,

Ryabtsev

2023

Science and School

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article reveals the specifics of the research and development of the concept of “anthropopractice” as a new episteme of socio-humanitarian knowledge and its special direction – the anthropology of education. The authors introduce and substantiate the criteria of subject-thematic and value-semantic assessment of the orientation of anthropopractice (activity and axiological aspects of anthropological knowledge). Dissertations and monographic publications on the problem of anthropopractice are studied. The analysis revealed the variability of its use in various research contexts. Further analysis of categorical invariant values of anthropopractice (cultural and historical meanings; realization of the principle of development; a system that generates the possibility of reproduction of spiritual, moral, psychological and intellectual potential of a person; a single spiritual and activity community; the integrativity of the diversity of knowledge and experience, etc.) makes it possible to focus on it as one of the central concepts of the humanitarian-anthropological worldview. The authors identify the basic value-semantic content of anthropopractice, which expands the possibilities of cognitive-transformative activity in the development of models and design of various kinds of formation and disclosure of essential human powers and coexistential communities.

show abstract

Section: преамбулаunclassified

Section: предметно-тематический анализunclassified

To the introduction of the concept of “anthropopractice” in the system of socio-humanitarian knowledge. Refl exive and methodological analysis

Zverev,

Ryabtsev

2023

Science and School

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Study of the formation and development of European sociality

Розин

2021

Addaiyan J. Arts. Humanity. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article considers two main subjects: the author’s perception of sociality and the results of his research of formation and three main stages (Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern Age) of development of the European sociality. The understanding of sociality is set by means of the characteristic of the sociological approach where four main specific features are distinguished. The first one is an axiological representation of sociality (fairly/unfairly, compliance/non-compliance with an ideal reference) and focus on alteration or improvement of sociality. The second one is the analysis of mass behaviour and social order. The third one is studying of sociality, since ancient culture; nature of sociality and revealing its laws. A dilemma is formulated: what studies or, more precisely, has to study the sociology – modernity or postmodernity? The fourth one is that sociology considers sociality as a modernity phenomenon, i.e. studies mass behaviour of people as such, beyond historical and cultural context. Stating the results of studying of formation and development of the first stages of the European sociality, the author distinguishes protosociality by which he means the previous state and prerequisites of sociality where there were no specific forms of its understanding yet and sociality as such. The author considers characteristics of three main types of sociality: antique one, presuming decision-making by free citizens within a city-state; imperial one, subordinating polis sociality to the centralized emperor management, and medieval one, fancifully combining these two types of sociality. The article raises the issue of the interrelation of social studying and social action. Today, it is not a matter of social laws, but of nonlinear processes which are described with the use of a system approach and synergetic. A social engineer relies in this case on knowledge gained during studying sociality, on the reconstruction of the specific history of sociality, modern social trends. The author sets a task to characterize the relations between such aspects of sociality as economy, state, society, power, masses, culture. He demonstrates that sociality may be presented as consisting of three spheres. In the first one, three main subsystems are distinguished: state, society, and economy, the constituting element being the state. In the second sphere (anthropological one) the author identifies a new European personality, communities, masses, as well as society, but in this case, understood in the anthropological plan. Persons and communities in the anthropological sphere function as a rule in two modes – standard and parasitic ones (rent income, misuse of social structures, etc.). In the third sphere covering two others, sociality is considered in a population context. The point is that the state and the society are not unique, there are a lot of them, and they engage in the various relationship (fight for the territory and resources, competition, assistance to each other, various exchanges, etc.). The author identifies and characterizes the main processes of sociality: globalization and modernization, implementation of social schemes and concepts, “post” and “counter” processes, processes of setting and resolving problems (“challenges” and “responses” thereto). In the last part of the work, the author suggests his reconstruction of the specific history of sociality, as well as social trends of our age.

show abstract

Contemporary science and its place in the culture

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

To the introduction of the concept of “anthropopractice” in the system of socio-humanitarian knowledge. Refl exive and methodological analysis

To the introduction of the concept of “anthropopractice” in the system of socio-humanitarian knowledge. Refl exive and methodological analysis

Study of the formation and development of European sociality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About