CC BY
16FEATURES OF SOCIO-HUMANITARIAN KNOWLEDGE
Abstract
In the paper the author describes the main features of the socio-humanitarian knowledge such as the features of the object of field research and the subject of cognition, the features of the means and methods of research, and also the pluralism of concepts and the relativism of theoretical results.
Keywords
man, society, socio-humanitarian knowledge
AUTHOR Nikita Karavaev
PhD in Philosophy head of Department of Information Technology and Methodology of Informatics Teaching Vyatka State University
Kirov, Russia nl_karavaev@vyatsu.ru
Introduction. The initial human presence in the phenomena, which are the parts of the field of study of the social sciences, humanities and philosophy, becomes the factor that determines the characteristics of the socio-humanitarian knowledge. These phenomena can be a person and results of his activity (Karavaev, 2014) (the objects of the humanities), and a society with the variety of its social institutions (the objects of the social sciences). These phenomena in their structure and way of functioning are more complex than the objects of nature. This fact ultimately determines the features of the socio-humanitarian sciences in comparison with other sciences.
The features of socio-humanitarian knowledge. In our point of view, the following four characteristics show the features of the socio-humanitarian knowledge:
1. The specific feature of the object field. The main difference between the socio-humanitarian knowledge and other fields of scientific knowledge is the object of study. The object field of the socio-humanitarian studies is the unity of objective (social laws, institutions, etc) and subjective (consciousness, desires, purposes, etc.) bases. It is the presence of subjective reality, which is the inseparable part of the socio-humanitarian sciences, shows their key difference from all other sciences. The sciences about the nature study the natural objects and processes that are under the laws of nature. The mathematical sciences operate the idealized objects not existing in the real world. The technical sciences design the means of an activity, i.e. deal with the artificial objects created for specific tasks. The properties and functioning of these objects are more predictable than the objects of the socio-humanitarian studies, because "language, values, communication, symbols, public formation, cultural meanings, the whole range of human life are associated with its soulful conscious existence" (Modern philosophical problems ... , 2006). The existence of human consciousness, the subjective, inner world, which cannot be studied directly, is the reason of the fact that the human existence, its activities, the values of the society, the functioning of the social institutions are less predictable, and therefore are more difficult phenomena. They do not just exist. They certainly have the act of the free will. The free will allows a person not only to respond to the realities of the environment, but to act, meaningfully build and perform his activity,
48 MODERN EUROPEAN RESEARCHES
and, in the end, to determine the way of the functioning of the society as a whole. The human consciousness is a key factor that shows the difficulty of the study of the object field of the socio-humanitarian knowledge.
2. The specific feature of the subject of cognition. The second feature of the socio-humanitarian knowledge is that "the subject is presented twice here: as the subject of cognition (individual, the scientific community or society) and as a part of the object of cognition, because a person, who is endowed with reason and will, acts in the society (Ushakov, 2005). The subject of cognition always emanates from his worldview and beliefs, intellectual abilities and capabilities, personal preferences and public interests which were formed in a specific socio-cultural environment. This is the reason that the value relation of the subject of cognition to the studying phenomena affects the results of the socio-humanitarian knowledge. This is generally unusual for natural and other sciences. The subject in the socio-humanitarian knowledge not only studies objects, but mostly evaluates them. His aim is "to get a knowledge that helps not only to explain any social structures and relationships but also to justify, strengthen and change them" (Zav'yalova, 2007).
3. The specific features of means and methods of research. The impossibility or the limited use of certain methods and means of scientific research is the most important thing here. In the socio-humanitarian knowledge it is impossible to accumulate the empirical material in the process of the manipulation of the studied objects, as it is possible in the natural sciences where experimental methods are used. It is impossible to research the subjective and public objects and processes in laboratory conditions, i.e. outside the environment in which they exist. Accordingly the ability of scientists to manipulate them is limited. Firstly, there are the physical limits: it is impossible to apply the methods used in the natural sciences to the socio-cultural processes, because they have already happened and cannot be repeated (for example, the historical events), or its repeating with a research purpose requires the inappropriately great efforts and material investments (for example, the research of migration processes). Secondly, there are the ethical limits: it is unacceptable that the object of study cause any physical or moral harm. So, under the socio-humanitarian knowledge a scientist has to do with "the reality of a special kind - with the sphere of objectivization of the content of human consciousness, with the area of meanings and values, requiring the special methodological techniques, which are not necessary in the natural sciences" (Mikeshina, 2009).
4. The pluralism of concepts. This feature comes from the previous features of the socio-humanitarian sciences. So, the impossibility of direct observing and studying of human consciousness and the limits of experimental verification are the reasons of the fact that the empirical basis in the humanities is less verifiable than in the natural sciences. And this in turn makes it difficult to form the only correct solution of a problem. "In the natural sciences the empirical verification often puts the end to disputes; in the socio-humanitarian sciences discussions can last for decades and centuries (Gubanov, 2010). It all becomes the main reason of the existence of a large number of scientific schools in the socio-humanitarian knowledge, each of which designs and defends their own hypotheses and theories.
5. The relativism of concepts. In the socio-humanitarian sciences the problem of the interpretation of the concepts, when they are interpreted in different ways, is more acute. As examples, it is possible to mention the concepts of knowledge, mentality, value, personality, education, information and many others. The contextual way of their defining becomes the reason of the diversity of their interpretations. "The features of introduction of a new concept in the humanities often are what it cannot have a strict definition, its meaning forms gradually, during developing the conception, evolving the reasoning, i.e. we use that what called "the contextual defining" (Mikeshina, 2005). Accordingly, the meaning of a word depends on how a person reads it, under what context he researches
the phenomenon, and what methodological approaches are used and what purposes are realized. As the results of the language games, all the interpretations of a concept are appropriate if they have not the logical contradiction under a research. Therefore, the different interpretations of concepts should not become the reason of the confrontation of different scientific schools. Generally the any opposition in the interpretations of the same term, in our opinion, is not very productive, and therefore is not appropriate. The different interpretations of concepts are useful so far as they help to solve problems. The difference in interpretations of a concept in the different scientific approaches should not be a scientific problem (as it happened, for example, with the concept of information). But it is wrong to think that the meaning of this or that concept is self-evident and does not require any detailing. This approach is usual for everyday cognition, in which the non-critical extension of meanings and some uncertainty of the used concepts are customary. This approach opposes the scientific and philosophical strategies based on the principle of the specification of used concepts and the most clear conceptual meanings of them. The main thing in this situation is to remember that in the modern science there are many different scientific schools, each of which under the same object field "forms its own definitions" (Novikov, 2007). In this situation, a scientist, at least under his researches and scientific works, has to achieve the most possible precision in the defining of the meanings of the used concepts.
Conclusion. Thus, in this paper, there were considered the key features of the socio-humanitarian knowledge, such as the specific feature of the object field, the specific feature of the subject of cognition, the specific features of means and methods of research, the pluralism of concepts and the relativism of concepts.
REFERENCES
1. Gubanov, N.I., Gubanov, N.N. (2010) "Peculiarities of cognitive activity in socio-humanitarian sciences", Philosophy and society, issue 2, Pp. 90-104.
2. Karavaev, N.L. (2014) "Human activity: notion, structure, classification", Alma Mater (Journal of Higher School), issue 6. Pp. 26-29.
3. Mikeshina, L.A. (2005) Philosophy of science: Modern epistemology. Scientific knowledge in history of culture. Methodology of scientific researches, Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, MPSI, Flinta, 464 p.
4. Mikeshina, L.A. (2009) "Methodology of humanitarian sceinces", Encyclopedia of epistemology and philosophy of science, Moscow: Kanon+, ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», Pp. 497-499.
5. Modern philosophical problems of natural, technical and socio-humanitarian sciences (2006), Moscow: Gardariki, 639 p.
6. Novikov, A.M., Novikov, D.A. (2007) Methodology, Moscow: SINTEG, 668 p.
7. Ushakov, E.V. (2005) Introduction to philosophy and methodology of science, Moscow: Ekzamen, 528 p.
8. Zav'yalova, M.P. (2007) Methods of scientific researches, Tomsk, Publishing house of TPU, 160 p.
