CC BY
13
ОБЗОР МЕРОПРИЯТИЯ
Aleksandra A. Kazakoya
Senior Lecturer, Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Bauman Moscow State Technical University; PhD Candidate, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Moscow, Russia; e-mail: socphiltech@gmail.com
Natalia V. Nikiforoya
Senior Researcher,
S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg Branch, Associate Professor, Peter the Great Polytechnic University;
St Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: nnv2012@gmail.com
Elena A. Gavrilina
Senior Researcher, Institute of Scientific Information in Social Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences; Associate Professor, Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Moscow, Russia; e-mail: e.a.gavrilina@gmail.com
© Казакова А.А., Никифорова Н.В., Гаврилина Е.А., 2022
"Soviet Methodologies in Science and Technology Studies":
An Overview
УДК: 167/168
DOI: 10.24412/2079-0910-2022-4-221-231
On 6-7 June, 2022, an international workshop "Soviet Methodologies in Science and Technology Studies" was hosted by State Academic University for Humanities in Moscow. This event was the first of a series of workshops to be organized in the coming years in different countries within the framework of the comparative project "Legacies of Marxism in STS" that was launched by an international multidisciplinary team. The workshop focused on the theoretical debate on science and technology within Soviet Marxism and its practical political implications, the historical focal points of its development, and its international influences. The larger project "Legacies of Marxism in STS" is concerned with Marxist origins and methodological perspectives of the contemporary studies of scientific knowledge and emerging technologies, as well as with complex relations between multiple Marxist traditions. The organizers invite scholars who are interested in the project to join the network and participate in the forthcoming events.
Keywords: philosophy of science, philosophy of technology, STS, Technology Assessment, Soviet science, Soviet engineering, Marxism.
On 6-7 June, 2022, the hybrid international workshop "Soviet Methodologies in Science and Technology Studies" was hosted by State Academic University for Humanities in Moscow (Natalia Emelyanova) with the support of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences (Elena Gavrilina), and the Institute of History of Science and Technology in Saint Petersburg (IHNST, Nadezhda Asheulova). This event was the first of a series of workshops to be organized in the coming years in different countries within the framework of the comparative project "Legacies of Marxism in STS" that was launched by a multidisciplinary team lead by German philosopher Alfred Nordmann. The goal of the project is to create a network of scholars who are interested in forward-looking histories of their disciplines, for a critical reflection on the variety of Marxist approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS) (including History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science and Technology, Science Policy Studies, Social Relations of Science, Science of Science, Dialectics of Nature, etc.), and on their relevance for the current developments in this field. The key question of the project is how various Marxisms provided — and why so often no longer provide — theoretical resources for STS.
The workshop "Soviet Methodologies in Science and Technology Studies" was focused on the theoretical debate on science and technology within Soviet Marxism and its practical political implications, the historical focal points of its development, and its international influences. The following agenda was suggested for discussion:
• "Dialectics of Nature" and its perception in Soviet philosophy of science
• The Soviets at the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology (1931): Revolutionizing the field
• Epistemology and historicism: From activity theory to the types of scientific rationality
• Soviet history of discovery and invention: Between externalism and internalism
• Lysenkoism and beyond: (De)politicization of Science
• The Great Construction: Nature — Society — Politics relations
• Systems theory and its implications in USSR
• Science as labour, labour as science: Overcoming alienation?
In the opening round, the organizers expressed their expectations of the project in general. Alfred Nordmann drew attention to the relevance of the legacy of history and philosophy of science and technology for the contemporary issues in bioengineering, nanotech-nologies, digitalization, etc. Philosopher of technology Massimiliano Simons suggested a comparative perspective to open up the narratives on the history of STS in both socialist and capitalist countries. Cultural historian Natalia Nikiforova saw an opportunity to prob-lematize the obvious and routinized knowledge production both in science and technology and in the humanist reflection on them. Sociologist Alexandra Kazakova suggested to trace the (lasting) influences of Soviet philosophies of science and technology on the real-life research practices, sociotechnical projects and S&T policies. Political scientist Christopher Coenen pointed out some similarities and differences between the historical Social Relations of Science (SRS) movement and current Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) activities, emphasizing the need to overcome the latter's class bias. The philosopher Natalia Emelyanova highlighted the humanist character of the Soviet and post-Soviet "Science of Science" and philosophy of technology, its combination of progressivism and technosocial awareness, as exemplified by the works of V.G. Gorokhov. The STS scholar Elena Gavrilina pointed out the relevance of humanistic and emancipatory debate in Marxist accounts of Science and Technology for contemporary applied research on sociotechnical controversies.
Irina Alekseeva (Institute of Philosophy, RAS) in her opening talk "Philosophical Problems of Natural Sciences in the Soviet Philosophy" argued that the inner diversity of Soviet philosophy of science has not yet been studied from the now possible historical distance. She illustrated the problem with the Lysenko affair, analyzing the debate around the "letter of three hundred" with a focus on philosophy journals and thereby shedding light on inner contradictions, coalitions and interventions between science, philosophy and ideology in USSR. She also pointed out the close connection between history and philosophy of science in reconstructing the history of discoveries, inspired by Engels' "Dialectics of Nature", and the examples of collaboration between philosophers and scientists in the 1960—1980s, such as the collection "Dialectics in Sciences of Nature and Human". Furthermore, she described the first perceptions of contemporary Western philosophy of science by Soviet scholars and sketched the process of de-Marxisation of different fields of philosophy of science, epistemology and logics in the post-Soviet period.
A question raised by Alekseeva and Nordmann was to what extent Marxist-Leninist phrases, which could be used merely as an "obligatory decoration" by Soviet scientists, nevertheless influenced their actual research programs and heuristics — if the rhetoric actually left traces in their ways of thinking.
Several contributions were focused on the inner contradictions in the history and philosophy of science and technology of the early Soviet period.
Paul Josephson (Colby) traced the establishment of the field in his talk "The Library of Nikolai Bukharin". Bukharin is a figure that personifies the relation between theory and practice, as both a scholar and an administrator of Soviet science as well as one of the architects of the Supreme Soviet of the National Economy (VSNKh). He perceived science as a direct productive force and tried to critically adapt bourgeois achievements. This was driving his efforts in the socialist transformation of the Academy of Sciences, the establishment of
the Commission on the History of Knowledge, the publishing of the Archive of History of Science and Technology and the textbooks for educational institutions — and, eventually, made him personally lead the Soviet delegation at the London Conference in 1931, which made a major change in the field. Soviet historians were one of the first who emphasized socioeconomic factors and drivers of scientific knowledge production, in contrast to the predominantely internalist and individualized historical narratives. Their approach con-nectedhistory and philosophy of science and technology to current R&D policies. In his contribution on "Theory and Practice from the Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism", Bukharin criticized the division between the two in modern capitalist society that prevented it from improving "people's situation on Earth".
Bukharin's activities were regarded in the larger context of collective work of his contemporaries: the Sverdlov Communist University and the Communist Academy of Sciences, Proletkultists, and others that laid the foundation of Marxist scientific methodologies, as well as the efforts for decentralization and formation of the Marxist studies circles from Kharkiv to Tashkent. The conserved but yet not systematically archived collection of Bukharin's books symbolizes the lack of reflection on this legacy.
Viktor Kupriyanov (IHNST, SPb) presented the report "Anti-cosmopolitan Campaign in the Soviet Historiography of the Academy of Sciences". Against the background of the early Cold War and the new Iron Curtain, a shift in the attitude towards and narrative of the history of sciences echoed the pre-revolutionary conservatism and anti-Westernism of Slavophiles (e. g. the works of V.I. Lamansky). Kupriyanov describes the growth of isolationism in the debates on chemistry, physics, aeronautics, and technical sciences. As a reaction to the perceived undermining of the Russian contributions abroad, the history of science focused on the pioneering discoveries — and neglected the global context — of the works of Russian scientists, which were mainly regarded as a source for Soviet patriotism in educational programs. The key problems of the earlier historiography of the Academy of Sciences compromised the class-based approach with a nationalist history of development, as exemplified by the figure of Lomonosov. The work by Yu. Kopelevich in the late 1970s marked the turn to a more balanced and modernized version of the historiography of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The follow-up discussion of this study again problematized the question of weaponized dogmaticism: what interests were at play behind the paraded arguments (e. g. the critique of colonialism and imperialismas a ground for anti-cosmopolitanism) (Freyberg), and did the Marxist conception of science allow easily for its opportunistic use and its misuse (Nordmann)?
Mikhail Konashev (IHNST, SPb) continued this topic in his talk about "Lysenkoism and Its Critique: Soviet and Foreign Scholars on the Role of Marxism", analyzing the rises and falls of Soviet genetics in 1920-1930s, 1940-mid-1960s and afterwards, and the international discussions about them. He suggested a concrete empirical approach to the question to what extent the research of Soviet scientists was indeed inspired and directed by dialectical materialism, or whether they used the ceremonial references to Marxist-Leninist literature mostly when directly or indirectly addressing the authorities in their publications. As the criticism of Lysenko by Th. Dobzhansky shows, nothing in Marxism was incompatible with contemporary advances in biology. He and other scientists did not equate the communist worldview with the official ideology.
Coenen and Konashev discussed the perceptions of the Lysenko affair by two leading figures of the Social Relations of Science movement, Desmond Bernal and J.B.S. Haldane,
and referred to the debate about the scientific nature of Marxism itself and its significance for the natural sciences. Konashev emphasized that the global impact of this case was ambivalent: the phenomenon of Lysenkoism revealed the problem of state control over science that was characteristic for all the industrial societies of the twentieth century.
In his talk "From Historical to Political Epistemology in the Anthropocene. A History of Entanglement" Sascha Freyberg (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, MPI-WG, Berlin) presented a view not focusing on the Soviet experience, but putting it into a broader context. He suggested an overview of Marxist special interests in science and technology: the overlapping semantics between metabolism, Scientific-Technical Revolution, Anthropocene, and the contemporary ecological perspective. The proto-Anthropocenic discourse is found in classical works by Marx and Engels and was continued by the Ver-nadsky's Earth-Human systems-thinking and Bukharin's praxeological approach to history and theory of science. Looking at examples such as the Bernal's "The Social Function of Science", the volume "Civilization on the Crossroads", GDR (German Democratic Republic) studies concerning the Scientific-Technical Revolution and the influence of the Marxism-inspired student movement of the late 1960s on environmental studies and technology assessment, a common conceptual approach becomes visible: the continuation and historically changing specification of relations between the human species and nature. At a conceptual level, the idea of tool and mind being in continuity with nature, as presented by E. Ilyenkov, offers an "alternative" logic of science, a processual epistemology of knowledge and action. The long-durée thinking, characteristic of Marxism, is shared by contemporary post-Kuhnian philosophy of science, historical epistemology and global history of knowledge.
Referring to the motto "Semiotics should help us to navigate history", Inna Merkulova (GAUGN, RAS) gave a presentation on "«Marxism and The Philosophy of Language» by Mikhail Bakhtin and the Development of Semiotics in the 20th and 21st Centuries". This book of 1929 was focused on creativity and the symbolic nature of material reality, and influenced the later debate on semiotics globally. Inspired by the works of Bakhtin and Vernadsky's concept of the noosphere, Yuri Lotman conceptualized the semiosphere as the universe of symbolic spaces and cultural referral points, the genesis of ideas and retrospective views. Anthroposemiotics in France and Latin America focuses on signifying interactions between humans, the collectives they constitute, the environment they inhabit and the imaginaries they project into the worlds of meaning.
Merkulova and Kazakova discussed Lotman's work on technological progress as a problem for cultural studies, his debate with Kuhn on scientific revolution and its cultural situation, regarded as an uncontrollable explosion of creativity and a rupture of social fabrics. Nordmann drew attention to the unfixed notion of science, which is being assigned a meaning within a changing context while changing the context itself — e. g. in "scientific communism", "science of planning" and (by default, natural) "sciences".
The second block of presentations was dedicated to the implications of the Marxist approach to science and technology in concrete projects and policies.
Natalia Nikiforova (IHNST, SPb) presented a study of the early Soviet technical education in her talk "The Project of Marxist History of Technology (1930s): Politicization of Progress". She analyzed college and university textbooks from 193-1937 in the context of the "Bolshevik Curve", the socialist industrialization that required training of the new technical elite not connected to the old regime, its visions and conceptions. Common patterns in this educational literature were pointed out: the class-dependency and the role of science
as productive force, technology as reification of social relationships, and the superiority of socialist rationality were illustrated with reference to classical Marxist works, concrete technological solutions from the contemporary USSR and Western countries, and examples such as the waste or use of natural resources or differences in machinery and infrastructure. The last part of the textbooks was usually dedicated to projects, imaginaries and prospects of development, envisioning the material, technological and geographical configuration of the future Socialist society. Nikiforova regards the engineering textbooks as "political ABC books" in which the political imagination was embodied in materiality.
Nikiforova and Kazakova discussed the problem of studying the explicit and the hidden curriculum in scientific and technical education in the socialist states: to what extent not only historical materialism as ideological education, but also the dialectic materialism as ontology and theory of knowledge were directing the training, research, and the real-life engineering practices beyond the formal goal-setting.
Projective urban policies were discussed by Timofey Rakov (TSU) in his presentation "The Soviet Science City: Technologies of Spatial Production and Organization", with a focus on the development of "akademgorodki" in Siberia during the Cold War era. Rakov suggested that a study of scientific cities, e. g. nuclear centers, could be framed in three directions: firstly, as the realization of the idea of Big Science, with all its institutions and infrastructure; secondly, as modernist urban planning and architecture; thirdly, as production of environment (not limited to nature, but also the whole network of interactions, places, imaginaries and realms of memory). The historiography of these scientific cities normally talks about heroic leadership and unique projects; however, they should be regarded in a wider context of regional development and distribution of resources. The notion of spatial production suggested by Henri Lefebvre is fruitful to study the realization of diffusive planning in the new industrial modernist architecture. Further analysis should be focused on the relationships between architecture and science, space construction and scientific management, cybernetics and environment, and between the images of the city and the forest.
Alexey Safronov (RANEPA) talked about the application of cybernetics in his presentation "The Gosplan Automated Planning System". Focusing on STS issues in the case the Computing Centre founded in 1959, he explored the process of negotiations, coalitions and division of functions and work between the technocracy and the bureaucracy. The very meaning of planning was changing during this period: from the inspiring mobilization tool in the Stalin era to the balancing of the proportions between the industries in the 1970s. The technocratic self-imagination as free creativity with no regard to political institutions faced the absence of an institutionalized mechanism for participation of scientists in this planning. A compromise became possible in the late 1960s, when scientists, while criticizing the authorities to earn their credence, managed to show that they have no intention to substitute them with technologies. The complex of factors preventing the subsequent digitalization of state socialism was discussed, including the estimation of the required resources, the role of actors (e. g. Viktor Glushkov) in mobilizing them, and departmentalism. Safronov traced the decline of the initial techno-optimism of the early 1960s until the end of 1970s that allowed some technocrats to support the market reforms later.
Mikhail Piskunov (TSU) presented a research project "Shortage of Labor and Soviet Big Science" that continued the study of the academic towns in Siberia. His goal is to analyze the multi-level work process in Big Science, which includes production, distribution, hierarchies, multi-task activities, micropolitics, macropolitics, and learning. Starting with the Braverman thesis (i. e. of progressive deskilling of industrial labor), Piskunov problem-
atized the distinction between scientific labor and that of other professions at the level of self-understanding, public perception, and management. He explored labor shortage as a structural tendency of the late 1970s and its implications for the Sci-Tech sector, the pace of technical modernization of the Soviet economy, and the value or autonomy of individual workers. The example of the emerging research institutes in Akademgorodok Novosibirsk allows following the educational and professional trajectories of Soviet scientists and their relationships with the auxiliary personnel, the workplace (e. g. the corporeal training necessary for technoscience) and the space. In the follow-up, Freyberg and Kazakova discussed the position of the scientific-technical intelligentsia as an embodied contradiction of a socialist economy, with their commonly perceived prestige and privileges, and the model of unalienated, self-driven labor and self-realization, reiterated in the cultural policy. The question is then, what kind of motivation and productivity incentives could actually be effective for the mass employment in S&T, apart from the ideological-technocratic mobilization.
Roman Gilmintinov (TSU) concluded the block of presentations on the Great Construction with a talk on "Rent, Reproduction, Externalities: Political Economy of the Soviet Environmental Project". Unlike the discussion on externalities in neoclassical economics, the articulation of the environmental problems in USSR in the 1960s-1980s developed from the debate on labor theory of value and differential rent, with a practical problem of a just remuneration considering the productivity factors. Gilmintinov argues that it was an authentically Soviet theory which emerged in a specific context, not merely a "ceremonial" reference to Marx' political economy. The 1960s witnessed the shift from administrative tools to economic tools such as prices, innovations, and natural resource management. The Council for Research of Natural Resources, founded back in 1918 by Vernadsky and later moved to Gosplan, promoted geographical distribution against overconcentration of the productive forces in the Western regions, and started using environmentalist language to support this policy in the 1970s. The departmentalism manifested itself in their relationship with the Institute of Prices. The Nature Protection Office of the State Planning Committee was founded in 1975 to internalize the externalities that were not reflected in the prices and were omitted in the plans of the productive units, which met their resistance. The Soviet answer to the challenge of evaluation of natural resources was to calculate all the labor used to extract and reproduce them, and the post-Soviet resource management partly follows the same logics. Dialectical materialism played a substantial role here, because the notions of resource, waste and pollution were understood as socio-historical and the experts tried to adjust the technical systems to turn all the waste into resources. This debate illustrates the conservative reformist turn in Brezhnev's time, when the scientific and technical developments served to ameliorate existing power structures.
The following roundtable discussion helped to identify further questions for a comparative study of Marxist influences in the Soviet, Chinese and Western contexts of STS.
Lu Gao (Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Beijing) described the evolution of Dialectics of Nature in China, from a paradigmatic text for understanding of science and technology to the doctrine of S&T policies and the mechanism of production of the scientific community's identity by the means of education. As Zhang Baichun (IHNS) showed, one of specific problems in the Chinese context was providing Marxist education for those Chinese scientists who had been trained in the West, in which the translations of Soviet works and their criticism of capitalist science and technology played an important part. Gao added that the key principle that practice is most important allowed to legitimate the
adaptation of Western philosophy of science and technology starting from the 1980s. Nowadays the field combines the legacy of Dialectics of Nature, which remains in the names of professional society and journals, with the contemporary STS approaches. This synthesis is reproduced in the textbooks for post-graduate students in STEM.
Irina Sirotkina (IHNST, Moscow) traced the genealogy of thought about science from the 1931 Congress to the Edinburgh school, referring to Gary Werskey's "The Visible College". The basic principle of contemporary STS — the idea of production of scientific rationality, of science as a technical process, which is equipped with tools and requires resources — resonates with the classical Marxist philosophy of production. Lada Shipovalova (SPbU) suggested a comparison between Soviet historical epistemology (the historicizing of epistemology) in the works of P. Gaidenko, M. Mamardashvili, E. and B. Yudins and others, and modern German historical epistemology, the epistemologizing of history (e. g. Jürgen Renn). Technology may be regarded as a boundary object. Nordmann added that the Marxist optics in STS allows closer interconnectedness between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology, which were more specialized (or alienated from each other) in the West, with the exception of Martin Heidegger.
An important topic of discussion was the dynamics of (de)politicization of STS in the Western context. Nordmann pointed out that Marxism offered a promise of a scientific worldview, the articulation of "real science". However, the idea of science in contemporary STS is much less substantial. There seems to be an unspoken consensus that the fear of technology is an appropriate starting point for STS research. As Gao Lu argued, this fear was less pronounced in the Marxist socio-historical projects USSR and PRC, but the nuclear threat triggered the debate in Western Marxism and the serious reflection on science and technology. The question is how it became an invisible part of SSK, STS and later RRI. Sirotkina argued that these fields were partly formed by the self-selection of researchers who were leftist, radicalized, or at least critical. Coenen added an example of the popularity of systems theory in the 1970s alongside with the Marxist revival in students' movement, the traces of which can be found in the contemporary debates on the Anthropocene, Capitalo-cene, and Chthulucene.
While critical STS may be regarded as a program for social scientists, a further question for comparison is how Marxism was actually interiorized by natural scientists and engineers in the socialist states and the left or "red" scientists elsewhere. Safronov argued that references to Marxist ontology, theory of knowledge and systems thinking were not merely ceremonial, but had to be translated or simplified for STEM education in the socialist block. As was suggested by Kazakova and Lu Gao, case studies on such methodologies as TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) movement might show whether dialectical materialism actually guided heuristics and was operationalized in the research practices and experimentation. Konashev suggested that systems theory and cybernetics were not only technical, but also a far-reaching philosophical idea of science and a project of science that was both challenging for and adapted by Marxism, inspiring cybersocialist visions from USSR to Chile. Piskunov added that apart from the direct guidance of the party cells, less formal agreements and mutual influences can be observed between scientists and administrators in the distribution of resources in Soviet technoscience.
The discussion continued with the transformation of notions of science and technology today in comparison with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Classical Marxism revealed the tension between the essence of science as "general intellect" and progressive productive force and its historical forms of alienated and uncontrollable power (Gavrilina,
Piskunov). This tension was reflected in concrete social studies of techno-human assemblages, the industrial labor regime and living conditions of workers in the West, as well as the applied research in Soviet Russia, such as the one conducted by Alexei Gastev. These movements in analyzing the politics of technology from macro to micro and from the abstract to the concrete are common to Marxism and the (dominant) Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach in STS. As Gilmintinov pointed out, the closely related Marxist point of view concerning the tension between humanity as a whole and the existing power structures, problematized the inability to control our own sociotechnical action — the agency "in itself", but not "for itself". Limits of designing sociotechnical systems were reflected on both by planning bodies of the Eastern bloc and institutions of Technology Assessment in the West (Gavrilina, Coenen). Under neoliberal globalization, the self-legitimating valorization of global science was combined with growing global inequality that re-actualized Hegel's and Marx' distinction between universalism and particularity of individuals and groups (Freyberg). The reactions that followed in the post-socialist and post-colonial states — the technological dependence, the extractivist productive chains and brain drain, as well as the technocratic legitimizations of neoconservatism and neoliberalism globally — intensified the debate on the "Capitalocene", science and humanism (Kazakova, Gilmintinov).
Reflection on Soviet methodologies allows questioning our own presuppositions and discontents within contemporary STS, concluded Nordmann. The Hegelian-Marxist theory of knowledge, as developed in activity theory and historical epistemology, may be seen as dialectics of constructivism and realism in philosophy of science (Gilmintinov, Kazakova). The dual process of human objectification in scientific knowledge and technological artifacts is central for the science-technology relations. The historically transforming lines between humanity and nature have been a primary subject of the old materialism and are being reconsidered by the new one. The efforts to see the historical process behind the daily routines are common for Marxism and dominant STS, however, class analysis and the "general picture" of political economy and ideology are often expelled from the contemporary case studies. Self-limitation through specialization of labor is reproduced in STS projects as in natural and technical sciences against the background of academic capitalism (Freyberg, Piskunov). It reflects itself in the inability of scientists to overcome the party-mindedness against the background of the pandemic and international conflicts. Humanity as a whole dreams of itself in science, but has not found a way to realize it.
The general question is why Marxism was so often attractive and so often abandoned in thinking about science and technology, and how it may be re-mobilized? Konashev underlined the distinction between Marxism as theory, as ideological practice and as humanistic ideal, which have been interplaying differently in specific concrete social conditions. As Safronov pointed out, answering this question requires the truly Marxist processual understanding of the human presence in the world, both of which are in constant change. This is the starting point for concrete activist and liberating research, beyond rhetorical phrases about responsibility or the mission of science (Gilmintinov). The deeper the crises and existential threats to humanity are, the more often Marxist tropes and lines of thinking reappear, even if not recognized as such (Freyberg).
The extended papers of the workshop will be published in a special issue of "Sociology of Science and Technology" in 2023. Further planned events of the network include the Roundtable "Legacies of Marxism in STS: Traces and Trajectories" at the ISA World Congress of Sociology (Melbourne, Australia, 2023), a series of regional workshops, a series of international meetings (on "Dialectical Biologists — from Engels to Bernal", "Lysen-
ko, Lewontin, and a social-ecological science of nature", "Demarcation and Sublimation: Science Wars and the Dynamics of Invisibilization") and a seminar "Re-reading Marxism for the Study of Science, Technology, and Society", to be summarized in a collection of publications. The organizers invite interested scholars to join the network and participate in upcoming events to build international bridges despite deepening global divisions.
Круглый стол «Советские методологии в исследованиях
науки и техники»
Александра Андреевна Казакова
Российский государственный университет нефти и газа им. И.М
Московский государственный технический университет им. Н.Э Университет Китайской академии наук, Москва, Россия; e-mail: socphiltech@gmail.com
Наталия Владимировна Никифорова
Институт истории естествознания и техники им. С.И. Вавилова Российской академии наук, Санкт-Петербургский филиал;
Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого Санкт-Петербург, Россия; e-mail: nnv2012@gmail.com
Елена Александровна Гаврилина
Институт научной информации по общественным наукам Российской академии наук;
Московский государственный технический университет им. Н.Э. Баумана,
Москва, Россия; e-mail: e.a.gavrilina@gmail.com
6—7 июня 2022 г. в Государственном академическом университете гуманитарных наук в Москве прошел международный семинар «Советские методологии в исследованиях науки и техники» (Soviet Methodologies in Science and Technology Studies). Это мероприятие стало первым из серии семинаров, которые будут организованы в ближайшие годы в разных странах в рамках проекта «Наследие марксизма в STS» (Legacies of Marxism in STS), инициированного международной междисциплинарной командой. Нынешний семинар был посвящен теоретическим дискуссиям о науке и технике в рамках советского марксизма, практическим и политическим импликациям этих дискуссий, историческим центрам развития этих исследований и их международному влиянию. Основной проект "Legacies of Marxism in STS" посвящен марксистским истокам и методологическим перспективам современных исследований научного знания и развивающихся технологий, а также сложным отношениям между
. Губкина, . Баумана;
многочисленными марксистскими традициями. Организаторы приглашают ученых, заинтересованных в проекте, присоединиться к сети исследователей и принять участие в предстоящих мероприятиях.
Ключевые слова: философия науки, философия техники, 8Т8, оценка технологии, советская наука, советская инженерия, марксизм.
