Collapse

Numerology

Philosophy of communicative discourse and the modern meaning of the theory of communicative action. Communicative paradigm in modern philosophy What will we do with the received material

Numerology - 29.11.2021

At the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. in German classical philosophy a categorical apparatus begins to be developed, which is fundamentally important for building a theory of communication. We are talking about the categories "subject" and "object", where the "subject" was understood as a person in his active-cognitive (but not yet transformative) attitude to the environment. objective world- "object".

It should be noted, however, that most German philosophers were inclined to interpret human communication in terms of subject-object communication, rather than subject-subject, and could not go beyond it. In their theoretical constructions, especially those of I.T. Fichte and Novalis, the human individual I was on-

2.1. Problems of communication in the history of socio-philosophical thought 71

so much absolutized that the “other self” (also a subject) essentially turned out to be deprived of its subjectivity and became an object among objects. Thus, instead of the principle of dialogic interpersonal communication, the principle of its monologue prevailed. Consideration of communication as a unidirectional process closed the road to the creation of an adequate theory of interpersonal communication as a subject-subject relationship (I - another I) and stopped at the level of its understanding as a subject-object relationship, where the other side turned into a passive object of influence of the cognizing subject (He).

F. Schleiermacher(1768-1834), a prominent representative of German romanticism, dealt more consistently with the problem of communication. For him, communication between people is primarily communication between individuals, equal parties (subject-subject relationship). The recognition of this fact became for him a prerequisite and a fundamental basis for the subsequent development of the theory of understanding (hermeneutics) as the basis of truly human relationships. The general philosophical problem of hermeneutics was posed in early German romanticism by F. Schlegel, and was already developed in more detail by Schleiermacher.

It can be said without exaggeration that modern philosophical hermeneutics owes its birth to Schleiermacher. He considered hermeneutics as "the art of comprehending someone else's individuality", "the other". Its subject is primarily the aspect of expression, not content, for it is expression that is the embodiment of individuality. Therefore, Schleiermacher distinguished hermeneutics, on the one hand, from dialectics, which allows revealing the subject content of a text (work), and, on the other hand, from grammar, which does not reveal an individual stylistic manner of narration. In addition, Schleiermacher defines hermeneutics as a method of all sciences about the spirit (humanities), proving that with the help of psychological "getting used to" one can penetrate the inner world of not only a contemporary, but also the authors of ancient texts, any historical figures and on this basis to reconstruct historical events, to understand them more deeply than the participants in these events themselves realized.

In addition to the simple technique of understanding and interpreting various works, such as sacred texts, hermeneutics reveals the very interpretive structure that characterizes understanding as such: in the German philosopher, it found its expression in the so-called principle of the hermeneutic circle. Its essence lies in the fact that in order to understand the whole, it is necessary to understand its individual parts, but in order to understand the individual parts, it is already necessary

have an idea of the meaning of the whole. So, the word is part of the sentence, the sentence is part of the text, the text is part of the creative heritage of the given author, etc.

Schleiermacher develops the concept of the hermeneutic circle, introducing two varieties of it. The first, traditional for hermeneutics, is when a part of the text is related to the whole text as a whole and we find out the meaning of the whole in relation to its parts. Another interpretation of the hermeneutic circle is that the text is seen as a part, and the culture in which it functions as a whole. In this case, the relationship between the part and the whole acquires a completely different character: it is possible to understand a separate thought and the whole work as a whole based on the totality of the "life relations" of the author of the text. The dialectics of the part and the whole is carried out in two planes. At the first level, the part is taken as an excerpt from the work, and the whole as the work itself. At the second level, the interaction between the totality of the conditions of the external and internal life of the author as a whole and his work as a part is revealed. With a consistent consideration of individual parts, the understanding of the whole changes. The overall final understanding of the text (whole) is constructed from the understanding of its individual parts. At the same time, the reverse process also occurs: understanding the whole affects the understanding of parts already read. There is a return back and clarification, rethinking of the previous material.

By examining the text in a broader, cultural and historical context, combining this with knowledge of the conditions for its creation, the interpreter can understand the author and his creation deeper than the author himself understood himself and his work.

Semiotics - a new direction in the study of communication that arose in the 19th century. within the philosophy of pragmatism. Semiotics paid special attention to the sign nature of communication, studied the properties of signs and sign systems, which in a certain way were compared (attached) with some meaning.

The origins of the study of sign systems essentially appeared already in the logico-mathematical works of H. Leibniz at the end of the 17th century, who anticipated the main provisions of mathematical logic and semiotics with his concept of "universal calculus". The basic principles of semiotics were explicitly formulated by the American philosopher and logician C. Pierce(1839-1914), who introduced the very concept of "semiotics".

According to Eirs, “any thought is a sign participating in the nature of language”, “it is impossible to think without signs”, and the sign is a substitute for an object in some aspect. Communication also

Chapter 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

2.1. Problems of communication in the history of socio-philosophical thought 73

has a sign nature and is impossible without signs. In any communicative situation, three parts can be distinguished: the sign (the first term) in the function of the object (the second term) and in relation to the interpreter (the third term). The triadic nature of the sign allowed Peirce to develop the following semiotic classification.

Taken by itself, he calls the sign: 1) () naH81§n (sign-quality), such as, for example, the sensation of color; 2) 81§п81§п - could be any object; 3) le§151§п - a sign referring to any law or convention (contract).

A sign, taken in relation to its own subject, can be represented as: 1) an image (1sop - drawing, diagram); 2) index (inciex - signal, graduated scale); 3) a symbol (8myo1 - in the sense in which it can be a book, a monument, a banner, etc.).

The sign taken in relation to the interpreter is: 1) Kjeme - a statement with an indefinite object and a predicate pointing to a certain property of the object, for example, "something red" ("is red"); 2) Vkshdp - a proposition in which the subject points to an object or event, and the predicate - to a quality, for example, "a red rose"; 3) Argiten1 - a chain of three or more snc151gn, constructed according to the laws of inference, such is any syllogism.

Peirce considered his theory of signs to be essential for communication studies, although he emphasized the fallibilistic (from the English gallie - error-prone, unreliable) character of any scientific research. Pierce called his concept "fallible", emphasizing its hypothetical nature. Not only does human thinking consist of signs, but man himself can be understood as a sign. Thinking is linguistic in nature, and language is a collection of signs. Therefore, it is impossible to think without signs, the basis of human knowledge and understanding is also a sign-language, public in nature and acting as a means of communication.

Peirce's ideas had their followers and were further developed in the philosophy of the 20th century.

However, in the 19th century teachings appear, the critical orientation of which diverges from the general line on the study of the communicative aspects of human life.

ributov of "being" - naturalness, passions, immediacy, spontaneity. With the help of words-metaphors, people streamline the chaos of impressions. Random metaphors gradually "harden", as the source of their appearance is forgotten, and from frequent use they turn into "concepts". Deindividualization and universal applicability of concepts is the key to the existence of a society whose members should be able to "agree". In turn, life in society is a condition for human survival. Considering reality as an unordered stream of becoming, Nietzsche emphasizes the incommensurability of the image of the world created by the categorical scheme of language with the true world, the inability of language, and therefore of thinking, to present knowledge independently of language and thinking itself.

Problems of communication in the philosophy of the XX century. Philosophical tradition study of communication in the 20th century. even more varied. It continued the ideas of semiotics and hermeneutics; in addition, much attention was paid to the problem of human communication within the framework of such philosophical trends as existentialism, personalism, analytical and linguistic philosophy, dialogic philosophy, etc.

Existentialism, or the philosophy of existence, established itself and became one of the most powerful philosophical currents in Europe between the two world wars.

Ideas consonant with the existentialist style of philosophizing can also be found among some thinkers who declared themselves back in the 19th century. (S. Kierkegaard, F.M. Dostoevsky and others). However, the formation of existentialism as a special philosophical trend dates back to the 1920s. Its main representatives are M. Heidegger, K. Jaspers, J.P. Sartre, G. Marcel, A. Camus, Russian thinkers L. Shestov and NA. Berdyaev.

The subject and purpose of philosophical studies of existentialism is the inner world of a person isolated from society. By its very nature, this is a philosophy of human incommunicability. The term "existentialism" denotes a number of concepts, the essence of which is a way of experiencing by a person an alien and hostile reality that is opposite to her. The focus is on the inner world of a person; social life is presented as a continuation and expansion of this inner world, and the crisis of personality is understood as a crisis of human existence in general.

The spread of existentialism and ideas close to it was associated with the historical upheavals that the world was going through since

Chapter 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

2.1. Communication problems in the history of socio-philosophical thought

the beginning of the 20th century: the First World War, testifying to the deepest crisis of European society and culture; revolution in Russia; the emergence and strengthening of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in many European countries on the eve of World War II; upheavals of World War II. All these events revealed a clear lack of humanity in the very foundation of scientific and technological civilization - in relations between people.

Disappointment in the omnipotence of knowledge, a science that could not cope with social crises and upheavals, made many philosophers turn to questions about the meaning of life. The answer contained a statement of its meaninglessness, the absurdity of being, from which a person is no longer able to escape.

First of all, existentialism is a philosophy of being. But it is not something present, given, but experience that acts as being: existentialism understands it as an internal experience by the subject of his “being in the world”. Being is treated as immediately given human existence, as an existence that is unknowable and inexpressible either by scientific or rational philosophical means. Existence is in principle non-objectivable, therefore, it cannot be identified with anything scientifically comprehended. Any concept coarsens reality: it is not capable of fully expressing a person (“there are not enough words”). This is the problem of human loneliness: a person cannot be fully understood by another person, he cannot fully understand another person, share his feelings and experiences. The immediacy of existence is experienced by a person, but he is not able to share his experience with another. People are fundamentally lonely, they are doomed to mutual misunderstanding, Camus believes. Each person is the whole world. But these worlds do not communicate with each other. Communication between people slips only on the surface and does not touch the depths of the soul.

The point of view of K. Yaspers is somewhat different from the position of the majority of existentialists. The world of Jaspers, according to P.P. Gaidenko, "it is always the world of communication". He advocates “live, everyday, ongoing communication of people who solve scientific, political and social problems with the help of discussions, disputes, clashes of points of view and positions; only through free discussion, a detailed and broad clash of opinions, can the most important issues in society be resolved” (Man and his being as a problem of modern philosophy. M., 1978, p. 129).

Jaspers makes a distinction between "objective" and "existential" communication. Objective communication is conditioned by any kind of community between people (common interests, common cultural affiliation, etc.). Existential communication occurs in a situation of communication between two, three or several close people, their conversation about the most important “last” questions for them, during which a “breakthrough of existence to transcendence” (from existence to essence) is possible.

The ability of a person to communicate distinguishes him from everything else that exists, thanks to it a person can find himself, it underlies the existential relationship between people, as the relationship between I and You. Relations of this kind arise between people who communicate, but at the same time are aware of and retain their differences, coming towards each other from their solitude. A person, Jaspers believes, * cannot be himself without entering into communication, and cannot enter into communication without being alone, without being "selfhood". Thus, communication, according to Jaspers, is a universal condition of human existence.

Personalism - the theistic trend in Western philosophy, which considers the personality and its spiritual values to be the highest meaning of earthly civilization, gives similar assessments of the state of human communication. It is believed that the term "personalism" was first used by F. Schleiermacher in "Speech on religion to educated people who despise it" (1799). The main manifestation of personalism in the XX century. became French philosopher E. Munier (1905-1950), author of numerous works, including "Personalist and communitarian revolution" (1935), "Introduction to existentialism" (1947), "Personalism" (1949).

The crisis of communication, characteristic of the socio-historical situation of the first half of the 20th century, was explained by Munier as the vices of individualism. It forms an isolated person who is constantly on the defensive. According to this measure, the ideology of Western bourgeois society is tailored. Man, devoid of ties with nature, hopes

Chapter 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

2.1. Problems of communication in the history of socio-philosophical thought 77

bound by boundless freedom, he considers his neighbors from the point of view of calculation, he is envious and vengeful. Therefore, Munier considers the state of civil war to be the natural state of society: "from the very beginning of history, the days of war were much more numerous than the days of peace." Hostility is replaced by indifference, communication is blocked by the need to possess and subdue oneself. Each partner necessarily becomes either a tyrant or a slave. Such is the nature of modern, agonizing civilization, concludes Munier in Personalism.

The antithesis of an individualistic society is a personalist-communitarian society. There is nothing of an anonymous mass society in it, it is not a dictatorship and not a legal society of the educational type, based on a compromise of selfish interests.

The personalist model is based on love, realized in responsiveness and complicity, when a person takes on the fate, suffering and joy of others. In essence, this is a Christian idea that cannot be implemented by political means, but which can be considered as a regulative ideal and as a criterion of justice. In fact, Munier saw the features of a communitarian society in the abolition of the proletariat and the conditions that give rise to it, in replacing the anarchist economy of the free market with a personalistically organized economy, in co-; socialization instead of stateization, the development of the trade union movement, the rehabilitation of labor, the primacy of labor over capital, the abolition of class and qualification differences, the primacy of personal response; over anonymous etiquette.

Criticizing the vices of bourgeois society, Munier does not become; on the position of Marxism, since Marxism for him is only a recalcitrant child of capitalism, since it proceeds from the same materialistic premises as capitalism; replaces the market element with state capitalism; collectivism suppresses personal freedom.;

Personality in personalism is not limited to other personalities, social and political structures. On the contrary, it does not exist except in others and through others. When communication is disrupted or; interrupted, the person loses himself. “Any madness is nothing but a defeat in communication: a1[er (other) becomes-a1eshi5 (alien), I become a stranger to myself. This means that I "exist, since I exist for others, in essence -" to be means to love "(E. Munier).

Thus, aggregates external to the individual! du forms of joint activity of people personalism opposition

puts a personal community where people unite in the spirit, "beyond words and systems."

Communication in the philosophy of personalism is communication based on mutual understanding, discussion, which becomes a counterbalance to the doctrine of the social contract, since its participants perceive and understand each other only in the light of their mutual obligations - abstractly and impersonally. As a result, imaginary collectives of "mass society" appear - corporations, pressure groups, bureaucratized institutions. Communication, on the other hand, is interdependence, the opposite of a contract, based on intimate contacts and a conscious spiritual community. “Contact - instead of a contract” (F. Kaufman), the empirical forms of which (direct contact of consciousnesses) are conversation, discussion, “boundless mutual stay in conversation” (K. Jaspers).

Philosophical analysis communication carried out within the framework of various schools is associated with the concept of "discourse". In German word usage, "discourse" is a subordinate concept in relation to the concept of dialogue: discourse is a dialogue conducted with the help of arguments. Y. Habermas and K.O. Apelya discourse is a form of communication, namely: a way of communication in which various statements collide, explicitly or implicitly containing claims to universal validity.

In French word usage, the term "discourse" has a wide range of meanings - from free conversation, dialogue and reasoning to methodically reflected philosophical speech.

Dialogical philosophy(philosophy of dialogue, dialogism) - a collective designation of philosophical doctrines, the starting point of which is the concept of dialogue - became widespread in the 20th century. The dialogic relation, or the I-Thou relation, is conceived as a fundamental characteristic of a person's position in the world. Dialogical philosophy is polemically sharpened against the transcendental philosophy of consciousness, the starting point of which is the autonomous (and in this sense, “monological”) I. Arguing the primary nature of the I-Thou relationship, representatives of dialogic philosophy insist that outside this relationship, the human individual cannot at all develop as a "self". Although the fundamental importance of I-Thou-relations in the structure of human attitude to the world was already emphasized by many thinkers of the 19th century. (for example, L. Feuerbach), as a relatively independent intellectual trend, dialogic philosophy developed in the 1920s. Independently of each other and relying on various philosophical

Chapter 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

2.1. Problems of communication in the history of social | slosophic thought 79

religious traditions, its foundations were developed by M. Buber, F. Rosenzweig, A. Harnack, F. Gogarten. After World War II; war, the ideas of dialogical philosophy were developed by G. Marcel, E. Levinas and others.

Perhaps the most detailed "dialogical principle" was developed by M. Buberrm (1878-1965) in the famous work "I and You" (1923). In the dialogical principle, Buber points to two types of human relations: relations with the material world (I - | It) and relations with other people (I - You). In the first case, che-| Lovek is in front of the world of things - objects of knowledge, exp | rimentirovanie and use. It is an object, an objectified reality. The situation will not fundamentally change if] It is replaced by He or She. In the second case, you are no longer an object! You invade the life of the Self, changing it with your presence. Essence] I am in a fundamental relation to You.

In a pair of I - It I appears as an individuality and achieves *! awareness of oneself as a subject. In the pair I - You, I appears as a personality and achieves awareness of itself as subjectivity. Individuality manifests itself insofar as it differs from other individualities. Personality manifests itself insofar as it comes into contact with other personalities. Individuality for-! given by its dissimilarity, but personality is constituted only! relationship with other individuals. It is You who makes my I, in | in the presence of You, the I grows, understanding its non-coincidence with You!; And if in relation to the It I can speak, creating theories and \ using it, then in relation to You I do not speak, but communicate. Reality becomes human precisely in dialogue. Saying It! we possess, saying You, we communicate in dialogue. You are not an object! You are the original subject. The subject You therefore connects with the subject I. “I originates precisely from my relationship with You, only after becoming I, I can say You” (M. Buber).

"The meeting of one with the other" forms, according to Buber, "dialogic", or] "the being of man with man." In the language of pronominal categories! this being is determined by the word We, fixing the striving phi-| philosophy to overcome the individualistic, self-sufficient I. We, he emphasizes, potentially include You. Only people, spo-| own to speak truthfully to each other You, can talk about yourself! We.

duality). They are unable to comprehend the "wholeness" of man, which is the unity of the individual, personal and general.

At the same time, dialogic philosophy is criticized. Thus, J. Bochensky (1902-1995), a Polish-Swiss philosopher, believes that there is nothing particularly mysterious or “philosophical” in the dialogue itself. Some philosophers, he notes, have turned the dialogue into a real superstition. This is an obvious prejudice. The "dialogical" superstition is not as common as other delusions, but it is common among preachers, journalists, intellectuals, and the like. One of its main sources is the concept of existentialism, according to which a person exists only when he enters into “communication” with someone. But although our concepts are indeed connected with words, and we use words precisely in dialogue, it does not at all follow that a person cannot exist - and at the same time lead a rich life - without some kind of exchange of thoughts with other people. In any case, it is a fact that great people sometimes did their deeds in solitude, therefore, it was in loneliness that their existence was most intense.

It is clear, concludes the critic, that "dialogical" superstition appeals to weak people who need others, those people who do not feel strong enough to fight fate on their own. Such people perceive the fallacy associated with dialogue with great enthusiasm. Another reason leads to this - collectivism, an excessive emphasis on society; people are constantly told that without the support of society they are nothing, therefore, they are nothing without dialogue.

hermeneutics, the philosophical and methodological foundations of which were laid in the 19th century. F. Schleiermacher, in the XX century. acquires the status of an independent direction of modern philosophical thought.

In hermeneutics, categories are developed that are fundamentally important for the theory of communication. Among them, the categories of "understanding" and "interpretation" acquire a special status.

The problems of studying and interpreting texts aroused philosophical interest in the question of "understanding". Understanding is understanding the meaning or meaning of something. The hermeneutic approach consists in interpreting the process of understanding as a search for meaning, as opposed to understanding as the assignment of meanings.

Interpretation is understood as the interpretation of texts aimed at understanding their semantic content; in mathematical

Chapter 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

to which logic, logical semantics, philosophy of science interpretation is the establishment of the meanings of formal language expressions.

As a practice, interpretation already existed in ancient philology (“allegorical interpretation” of texts), in medieval exegesis (Christian interpretation of pagan tradition), in the Renaissance (“text criticism”, lexicography, “grammar”, which included stylistics and rhetoric) and Reformation (Protestant exegesis of the 17th century). The first attempts at theoretical understanding of interpretation are associated with the emergence of hermeneutics (F. Schleiermacher).

To solve the problem of understanding, the following conditions must be met: reveal the historical nature of the text; reveal the essence of the process of understanding and interpretation. Thus, it becomes fundamental to highlight the conditions of understanding that form the context of the "life" of the analyzed text. This context is recreated with the help of philological, historical and psychological interpretations. Through understanding and interpretation, hermeneutical problems merge into phenomenology. Hermeneutics (with its function of comprehension and interpretation), logic (the function of expressing meaning), phenomenology (the function of discovering meaning) are intertwined in a single activity of the mind.

Hermeneutics as a philosophical and methodological doctrine is heterogeneous; the following directions can be distinguished in it.

The ideas of hermeneutic phenomenology were developed in the work of the Russian philosopher G. G. Shpet (1879-1940), a follower of the phenomenological teachings of E. Husserl. many ideas of later hermeneutics and philosophy of language.

Shpet believed that in modern philosophy the problem of pony-| mania and interpretations are overly psychologized. According to him me-| Intuitively, the meaning of a word is objective and can be known by non-psychological methods. Therefore, hermeneutics, as the art of comprehending meaning, must necessarily include scientific ones! semiotic, logical and phenomenological methods, i.e. methods of objective comprehension of the studied phenomenon. Subjective factors should also be included in the study of texts under the general title of "understanding conditions", but their comprehension should be provided by the historical method. The created text "lives" an independent life, its meaning no longer depends on the will of the author, it is objectified as a thing in itself and for us.

Shpet grasped that hermeneutics as an independent philosophical direction is adequate to the interpretative, dialogic nature of philosophy. Rejecting the one-sidedness of the philosophical

2.1. Problems of communication in the history of socio-philosophical thought 81

13th International Conference on Greek Philosophy
"Philosophy of Communication"

Rhodes (Greece) August 2001

I.D. DON'T MATTER

PRINCIPLE OF COMMUNICATION IN CONTEXT

FUNDAMENTALISM AND RELATIVISM

At the beginning of the 20th century, M. Buber asked: “When will the process of thinking begin to endure the presence of someone living nearby, turn it on, keep it in mind? When will the dialectic of thinking turn into dialogicity?”1 This question is still relevant today. The purpose of this article is to substantiate the need for a new communication strategy philosophical reflection reality. At the same time, I will try to consider the dialectic of thinking as the implementation of a communicative dialogic strategy. Dialectic already includes the "presence of the other". Therefore, M. Buber's lamentations can be understood in such a way that philosophical thinking remains associated with those traditions of classical philosophy, which are represented in fundamentalist and relativistic strategies. Therefore, it seems to me justified to analyze these strategies in relation to the interpretation of communicative processes.

Usually in philosophical dictionaries communication is defined as the process of exchanging information. This definition implicitly implies the primacy of cognition and knowledge in relation to communication. First there is knowledge, and then there is communication. The exchange of knowledge is necessary for solving practical problems of management, training, joint action, etc. In this case, the problem of communication comes down to finding means and ways of transmitting information in order to increase the effectiveness of communication. So the meaning of communication is to know and then act.

I would like to show, firstly, that the specified definition of communication is closely connected with the fundamentalist or relativistic interpretation of knowledge and cognition. Secondly, the implementation of these philosophical strategies in the process of dialogue leads to the destruction of communication. And, thirdly, the need for a different understanding of the relationship of communication to cognition will be substantiated. And as a result, another - not informational - understanding of communication is proposed.

Prerequisites for understanding communication.

Cross-cultural communication can be understood in different ways depending on the inclusion of certain ontological, epistemological and anthropological premises in the structure of the conceptualization of the problem. Fundamentalist and relativistic concepts offer different interpretations of knowledge and, accordingly, understanding of communication. Let's consider these prerequisites.

Fundamentalism is defined as the epistemological view that knowledge must be understood as a structure arising from certain absolute foundations. These grounds can be seen in objective reality, or in the ideas of the mind. The fundamentalist concept goes back to the ontological paradigm. It is based on the belief in the existence of being in itself, in relation to which a person determines his existence in the world. Fundamentalism recognizes the existence of an absolute, unconditional self-identical being, independent of the process of communication. This is, for example, an objective truth, or a universal language, a universal system of categories underlying human experience etc. The possibility of having adequate knowledge about absolute existences is guaranteed by the presence of a single universal subject of cognition and knowledge. Empirical subjects are considered as modes of this single subject. One of the images of such a subject in classical philosophy was the Divine mind, transcendental subject or consciousness in general.

The possibility of communication is determined by the presence of agents between which there is a certain identity. There must be some general context. For example, communication is feasible on the assumption that there is one and the same world for everyone, the same truths and ways of verifying them. Communication in this case really comes down to the process of exchanging information. But since information is able to multiply, communication is a means of increasing knowledge about the world by each subject. However, it is important that this information can be obtained without recourse to communication. It is enough just to know the world with the help of the “correct” methodology. The path to truth is always the same.

We are talking, for example, about reaching consensus as the goal of communication. By reaching consensus, empirical subjects overcome the differences that distinguish them from each other. Consensus is achieved by joining a single Subject, which is the bearer of truth, reliable knowledge. This approach is hidden behind the interpretation of Socrates' dialectics, according to which dialectics is a way of discovering universally valid truths that already exist in the minds of people.

Relativism is defined as a concept that denies the absolute, unchanging foundations of any knowledge, recognizing the relativity of any knowledge to the position of the subject of knowledge. The premise of relativism is the recognition of the existence of many fundamentally different and equal subjects of cognition and knowledge. The relativistic strategy goes back to the epistemological paradigm, which proceeds from the conviction that the world is never given to us “as such”, it is always given to us in the forms of our subjectivity (consciousness, sensibility, forms of practice, language, etc.)

Relativism in the understanding of communication is expressed in the assertion that the conditions, results, goals of communication are relative to each subject of communication. The being of another person, his consciousness are interpreted here in the forms of individual subjectivity. The relativistic strategy goes back to the sophists, and it is based on the principle of difference, according to which only that which is related to another has being and truth. Each of the communicants has its own context. Therefore, the content of the information received depends on who receives it. Here the signifier dominates, and the "power of being" of one is determined by the relation to the "power of being" of the other.

Knowledge does not have an absolute beginning, since knowledge, truth is relative to perspective or point of view. Knowledge is interpretation, and there can be many of them. Relativism is built on the basis of the idea, which goes back to the sophists, that only that which is related to another, that exists as a relation to another, possesses being and truth. The difference between the knowable and the knower is the condition of cognition and knowledge. The name is conditional, random and not connected with the essence of the thing. Here the copy is not identical to the original, they are always distinguishable. A copy is a representation of a thing.

Situations of communication degeneration.

Another strategy of dialogue - the strategy of refutation - forces the other to silence. “This intention is not achieved through direct ... Let's consider communication as a cross-cultural process. At the same time, it is necessary ... A) Two types of culture can be distinguished, which are associated with two approaches to understanding the relationship of language to reality. One…

Another strategy for analyzing the problem of communication, developed by L. Wittgenstein, W. Quine, R. Rorty and others, is focused on understanding culture as a certain way of self-description. This approach is not bound by the requirement to express any extra-cultural meaning. Various cultural dictionaries are viewed not from the point of view of metalanguage, which denotes a transcendental meaning common to all possible descriptions, but as alternative language games, or as forces of life that do not refer to anything other than the language itself. From these positions, an attempt to establish some universal patterns inherent in each culture is considered as another language game. Within the framework of this approach, communication is possible when each of the communicants expands his semantic competence.

The condition of communication is linguistic creativity. Thanks to the creative language game, it is possible to achieve a communication code that will be generally valid for all its participants. The philosophical prerequisites for such an understanding of culture are the idea of a plurality of worlds (ontological premise) and the idea of the contextuality of cognition and knowledge (epistemological premise). In this way, the philosophy of language tries to overcome the shortcomings inherent in the fundamentalist and relativistic premises of communication. Its premise is the assertion that the true being in which a person exists and which determines his subjectivity is language. Here lies the claim to an adequate understanding of communication as a language game (Wittgenstein). But this philosophical paradigm has a serious flaw. It consists in the fact that by declaring "everything is language", she lost the opportunity to verify the meaningfulness of language and communication in general. It is not clear what are the criteria for meaningfulness, rationality, and success of communication.

Philosophers today are coming to understand that the criteria for communication are non-linguistic, and that, therefore, communication is not limited to the exchange (of information).

Philosophical premises of the dialogue.

As the analysis shows, for the true recognition of communication, it is necessary to change the epistemological - more broadly - the philosophical prerequisites for understanding communication. The above analysis of the "forms of disintegration of speaking" (Gadamer) shows that the strategies of dialogue, determined by fundamentalist and relativistic premises, lead to the "disintegration of speaking". It is important not to keep in mind that fundamentalism and relativism, in their own way, put forward the demand for knowledge of the existent. Therefore, the rejection of fundamentalist or relativistic strategies should not mean a general rejection of any epistemological and ontological prerequisites for the knowledge of the existent. However, we must try to change these prerequisites or adopt new ones. Which? Here we enter the realm of hypotheses. But what could we be guided by? I think we should be guided by the thought of the French philosopher J.-L. Nancy: “The community of being, and not the being of a community, is what we should be talking about. Or better still: the community of existence, not the essence of the community.” These words express the essence of the principle of communication as the principle of understanding being. I understand the principle of communication not only as the content of interpersonal relations, but as one of the universal philosophical principles for understanding being. This principle allows you to understand not only the basics of human dialogue with another person, but also with nature, as well as the communicative nature of human consciousness and knowledge.

The "topology" of communication is not described by the concepts of fundamentalism or relativism. In my opinion, its "topology" has a dialectical structure and is described dialectically. To do this, it is necessary to reconsider the interpretations of the meaning of dialectics, which we inherited from the time of classical philosophy, and especially the philosophy of Hegel. Within the framework of the task set, the hermeneutical interpretation of dialectics proposed by G. Gadamer is of interest. And also the interpretation of ancient dialectics given by the Russian philosopher A. Losev is very interesting. Losev developed the concept according to which “dialectics is the logic of a symbol”, and a symbol is fundamentally communicative. He urged to abandon the "proper" understanding of the symbol. Such an understanding, according to Losev, is a relic of old metaphysical ideas rooted in the distinction between sign and meaning as external to each other.

As I have already noted, fundamentalist strategy is based on the principle of identity, while relativistic strategy is based on the principle of difference. Plato sought to combine these two strategies in his version of the dialectic. This became possible, as noted, for example, by Gadamer, based on the new ontology proposed by Plato. I will briefly dwell on this.

Aristotle's ontological principle of mediation is based on the denial of the ontological status of non-existence. This is due to Aristotle's conviction that the basis of being is something that is no longer mediated by others. At the same time, between any two kinds of being or states of being, there is always something third that mediates them. According to Aristotle, the relation of opposition is the relation of maximum difference between predicates. Therefore non-existence is only a logical expression of difference. Non-existence is the negative predicate of some subject being. The relation of opposite predicates is always mediated by this subject. The Aristotelian principle of contiguity is connected with the fact that the relationship between things is thought of as something secondary and derived from the essence of things.

Plato's alternative ontology is based on the idea of relation. Unlike Aristotle, Plato proceeds from the fact that the basis of being is something that is mediated by others. Being is constituted by the relation to non-being. The relationship itself is not mediated by anything. In particular, the relation of opposites is immediate. As shown in the Parmenides dialogue, from this point of view, the transition, for example, from a state of rest to a state of movement is not a process that takes place in time, but is a relation that determines the state of rest. Subsequently, this was reflected in the idea of the relativity of rest and motion. In this case, we are not talking about the transition of the body from a state of rest to a state of motion, but about the transition from one frame of reference to another, that is, about a change in attitude.

Plato argued that non-existence is a special positive evidence in being (a certain eidos, “Sophist”), which, although opposite to being, but, like being itself, is found in being. Non-existence as a positive definition of being has the following meaning: “to be different from another”, “not to be different”. In my opinion, this idea is at the heart of the communication process. Not being different means recognizing the other as different from me. In the process of communication, this is embodied in the principle of mutual recognition of the freedom of communication agents.

According to Platonic ontology, communication can be understood as a relationship that is not conditioned, not generated by something else, is not just a manifestation of the properties of interacting agents. This attitude unconditionally and itself determines the situation of communication.

Dialectics is the path to dialogue.

Finally, communication can take place when the meeting of the parties is accidental, historical. Communication is a condition for the organization of space… THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GREEK PHILOSOPHY "THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION" (A PHILOSOPHY…

IGOR NEVVAJAI

OF FOUNDATIONALISM AND RELATIVISM At the beginning of the 20th century Martin Buber inquired: When the process of thinking will begin to tolerate the…

What will we do with the received material:

If this material turned out to be useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

At the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. in German classical philosophy, a categorical apparatus, which is fundamentally important for building a theory of communication, begins to be developed. We are talking about the categories "subject" and "object", where the "subject" was understood as a person in his active-cognitive (but not yet transformative) attitude to the surrounding objective world - the "object".

In addition to the simple technique of understanding and interpreting various works, such as sacred texts, hermeneutics reveals the very interpretive structure that characterizes understanding as such: in the German philosopher, it found its expression in the so-called principle of the hermeneutic circle. Its essence lies in the fact that in order to understand the whole it is necessary to understand its individual parts, but in order to understand the individual parts it is already necessary to have an idea of the meaning of the whole. So, the word is part of the sentence, the sentence is part of the text, the text is part of the creative heritage of the given author, etc.

Peirce's ideas had their followers and were further developed in the philosophy of the 20th century.

However, in the 19th century teachings appear, the critical orientation of which diverges from the general line on the study of the communicative aspects of human life.

F. Nietzsche(1844-1900) became one of the brightest critics of communication in the 19th century. A significant place in Nietzsche's philosophy is given to the criticism of language. He is convinced that thinking is inseparable from language, but language necessarily distorts reality, replaces life-as-it-is-itself-in itself with its artificial picture, devoid of the attributes of "being" - naturalness, passions, immediacy, spontaneity. With the help of words-metaphors, people streamline the chaos of impressions. Random metaphors gradually "harden", as the source of their appearance is forgotten, and from frequent use they turn into "concepts". Deindividualization and universal applicability of concepts is the key to the existence of a society whose members should be able to "agree". In turn, life in society is a condition for human survival. Considering reality as an unordered stream of becoming, Nietzsche emphasizes the incommensurability of the image of the world created by the categorical scheme of language with the true world, the inability of language, and therefore of thinking, to present knowledge independently of language and thinking itself.

29 / Problems of communication in the philosophy of the XX century. Philosophical tradition of studying communication in the 20th century. even more varied. It continued the ideas of semiotics and hermeneutics; in addition, much attention was paid to the problem of human communication within the framework of such philosophical trends as existentialism, personalism, analytical and linguistic philosophy, dialogic philosophy, etc.

Existentialism, or the philosophy of existence, established itself and became one of the most powerful philosophical currents in Europe between the two world wars.

The spread of existentialism and ideas close to it was associated with the historical upheavals that the world was going through since

First of all, existentialism is a philosophy of being. But it is not something present, given, but experience that acts as being: existentialism understands it as an internal experience by the subject of his “being in the world”. Being is interpreted as a directly given human existence, as an existence that is unknowable and inexpressible either by scientific or rational philosophical means. Existence is in principle non-objectivable, therefore, it cannot be identified with anything scientifically comprehended. Any concept coarsens reality: it is not capable of fully expressing a person (“there are not enough words”). This is the problem of human loneliness: a person cannot be fully understood by another person, he cannot fully understand another person, share his feelings and experiences. The immediacy of existence is experienced by a person, but he is not able to share his experience with another. People are fundamentally lonely, they are doomed to mutual misunderstanding, Camus believes. Each person is the whole world. But these worlds do not communicate with each other. Communication between people slips only on the surface and does not touch the depths of the soul.

According to Heidegger and Sartre, existence is being directed towards nothingness and conscious of its finiteness. It manifests itself when a person is on the threshold of eternity, in the form of such experiences as fear, anxiety, nausea (Sartre), boredom (Camus), etc. It is in the “boundary situation” (Jaspers), at the moments of the deepest upheavals, that a person sees existence as the root of his existence. According to Camus, in the face of the nothingness that makes human life meaningless, the breakthrough of one individual to another, true communication between them is impossible. Only falsehood and hypocrisy. The point of view of K. Yaspers is somewhat different from the position of the majority of existentialists. The world of Jaspers, according to P.P. Gaidenko, "it is always the world of communication". He advocates “live, everyday, ongoing communication of people who solve scientific, political and social problems with the help of discussions, disputes, clashes of points of view and positions; only through free discussion, a detailed and broad clash of opinions, can the most important issues in society be resolved” (Man and his being as a problem of modern philosophy. M., 1978, p. 129).

Personalism - the theistic trend in Western philosophy, which considers the personality and its spiritual values to be the highest meaning of earthly civilization, gives similar assessments of the state of human communication. It is believed that the term "personalism" was first used by F. Schleiermacher in "Speech on religion to educated people who despise it" (1799). The main manifestation of personalism in the XX century. became the French philosopher E. Munier (1905-1950), the author of numerous works, including "Personalist and communitarian revolution" (1935), "Introduction to existentialism" (1947), "Personalism" (1949).

Thus, aggregates external to the individual! personalism opposes the forms of joint activity of people with a personal community, where people are united in the spirit, “beyond words and systems”.

Philosophical analysis of communication, carried out within the framework of various schools, is associated with the concept of "discourse". In German word usage, "discourse" is a subordinate concept in relation to the concept of dialogue: discourse is a dialogue conducted with the help of arguments. Y. Habermas and K.O. Apelya discourse is a form of communication, namely: a way of communication in which various statements collide, explicitly or implicitly containing claims to universal validity.

In French word usage, the term "discourse" has a wide range of meanings - from free conversation, dialogue and reasoning to methodically reflected philosophical speech.

Buber believes that his position allows him to overcome two one->| sides in the understanding of man - individualism and collectivism (the latter he calls such a view of a person who sees only his "public" side, ignoring his individuality | | duality). They are unable to comprehend the "wholeness" of man, which is the unity of the individual, personal and general.

Interpretation is understood as the interpretation of texts aimed at understanding their semantic content; in mathematical

to which logic, logical semantics, philosophy of science interpretation is the establishment of the meanings of formal language expressions.

Hermeneutics as a philosophical and methodological doctrine is heterogeneous; the following directions can be distinguished in it.

Shpet grasped that hermeneutics as an independent philosophical direction is adequate to the interpretative, dialogic nature of philosophy. Rejecting the one-sidedness of the philosophical

scientism, it combines an objectively rationalistic position and interpretative methods of philosophical knowledge. The result is a synthesis of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Hermeneutics deals with the analysis of understanding and must answer the question "How is understanding possible?" is in fact a philosophy of understanding. Phenomenology analyzes the meaning and methods of its formation.

Phenomenological hermeneutics synthesizes both of these directions in one philosophical paradigm. As a result, the act of understanding includes the mind and the object of knowledge (text) as structural components. The concept of the text receives an extremely broad interpretation as a sign-symbolic information system, including the usual media of information - oral and written speech (books, newspapers, letters, etc.). With this approach, the problem of language merges with the problem of consciousness, which, according to Shpet, leads to a new concept of "linguistic consciousness". Since texts are products of human activity on which the influence of linguistic consciousness is imprinted, the understanding of the text must be based on a fundamental analysis of linguistic consciousness in the broad cultural context in which it is formed and functions.

The ontological trend in hermeneutics was developed by M. Heidegger (1889-1976), who made language the subject of hermeneutic analysis. Language for him acts as an essential property of human existence. And since understanding is possible only in language and with the help of language, language determines the formulation of all hermeneutical problems. It reflects the whole world of human existence, and through it Heidegger's hermeneutics "goes out" to the analysis of human existence.

The "mystery" of being, according to Heidegger, is hidden from man. The existing language, subject to logical rules, grammar and syntax, places insurmountable limits on what people want to say to each other. Using such a language, people speak about being, and not about being, the meaning of which they are not given to penetrate.

How, then, does being reveal its secret? Disclosure occurs only in language, but not so much in science as in poetry: “Language is the house of being. And a man lives in it. Thinkers and poets are the keepers of this abode” (M. Heidegger). In language, Heidegger writes in the essay “Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry” (1937), the gift of being, the poet, the speaker, is revealed to the poet. It is therefore important to be able to hear being, surrender to its power and become free to perceive the truth and the word.

By ontologizing the linguistic problems of hermeneutics, Heidegger contributes to the transformation of hermeneutics into a doctrine of being, thus securing its philosophical status. In his opinion, hermeneutics deals not so much with the rules of text interpretation, the theory of linguistic understanding, but with our general attitude to the world in which we live. In fact, it is a phenomenological definition of the specifics of human existence itself, since understanding and interpretation are the fundamental ways of human being and the mechanisms of communication, and therefore he considers philosophy as a hermeneutic interpretation of this being.

The hermeneutic ideas of G.G. Gadamer (1900-2002), student of M. Heidegger, author of the classic work Truth and Method (1960). Gadamer critically comprehends the previous hermeneutic tradition, primarily the teachings of F. Schleiermacher, who strives for the historical reconstruction of the past state of a work of art (text) through the reconstruction of its cultural context. For Gadamer, such a reconstruction (“reproduction of past production”) “is no more meaningful than the restoration of a past life.” The goal of hermeneutic art should not be “getting used to the world of the author”, but the representation of this world “in oneself” in order to actualize it for oneself.

Developing the "ontological turn" of hermeneutics to the problem of language proposed by Heidegger, Gadamer singles out the category of "pre-understanding" as the most important - a set of "prejudices", "prejudices", "prejudgments", "anticipations", determined by the tradition "horizon of understanding". The central one, which determines all the rest, is the concept of prejudice - “this is a judgment that takes place before the final verification of all the actually determining moments” (Gadamer). Therefore, prejudice is not necessarily a false judgment; it can have both positive and negative aspects. Prejudices, according to Gadamer, are elements of tradition that live in modernity, this is the connection between history and modernity.

Since any tradition is inextricably linked with language, expressed in it and conditioned to a certain extent by it, language as a structural element of the cultural whole should become the main subject and source of hermeneutic reflection. Language, in addition to the transferable meaning, retains the objective and subjective prerequisites for understanding. Language, according to Gadamer, is the world that surrounds a person; without language, neither life, nor consciousness, nor thinking, nor feelings, nor society, nor history, etc. are possible. Everything that is connected with a person is reflected in the language. Language is not only a "house of being" (Heidegger), but also a way of human being, its essential property. Language is a condition of human cognitive activity. Thus, understanding turns from a mode of cognition into a mode of being. The principle and source of real understanding and mutual understanding is dialogue, conversation, communication.

The ideas of Gadamer significantly reorient the aspirations of hermeneutics as a philosophical and methodological discipline. It acquires even greater philosophical significance, becomes a doctrine of human existence and communication.

In recent decades, the monopoly of hermeneutics on the development of the problem of text understanding has been somewhat weakened: hermeneutic methodology is either supplemented by psychoanalytic and structuralist ones, or is studied as an epistemological and logical problem.

Neopositivism(or analytical philosophy) formed at the beginning of the 20th century. within the framework of philosophical positivism; this is an "anti-metaphysical", analytical direction, which marks the "linguistic turn" of philosophy. The new direction announced that philosophy has the right to exist not as metaphysics, "thinking about the world", but only as a "logical analysis of language." From the point of view of neopositivism, all our knowledge about the world is given only by specific empirical sciences. Philosophy, on the other hand, cannot state a single new proposition about the world beyond what individual sciences say about it, cannot create any picture of the world. Its task is to logically and linguistically analyze and clarify those provisions of science and common sense in which our knowledge of the world can be expressed.

Analytical philosophy is represented primarily by the schools of logical positivism and linguistic philosophy. Philosophical research in them has the character of an analytical procedure, which in logical positivists is focused on the "perfect language" of formal logic, and in linguistic philosophy - on natural language.

Neopositivism owes the reduction of philosophy to logical analysis primarily to B. Russell, who used the achievements of mathematical logic for this. Russell believed that the method of logical analysis could contribute to the resolution of philosophical problems (in fact, these problems themselves are of a logical nature), and declared that logic is the essence of philosophy. R. Carnap further narrowed the understanding of philosophy, reducing the object of its study to the logical-syntactic analysis of the language and declaring that

that philosophical problems are nothing but linguistic problems.

logical positivism. The focus on private logical and methodological research, on the analysis of the language of science characterizes the activities of the so-called Vienna Circle ^F. Weissmann, G. Hahn, K. Gödel, R. Carnap, O. Neurath, and others), which arose in the early 1920s. and existed until the beginning of the Second World War and laid the foundations of logical positivism.

Representatives of this trend drew attention to the fact that ordinary language creates a lot of misconceptions and imaginary problems. Most of these are traditional philosophy. To avoid them, it is necessary to form a perfect language that does not allow any uncertainties. The language of mathematical logic should also become the language, B. Russell believed. A perfect language, according to logical positivists, can only include such statements (sentences) that are: a) either judgments about facts and are subject to empirical verification (for example, "Water boils at a temperature of 100 degrees and a pressure of 1 atmosphere"); b) either logical conclusions that are non-experimental in nature, therefore, strictly speaking, this is not knowledge, but tautologies (for example, 2 + 2 = 4; A + B = B + A). The latter do not carry information about the world, but are always true, since their truth is determined entirely by the rules of the language. Tautologies include the provisions of mathematics and logic. Only sentences of these two kinds make scientific sense.

The task of philosophy is to purify scientific knowledge from proposals that: do not make sense - they can neither be refuted nor confirmed (for example, "The East will be round tomorrow"); although they have meaning, they cannot be empirically verified (for example, “There is nothing in the world but moving matter”). Those are the majority in traditional philosophy, and they operate with concepts that cannot be compared with any facts (“matter”).

The procedure for checking sentences for their meaningfulness is called "verification". According to the principle of verification, only those sentences make sense that allow experimental verification. Logical positivism attached great importance to this principle, but it did not justify the hopes associated with it: not all the provisions of science can be verified today, but it will be possible to verify some time later with the development of experimental technology; historical knowledge is fundamentally not amenable to experimental verification, but the past is nevertheless known; the principle of verification itself cannot be attributed to either an experimental or a tautological statement_, it has a clearly “metaphysical”, philosophical origin.

Awareness of the methodological insufficiency of logical positivism with its claims to create an “ideal” language of science (not all scientific knowledge can be formalized in the logical constructions of an artificial language) led to the emergence of linguistic philosophy within the framework of neopositivism.

Linguistic Philosophy - one of the directions of analytical philosophy, which was developed in Great Britain, where two schools arose - Cambridge and Oxford (the latter still dominates British academic philosophy), in the USA and some other sufferings of the West in the 1930s-1960s.

Proponents of linguistic philosophy refuse rigid logical requirements for language, believing that natural language should be the object of analysis. For the first time, the method of philosophical analysis of natural language was developed in Cambridge by J. Moore. The most detailed version of linguistic analysis is presented in L. Wittgenstein's treatise "Philosophical Investigations" (1949).

According to Wittgenstein, ideas about the shortcomings of natural language, its so-called logical inconsistencies, are caused by the desire of positivists to impose a single, universal logic on the language in order to streamline the language, eliminate semantic discrepancies and the multiplicity of concepts used, confusing ambiguity, grammatical constructions, etc. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, believes that philosophical errors are eliminated by including words and phrases in the contexts of human communication that are organically inherent in them. Proceeding from the diversity, ambiguity of the concept I of a natural language, its natural mobility, Wittgenstein proposed an analysis option based on the concept of "language games" and introduced the term "linguistic games".

The features of the game as a phenomenon make it possible to better understand the features of linguistic reality. Just as each game has its own rules, so "in the language there are various rules, where formal logic forms only one class of such rules. Since each game has its own rules, therefore, there is no single universal game, the same rules and This feature of the game makes it possible to drastically reconsider the relationship between logic and language: assimilation of logic to the rules of the game prohibits any attempts to subordinate language to logical logical rules, to put logic above language.

There are an infinite number of linguistic games, as well as an infinite number of ways to use words, signs, phrases. This multiplicity is not something fixed, given once and for all: some games are born, others grow old and disappear. The very word "game" indicates that language, speaking, being a type of activity, is an integral part of life. Wittgenstein demonstrates the multiplicity of linguistic games with the following examples: “Give orders or carry them out ... Solve arithmetic problems ... Translate from one language to another ... Ask, thank, curse, greet, pray” (Wittgenstein L. Philosophical works. Ch. 1. M., 1994. S. 91).

The enumeration and analysis of various examples of linguistic games no longer means a formal logical analysis, but simply a definition of the "actual use" of words and phrases. For the proponents of linguistic philosophy, "actual use" means the use of the words whose meaning we are interested in, for a sufficiently long time, by a sufficient number of serious and responsible persons who know the relevant subject or relevant circumstances. In essence, this refers to the decisive role of language conventions.

Thus, linguistic analysis is the procedure of ascertaining the actual use of words by a representative group of speakers on a subject of interest. If an expression is actually used, then it is meaningless to say whether it is true or not. The question of truth is a question of fact, not of a norm. Saying something and saying the truth are one and the same, although we may be mistaken about the use of this or that word or expression.

The doctrine of linguistic philosophy, in fact, has been reduced to the description of ordinary language, the actual use of which is of scientific interest. However, interest only in ordinary language, and not in the world, ran into the difficulties of scientific knowledge and interpretation. Ordinary language, free word usage and free construction of grammatical constructions are clearly not enough here. Wittgenstein's assertion that logical necessity does not exist in the exact sense, and that logical connection does not "force" us to draw a certain conclusion, but only "causes" us to do so, contradicts the nature of the logical conclusion, which actually has a "compulsory" character, forcing us to come to a certain conclusion. The application of the game model of language to the analysis of a logical problem meant a return to conventionalism - the logical choice is "my choice". Thus, Wittgenstein's idea of the pluralism of methods is connected with relativism in the theory of knowledge (a sign of the relativity of our knowledge), and the statement of the decisive role of language conventions has the meaning of the dissolution of reality in the contexts of various "language games".

Close interest in everyday language marked the studies of J. Austin (1911-1960), a prominent representative of linguistic philosophy from Oxford. Like many of his colleagues, he worked in the field of ordinary word usage, the pathos of his work is directed against the wrong, i.e. violating the logic of natural language, the use of words and whole phrases. Analyzing various linguistic units in How to Make Things into Words (1965), Austin showed the difference between indicative (stating) statements and performative (executive). The first ones contain some kind of statement, description (for example, “Tomorrow I go to work”) and can be true or false; the second indicates the performance of some action (“I promise that tomorrow I will go to work”) and can be successful or unsuccessful. Austin called his concept "the theory of speech acts", where he introduced a number of new concepts: a locutionary act - the act of speaking in itself; illocutionary act - the act of implementing one of the language functions (question, assessment, command, information, prayer, etc.); perlocutionary act - a purposeful impact on a person's thoughts and feelings, provoking a certain reaction (persuasion, deceit, amazement, confusion, etc.). Austin's theory and the concepts he introduced turned out to be in demand by modern linguistics and logic. Austin himself hoped that on the basis of his attitudes and as a result of the collective activity of his supporters, a new discipline would arise - linguistic phenomenology, which is a symbiosis of philosophy and linguistics.

Semiotics in the 20th century received further development. Being one of the offshoots of philosophical positivism, today semiotics has received the status of an independent scientific discipline. The foundations of semiotics, laid down by Ch. Peirce, were developed in the works of Ch. Morris (1901-1979). Morris began his career as an engineer, then moved to philosophy through biology and psychology. He became widely known for his book Fundamentals of the Theory of Signs (1938). Another work, which has become a classic, “Signs, Languages and Behavior” (1946), is also devoted to signs.

The concepts of sign and semiosis became the central concepts of the new discipline. A sign is defined as a certain object (phenomenon, event), which acts as a representative (substitute) of some other object and is used to acquire

niya, storage, processing and transmission of information. Signs can be both linguistic and non-linguistic. Semiosis is defined by Morris as a process in which a phenomenon functions as a sign. This process includes three obvious components: that which functions as a sign, the sign vehicle; what the sign refers to is the designatum; the effect produced on the interpreter, whereby the thing becomes a sign for him. For example, if 5 is a sign conductor, ABOUT - designat, / - interpreter, then the sign can be characterized as follows: 5 is for / sign About in to the extent that /realizes/) due to the presence of 5; It follows that semiosis is "awareness-by-means-of-something". The mediator is a symbolic conductor, the actor is the interpreter, the object of awareness is the designatum; in the proposed formulation, another, fourth component appears: awareness is interpretation.

The triad arising from the relations of the sign conductor, the de-signat and the interpreter, makes it possible to study the three most important dyadic relations: some signs with other signs, signs with the corresponding objects, signs with the interpreter.

The three semiotic dimensions consist of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. Syntactics studies the relations of signs among themselves, that is, the structures of combinations of signs and the rules for their formation and transformation, regardless of their meanings and functions of sign systems. Semantics treats the relationship of signs with their designata as the objects they denote. In the question of "truth" there always arises the problem of the relationship of signs with things; The designatum of a sign is the object that the sign can designate. Pragmatics studies the relationship of signs with the interpreter. Since signs are interpreted by living beings, we are talking about the biotic aspects of semiosis, i.e. psychological, biological and sociological phenomena that are related to the functioning of signs. Morris gives the following formulation of the semiotic process: “The interpreter of a sign is an organism, the interpreted is the clothes of an organic being, which, with the help of sign vehicles, play the role of missing objects in a problematic situation, as if the latter were present.” Through semiosis, "the organism becomes aware of the properties of interest to it in absent objects and the unobservable properties of objects present." This is the instrumental importance of signs. Language in the fullness of the semiotic sense of the term, Morris concludes, is nothing but an intersubjective collection of sign vehicles, the use of which is determined by syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules. Considering linguistic (linguistic) signs, Morris proposes the following classification based on different ways of designation: 1) identifiers - signs that answer the question "where?"; 2) designators - signs that put the interpreter before the question "what is it?"; 3) evaluative - signs associated with preference, answering the question "why?"; 4) prescriptive - signs that answer the question "how?"; 5) forming, or signs of systematization, directing the behavior of the interpreter in relation to other signs.

In addition, four ways of using signs are distinguished: informative, valuable, stimulating and systematizing. By combining ways of notation and ways of using signs, Morris creates a classification of the different types of discourse that make up a discursive space. Thus, scientific discourse is aimed at obtaining true knowledge (information), political discourse stimulates actions corresponding to a given type of society, moral discourse evaluates actions from the point of view of preference, etc.

A person, Morris notes in Signs, Language and Behavior, who is able to see sign phenomena from the point of view of semiotics, is more receptive to the sign resources of culture. Throughout his life, from the very moment of birth, a person is under the continuous influence of signs, without them people cannot imagine their existence, the achievement of their goals. A conscious attitude to discursive types, their functions and use will help a person avoid manipulation by others and preserve the autonomy of his consciousness and behavior.

Critical Philosophy of the Frankfurt School in the second half of the 20th century. in the person of one of her leading representatives, J. Haber-masa, she sharpened the question of the role and significance of communication in modern Western society.

J. Habermas (b. 1929) - German philosopher and sociologist, author of numerous works on the theory of society. The main work of Habermas is the two-volume Theory of Communicative Action (1981), which lies in the mainstream of critical philosophy. Habermas's work essentially presents a broad-based theory of society. The critical attitude of Habermas's predecessors was based on a pessimistic assessment of the prospects of modern society, which grew out of an unlimited faith in the power of the human mind, which was established in the new European culture and philosophy.

Reason in the theoretical constructions of critical philosophy appears as an instrument, “instrumental reason”, which determines

the general character of modern civilization and leading to a lack of humanity and a monstrous dictate in all spheres of life. “Instrumental reason” is a concept that originates in the philosophy of the New Age (from R. Descartes) with its teaching about man as the master of nature. This concept is also widely used in the programmatic work for the Frankfurt School by M. Horkheimer and T. Adorno "The Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1948). Instrumental reason reflects the nature of the subject-object relationship of man to nature, which, in turn, is projected onto the relationship of man to | | man, since man is a natural being and he, as a natural being, can also be controlled. By putting forward the claims of instrumental domination over nature, man alienates himself from nature in general and his own nature in particular. Such alienation results in world wars, totalitarian regimes, technocracy, and so on.

In order to overcome such a state of society, it is necessary, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, to overcome the instrumental attitude towards man and create a society of truly human relations. At the same time, referring to such phenomena that limit the human will, freedom, opportunities, such as mass culture, fascism, etc., they argued that a person is not able to determine those | or other relationships in society, the nature of social relations in general. Therefore, their concept as a whole was pessimistic.

Habermas does not share the pessimistic diagnosis of modernity of his predecessors; rather, he is characterized by an optimistic point of view and a calculation for the renewal of society. He is also concerned about the disappearance of morality as the basis of interhuman * relations in a learned, rationalized Western society.] However, he sees the possibility of social renewal in accept-| rhenii technical feasibility and economic feasibility-those with moral requirements. The field of their reconciliation is! communication. Communication as an activity mediated? symbols, is based on strict norms recognized by communities] of people living together and communicating with each other.

Such communication makes it possible to avoid total domination that destroys the personality, gives a person the opportunity to resist it. In The Theory of Communicative Action, the norms of social life and social action are established as a result; "formal-pragmatic discourse", when "unconstrained coercion" from the side of the best argument should win. Habermas sees the positive role of discourse in the fact that, first of all, it acts as a means of socialization, education and upbringing; secondly, discourse as a form of communication draws people into a relationship of recognition, during which the statements of the other are understood, reflected, interpreted, criticized, clarified and, finally, accepted or rejected; thirdly, discourse forces one to express one's own opinions in the first person, which are subjected to equally thorough criticism and verification; Fourth, discourse promotes consensus.

Consensus is the result of communication, during which the participants recognize each other as equal social partners. Its function is to prevent coercion co parties of both individuals and institutions of a public nature, as well as to promote the integration of society.

30/ MODERN CONCEPTS OF COMMUNICATION

In modern communication science, there are several specific scientific approaches to the study of communication.

First, these are various approaches of a technocratic and interactional nature.

Secondly, within the framework of interactionism, scientists are divided in deciding how to explain communication - in terms of individual conscious activity or as a derivative of social structure. The debate about communication in such terms is one of the central places in modern sociology, psychology and cultural studies. It was within the framework of these sciences that the main theoretical and methodological approaches to communication were formed and various attempts were made to reconcile the objective structure and subjective will.

Technocratic approaches to the study of communication were due to the specifics of specific historical conditions and the very subject of study. After the Second World War, the role of technical means of communication in the dissemination of knowledge, culture and the formation of personality became a central theme both in critical concepts that expose the negative aspects of Mass culture and in the works of modern futurologists who predict the onset of the “technotronic era” and the “information society”.

This is how the concepts of technological determinism arose, the most famous of which is theory of information

society, considering modern technical means of information as the most important stimulus and source of social development. One of the founders of this theory, D. Bell, believed that the United States and many European countries are becoming information societies based not on industrial production with its traditional branches, but on the latest information technologies and the production of new knowledge (ne\uesopotu, e-commune). A clear sign of this transformation is the increasing importance of higher education. Knowledge "turns into a key source of innovation and the basis of social! organization and technostructure (J. Galbraith). In fact, this is a new type of civilization, which is characterized by) accelerated automation and computerization of production and management processes, new technical systems for obtaining, processing, transmitting and storage of information, intellectualization of production activities, informatization of all spheres of public life, improvement of the quality of life, changes in the social structure of society, etc. Due to the increase in knowledge, information and means of communication, such a society is called informational. Obviously, new communication systems, capable of instantly transmitting information in an almost unlimited volume I over any distance, radically change the face of mankind,] lead to a fundamentally new state of culture and civilization.* At the same time, the theory of the information society, with its optimistic faith in the civilizing power of information about the new! era, is concerned that in the most developed countries of the West * the technical and economic component not only dominates, but<|подчас подавляет культурно-этическую составляющую обществаВ этой связи актуальной становится задача перехода от техногеКной, в том числе информационной, цивилизации к антропогенно?в которой основной ценностью должен стать человек, а не техникТехнический аспект новой цивилизации является лишь средство)!достижения этой цели.

The concept can be classified as technocratic! Canadian sociologist and culturologist, communication technology theorist G. M. McLuhan (1911-1980). McLuhan considers himself a student of the Canadian historian of economic structures G. Nees, who saw in the technology of communications the shaping power of any culture and the reason for the evolution of society. The main driver of history, according to McLuhan, is a change in technology, which in turn causes a change in the way of communication. The Canadian scientist believed that the type of society is largely determined by the type of communication prevailing in it, and human perception is determined by the speed of information transfer. He likened the historical forms of communication to galaxies that can meet, pass through one another, change their configuration.

Before the invention of writing, man was surrounded only by oral speech. The world that reigned beyond the threshold of a close "audio universe" could only be known intuitively. The invention of the alphabet as an active communicative means caused an "explosion" - an explosion of mechanical technology, a fragmentary written culture, which has been going on for three millennia, the visual pressure of which hypertrophied the eye, switched the center of perception from hearing to sight. Humanity has entered a mechanistic age that continues to this day. According to McLuhan, the goose quill became the detonator of the "technological explosion", and the invention of the printing press by G. Gutenberg can be considered the epicenter of the explosion. Since then, the processes of fragmentation of society and the alienation of man began: the printed word made it possible to cognize the world individually, outside the collective consciousness of the community. In addition, the book became the first standard reproducible product, i.e. the first mass-produced product.

In the XX century. there was a new upheaval related to electricity: “The electric circuit crushed time and space, plunging each of us into an ocean of other people's concerns. It has re-established universal dialogue on a global scale.” The return to the “tribal” perception of the world at a new stage, according to McLuhan, is an absolute blessing, because in this way people will again begin to feel like a single whole, a collective in which there is no place for isolation, individualism and the suppression of minorities - the results of the “tyranny of visual perception”.

The driving forces of the new revolution were the electronic media, primarily television. It was television, according to McLuhan, that allowed humanity to return to the pre-literate community, to the global village, where information is available immediately to everyone and can be obtained almost instantly. In this world, a person is no longer able to build his worldview as before - consistently, step by step. He has to take into account all the factors P b1 at once. and since there is no time to analyze them, rely on intuition, staring in fascination at the flickering box (“community room”).

Chapter 94 2. Origins and main stages in the development of communication theory

There is an effect of "implosion" - "explosive" compression of space, time, information. As a result, the Gutenberg Galaxy, which has been expanding over the past centuries, is entering a contraction phase. “During the centuries of the era of mechanization, we expanded the capabilities of our body in space. Today, after a century of electronic technology, we have the opportunity to extend our central nervous system to the entire planet, which leads to the abolition of such concepts as space and time. And we are rapidly approaching the final stage of this "spread of the human" - the technological imitation of consciousness, when the creative process of cognition will cease to be the domain of the individual and will become a collective process.

McLuhan believed that as a result of the electronic communication revolution, humanity is on the verge of a "liberated and carefree world" in which it can really become a single family. At the same time, he noted that the rapid development of modern information technologies leads to the fact that the content of communication recedes into the background, becomes largely random, situational, and the means of its implementation acquire increasing possibilities for manipulating consciousness; people, "zombies".

Within the framework of the technocratic paradigm, it has been developed" mathematical theory of communication engineer and mathematician C. Shannon (W. Weaver described Shannon's mathematical theory in a "non-mathematical way"), based on the general systems theory of the biologist L. von Bertalanffy.

A system is understood as a set of objects that are "in a relationship with each other, forming a whole. There are two types of systems. A closed system that does not have an exchange with the environment, taking steps towards internal chaos (entropia) and death; an open system that exchanges energy with its environment, focused on growth.The latter deserves special attention, and in the framework of the systems approach, the following characteristics are considered: integrity (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; its parts are interconnected and cannot be understood separately) ; hierarchy (each system consists of many subsystems; systems can form a super system); self-regulation and control (management) based on goal setting; interchange with the environment; self-service ^ (balance); change (adaptability and equifinag " ness, achieving goals in different ways and from different starting points).

Systems theory is based on such categories as entropy (chaotic, or lack of organization; uncertainty); information (a measure of entropy in a situation; the number of choices or available alternatives); negentropy (certainty); unit of information - bit, used to count alternatives; redundancy (the degree of predictability of the situation and its certainty).

The systems approach considers communication as a system in which there are: source, transmitter, channel, recipient, destination, noise. Communication means that the source of information selects the desired message, the transmitter encodes the messages into signals, and the receiver decodes the signals into messages. The success of information transmission depends on the ability to accurately receive the message at the destination. The problems of information transmission are: redundancy (repetition, copying of information); noise (any distortion that occurs in the transmission of a signal from a source to a destination); feedback (corrective information from the recipient).

The feedback category characterizes the principle of building an information system that makes it possible to take into account the difference between the purpose of an action and its result. This allows you to evaluate the current state of the managed subsystem, and then issue corrective commands based on the information received. The problem of information reliability is related to the mismatch of interests and goals of individual elements of the communication system. Therefore, there is a voluntary or involuntary distortion of information. The solution to this problem includes: fostering a sense of responsibility; introduction of verification and control channels; establishing sanctions in case of detection of misstatements.

Mathematical Theory of Communication(message transmission in technical communication systems - telephone, telegraph, etc.) arose on the basis of the fundamental works of C. Shannon. It proceeds from the following assumptions: messages (more precisely, their codes) come from the source through the communication channel (with possible interference) to the information receiver. These messages change the knowledge system (thesaurus) of the receiver, reducing its level of uncertainty, measured by entropy. The average amount of information (according to Shannon) is determined by the decrease in the entropy of the receiver as a result of a change in its ideas about the distribution of probable states of the source. With this definition, the total amount of information contained in separate, unrelated messages is obtained by summing up the amounts of information in these messages. The unit of measurement of information is given by the average amount of information contained in the messages about which of the two equiprobable states has actually been realized, and is called a "bit" (the beginning and end of the English bmaru cpi - binary digit).

Based on this theory, theories of communication in organizations, popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s, were formulated, according to which communication was presented as an activity aimed at the production, transmission and preservation of information within various organizational structures.

Technocratic theories caused dissatisfaction due to their mechanistic, as a rule, communication-limiting point of view of the production, transmission and processing of information, as well as the technical means used in this. Overcoming the mechanistic nature of the formalized technocratic approach was associated with an interactional approach to the study of communication, which to a much greater extent takes into account the role of a person as a subject of communication.

Interactional Approach considers communication as interaction. Within the framework of interactionism, many theoretical and methodological directions developed in psycho-! logy, sociology, social psychology, cultural studies.

Interactionism was a theoretical alternative not only to technocracy, but also to behaviorism. At the beginning and middle of the XX century. social communication was most often considered in the context of I general theoretical constructions of behaviorism, which reduced it to; | direct impact of the communicator's messages on the recipient,! where the latter acts only as an object that reacts! to perceived information.

With an alternative vision of the essence of communication on the lane-| Your plan puts forward the activity of the recipient as an equal! subject of communicative activity. As a result, in 1953 T. Newcomb formulated an interactionist approach to communication. The subjects of communication here are equal in rights and are connected both by mutual expectations and attitudes, and by a common in | teresom to the subject of communication. Communication is considered as the realization of this interest with the help of transmitted messages! The effects of communication consist in the convergence or divergence of the points of view of the communicator and the recipient on a common subject, which in turn means the expansion or narrowing of their possible themes of mutual understanding and cooperation. Such a view of communion! cation focuses on achieving agreement between the subjects of communication, establishing a balance in the system of mutual attitudes. Features of communication processes in groups, organizations and other social systems required more complex models. It was necessary to take into account the influence of social institutions, stereotypes of group consciousness, dissemination of messages, different levels of their impact.

In this regard, a scientific direction arose in sociology and social psychology - symbolic interactionism(the term was proposed by G. Bloomer). It originated with the American philosopher, sociologist and social psychologist D. G. Mead (1863-1931). Mead rejected the behaviorist thesis that people's behavior is a passive response to a stimulus. For symbolic interactionism, communication is not just a reaction, but a subjective meaningfulness and focus on others. Interactions between people are seen as a continuous dialogue in which they observe, comprehend each other's intentions and react to them. Only by giving the action of the “other” some meaning, meaning (“symbolizing” it), people react to these actions. Thus, these reactions, Mead believed, are not automatic, but meaningful in the nature of symbolic actions; phenomena that are given some meaning become symbols (for example, an outstretched hand symbolizes a greeting, a ring - a desire to marry, a message in the form of an arrow - a declaration of war, and a palm branch - a call for peace).

With symbolic interactionism has continuity ethnomethodology - theoretical approach initiated by the American sociologist G. Garfinkel (b. 1917). Ethnomethodology is a theoretical and methodological trend in American sociology that transforms the methods of ethnography and social anthropology into a common methodology for all social sciences.

By universalizing the methods of ethnography and ways of organizing the daily life of people in primitive cultures, ethnomethodology tries to see in them the basis of sociological analysis and modern social life. Its subject is interpretation procedures, hidden, unconscious, non-reflexive mechanisms of social communication between people. Moreover, the forms of social communication are not reduced by ethnomethodologists to verbal communication, to everyday speech.

Ethnomethodology understands the language of communication more broadly, including not only verbal language, but also the language of gestures, expressive movements, ritual, and even silence. Special studies have been carried out on non-verbal communication, including both intentional messages and unintentional signs. I. 1off-

Mann (1922-1982), Canadian-American sociologist, studied the positioning of the body in social encounters.

This direction is characterized by the consideration of the mechanisms of social communication that have developed in each particular society, rooted in the form of rules governing interactions between people. These rules determine when it is appropriate to say something or, conversely, to remain silent, to joke or evade ridicule, to delicately end the conversation, etc. Their violation significantly complicates communication, and may even lead to its complete rupture.

These communication rules form a complex structure of connections and relationships that influences people, forcing them to act in one way or another, i.e. structural stereotypes (social relations); are coercive, affect people independently! depending on the importance people attach to them. .

Some researchers, in contrast to ethnomethodology, emphasize dramaturgical component of interaction. According to] Hoffman, people themselves create communication situations that are "a kind of ritual, action, performance, where everyone plays a certain role. Hoffman considered theater as an analogy of everyday life. Social activity is presented as a" performance "in which<ром социальные акторы и исполняют, и режиссируют свои роли,"стремясь управлять передаваемыми другим впечатлениями. Цельакторов состоит в том, чтобы представить себя в целом в благоприятном свете способами, соответствующими специфическим-ролям,и социальным «установкам», физическим внешним атрибутам и от-"|ражающими особые роли или статус. Так что социальные акторы 1 действуют как члены «трупп», стремясь сохранять «фасадные» ипрятать «закулисные» социальные отношения. Поскольку им при-!дется играть разные роли в различных ситуациях, они также при случае считают необходимым практиковать сегрегацию аудитории,*скрывая другие выполняемые роли, которые, если бы стали види-«мыми, угрожали бы впечатлению, создаваемому в настоящий ммент. Модель интеракции, включаемая в драматургию, предполает неизбежность частично подразумеваемого и неадекватнопринимаемого действия. Следовательно, коммуникация - эточайный результат, всегда грозящий осложнениями и провалами насцене, что в повседневной жизни отражено в выражении «выяс|нить отношения». >Criticism of the Hoffman approach focuses on the "demonization" of actors lacking individual qualities, which leads to the portrayal of communication as a "big deception". However, it is 1 ! approach draws the attention of scientists to some aspects of social communications.

Interactionist cultural approach to the study of communications in various societies and organizations became very popular in the middle and second half of the 20th century. It has a genetic connection with ethnomethodology and explores the general and specific in the communications of representatives of different cultures (societies, organizations). The subject of special attention are the symbolic actions or rituals that members of communities regularly or sometimes perform. So, in the 1980s. F. Jablin's organizational theory of assimilation arises, investigating the cultural behavioral and cognitive processes by which individuals join and leave an organization.

Theory of intercultural content of communication("proxemia"), developed by the American anthropologist E. Hall, makes it possible to understand the cultural meanings of communicative actions and their corresponding performance, the effectiveness of which is based on the recognition of the belonging of communicants to a certain cultural environment.

Hall's concept considers four distances of communication: close, personal, social and public. Close distance (0-1.5 m) means the obvious presence of another person and may at times exert "pressure" due to very intense sensory inputs. Personal distance (1.5-4 m) has a separating effect, but retains the ability to visually perceive changes in the face. Social distancing (4-10m) is typical for casual social gatherings and leaves room for continuing to work in the presence of another person without appearing impolite. Public distance (10 m or more) characterizes places for public discourse.

In this analysis of communication, the concept of “social distance” is used, which characterizes the degree of closeness or alienation of social groups and individuals. It is not identical to the spatial, geographical distance, although it can also be expressed in specific forms of settlement of ethnic groups (for example, Mer, ghettos, etc.), elites. The analysis of social distance was first carried out by G. Simmel, R. Park, E. Burgess, L. von Wiese.

The increase in the social distance between the individual and the social formation is, according to Hall, the criterion for the division of social formations into a mass, a group, and an abstract Collective. In the study of communications in small groups, the interdependence between social distance and the

action, likes and dislikes of individuals. According to J. Homans, the greater the cohesion of the group, the smaller the social distance.

IN theories of "face" (identity) in negotiations, proposed by S. Ting-Tumi, socio-cultural aspects of communication are reflected. This theory is based on the following assumptions: negotiators, regardless of their cultural affiliation, try to maintain their identity (face) in all communicative situations; identity is especially problematic in situations of uncertainty; the conflict requires both sides to actively manage the formation and preservation of identity; the conflicting parties carry out two types of control: in relation to their own and others' identity; the variability of cultures in terms of such a parameter as collectivism - individualism affects the choice of behavior in a conflict.

The concept of “face” includes not only the projected image of oneself in a negotiation situation, but is formed under the influence of threats and incentives offered by the parties and determining the degree of self-esteem in connection with the requirements put forward by each party in this situation. Projecting the desired image includes the formation of an idea of one's own significant potential, and vice versa, the exclusion of even a hint of one's inability, weakness or stupidity. In other words, it is a culturally expressed form of belief in the ability to withstand threats that under no circumstances will prevent the preservation or restoration of a lost face.

The threat of “loss of face” causes two groups of measures: a) saving prestige, including prevention and prevention, = orientation towards the future and offensiveness; b) restoring,? "face" and regarded as a defense. Approval procedure | "persons" includes declarations in which it is clear as own-.! naya goal, and the intention of mutual concessions. At the same time, expansion of requirements or other actions is possible, as a result of which. | ryh own status rises.

The theory pays special attention to the fact that these processes are determined by the ethnic characteristics of the parties that influence! on the duration and terms of negotiations, usually bind-! Xia not only with cultural and national origins, but with racial, religious and linguistic features.

Ethno-cultural matrix of business communications (negotiations)! also includes options such as ethnic labels, jokes: prejudices, cultural and language differences, compatible! interests and values, the acuteness of ethnic differences, before?! riyu ethnic relations, interethnic contacts and the potential for interaction.

Interactional approach in sociology. Interactional sociological methodology plays an important role in the theoretical study of communication, since communication is represented by social exchange and social interaction.

Social interaction is a central concept in a number of sociological theories. It is based on the notion that a social actor (actor), individual or society is always in the physical or mental environment of other actors and behaves in accordance with this social situation. The problem of social interaction was most fully developed in theories of social exchange - direction in sociology, which considers the exchange of various types of activity as the fundamental basis of social relations, on which various structural formations grow (power, status, prestige, conformism, etc.).

The theoretical foundations of the concepts of social exchange date back to the utilitarian tradition of classical bourgeois political economy, the founders of which (A. Smith, I. Bentham and others) considered the desire for utility and gain to be the driving motive of human activity. Another source was the work of well-known representatives of social anthropology (B. Malinovsky, J. Fraser, M. Moss), who discovered the important role of exchange transactions in the life of primitive peoples. M. Moss in his work “An Experience on a Gift” (1925), using extensive ethnographic and historical material, showed that before the development of commodity relations, mutual gifts were a universal means of exchange, which were formally voluntary, in reality - strictly obligatory. B. Malinovsky described the system of mutual exchange on the islands of Melanesia - the "kula circle" (ki!a pp§). Certain groups of tribes on individual islands exchange ritual objects continuously, with necklaces circulating in one direction and bracelets in the other. He oversaw the lengthy Ceremonies that accompany this tradition and are functionally essential to the stability of the community group. In this way, integrative patterns of status and prestige are formed, which are comparable to the potlatch system in northwestern Canada.

The initial methodological premise of the theories of social exchange was the idea of a person as a being striving for maximum benefit at minimum cost. In modern sociology, these theories have found their consistent development in the studies of D. Thiebaud and G. Kelly, J. Homans, P. Blau and others.

J. Homans studied social interaction in terms of the exchange of actions between the “Actor” and the “Other”, based on the postulate that in such interaction each of the parties seeks to maximize the reward of their actions and minimize costs. Among the most important rewards, he considers social approval. Mutually rewarded social interaction tends to become regular and develops into relationships based on a system of mutual expectations. Violation of expectations by one of the participants in the interaction entails frustration and an aggressive reaction, in which aggressiveness itself becomes a means of obtaining satisfaction. For the “Other”, the rewarding behavior may be to avoid provoking aggression.

Thus, every social worker is always in a situation of choosing both alternative rewards and alternative ways of obtaining the same reward. The situation becomes especially complicated if we are not talking about a dyad, but about a multitude of actors. Then generally accepted values and norms begin to play a special regulatory role.

According to D. Thibaut and G. Kelly, interpersonal relationships are regulated by the benefits that its participants receive from the interaction, and comparisons of these benefits with losses. An empirical study of the hypotheses of this theory is carried out using the matrix ; tsy outcomes, borrowed from the mathematical theory of games. The application of this matrix is best known in the study of a situation called the "prisoner's dilemma".

"Prisoner's Dilemma" - a method of economic analysis, laboratory, | ny method of studying conflict phenomena in the social and political | cheskoy psychology, based on the model of games with mixed! motives (a class of non-zero-sum games) and borrowed psycho-| logs from mathematical game theory. -

The essence of any game with mixed motives is that! each of the players strives to make the most profitable for themselves! choice based on the matrix of possible payoffs (total] outcome of both participants is different from zero). At the same time, conditionally different There are two types of control that participants can have; games, - unconditional and behavioral. It is believed that the player A has absolute control over the player IN, if any choice. affects the outcome of the game IN regardless of his own choice.1 Accordingly, the player A has behavioral control on the player IN, if, by changing one's behavior (choice), A puts IN in the position that it is also beneficial for the latter to change his behavior (choice). Such a distinction is conditional in the sense that the players may have mutual unconditional control. In this case, through unconditional control, behavioral control is also carried out (initiated).

The theorist of mathematical game theory A. Tekker was the first to propose a matrix and explain it using the example of two prisoners: the prisoners are placed by the prosecutor in separate cells and each is asked to make a choice - admit guilt or reject it. At the same time, the prosecutor announces the conditions and consequences of the elections for each of the prisoners: 1) if both do not plead guilty, they are both released; 2) if both plead guilty, both receive a light punishment; 3) if one pleads guilty and the other does not, then the one who pleads guilty will be released and rewarded, while the one who does not plead guilty will be severely condemned.

Representation of social communication as a matrix of possible outcomes in the game model With non-zero sum models, especially the prisoner's dilemma models, turned out to be a very convenient tool for describing in an abstract form various types of social interdependence and laboratory analysis of many factors that determine the dynamics of conflict in a dyad and group conflict processes.

Recognizing the relative usefulness of using the non-zero-sum game model as an auxiliary method for analyzing conflict phenomena, many researchers (M. Deutsch, D. Pruitt, M. Kimmel) come to the conclusion that the model itself is methodologically inadequate for studying the relationship of a real individual as a social being despite the apparent convenience of this algorithm for conflict analysis. The fact is that the game algorithm strictly prescribes “rational” decisions in a situation of conflicts, however, this algorithm ignores the subjective value system of the individual, reducing it to a simple financial denominator at best. This is the main methodological shortcoming of all experimental procedures of this kind.

The sociological version of the concepts of social exchange, representing social interaction as an exchange of activity of individuals for the sake of maximizing personal benefits, is based on the following postulates: individuals always strive to maximize personal benefits, which follows from the egoistic nature of man; entering into relationships with other people, the individual tries to correlate the costs arising from these relationships with possible benefits; groups increase collective gains by restricting individuals and enforcing "fair"

relationships; individuals who discover their participation in "unfair" relationships experience psychological discomfort, fort; the more acutely the injustice is perceived, the stronger the discomfort and the more intense the attempts to restore “fair relations”; a person entering into an exchange relationship with another person will expect that the income of each of them will be proportional to the costs: the greater the income, the greater the costs (the postulate of the so-called distributed justice - Spyuyye ^vece).

The central place in this theoretical system is occupied by the category “fair treatment”, defined as proportional; the nature of the contributions and results of the activities of the participants in the interaction.

Theories of social exchange explain a lot in the human! behavior based on the principle of “purposeful rationality” (M. Weber), but they cannot answer the question of why! people often act contrary to their obvious benefit.

dialectical theory of relations, started by the work of L. Baxter in; 1980s, includes a dialectical analysis of human communication-1 through paired categories that reflect the communication needs of the individual: inclusion - solitude (the need for attachment and inclusion - the need for identification and autonomy); tradition - uniqueness (need] for power, control, management, predictability - need! for change, uncertainty, renewal); openness - 1 secrecy (the need for transparency and affection -] the need for privacy, secrecy).

Differences in dialectical relations, from Baxter's point of view,! due to the context. socio-cultural attitudes, mutual | the ratio of private and public, ideal and reality, tseng | nesses and actions, the correspondence of understanding of one's Self and the "other"! values attributed by communicants to these parameters.

The social context in which communication takes place is at the center of attention. uncertainty reduction theorypsh, proposed by C. Berger in the 1970s. This theory emphasizes the mutual influence in interpersonal communications and states; | that the social consequence of communication is to reduce uncertainty. Levels of uncertainty stand out, the lowest of which is characteristic of ritualistic and everyday! communications due to the high level of their predictability; on the other hand, the level of uncertainty is high where the level is predictable! bridges are low. The following types of uncertainty are considered: uncertainty in preconditions; target uncertainty; plan uncertainty; affective instability; changing beliefs, etc. Each of these uncertainties gives rise to communication problems.

In turn, the uncertainty in the preliminary conditions is structured as an uncertainty in the possibility of communication due to the alleged (real or imaginary) differences in the sensory and linguistic abilities of the partners. The second problem is uncertainty about the purpose of a particular communication - achieving intimacy, getting an answer to a disturbing question, obtaining a benefit, collecting information. The third is the uncertainty associated with the plans or actions that interactants use to achieve their goals, including the planning hierarchy, changing plans in the course of communication - from their modification to the complete abandonment of the plan.

Emotional instability deserves special attention. In the theory of communication, it is considered as an affective action, the defining characteristic of which is a certain emotional state of the subject - a love passion or hatred that has captured him, anger or enthusiasm, horror or a surge of courage. The concept of "affective action" was introduced by M. Weber to determine the type of social action he singled out, which, along with goal-oriented, value-rational and traditional types, is included in Weber's typology of activity. In contrast to goal-oriented behavior and like a value-rational affective action, its meaning is not in the achievement of any “external goal”, but in the certainty (in this case, purely emotional) of this behavior itself, its character that animates its “passion” (“ affect"). The main thing in such an action is the desire for immediate (or as fast as possible) satisfaction of the passion that owns the individual. According to Weber, such behavior is "on the border" of meaningful and consciously oriented human action. However, it is precisely its “boundary character”, denoting the “limiting case” of real human behavior, which cannot in any way be offered as a universally binding model, that allows Weber to theoretically construct the corresponding “ideal type” of social action. It fixes the Measure of its minimal meaningfulness, beyond which communication ceases to be social, human. The uncertainty that arises in this regard is multifaceted, it includes relations

between communication partners and each of them in relation to the context of communication.

The last problem is characterized as uncertainty in similarity | the beliefs of partners regarding the outside world, as well! the ability to change beliefs without prior notice. |

In this regard, the following communication strategies are proposed: passive information search as unobtrusive! collection of information regarding the goals of partners; active information retrieval, which involves accessing information from third parties regarding assessments of the goals of communication; d i a l o -| r about in s and - information search which is reduced to trebova-| nii coordination of communication goals in the process of interaction! partners. However, there are also limitations in the information! search, which include personal limitations in the processing of information, the irrelevance of the collected information to the type of non-| the certainty with which it must be reduced; insti | tutsionalnye restrictions on obtaining certain types of information | mation.

Uncertainty Management Theory, developed by W. Goody-| Kunst, based on the concept of C. Berger, suggests that people try to reduce uncertainty in initial interactions with strangers. Particular attention is drawn to two aspects of "uncertainty": the ability to predict the behavior of each* and explain their behavior. Both of these abilities are in direct | my dependence on such characteristics of communication partners unfamiliar with each other * as their positive expectations; ps dobie intra-group relations and group thinking between groups to which strangers belong; knowledge of the language of strangers; the ability of strangers to self-control; cognitive abilities and psychological complexity of strangers, etc.

Widespread in sociology social theoryalny (communication) field, according to which the behavior of an individual or a social group is the result of the interaction of forces that exist in a particular social situation. Ets method of explaining social behavior by analogy with theory! field in physics assumes that the properties of any event are determined by its connections with the system of events of which it is a component, and the change in the "here and now" depends on the changes immediately preceding in time.

The concept of "field" was borrowed from physics by Gestalt psychologists (K. Koffka, W. Köhler) to designate in social sciences a set of coexisting factors that have the character of a "dynamic field" that determines the type of behavior. This concept was most widely used by K. Levin in the study of the motivation of personality behavior. According to Lewin, the social field theory is characterized by a constructive rather than a classificatory approach to social phenomena, an emphasis on the dynamic aspects of the situation, its analysis as a whole, and an attempt to mathematically represent the field. However, this representation did not go beyond the formula B=/(R, E), Where IN- behavior, R- face, personality (its structure and experience), E - environment, social and psychological content of a particular situation. The interaction of "personal forces" and "dynamic forces" of the environment creates the "living space" of the individual.

Linguistic approaches. Proponents of these approaches to the study of communication focus on the problem of language, understood as:

F is a system of symbolic communication, i.e. communication through vocal (and written) signs, sharply distinguishing human beings from all other species. The language is governed by rules and includes many conventional signs that have a common meaning for all members of a linguistic group;

F is a sign practice in which and through which the human personality is formed and becomes a social being.

Linguists pay more attention to the formal properties of language, while sociologists, social psychologists, and philosophers are interested in the complex and socially defined rules governing linguistic activity, the relationship between language, ideology, knowledge, and the social nature of verbal communication. Social psychologists usually concentrate on the latter factor, and sociologists on the study of the relationship between language and such non-linguistic structural mechanisms as class and gender. It is known, for example, that different forms of social relations give rise to different forms of linguistic norms. Thus, in the process of schooling, children from working-class families are often at a disadvantage due to the use of limited linguistic norms. B. Bernstein argues that English social classes exhibit a differentiated use of speech, and this implies a careful choice of the method of interpretation in order to determine the meanings prevailing in given social conditions.

The Swiss theorist F. de Saussure (1857-1913) is considered the founder of modern structural linguistics. He also had a great influence on the intellectual movement known as structuralism. His work A Course in General Linguistics (1916) was published posthumously by his Geneva students and colleagues A. Sesche and TUT. Bally. They relied only on some and not always successful student lecture notes Some time later, more detailed notes were discovered by other students, which made it possible to publish a new version of the Course in the late 1960s This book (in its canonical version) caused a wide resonance in world science A sharp field * of mika unfolded between the followers of Saussure and the opponents of his conception.

Saussure refers linguistics as a whole to the jurisdiction of psychology, highlighting a special science - semiology, designed to study sign systems, the most important of which is language. Inside the seven-| linguistics, linguistics is singled out, which deals with language as a sign system of a special kind, the most complex in its organization> | tions. Further, a distinction is made between the less essential rigorous analysis of external linguistics, which describes the geographic, ethnic, historical and other external conditions for the existence of a language, from the more essential for the researcher of internal linguistics, which studies the structure of the language mechanism in its attraction from external factors. It indicates the greatest sensitivity of writing to the language in the circle of sign systems.

Internal linguistics is divided by Saussure into a linguist! ku language and linguistics of speech. The reason for such a distinction lies in the fact that in the actually observed variety of verbal forms - "speech activity" - Saussure singles out such diverse phenomena as language (langue) and speech (paro!e). Language - E1 general, supra-individual, stable beginning of speech activity. Speech is the use of language, it is so ie | variable, which is not amenable to systematic study. Therefore, linguistics should focus on the study of language, speech belongs to the field of psychology. The opposition language - speech, the disciplinary distinction associated with it, determined mi |: the view of more than one generation of linguists and psychologists.

Finally, the linguistics of language was divided into diachronic linguistics, which reflects the relationship of facts on the time axis, and static, synchronic linguistics, which is more essential for the speaker and for the researcher of the language, investigating the relationship of linguistic elements on the axis of simultaneity. Diachronic linguistics has been divided into prospective and prospective. The synchronic approach was identified with grammar and the diachronic approach with phonetics.

Saussure laid the foundation for the study of language with the concept of a sign, which later became general scientific. The sign is the dual unity of §1dnSer and S1^nSec1, the signifier and the signified, i.e. term (its sound or written form) and the concept (idea) denoted by it. The signifier is the external, sensually perceived side of the sign, the signified is a certain mental content; they are inextricably linked and presuppose each other. Their relationship creates the meaning of the sign. Signs are coordinated among themselves and together form a system. Language is a sign system, the organization of which is based on a universal principle: each sign has its own "differential features" that distinguish it from any other element of the system. One grammatical form is different from another (ran, run, run), one word is different from another, even close in sound (cat, mouth, bot). What the signifier is, is determined by a through system of phonetic differences - phonetic differential features that create the uniqueness of sound. The signified occupies a certain place in the general conceptual grid, differing from other concepts in a set of semantic differential features. As a result, an integral sign system of the language is formed, the study and description of which should be done by linguistics.

The significance of Saussure's approach in bringing theoretical linguistics to the modern level is indisputable, although the lack of a systematic study of syntax or pragmatics left gaps that later theorists, in particular N. Chomsky, had to fill. Since the emphasis in Saussure's work is on intellect rather than paro!e, it is not surprising that this was seen as an advance towards a one-sided evaluation of language. When the concept of language is used in the same way as in structuralism, it can also lead to a one-sided evaluation of social structures.

For the theoretical understanding of the language, the works of R. Jacobson (1896-1982), a Russian linguist and literary critic, who had a huge impact on the development of modern theoretical linguistics and structuralism, are important. His approach to the study of literature and poetry included a "structural" analysis in which "form" was separated from "content". Founder of the Prague School of Linguistics, he made important theoretical contributions to linguistics by studying phonology (i.e. the sound systems of a language), analyzing sounds with the aim of showing the relatively simple set of binary contrasts that underlie human speech. In general, in the analysis of languages

and human sign systems, Jacobson suggested the existence of "structural invariants" and "superficially" obvious differences between cultures. He had a great influence, especially on the work of K. Levi-Strauss and N. Chomsky, who were his colleagues in New York. The emphasis on linguistic universals contrasted with the more culturally relativistic view of language put forward by the American anthropologists F. Boas and E. Sapir.

So, E. Sapir (1884-1934) and his student B.L. Whorf (1897-1941) put forward the hypothesis of linguistic relativism, according to which our language is built on our perception of the world. For example, the Eskimos have a variety of words for snow, illustrating their harmony with their environment that a foreigner would be unable to recognize. language and material culture and social structure begin, still going on.

The linguistic theory of Jacobson, like his predecessor:! Saussure, differs in psychologism. However, if many theoretical | tiki pioneers in linguistics (especially L. Bloomfield) were | devoted to the behaviorist direction, then Jacobson appeared in,< философском смысле «рационалистом», выделяя скорее врожден-.; ные когнитивные универсальные структуры, чем обучение языку» путем интеракции с окружающей социальной средой, стимула и реакции. После работ Хомского именно рационализм Якобсона одер-] жал победу в лингвистике в целом. Но для его подхода, сосредото-| ченного на универсальных структурах языка, также характерны ог раничения, в частности он не учитывает семантику, контекстуаль-Л ность языка, генетический и социальный «творческий потенциал»! и «волю». Эти упущения впоследствии стали «слабостями» стру» рализма, возникшего отчасти в результате влияния Якобсона.

Semiology or semiotics(Setyu1ogy og aetyuysv) - general science with signs - occupies an integral place in the study of language. As an aspect of structuralism, semiology has its origins in the linguist! Saussure's scientific research. Its leading representative was the French literary critic R. Bart (1915-1980).

Although the idea of a general theory of signs appeared initially in the work of Peirce and Saussure, it was only in the 1960s that it has been developed in media studies and cultural studies of logic. The key concepts of the semiology, as indicated above, are 81§nSer (thing, word, or picture) 81§nTes1 (the mental picture or meaning pointed to by 81sver), and the sign acts as a connection or relation, mouth! updated between them. Some relationships can be quite open (pictorial), while others can be quite arbitrary.

Semiology draws attention to the layers of meaning that can be realized in a simple collection of images. Barthes believed that signs convey hidden as well as overt meanings, expressing moral values and evoking feelings or attitudes in the viewer. Thus, signs constitute complex codes of communication. The complexity, in particular, is due to the process that received the name "bricolage" from K. Levi-Strauss - the transformation of the meaning of objects or symbols through the new use or non-standard alterations of unrelated things. The author himself used this term in relation to the practice of creating things from any materials that came to hand - the structure and result were more important than the constituent parts that change in the process of creation.

A prominent place in the field of language methodology is occupied by N. Xoman, an American linguistic theorist whose main innovative ideas in the theory of language helped linguistics to occupy one of the central places in the social sciences. His views were formed under the influence of Saussure and especially Jacobson and in opposition to the behaviorism of L. Bloomfield and B. Skinner.

Chomsky's major theoretical contribution was the development of transformational grammar in Syntactic Structures (1957). Any phrase contains "deep structural" information along with a set of "surface structures". In his theory of transformational grammar, Chomsky distinguishes between the meaning of a message (deep structure) and the form in which it is expressed (surface structure). An example of the first is "Ivan gave the book to Peter." In Surface Structure, this can be expressed as "Peter received the book from Ivan" or "the book was given to Peter by Ivan." Such grammatical changes are caused by transformational grammar, i.e. syntax changes, but not semantics.

Chomsky identifies phonological and semantic components that are expressed in the "competence and performance" problem, which is related to the difference between the ability to use language (competence) and actually spoken speeches (performance). "Competence" more specifically describes the linguistic knowledge and grammar required to understand speech in one's own language, while "performance" describes the specific manner in which a speech is delivered. According to Chomsky, human linguistic competence is innate and is expressed in universal

yakh grammatical deep structure. The proof of the innateness of fundamental grammatical structures is the speed and accuracy with which children master the structures of the language. This refutes the behaviorist view that language is simply learned and its rules are grasped "inductively". Of course, there may be individual differences, but the general features of language structure and acquisition are seen as universal. This is reflected in the "mechanism of language acquisition" hypothesis based on observations of children learning language with ease in the first five years of life and being able to form sentences they had never heard before. Consequently, people are obl-«; give them an innate predisposition to understand grammatical relationships, extract "rules" from the language they are listening to, and then apply them to form their own expressions.

Philosophically, the assumption of innate ideas or! categories makes Chomsky an adherent of "rationalistic" and "idealistic" theories that run counter to empiricism, race; looking at the mind as "laa u la gaka", for which "learning" is only the acquisition of a language.

Chomsky's linguistic ideas are of great scholarly value, although some have questioned the legitimacy of his emphasis on universals of grammar, or on singling out primarily syntax to explain the diversity and progress of human societies in terms of language. |

Sociolinguistic approach important for theories! communications. "Sociolinguistics" is an abbreviation for the term "co-; ciological linguistics”, which was introduced by the Soviet lin-| gvistom E.D. Polivanov back in the 1920s. Such an abbreviation (English 8osy1t§Sh8is8) was first used by the American researcher | vatel H. Curry in 1952. I

Sociolinguistics covers the field of study that is under the jurisdiction of sociology and psychology and is related to the social! ny and cultural aspects, as well as with the functions of the language. Despite the sometimes narrow identification with somewhat disparate, although important, topics relating to language and social! classes, language and ethnic groups, language and gender, etc., potentially its sociolinguistics has much broader interests, including most aspects language. Among its other main areas are pragmatics and semiotics. It can be said without exaggeration that sociolinguistics, within the framework of the general study of linguistics, is extremely important, and not peripheral. In modern sociolinguistics, when analyzing linguistic phenomena and processes, the main emphasis is on the role of society: the influence of various social factors on the interaction of languages, the system of a separate language and its functioning is studied. The subject area of sociolinguistics includes objects, when considering which an organic combination of sociological and linguistic categories occurs. So, if we consider language communication b society, then it can be represented as a continuum, which is divided into areas of communication that coincide with the areas of social interaction. On the one hand, this is the sphere of national or ethnic communication, and on the other hand, the sphere of everyday communication. Languages in a multinational country and the forms of existence of a national language (a set of literary language, territorial dialects, sociolects-jargons, slang) in a one-national country constitute a hierarchical system called the "language situation". The hierarchy of the language situation consists in the unequal functional load of the language formations used or the forms of their existence - the language of national communication or the literary language serves more areas of communication than, respectively, the language of a national minority or a territorial dialect.

The language situation as a whole and the functional load of its components depend on the position in society occupied by the social or ethnic community that speaks them. The linguistic minority in the colonial countries dominated all areas of life, and its language functionally dominated the autochthonous languages. In the course of social development, especially during cardinal socio-political changes, the position of these communities changes and it becomes necessary to bring their new position into line with the functional load of language formations. This raises the problem of choosing one or another language education to replace the previously used one. The process of choosing a language education for certain communicative purposes belongs to the competence of language policy, which is defined as a set of measures taken to change or preserve the language situation, to introduce new or consolidate existing language norms, i.e. 8 language policy includes the processes of regulation, codification of the literary norm, conscious word and term creation activity.

Citizens of a state or members of an ethnic group in which several language entities operate are forced, in addition to their native

master another language or another form of existence! language. They become bilingual or digloss individuals. ] Bilingualism and diglossia are usually characterized by a functional distribution of language formations, relations of their functional complementarity to each other, reflecting con-| particular language situation. Because language education! with bilingualism and diglossia are functionally distributed, individuals use each of them for different communicative! goals and in different communication situations. So in reality! there is a choice of language education and on the individual! level, called "speech behavior", which defines -? | is divided as the process of choosing an option for constructing a socially correct statement. Speech behavior changes depending on the determinants of the communicative act (the status of communicants, given by their social affiliation or social role; the topic and situation of communication), the rules for using variant! ants of different levels ( different languages, subsystems of one language,! variants of linguistic units) embedded in the individual! bilingual or digloss individual, as well as from changing channels (transition from oral to written communication and vice versa), codes (linguistic and paralinguistic), genres of messages, etc.

In addition, the subject area of sociolinguistics includes a wide range of problems related to the active role that language plays in the life of society (the national literary language, formed along with the nation, becomes an important factor in its further consolidation). The task of sociolinguistics is | not only in the study of reflections in the language of various social phenomena and processes, but also in the study of the role of language among social factors that determine the functioning and evolution of society. Thus, sociolinguistics studies the whole range of problems that reflect the two-way nature of relations me" language and society.

Modern sociolinguistics has its own methods of collecting sociolinguistic data. The most important of them: questioning, interviewing, inclusion observation, sociolinguistic experiment, anonymous on | observation of the speech of the subjects in public places, not only means of observation of spontaneous colloquial speech, the subsequent interpretation of its content with the help of informants. When processing data, the following are used: relational analysis, variant rules based on the combination of quantitative methods of analysis with methods of generative grammar, implicational scaling, comparative analysis of semantic fields, etc.

Communication theories are developed within the framework of such a scientific direction as semiosocial psychology. The subject of empirical research within its framework is a motivated and purposeful exchange of actions related to the generation and interpretation of texts - “text activity” (T.M. Dridze), which acts as an almost uninterrupted communication process of creating, exchanging and interpreting texts.

Text activity is increasingly crystallizing into an independent type of activity with a complete psychological structure. Regardless of whether we are talking about the generation or interpretation of textually organized semantic information, this type of activity of social actors includes all the main phases of objective action: indicative, executive, and control-corrective. At the same time, textual activity is motivated not only from the outside (that is, it is consistent not only with motives of a material and practical nature), but also “from within” this activity itself - by the communicative-cognitive intentions of communicating subjects.

The effectiveness of textual activity in the structure of communication, and hence social interaction, is determined both by the characteristics of this activity itself, which takes place in certain specific historical conditions in the context of certain life situations, and by the semio-socio-psychological characteristics of communication partners. Significant among them are the level of their communicative-cognitive skills and perceptual readiness, the availability of skills adequate to the goals of communication, operating with textually organized semantic information. Experiments reveal a very wide prevalence of situations of "semantic scissors", which in the most general form are described as situations of the emergence of a semantic "vacuum" caused by a mismatch of semantic "tricks" of the partners' textual Activity in the course of sign communication.

Thus, within the framework of semiosocial psychrology, it becomes possible to build private (based on the idea of almost continuously changing places and roles of text authors and their interpreters) conceptual models of sign communication processes occurring within the text-interpreter communicative system, and more general heuristic models socially. -psychological processes associated with communicative and cognitive activity.

33 / When we enter communication, we we have a definite intention communicative intention)- ask (get information), tell (transmit information), call for action, influence the mood of the interlocutor, establish contact in order to build relationships, etc. If, as a result of communication, we got what we wanted, that is, we achieved the realization of our own communicative intention (we received exactly the information we needed; we told and were correctly understood, etc.), then the communication was successful. Such communication is called effective.

With effective communication, the goal of the speaker is fully achieved. But let's imagine a situation: the leader intends to encourage team members to participate in the project, but uses the tactics of pressure, threats (“If you do not take part, then ...”, and then the list of sanctions). Probably, the project will be launched and people will take part, but the quality of work of people who do not share the values of the team and do not have strong motivation to participate in the project is unlikely to be high. This means that communication can be called effective, in which the goals of not only practical, but also spiritual properties are realized.

If the speaker's intention is partially realized (for example, addressee received information, but not complete), from we can talk about communication slip if the communicative intention is not realized at all - o communication failure.

The idea of "communication", i.e. the interaction of people as the basis of social reality and, accordingly, the initial premise of philosophy and its individual sections, is the main one for many thinkers. But the topic of communication has become especially popular in philosophical teachings the last decades of the 20th century, of which the concepts of K.-O. Apel, J. Habermas, as well as a number of their students and followers (W. Kuhlmann, A. Honneth, etc.).

A common field for thinkers of research and disputes turned out to be the sphere of practical reason, which surpasses the theoretical one. Philosophy, according to Apel, should become transcendental pragmatics. Apel highlights aspects of communication, i.e. actually, the communicative community and discourse. Here his aspirations largely coincided with those of Habermas, who in the 1980s and 1990s also dealt extensively with the communicative theory of action and the ethics of discourse.

To answer the question of what the ethics of discourse means, Habermas suggests first thinking about what the features of Kant's ethics were. For all modern ethics is partly following Kant, and to an even greater extent a constructive dialogue with him. According to Habermas, Kant's ethics are deontological and universalist in nature. Being deontological, Kant's ethics highlights the principle of due, and ethical norms are interpreted by Kant as pure and universally valid forms. "In the ethics of discourse, the place of the categorical imperative is occupied by the experience of moral argumentation." This means that only those norms can claim general validity that would be able to find the support of all those whom they concern - if they could become participants in practical discourse. Only norms that play the role of a rule of argument in discourse can grow to the level of a universal fundamental principle.

main task and real life, and social philosophy, coupled with ethics:
- the need to “defend the importance of the inviolability of the individual, demanding equal respect for the dignity of any person;
- but equally they must justify the intersubjective relations of mutual recognition by which individuals are preserved as members of the community.

Both interrelated aspects are consistent with the principles of justice and solidarity.”

In a constructive debate with others ethical concepts and the ethics of modernity (besides those named - these are C. Taylor, E. Tugendhat, K. Günther, St. Lukes, W. Fried, G. Patzig) Habermas deeply, interestingly, in a new way analyzes many of the most important problems of social philosophy and ethics . These are, in particular, such topics as the significance of moral judgments; procedures and processes for the recognition of moral, legal norms at the level of real practice and theory; moral commandments, prohibitions, recommendations and processes, procedures for their adoption, approval or rejection, and many others.

Habermas, who opposed the traditional "philosophy of mind", also disputes its updated transcendentalist version proposed by Apelsm. Thus, the dispute about the ethics of discourse develops into a controversy that has captured many Western philosophers about the possibility or impossibility of the “final justification” (science, knowledge in general, ethics in particular), about the nature and role of modern philosophy.

Also in recent years, one of the central problems for the humanities has become the problem of human existence in "space: total communication", including virtual. It is the development of the latest communication technologies that allows us to talk about the formation of the post-industrial (or informational) society predicted by D. Bell, A. Touraine, E. Toffler, T. Stoner, J. Martin, Y. Masuda and other authors, the fundamental feature of which, according to According to these authors, it is not material production that comes to the fore, but the generation, distribution and consumption of information. At the same time, the reality of post-industrial society differs significantly from the picture outlined by theorists. According to a number of modern works on social philosophy and sociology, the meaning-forming element of the information society in its current version should be considered no longer information as such, but communication - that is, the transmission of this information. Today, no more intellectual products or knowledge are created than in Antiquity or the Middle Ages. The fundamental difference is that now there is immeasurably more communications. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Internet, which greatly increases the possibilities of communication and gives users the right to actively participate in them, is becoming for many researchers the central phenomenon of our era, its original symbol. At the same time, the Internet not only qualitatively changes social, political and economic structures, but also transforms the communication processes themselves - by virtualizing them. Communication should be understood as a socially conditioned process of transmission and perception of information in conditions of interpersonal and mass communication through various channels using various communication means (verbal, non-verbal and others).

The classical conceptual model of a communicative act, which is still used in one form or another by all researchers of this phenomenon, was developed by G. Lasswell. According to this model, communication can be described using five elements: WHO communicates - WHAT - through which CHANNEL - TO WHOM - with what EFFECT. Based on this model, virtual communication can be defined as some special form of communication on the basis of a channel for receiving and transmitting information. Accordingly, its main distinguishing characteristic is mediation: virtual communication is carried out with the help of a technical device (mainly a computer) and largely depends on its functionality, which determine its qualitative originality.

Unlike most traditional forms of communication, virtual communication is characterized by distance and a high degree of permeability: a person can be a participant in any part of the world. Thus, virtual communication has a global intercultural character, which leads to a clash in the process of communication of value-normative guidelines of different cultures.

Feminism has now emerged as an alternative philosophical concept of cultural development. For a very long time, it existed as an ideology of women's equality and as a socio-political movement. Feminism is a socio-political, cultural theory that analyzes the oppression of women and the superiority of men in the historical past and present, and also comprehends ways to overcome male superiority over women. These aspects are very important for feminism: it was in search of answers to real questions concerning the status of women in society that feminist theorists began to formulate new approaches to the analysis of culture.

In the development of feminist theory, the following stages can be distinguished:
* Women's Studies (appears in the late 1960s in the United States). Association with the women's feminist movement.
* Gender studies (late 80s, 90s). Change of perspective: moving from the analysis of patriarchy and specific women's experience to the analysis of the gender system.
* Post-gender studies: not a call for equality, but an emphasis on the processes of sexual differentiation and the non-identity of female sensitivity.

The following currents of feminism stand out:
- radical feminism, advocates a critical review of the existing and the creation of a new social order. Supporters advocate a revision of the entire system of social relations, causing a sharp reaction of protest against feminism as a whole from a significant part of society;
-liberal feminism stands on the position of "different but equal". Its variety is science, aimed at restoring female names in history, literature, art, which entails a change in the entire cultural canon;
- intellectual feminism is the most promising as a new socio-philosophical theory and broad humanistic practice, entering the spheres of creativity and politics.

Now feminism as a theoretical direction has been formalized in the form of interdisciplinary programs of women's studies (Women Studies), as well as gender studies (Feminists Studies).

Gender - a set of ideas about the behavioral characteristics of men and women. These features define femininity (femininity) and masculinity (masculinity); focus on social differences between the sexes. This is a complex social construct: differences in roles, behavior, mental and emotional characteristics between the masculine and feminine, constructed by society. Masculinity, femininity - normative ideas about how men and women should be. Traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity express, first of all, the male point of view. The masculine principle is characterized by the following features: rationality, spirituality, deification, culture. The feminine principle is described as: sensual, bodily, natural, sinful.

In his analysis, Habermas relies on the linguo-philosophical studies of the American Naom Chomsky and the Englishmen John Austin and John Searle. Chomsky made a distinction between language competence and language implementation. Linguistically competent is one who knows the rules of the language and can, using them, form as many sentences as he likes. Chomsky considered the rules of grammar to be analogues of axioms and rules of inference in logic. Austin and Searle developed the theory of speech acts, according to which statements (sentences) have practical significance, because their author assumes a certain role of asking, agreeing, setting a task, etc. According to Searle, speech acts contain the rules of communication.

The decisive idea of Habermas is that the rules of speech action can become a topic of conversation, discussion, in a word, discourse. Discourse is more than a free conversation in which the interlocutors do not think about observing the rules of speech communication. Discourse is a dialogue conducted with the help of arguments that make it possible to identify the generally significant, normative in statements. But if the normativity of statements is discovered, then the normativity of actions is also set. Discourse provides communicative competence. Outside of discourse, the latter is absent. Discourse is not any dialogue, but a dialogue that has reached a certain stage of maturity. To characterize this stage, Habermas uses the term Mündigkeit (mundihkait), which in German means coming of age. Discourse is that dialogue - we remind the reader that, by definition, an arbitrarily large number of people can participate in a dialogue - which has left the stage of insufficient perfection, infantilism (that is, childishness in the rational-linguistic sense).

An example of this dialogue, or discourse, is a conversation between a psychoanalyst and a patient, curing the latter of ailments. The psychoanalyst's efforts are by no means always successful; in this case, the participants in the dialogue did not identify the cause of the disease. Perhaps they are known to the doctor, but they could not be brought to the consciousness of the patient. Only in the case when the participants in the dialogue have developed a common, and, moreover, effective common opinion, is there a discourse. The theme of the discourse is the rules of speech acts (pragmatic universals), which in turn constitute the rules of actions and objective actions.

Ideally, discourse is a model, a model for the development of communicative competence. Specific discourses can be more or less successful, disputes, grievances, disagreements (disconsensuses) are not excluded. For Habermas, the very fact of the topicality of discourse is of the utmost importance. It is in it that the rules for the coexistence of people are developed, which Habermas by no means subjects, like, for example, Heidegger, to pejorative criticism. The misfortune of people is not that they allegedly lose their individuality in society; the joint life of people can be more or less successful and happy, but it becomes mekoy only when it suffers from insufficient communicative maturity.

So, we approached the specifics of Habermas' philosophy with the help of the concepts of discourse, mundane, (communicative) public. Of course, Habermas' emphasis on the practical function of philosophy should be added to this. Discourse is a linguistic activity that opens up approaches to science, art, technology and labor. Here he passes his test of truth.

All of the above leads to the desire to understand how Habermas himself implements the discursiveness of philosophy in his articles, monographs and speeches. Every educated philosopher is no stranger to discursive activity, but not everyone argues in the Habermasian style.

Habermasian discourses, as a rule, unfold on two scales - historical and topical. The historical scale requires a development of the ongoing thematicization in steps real history: Antiquity - Middle Ages - New time - Modernity - Future. Topical (from the Greek fqpos - place) scale takes into account not the depth, but the width of history, the juxtaposition of events and interpretations in a certain historical section, figuratively speaking, perpendicular to the course of history. Habermas's "here" and "now" have no discursive meaning outside the historical-topical space. His discourse is always complex; he assumes that the philosopher is a participant in the dialogue with history and modernity. Discourse links together views that are more or less sharply different from each other, as a rule, of an interdisciplinary type, and overcomes their fragmentation.

Habermas thematizes the key question of philosophy for him: "What should I do?". It turns out that this question can have pragmatic, ethical or moral significance. At the same time, the content of the mind, discourse, will, the type of questions and answers and actions changes every time. Since in all three cases the mind demonstrates its consistency, the ability to justify the need for certain actions, it has a practical character.

With the pragmatic use of practical reason, the interests and value orientations of the subject are considered to be given in advance. Reasons are being sought for a reasonable choice between goals (how exactly to repair a bicycle, whether to enter a university, whether to go on an excursion, etc.). A person behaves actively, in accordance with spontaneous will, in the aspect of expediency, his actions are sensible, but random, there is no internal relationship between will and mind. Pragmatic discourse substantiates technical and strategic recommendations, it is akin to empirical discourse.

In the case of ethical discourse, the ethical use of reason, the subject is looking for an answer to the question: "What kind of person am I and who would I like to be?". We are talking about stronger preferences than in pragmatic discourse. Interests and values themselves are placed under the power of discourses. The subject is aware of his own life path in the aspect of not expediency, but good. "In ethical-existential discourses, reason and will mutually determine each other ...". Here recommendations for a decisive life choice are developed. The subject, wishing to clearly imagine his life as a whole, withdraws, at first glance, into his self-consciousness, where uniqueness rules exclusively. Such an opinion is erroneous. "The individual acquires the necessary distance for reflection in relation to his own life history only in the horizon of life forms in which he participates together with others and which for their part form the context for very different life projects." This means that the reflection of the subject is also a discourse. Other people act as silent critics for the subject. The reflection carried out in the self-consciousness of the subject, being reproduced, is understandable to other people, i.e. in its essence, it does not exclude, but on the contrary, presupposes a dialogue.

Things are different in the case of moral-practical discourse. Only here "the perspective of each is intertwined with the perspective of all," practical reason is now used not in the aspect of good for the disparate I, but in the aspect of justice for all people, for WE. This does not prejudice the interests of anyone. The will of the subject is eventually completely cleared of spontaneity and intuitiveness. "... A personality acts according to the laws that it establishes for itself." Moral-practical discourse transforms the will entirely into rational, autonomous and free.

There is no single method of discourse, which does not exclude the unity of the use of reason in terms of expediency, goodness and justice. Like justification discourses, application discourses are also cognitive (thinking). The effectiveness of discourses is tested in action, where the forms of communication take on the "look of objective education." Habermas agrees with Peirce and other representatives of pragmatism: real problems contain something objective and thus keep subjectivism from the arbitrariness. However, Habermas himself is not a pragmatist. After all, it must be assumed that it is by no means accidental that he only begins his analysis of practical reason with a study of pragmatic discourse, but is not limited to it. These are the main ideas of his first lecture in Moscow, in which he summarized the results of his many years of research.

The main idea of Habermas is that philosophy is called upon to open up space for the public use of reason, the procedures of discursive volition and expression, the conditions of rational discourses and negotiations. No one and nothing deserves more trust than the participants in the discussion themselves, they will find answers to pressing questions.

For Habermas, the growing attempts to deny the relevance of philosophy, aesthetics, and culture are untenable. He believes that in an effort to overturn the ideals of the Enlightenment (modernity), postmodernists make a fundamental mistake, namely, they are satisfied with the spontaneous, unreasonably controlled interaction of the cognitive (mental), aesthetic-expressive and moral-practical. "It seems to me that from the confusion that accompanies the project of modernity, from the mistakes of extravagant programs for the abolition of culture, we should rather learn lessons than admit the defeat of modernity and its project." It is clear that Habermas has in mind the variant of communicative philosophy developed by him, in which he not only does not renounce the virtues of reason, but, on the contrary, tries to give them the necessary communicative polish.

forma-vl.ru RECOMMENDS

Astrology and sexual compatibility

The ruling planet of the zodiac sign Gemini is Mercury. This planet is named after...

2023-06-20 01:34:16

God of the underworld Hades in Greek mythology

In the article Gods of ancient Greece.) According to the belief of the ancients, there were countries on earth where eternal reigned ...

2023-06-13 10:16:15

Feng Shui of an apartment - the main rules of Feng Shui of an apartment

Clothing - represents the dreamer's character and preoccupation with problems that are reflected in the specifics ...

2023-05-24 00:35:57

Individual astrological forecast for any day Unformatted horoscope for tomorrow

The world around us is filled with warnings and signs of danger, but we're too busy...

2023-05-10 03:22:40

Divination by tarot cards online archangel

Fate, carefully guarding its secrets, hides future events from a person. But sometimes she...

2023-04-26 22:50:30