Науки о человеке: история дисциплин
The text describes the evolution of sociological understanding of academic disciplines, since the 1960s (including their pre-history in 1930-1940) to the present time. In the early stages disciplines were considered as a social mechanism formed by groups and communities in particular social, cultural and political conditions. In the 1970s, there was a significant turn in the study of disciplinarity: researchers were attempting to go beyond the understanding of sociology of science as sociology of academic communities and logics of their organization. In the 1980s and early 1990s the essentialist understanding of disciplines, which was widely spread within the sociology, was questioned. In the 2000s, the revision of the research priorities has been continued. The revision manifests itself in the refusal of essentialist interpretations of disciplinarity, attention to social and practical conditions of its sustainability, understanding of disciplinarity both produced by macrocontext (new centers of academic influence) and microcontext and situations (the actions of the specific communities and their members in the new centers of production and knowledge assessment).
In "Soviet sociology as police science," Alexander F. Filippov attempts to examine Soviet sociology of the 1960s and early 1970s in terms of so-called "police science," a system of administrative disciplines that had their heyday in Europe during the second half of the eighteenth century. Unlike Western sociology, which developed as one of the alternatives to police science, sociology in the USSR could not be oriented toward solving fundamental theoretical problems — these remained the focus of ideological work. The main task of Soviet sociology, then, was the search for the best methods for managing an ever-more-complicated society with the ostensible aim of "the common good" (decisions about which were taken by an administration in which citizens had no part). Police surveillance and administrative knowledge (also in essence oriented toward policing) were supposed to complement each other in this state of universal well-being for all.
In the last twenty years the number of university programs in Russia which involve the teaching of philosophy has increased dramatically. Despite the growth of the profession of academic philosophy in Russia and the absence of ideological pressure since the collapse of the USSR, Russian philosophers are still not properly integrated in the international field of academic philosophy. I suggest that in order to understand what happened to the University philosopher in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union we have to look at the institutional and organizational levels of development of this academic discipline. This article focuses on current changes in the patterns of professional identity of Russian University philosophers. I analyze the institutional history of philosophy departments that were established in universities in the Soviet period. I argue that, on the one hand, the system of organization based on the division of knowledge into sub-disciplines, typical for Soviet universities, helps philosophers today to overcome the crises of professional self-identification after the discrediting of Soviet philosophy. On the other hand, the influence of professional standards follows the regionalization of the philosophical community.
French mathematician and philosopher Jean d’Alembert argued that all classifications of knowledge were arbitrary and ultimately futile as they could never approach the true order of the universe. It will be argued that there is an apparent paradox already prefigured in the tension between d’Alembert’s alphabetical practice and his systemic icons. This paradox is the method by which the fragmentation of knowledge so characteristic of modern scientific specialization can be reconciled with the yearning for an order which unites all the fragments into a coherent whole.