МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНЫЙ ДИАЛОГ И ВЫЗОВЫ СОВРЕМЕННОСТИ: ДРУГОСТЬ И ИНАКОВОСТЬ В СВОЁМ И РОДНОМ
This paper aims to articulate the conflict of alterity models in the work of John Law. These models were elaborated to overcome the critique of actor-network theory (ANT) launched by the academic community in the 1990s. A periodization of Law’s work is performed and relevant conceptual resources extracted for each of its stages. His work is periodized as Bloorian sociology of scientific knowledge, Foucauldian actor-network theory, and Deleuzian actor-network theory. Despite using different conceptual resources, the main problem explicated by Law was the “accomplishment” character of both knowledge and the ontological characteristics of objects. The problem of the Other becomes relevant in the Deleuzian period of Law’s work, where he attempts to elaborate conceptual optics capable of overcoming the problem by appealing to the social topology. However, he almost instantly tries to elaborate one more way to overcome the problem of the Other based on a metaphysics of presence. Law does not distinguish these optics. Instead, he tries to present them as complementary parts of his conception. However, an analysis of these optics shows that they are deeply contradictory: the first is within an ontological and the second is within an epistemological conceptual framework. Social topology tries to answer the question of “how do objects function when built into human social life?”, while the metaphysics of presence tries to answer the question of “how to make the elements which are invisible to the classical methods accessible to knowledge again?”. This makes it possible to distinguish those models as contributing to Law’s theory of objects and theory of method, respectively, and to present the work of Law as two coherent theories.
The book is an anthology of reflections on the problem of heroism and anti-heroism, political leadership and creativity, boundaries of recognition, memory and oblivion. It includes articles by leading scientists, graduate students and students, presented at the All-Russian Conference "Heroes and Anti-heroes in World History" June 9, 2017 in the framework of three panels: "Africa: idols, masters of minds, parvenu (experience of political and historical and cultural studies)"; "”Own” and “others' in the historical-philological and cultural-anthropological dimension"; "Cultural memory: historical personalities in the context of myths, propaganda, facts.".
The paper reviews the modern theoretical models of stereotipization and representation of the Otherness. The author follows the ideas of S. Gilman and uses literature and media examples to make a comparison between pathological and non-pathological perceptions and representations: the former tend to have hegemonic attitude towards Otherness; the latter highlight its value. The author describes such pathological forms as depersonification, fragmentation, fetishization, exoticization, pathologization, and homogenization. The following three counter-strategies of representation of the ‘Others’ in the media are singled out: 1) creation of new positive stereotypes of Others, 2) transfer of positive images of Otherness on those manifestations of Otherness that perceived negatively in the media, and finally, 3) clash of ambivalent stereotypes of ‘Others’ through critical discourse analysis and allowing them speaking out.