printSociology:
Postmodernism and Ontology
Shchelkin A.G.
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Professor, Chief Researcher of the Sociological Institute of FCTAS RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia evropa.ru@gmail.com
Shchelkin A.G. Sociology: Postmodernism and Ontology. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2024. No 6. P. 122-132
There is a noticeable interest for ontology in sociological science. At the same time, ontology itself is being interpreted ambiguously. On the one hand, there is the tradition of classical ontology represented by the names and works of Aristotle, Parmenides, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, the Frankfurt School in sociology, G. Lukács, M. Lifshitz. On the other hand, the theme of “social ontology” has emerged basing on the attitudes and stylistics of postmodernism. If in classical ontology there is an orientation towards “authentic” and “true” phenomena of social existence, distinguishing them from “things” that are deviant and do not correspond to their nature, in the postmodern version such an “essential” distinction is not made, for “all states are equivalent”, “everything is idiocratic (purely individual) facts.” In this case, the world of social things is not permeated by “categorical,” “essential,” and “typical” unity. Each “thing” is not determined by its essence, but, on the contrary, is represented by a “plurality” of its arbitrary variations, each of them might be treated as a kind of “authenticity” sui generis, “true” already by virtue of the fact of its existence. Such a positivist-postmodernist relativism nullifies the entire “culture of notions” that constitutes the cornerstone of any ontology, since the «notion» is what is used to grasp the essence of human affairs, where the authenticity of social artifacts is present and what preserves the authenticity of life situations.
Beck W. (2008) Cosmopolitan worldview. Moscow: CIPIO. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (1994) Beginnings. Moscow: Socio-Logos. (In Russ.)
Devyatko I. (2007) State and prospects for the development of sociological theory in the world and Russia. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 9: 35–37. (In Russ.)
Epstein B. Social ontology. Transl. from Eng. by M. Stenina. URL: https://brickofknowledge.com/articles/social-ontology (accessed 20.04.2024). (In Russ.)
Hegel G. (1972) Science of logic. Vol. 3. Moscow. (In Russ.)
Hegel G. (1974) Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Vol. 1. Science of Logic. Moscow: Mysl. (In Russ.)
Korotchenko E. (2001) Hyperreality In: Postmodernism. Encyclopedia. Comp. by A.A. Gritsanov, M.A. Mozheiko.Minsk: Interpresservis; Knozhnyi Dom. (In Russ.)
Lifshits M. (1968) Liberalism and democracy. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. No. 1. URL: http://scepsis.net/library/id_3538.html (accessed 20.04.2024). (In Russ.)
Lifshits M. (1985) In the world of aesthetics. Moscow: Izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo. (In Russ.)
Lifshits M. (2004) What is a classic? Moscow: Iskusstvo XXI vek. (In Russ.)
Marcuse G. (2001) Reason and revolution. Hegel and the formation of social theory. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal.(In Russ.)
Marx K. (1980) Economic manuscripts 1857–1861. P. II. Moscow: IPL. (In Russ.)
Marx K., Engels F. (1955–1974) Coll. Works. Moscow: IPL. (In Russ.)
Mudragei N., Nikitin E. (1983) The problem of the relationship between epistemology and ontology in non-Marxist philosophy. In: Epistemology in the system of philosophical worldview. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
Perov Yu. (1991) The fate of moral philosophy. In: Logos. Reason, spirituality, traditions. Leningrad: LGU. (In Russ.)
Social philosophy – ontology without essence (round table). URL: https://philos-urgi.urfu.ru/ru/novosti/7223/ (in Russ.)