HUMAN SCIENCE AND ITS “POLITICS” IN HORIZON OF MODERNITY
Main Article Content
Abstract
Article is devoted to the philosophical analysis of actual situation of humanities and the problem of their social role. The political role of humanities lies primarily in promoting the creation of public space. It gives a possibility do develop the human skills which are needed to be an active public agent. The purpose of the article deals with the concretization of public role of humanities which can be presented as different politics. Results. In the article the following politics are presented: politics of ideal (refers to a certain ideal of liberal education which is based on the liberal arts); politics of meaning and sense (it concerns the recognition of meanings, including those that constitute the social and political worlds); politics of sensuality (it connected with performativity as manner to create and comprehend the social and political worlds; also it can be explained as distribution of sensuality in context of J. Ranciere’s conception of aesthetics as politics); politics of reconfiguration of discourse (it deals with elaboration of rules of communication on social problems); politics of imagination (the influence on structure of social world with using of imagination and fantasy); politics of responsivity (the comprehension of alien subjectivity), politics of memory (the formation of culture of memory). Originality. The different “politics” of humanities are presented as specific because they are connected with specific of human sciences’ cognition. We deals not with objectivity that is directed to the explanation of world as closed system, but we have open system of interpersonal interaction. This interpersonal interaction can structure and configure social and political spheres. Conclusion. The politics of humanities are not separate each other. They are crosscutting, creating horizon ability to influence the public sphere.
Article Details
References
1. Fish, S. (2008). Will the Humanities Save Us? Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/
2. Searle, J. (2002). Politics and humanitarian education, Otechestvennyje zapiski (Domestic notes), 1. Retrieved from http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2002/1/se.html (in Russ.)
3. Gumbrecht, H.-U. (2006). Icy embrace of “scientific” or why the humanities is preferable to be “Humanities and Arts”, NLO (NLO), 81. Retrieved from http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2006/81/gu1.html (in Russ.)
4. Pelov, A. (2015). How to justify the humanities? “Justification” of the humanities: a professional about case of life. Retrieved from http://gefter.ru/archive/15497 (in Russ.)
5. Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader (2002). In Cohen T. (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Jay, P. The critique and theory in history of contemporary humanities. Retrieved from http://gefter.ru/archive/14757 (in Russ.)
7. Nussbaum, M. (2014). Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Мoskva: Izd. dom Vyscshey shkoly ekonomiki (in Russ.)
8. Sandel, M. (2012). What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. London: Penguin.
9. Markowski, M. P. (2013). The politics of sensuality. Introduction to humanities. Krakow: Universitas (in Pol.)
10. Borradori, G. (2003). Philosophy in a time of terror. Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
11. About value of humanities (2012). Retrieved from http://gefter.ru/archive/6539 (in Russ.)
12. Bahtin, M. M. (2000). To the philosophical basis of humanities. Avtor i geroj. K filosofskim osnovanijam humanitarnyh nauk (Author and hero. To the philosophical basis of humanities). Saint-Petersburg: Azbuka (in Russ.)
13. Gumbreht, H.-U. (2006). Production of presence: what meaning cannot convey. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie (in Russ.)
14. Assman A. (2014). The long shadow of past. Memorial culture and historical politics. Moscow: Novoje literaturnoe obozrenie (in Russ.)