The role of the Communicative approach in Modern social and humanitarian Knowledge
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-3-6-15
Abstract
We consider the ontological and epistemological foundations of communicative views from the standpoint of distinguishing the types of scientific rationality. The methodological basis of the analysis is the differentiation of three types of rationality. The study is also based on a comparative approach. When conducting the research, we used the methodological technique of gradation of system analysis. The modern epistemological status of the communicative approach is associated with three aspects of social existence: consistency, rationality, and communicativeness. The transition from strongly non-equilibrium states to sustainable social development presupposes the social significance of communications, their authenticity, and the implementation of rationality through systemic mechanisms. The communicative approach takes the form of an integral communicative concept, a type of system analysis. the meta-theoretical status of the communicative approach is determined by its expressed system resources.
About the Authors
A. V. Denikin
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anatoly V. Denikin — Dr Sci. (Philosophy), Professor, Department of Humanities
Moscow
Z. D. Denikina
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Zoya D. Denikina — Dr Sci. (Philosophy), Professor, Department of Humanities
Moscow
References
1. Bolshunov A. Ya., Bolshunova S. A., Tyurikov A. G. Intercultural communication: challenges of global transformation of life worlds. Humanities. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2019;9(6):6–9. URL: https://doi.org/10.26794/2226–7867–2019–9–6–6–9. (In Russ.).
2. Weber M. Selected works. Moscow: Progress; 1990. (In Russ.).
3. Jiyeon So, Kai Kuang. Information Seeking Upon Exposure to Risk Messages: Predictors, Outcomes, and Mediating Roles of Health Information Seeking. Communication Research. November. 24, 2016. Research Article. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216679536
4. Ikramova L. B., Ikramova A. A., Ruzieva D. S. The essence of the communicative method of teaching foreign languages. Interdisciplinary research in science and education. 2014;3. URL: http://mino.esrae.ru/173–1440 (accessed on 19.12.2021). (In Russ.).
5. Luhman N. Society as a social system. Trans. from German. Moscow: Logos; 2004. (In Russ.).
6. Luhman N. The Unity of the Legal System. In: Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society, ed. by G. Teubner. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1990. 337 p.
7. Luhman N. Closure and Oppenness: On Reality in the World of Law. Florence: European University Institute; 1986.
8. Mid J. Az and I. In: American Sociological Thought: Texts. Edited by V. I. Dobrenkov. Moscow: Edition of the International University of Business and Management; 1996. P. 233. (In Russ.).
9. Mitrova N. O., Migaenko K. S. Communication as a socio-psychological and communication category. Maykop: MSTU; 2006. (In Russ.).
10. Nazarchuk A.V. Theory of communication in modern philosophy. Moscow: Progress-tradition; 2009. (In Russ.).
11. Parsons T. The system of modern societies. Moscow: Aspect-Press; 1998. (In Russ.).
12. Reines S. A., Brunner S. R. The results of broadcasting self-disclosure using new communication technologies: Responses to information disclosure differ in different social networks. Communication Studies. 2018;45:659–687. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215598836
13. Raines S.A., Wright K.B. Social support and computer communication: a modern overview and an agenda for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association. 2016;40:175–211. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735260
14. Saduov R. T. The phenomenon of political discourse of Barak H. Obamas: linguoculturological and semiotic analysis. Monograph. Ufa: RIC Bashgu; 2012. (In Russ.).
15. Siyue Li, Guanjin Zhang. Intergroup Communication in Online Forums: The Effect of Group Identification on Online Support Provision. Communication Research. 2018;48(6):874–894. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218807041
16. Stepin V. S. Theoretical knowledge: structure, historical evolution. Moscow: Progress-Tradition; 2003. (In Russ.).
17. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.
18. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. McCarthy T., ed. Boston: Beacon Press; 1987.
19. Heylighen F., Bollen J. The world-wide web as a super-brain: From metaphor to model. In: Cybernetics and Systems ‘96. R. Trappl, ed. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Press; 1996:917–922.
20. Chestnov I. L. Postclassical Theory of Law. Monograph. St. Petersburg: Publishing House Alef-Press; 2012. (In Russ.).
21. Chikeeva Z. Ch. On understanding the communicative theory of law. Right. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2015;(4):45–53. (In Russ.).
22. Chuvakin A. A. Communication as an object of research in modern philology. University philology — education: the regulatory nature of communication. Materials of the Second International Scientific and Practical Conference “Communication Studies in the modern world: the regulatory nature of communication”. Part 1,2. Barnaul: Altai University Publishing House; 2009. URL: https://refdb.ru/look/2753322-p16.html (accessed on 12.18.2021). (In Russ.).
23. Chudinov A. P. Metaphorical mosaic in modern political communication: Monograph. Yekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University; 2003. (In Russ.).
24. Chusovitin A. G. The concept of interaction (historical and methodological analysis). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of NGPU; 1993. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Denikin A.V., Denikina Z.D. The role of the Communicative approach in Modern social and humanitarian Knowledge. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2022;12(3):6-15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-3-6-15
Views:
313
Email this article 