Creative heritage of Y. v. Chesnov: philosophic and anthropologic approach to national culture
- Тип работы:
Детальная информация о работе
Выдержка из работы
CREATIVE HERITAGE OF Y.V. CHESNOV:
PHILOSOPHIC AND ANTHROPOLOGIC APPROACH TO NATIONAL CULTURE
Institute of philosophy of RAS, Moscow, Russia science-almanac@mail. ru
It is considered the reconstruction of the philosophical and scientific heritage of the thinker and anthropologist Jan Veniaminovich Chesnov (1937−2014). The object of the research has always remained a complex reality of people'-s culture, its various sides, aspects, forms and practices. This is comprehended in the philosophical-anthropological approach. The aim of his research was to build a & quot-Big anthropology& quot- using knowledge from various subject areas. In fact, he worked in the field of transdisciplinary problematics and created their own art techniques, methods and tools for describing thinking of popular culture. The study considered the heritage of the scientist as a technique of anthropological thinking and deployed through the formulation of a number of problems. To do this in a special way to synthesize the concepts and methods of work of the scientist in the mental field, a number of anthropological disciplines to cover in a single object stage a wide range of research problems in his work. This transdisciplinary research outputs to a new meta-level, where the technique of meta-anthropological thinking allows the usage of philosophical-anthropological heritage of the scientist in anth-ropopractices and anthropotechnics of new generation.
Key words: popular culture, philosophical-anthropological approach, mental anthropology, field anthropologist, cultural genesis, & quot-the author'-s methodology& quot-, paradigmatization, transdisciplinary, concept configurator, anthropopractice, anthropotechnique.
The anthropologist and philosopher Y.V. Chesnov (1937−2014) for his scientific career studied the most different regions of the world where the subject of his research interest is invariably popular culture. It included Southeast Asia and Siberia, Central Russia and the Caucasus. He studied folk culture in rural areas and in the modern cities in different ages, social, gender groups, its material, visualize and mental shape, and ritualized daily practices. This is comprehended in the philosophical and anropologicheskom approach.
Y.V. Chesnov left a great scientific and philosophical heritage — more than 300 published works. However, a significant part of its fundamental research remained unpublished. Archive scholar of great interest: it includes manuscripts of 5 books, 182 journal, that led the scientist throughout his life, preparatory materials for writing books and articles, materials, field trips.
The creative heritage of Ya.V. Chesnov'-s popular culture is primarily ethnic memory storing original values of the people hidden in cultural tradition. Life changes, but the & quot-immutable principles of faith and the language of honor, which provides us with the people. "- Spanning centuries of development, popular culture has brought to us, & quot-the philosophical heritage of the people: the flight of his thoughts, attitudes and ethnic mentality& quot-1. Without this it is impossible to think of modern man to the self-determination of ethnic traditions, its reproduction in the practice and culture of everyday life. Today, a person makes a choice between traditionalism and reflexive traditionalism.
It is important to highlight in the reconstruction of the heritage aspect Ya.V. Chesnov nascent philosophical-anthropological approach, and then continuing on the development of a special line of anthropological methodology. Deploying philosophical-anthropological approach have largely moved Ya.V. Chesnov intuition substantial nature of the object, its system structure, intuitive methodological position, which is built on the study, providing its means of work.
The situation is paradoxical nature of antinomy or thinking and knowledge has to Ya.V. Chesnov original. She gave ground for the emergence of his methodological position anthropologist. This situation is fundamental to his thinking and anthropological research. Antinomy and paradox of thinking leads to the problematization Ya.V. Chesnov'-s grounds Ethnography first, and then of
1 From Y.V. Chesnov'-s letter to R. Gogbe from September, 21, 2013
Ethnology and Anthropology. He takes on the mission of problematization and reconstruction of the national set of assumptions anthropological thinking, including the mission of criticism of language development, and the creation of new terms. His style fieldwork is largely based on thoughtful consideration to the sometimes banal lying on the surface of the paradoxical nature, which hides the thinking of popular culture. It was an interesting thinker, anthropologist, who has left us thinking the problem of popular culture. No wonder his books focused on mass thinking reader. Again, the paradox — but that'-s the main intrigue of his works. It does not work with the material, and with meaning. These meanings arise & quot-when the two materials (fact) face& quot-2. Anthropology supplied meaning for him, and philosophical anthropology makes them existential and existence3. Meanings were to him the result of anthropology, philosophical anthropology bring them to the ethics4.
He worked at the points gap between ontology and ontology of vital cultural genesis of popular culture, sacred, divine, and the problems of human existence. The idea of his last unpublished book & quot-Anthropothenosis. Reconstruction means of national culture & quot-is devoted to philosophical aspects of cultural genesis on the material folk culture, which is then transformed into understanding the problems anthropothenosis & quot-numinous cenosis human environment& quot-5,"- co-presence of man in the locus space& quot-6. In his most recent work of scientists extends the philosophical-anthropological approach: developing special theory anthropothenosis and taking steps to use funds for the reconstruction of folk culture anthropothenosis. His thoughts in building the new research subject was on the specific methods and techniques of field work. The method of observation that exists in the field of anthropology, it should, in his view, to add a personal observation, but it is best to introduce special techniques and tools in the professional work of the anthropologist — its ability to internal and external inversion7.
Common research installations by Ya.V. Chesnov were the construction of the & quot-Big anthropology metaphysical& quot-8 using knowledge from various subject areas (ethnology, cultural and social anthropology, sociology, logic, ethics, aesthetics, mythology, psychoanalysis, folklore, local history, sacred geography, virtualistics, phenomenology of Heidegger, hermeneutics, existentialism, quasi-historical investigation of thought, etc.). In fact, he worked in the field of transdisciplinary problematic and created their own art techniques, methods and means of description of folk culture. His way of describing folk culture — a new language transdisciplinarity having huge heuristic potential for cultural anthropology, ethnology, folklore, and the whole body of the humanities in general. Requires setting goals reflexive build scientific and philosophical heritage of the scientist, which specifically can be synthesized presentation and methods of work in the mental field, a number of anthropological disciplines to cover in a single object stage a wide range of research problems in his work. This formulation of the problem — the entrance to the configuration, the problem of constructing the concept configurator.
According to the scientist, the Anthropology difficult to methodological compulsion, but it served as a base material for many run-sociological concepts and specific techniques9. On the general characteristics of the scope of anthropology, he considers & quot-thesaurus hermeneutics& quot-, its interdisciplinary nature and specifics of their approach to anthropology calls & quot-search of mental activity& quot-. This is evidenced by an entry in his diary of 23 December 2014, in connection with work on the manuscript of his latest book & quot- Anthropothenosis. Reconstruction means of national culture& quot-:"-I search mental activity. Process. But whether it is necessary to the reader? But my action research — a demonstration of the search process. My head — pits. Clips& quot-10. These two frames (interdisciplinary hermeneutics thesaurus
2 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 82
3 As he notes in his diary: & quot-Anthropology provides senses. Philosophical anthropology does have existential and existential& quot-// Diary of Ya.V. Chesnov № 182. P. 83.
4 And then adds: & quot-If the senses — the result of anthropology, the philosophical anthropology bring them to the ethical& quot- // Diary of Ya.V. Chesnov № 182. P. 83
5 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 12
6 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 14
7 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 42
8 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 17−18
9 Chesnov Y.V. Meta body and the problem of evil. Article of 2010. From the archives of scientist
10 Recording from December, 23, 2013, in the diary № 182. P. 80
and search mental activity) largely determine the choice of strategy for Reconstruction intellectual core of anthropology Ya.V. Chesnov — configuration method.
The emergence of mental anthropology we associate with works Ya.V. Chesnov. His musical legacy can be thought within the existing well-established paradigms in ethnology. It is necessary to find out what was the reason such a deep transformation in anthropology (ethnology) as a discipline that was the point of the bifurcation, which changed the attractor of Ethnology and has created a philosophical-anthropological approach to popular culture. It is important to indicate the place of theories and approaches in conflict paradigms in the transition to a post-nonclassical anthropological science. Development of a new scientific paradigm and the subsequent understanding of the philosophical foundations of a new trend in anthropology led scientists to understanding the problems of philosophical-anthropological approach to popular culture. He spends disobjectification former grounds of science and given it a new subject — & quot-ethnic mentality, the philosophical heritage of the people& quot-, the study of which & quot-begins in the sky where alamys forms a wall around Paradise& quot-11. This position sets the space scientist and a reflective structure build on lessons learned from the field, and its methodological work. He spoke to Syntagma syntagmatic decay to disobjectification and disforming to replication O.M. Freydenberg and mental space to transduction and topology, to semiotics and hermeneutics thesaurus to mysledeystviyu and display continuity to reflexive loop and humanitarian technologies. But what it is important to note: Ya.V. Chesnov was only at the beginning of paradigmatization their ways of working.
Throughout his creative life he was busy looking for a new approach to the anthropological material: paradoxes and anomalies of other cultures produced in the field of live communication and interaction with people. His methods of field work opened the way to new thought patterns and communicative anthropological field. It develops new methods of observation, a different understanding of the practice and techniques of field work, invents its own means of communication and ways of solving puzzles. He developed the ability to the vision of a system of values, universal in particular. The new subject of study — the person in anthroponosis — that was the next step in the unfolding of philosophical-anthropological approach. And the basis of this method was based on the logic of not climbing from the abstract to the concrete and the abstract logic (human presence) as a definite12. In the works by Ya.V. Chesnov popular culture tells us the language of inversions, describing the body. This culture uses the body as described by a system that deprives us of the possibility of entering into a reflexive position in relation to it. It becomes inoperable13. And this, according to Ya.V. Chesnov, it lies a
World folk culture Jan Chesnov — Anthropothenosis is placed in a mental field of popular culture. Working with the body, making it a popular culture means personal15. The generic body takes over the function describing the system in relation to the described system of internal body16. Priority gain mental co-organization new paradoxical communication, thought-images. The object of his research is that scientists have been called & quot-delayed by the presence of man. "- No wonder the last entry in his diary was: & quot-Anthropothenosis — which begins with the people. Since the presence or absence of ethics? On the basis of hidden meanings (culture), not instincts& quot-17. Anthropothenosis — it'-s the plasma, without which it is impossible to conceive of a person. The new language and way of describing anth-ropothenosis and cultural genesis of popular culture — that'-s what keeps us scientific and philosophical heritage Ya.V. Chesnov.
Ya.V. Chesnov was able to reconstruct the popular culture by means of philosophical and anthropological approach that still has not been able to make other researchers. This is based on the difference in the technique of scientific thinking of all the phenomenological anthropological tradition
11 From Y.V. Chesnov'-s letter to R. Gogbe from September, 21, 2013
12 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 74
13 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 78
14 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 79
15 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 75
16 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 5, p. 75- on a generic body titanics in Diary of Ya.V. Chesnov № 169. P.7.
17 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 84
(Durkheim, L. Levy-Bruhl, Mauss, Mead). Anthropological thinking Ya.V. Chesnov different set of techniques used followed & quot-search idea activity& quot- Framework, we believe the historical development and change of anthropological thinking and thus equate & quot-development of anthropological thinking& quot- and & quot-the development of anthropological thinking through art. "- Answering the question of what in anthropological thinking evolves, we argue that the technique is developed. The answer to the question & quot-What is the specificity of art Ya.V. Chesnov thinking?& quot- Can not be given in terms of techniques, but in terms of the content of the object — the complex reality of popular culture.
The paradox of thinking Ya.V. Chesnov grasp and constitute an essential element not only of anthropological thinking and thinking in general. Tearing anthropological thinking from one empirical data and transferring it to other material, we can create a generalized anthropological techniques in order to build common perceptions of anthropological thinking. As they note in his diary: & quot-I plant different seeds in his anthropological field. It grows always philosophical anthropology& quot-18. The philosophical-anthropological approach was fundamental for him, where anthropological knowledge from different fields becomes the base. Then it becomes quite clear and explainable why the principle of bypassing the complex object (folk culture) and picking up the results of the bypass system theory is a key issue for us technology anthropological thinking. That is what has been called the synthesis of knowledge, and in the late 50s — & quot-configuration"- as the key to the generalized technique of thinking.
On the basis of concrete experience Ya.V. Chesnov or specific traces of anthropological thinking it necessary to construct a generalized idea of anthropological thinking in the technical horizon. Thus the crucial question: how the art of thinking, incurred by the anthropologist Ya.V. Chesnov when working with complex objects of national culture, to generalize and transfer to other types of situations, ie, other objects and other objects — philosophical, theoretical, methodological and practical in the field of humanities.
Consideration of the heritage of the scientist as a technique of anthropological thinking will bring transdisciplinary research in the field of anthropology to a new meta-level, where the technique of thinking is essentially a meta-anthropological thinking. This will allow the use of philosophical-anthropological heritage of the scientist in anthropopractices and anthropotechnics new generation.
November, 16, 2015
18 Y.V. Chesnov'-s diary. No182, p. 18