How the social chronotope affects the identity of the historical subject. Social chronotope

SOCIAL CHRONOTOPE

Parameter name	Meaning
Article subject:	SOCIAL CHRONOTOPE
Rubric (thematic category)	Philosophy

Having defined in in general terms social reality, let's deal now forms her, i.e. social space and time. We postulate that space and time are respectively extensive and intensive forms of being, i.e. space is the location of one beside with another, beside another, and time is a sequence of one after another. The basic archetypal structure of the social chronotope is rooted in mythologemes. The space expresses Apollonian and time - Dionysian side of life.

Generally speaking, society is revealed in social philosophy in an Apollonian way, primarily in an extensive plan, that is, as a unity coexisting many things - in the form of social space, which has its own social geometry (say, ʼʼvertical structure of the worldʼʼ, hierarchy). Social philosophy in the narrow sense is the philosophy of social space 107 .

Emphasizing the unity of the two forms of being, we will talk about space-time, or, using the term of M. M. Bakhtin, about chronotope 108 . This gives us the opportunity to discuss social philosophy in the broad sense of the word, including the comprehension of both extensive and intensive forms of being.

3.5.1. ONTOLOGICAL STATUS OF SPACE-TIME

To comprehend the ontological status of space-time, it is necessary to present substantial and relational approaches to it 1 .

Substantial Approach to space-time suggests that the chronotope is understood as something that independently exists along with matter and consciousness, as their empty ʼʼreceptacleʼʼ. All objects and subjects are thought to exist in space-time, and this space-time has an existence independent of objects and subjects. Space is pure extension, and time is pure duration in which objects are immersed. The substantial concept of the chronotope found its final expression in I. Newton˸ absolute empty space is the receptacle of matter and does not depend on it, remaining "always the same and motionless" 1P.

Substance concept is a thought organic to the ordinary common sense. relational approach to space-time is, on the contrary, a difficult thought for everyday representation. The relational approach was outlined by Aristotle and fully formed by G. Leibniz˸ ʼʼI... I affirm that without matter there is no space and that space in itself does not represent absolute realityʼʼ 112 . From the point of view of the relational concept, space and time are not special substantial entities, but forms existence of objects. Space expresses the coexistence, coordination of objects, while time expresses the sequence of their states 113 . Depending on whether a material object exists or does not exist in space, space changes.

separate act and separate subject as an abstraction from the intertwining of human activities. – The problem of long-range action in the social process. – Unobservable objects of social reality. Man is not the measure of all things. - To own things - to own self-realization. – Consciousness as a person's ability to operate with supersensible forms. – Spirituality and metaphysical (non-naturalistic) connection of people – Social time and social space – The decency of the mind and its rootedness in social time and social space – Various images of the social chronotope – Time and space at the level of being of social individuals

§ 1. The dual nature of the existence of people and things

Human objectivity has a special character. The objective existence of a person does not coincide with his bodily existence. And the being of human objects is not identical with their materiality.

These "oddities" of people's objective existence are due to the fact that their objectivity lives according to the laws of a polyphonic social process. Each individual human existence and each existence of a human object turns out to be the intersection of many trajectories of human activity, different connections of human interaction.

The identity of people and human things is formed from the constantly renewed "fabric" of the social process, on which a person fixes his isolation, separateness, specificity.

This originality of people and things, determined, condensed in the process of intertwining and diverging human actions, turns out to be the objectivity not of corporality and materiality, but the objectivity of process and activity. In other words, it really exists in its collected, independent and specific form as a process, which enables the individual to keep in unity the moments of activity that are stratified in time and disintegrated in space. A separate act, a separate object, a separate person in this sense are not separate, because their being is “projected” onto other acts, objects, actions and is itself supported and stimulated by the “projections” of the being of other forms of human objectivity. It does not at all follow, as is sometimes believed, that the human individual should be regarded as an "appendage" of the system, and the thing as the embodiment of a function. Both people and things retain and reveal their multidimensionality not in spite of the polyphonic complexity of the social process, but thanks to it. It is this complexity that makes us go beyond the understanding of people and things by their bodily forms and social functions. It is in the logic of social movement that the reduction of people and things to individual functions can be interpreted.

We begin to understand the special nature of human objectivity through the polyphony of the social process. But, it should be emphasized, the very understanding of the social process remains essentially incomplete if we do not bring it to an understanding of the process nature of the existence of people and things.

In the realm of direct experience we are constantly dealing with discrete acts, things and individuals. The essence of the social process is its constant renewal. If it were not renewed in its discrete moments, it would not be able to maintain its continuity either. The latter is ensured by the fact that it "flows" in isolated things and human individuals. He lives and “pulsates” in both of them, although in a significantly different way. This "pulsation" of the process in isolated individuals and objects is the only explanation for their interdependence in the absence of their direct contacts.

The problem of long-range action in the social process has apparently not yet been adequately assessed and comprehended. This may be hindered by the forms of direct contacts, connections, dependencies, which "cover up" the essence of this problem, but many practical, theoretical, and cultural issues are connected precisely with it. As the preservation of social connection across the distances of space and time will make sense for all more people, the awareness of this problem will move from the purely methodological sphere to the sphere of everyday human concerns.

The predominance of the sensory-visual explanation of objectivity and, in fact, human interactions, which is characteristic of everyday consciousness, has long been supported by science, naturalistically - i.e. by analogy with things and their interactions - describing human behavior. This kind of science, naturally, regarded attempts to understand the supersensible existence of people and things as pre-scientific, extra-scientific, mystical, and so on. Since scientificity was largely identified with the standards of classical natural science, and above all of physics (even more specifically, mechanics), any metaphysical interpretation of being seemed doubtful.

However, over time, the stereotypes that reduce the objective existence of people and human things to the framework of the direct perception of their corporeality, to the forms of their observed interactions turned out to be doubtful.

As soon as the emerging economic science established the fact that a thing of human use is evaluated not only and not so much by its natural qualities, but by the qualities of the human activity embodied in it, the question arose of identifying, describing, explaining these qualities, and the qualities are not random, not secondary, but determining the existence of an object in the human process. In fact, then - and this happened at the beginning of the 19th century. – unobservable objects were introduced into the field of scientific research. It should be especially noted: social science, therefore, began to work with unobservable objects a hundred years earlier than natural science. However, this significant step in knowledge was not appreciated either then or now. Then - because the knowledge of the supersensible went beyond the standards of scientificity and, in essence, destroyed these standards. Now - because philosophy, focusing on the criticism of the stereotypes of classical scientificity and rationality, has done practically nothing to develop new scientific and philosophical means of fixing and describing the supersensible aspects of being.

Thus, supersensible social being was initially discovered in a commodity, in its movement, interaction with other commodities. The social properties of the commodity unfolded in time as forms of human activity, acted as its representatives, manifestations of its process. Thanks to this, it became possible to measure human activity, reduce it to socially necessary and average values. Thus, the process of activity appeared initially in economic science in an abstract and deindividualized form. This, in fact, was the reason that many humanists and philosophers could not use the concept of activity to develop humanitarian problems, to study the human personality.

An economic, one-dimensional idea of ​​human activity cannot be a sufficient description of the supersensible aspects of the existence of things, especially people. Nor can it claim to be a universal explanatory principle. The scope of its productive application is, perhaps, limited by the circulation of standard tools, means of ensuring human life, reduced to simple functions, operations, needs. Where we find ourselves in front of non-standard products of human creation, and therefore, in front of the task of reconstructing the individual aspects of activity, personal qualities and abilities, it requires reworking this idea, giving it "depth", revealing its specific multidimensionality.

Activity, say, finds an object among things human need, connects a separate need and a separate item. But behind this act of uniting an object and a need lies the process of creating an object, its formation in accordance with the special needs of people. It also reveals the presence in people of certain abilities to consume or master objects formed by human activity. And these implicit aspects of the being of the object and the being of the person himself are essential for their "meeting"; closing, they form a form of mastering an object by a person, a form of combination of human forces fixed in an object and those that reveal the social qualities of an object, include them in the movement of a person’s abilities or needs.

The discovery of the social qualities of an object presupposes a concrete human effort, the coordination of the individual's active abilities with the form given to the object by the actions of another person. Even in acts of consumption this creative moment is present. And a person needs to have developed forces in a certain way in order to discover and use all this for himself. If they are absent or not sufficiently formed, he finds himself in the position of a child who can exist only with the help of an adult, i.e. normally developed person.

Human objects are frozen crystals social interactions, silent, but very convincing forms of human communication, conjugating the desires, skills and strengths of people. They discover this “metaphysical ability” as soon as they get into the living movement of activity, they reveal their multidimensionality, being included in the life process of a developing personality, whether it be a child or an adult.

It is in relation to the development of personality that human objects reveal the coherence of their functional, social (interhuman), physical, i.e. natural measurements.

But in the same respect, there are also dissonances in the functional, social and physical dimensions of objects, the inability, for example, of social standards to express the natural matter of objects, resulting from the opposition of the subject one-dimensionality and the many-sidedness of things. Only in objective self-development is a person able to understand that he is not the “measure of all things”, that the versatility of things, revealed in the stream of intertwined human activities, is not exhausted by this stream, that it is precisely the understanding of the boundaries of activity, i.e. its borders, leaves a person the opportunity to deepen their contacts with the world.

Man's ability to discover and recreate in objects their supersensible social properties presupposes in him the bearer and creator of similar properties. He masters the social form of the object because he owns the social form of his own objective being, is in this form, reveals its boundaries, overcomes them.

In our reasoning, the emphasis on the supersensible form (forms) of being of human individuals does not mean a denial or belittling of their sensual, bodily, organic being. It is not an attempt to designate any special supra-social forces or elements. First of all, it shifts the focus of our attention and research to the connection of the moments of human existence that unfolds in time, to the form that composes and connects various forces human self-assertion. He points out that the understanding of the process of individual human existence goes beyond the boundaries outlined by the contour of human corporeality, that corporeality itself can be largely understood as permanent, i.e. updating component of this process. Upon closer analysis, it turns out that the identification and fixation of the supersensible aspects of the existence of human individuals "crowds" not ideas about the organic and bodily life of a person, but many of our concepts about this life, based on identifying it with our visual, sensual reflections.

In general, the definition of the process of human existence in the terminology of “sensual” and “supersensible” is to a certain extent imposed on us by “classical” science and philosophy, which concentrated descriptions of being around the sensory data of human cognition, reducing the interpretation of being to the boundaries of sensory cognition. Continuing our clarifications, we can say that the supersensible in our reflections is not defined through its opposition to the sensible, which would be a strong narrowing of the topic. Behind the term “supersensible” lies the process, organization, deployment in space and time of human active forces, their crystallization in the forms of objectivity, their functioning in the form of social connections, their “compositions” that are fixed in various cultural and social institutions.

There is a tradition of opposing the supersensible to the sensual, by analogy with how the spiritual and the corporeal, consciousness and being are opposed. The supersensible then finds itself on a par with the conscious and the spiritual.

In the logic of our reasoning, this series is violated: the supersensible turns out to be a form of being, while the conscious and spiritual are expressions, first of all, of the supersensible complexity of human existence, its continuity.

In this regard, consciousness turns out to be a connection of isolated social, objective and individual aspects of activity, a “discovery” of the implicit connections of the human process. It becomes the organizing force of human activity precisely because it introduces into a person’s self-report the discretion of acts of human existence that are “long-range” in space and time, and includes them in the formation of his actions.

Spirituality as a composure and openness of the conscious-mental world of a person also acts as an ontological characteristic, as a property of a person's being, justified by his (being) supersensible complexity. Going beyond the boundaries of his physical existence into the world of multidimensional social connections, a person acquires the ability to see the facets of the social process, and therefore, new possibilities of connections with reality.

§ 2. Social time and social space

The social process unfolds in the time of continuous, combined and successive human activities; at the same time, it "contracts" in space, where these activities appear as relatively stable structures, crystallize in the objective conditions of people's lives, "weave" into their direct communication.

This process lives in space and time, but the coordinates that determine the combination and change of social events are themselves largely determined by the movement of the total life and activity of people. The content and intensity of human activity are changing, and the spatio-temporal "outline" by which social events are defined, outlined, and understood is also being modified.

Accounting for this circumstance, of course, does not remove the question of the dependence of social history on cosmic and terrestrial natural rhythms and relationships. But its consideration, it turns out, is connected with the identification of one's own rhythm and metrics of the social process. They can be understood as the scale of people's activities, taking into account the natural "environment" of the existence of society, but developing and changing not outside the social process, but in its reproduction and renewal.

From the abstract, "empty", homogeneous space-time of classical science and philosophy, we are moving to a social time-space filled with actions and events of human life. And the first thing we must note is the non-physical character of social space and time. Non-physical precisely in connection with the essence of the matter, and not with a verbal definition. Non-physical - in the sense that it is not set by the movement of bodies, it is rhythmized not by the rotation of wheels and gears, but by social forms of the renewal of human forces and the combination of human activities. Corporeal, material, spatial forms naturally participate in the movement of human actions and forces, but they move primarily as "conductors" and "carriers" of social qualities created by people.

People can and do measure their lives in hours or meters. But these are, strictly speaking, non-physical meters and clocks, because they do not characterize the natural properties of things and activities, but point to human forces with which things and activities are saturated, they indicate the possibilities that can be attached to human forces.

In the course of the social process, forms arose that had a high degree of abstractness, as if completely divorced from concrete things, people and actions, capable, it would seem, of replacing anything and translating anything into the language of their universal dimensions. Let's say money acts as such a universal standard of things and actions; moreover, they turn out to be the pillars of the normal functioning of the social system, "connectors" between different people and groups. "Spoilage" of money becomes an important component in the destruction of normal human interactions, the crisis of the social system. For there is a disintegration of the “compositions” of activity deployed in time, the coordination of various human forces is lost, the social quality of things decreases and, accordingly, their significance increases. natural properties, "raw" material and the simplest work with it.

Such forms are the forms of the process, measuring instruments, standards, "connected" diverse acts of human behavior. They, in fact, express the time of people's activities, they are created and worked out by this activity, in it they are separated from the specific diversity of human things and actions.

Thus, the forms of social space implicitly express social time, are conditioned by certain systems of human activity, and even the most abstract of them are rooted in concrete history, genetically and functionally linked to the polyphonic structure of the social process.

In the deployment of the social process, first one, then another aspect of the spatio-temporal development and representation of the world by man came to the fore. The history of culture testifies that attention was mainly paid to spatial definitions, and then to temporal ones, the preference for some lines of measurement or representation of reality changed from era to era, and this, by the way, meant both a modification of the picture of the world and the evolution of people's worldview. , and shifts in their practical attitudes.

According to historians, the ancient Egyptian culture based its worldview ideas and corresponding images on the horizontal. ancient greek culture strove for a three-dimensional image of the world and man, tried to balance the various spatial characteristics of objects. Dominant medieval representation about the order of things becomes a vertical, a "Gothic" worldview is formed. The Renaissance is looking for a means to represent the depths of space; the development of linear perspective in painting is one example of this search.

The new time produces a “resubordination” of coordinates: if before the forms of space expressed time and subordinated its dimension to themselves, now time becomes the dominant, and the forms of space reveal their meaning different plans representation, different faces, stages, states of being of things and processes. The idea is clarified that the pictorial representation of objects corresponds to our visual images, but by no means to the very being of objects. Separate figurative imprints of objects turn out to be only slices of their being, "freeze-frames" of ongoing processes.

Abstract space and abstract time in this era become the organizing principles of the theoretical and practical activities of people. They are closely connected with the development in the social process and the ever wider cultivation in human activity of a system of abstract standards that compare the most diverse human and natural qualities with a system of norms that regulates diverse social interactions.

The abstractness of space and time is “paid for” by the ultimate deconcretization of the world of things and people, by the quantification of the activities and connections that organize it. Any things (and people) can be reduced by mechanics to material points, to measurements of their displacements. Any human strengths and abilities are reduced by the economy to average or necessary costs time, can be broadcast, exchanged, added to the total amount, merged into the total volume.

A certain homogeneous social space is formed, something like a system of blood vessels, in which activities of different quality flow freely and meet in it, in it they different ways are synthesized, while naturally losing the individuality of their formation and development.

Thus, a field of seemingly simultaneous social interactions arises. This quasi-synchronous coordination of different lines of social process hides their specific histories and qualities. Once again, the opportunity arises to use the social space thus created to measure specific human acts, events, abilities, things, and so on.

Until the end of the XIX century. abstract space and abstract time retain the meaning of absolute and objective coordinates "in which" various processes take place. Their absoluteness is interpreted as independence from any systems whatsoever. Objectivity - as appearance in relation to specific natural or social events. In relation to the social process, this means that the changes taking place in it do not affect its spatio-temporal structure in any way.

However, since the middle of the 19th century, there have been incentives to rethink the status of the categories of space and time. The study of the abstract and concrete time of the social process, the formation of a single social space has been laid, psychological and cultural studies of the role of space and time in different human communities are being formed, and the problem of biological time arises. In the XX century. ideas of historicism begin to penetrate into natural science, expanding in this direction cosmological, geological and geographical research. The theory of relativity played a special role in this movement, linking together movement, space and time, setting before all sciences the task of studying space and time as forms of being of specific natural and social systems.

The extremely broad, absolutizing interpretation of space and time appeared only as a certain historical stage in the human assimilation of the forms of social and natural existence. Disguised by scientific and philosophical nature, its rootedness in a specific cultural and historical soil was revealed.

The turn of science towards a qualitative analysis of complex systems connected space and time with their organization, with special relationship between their elements, with the dimensionality of reproduction and change of these elements, the interdependence of their functioning. Intervals, trajectories and voids have acquired a specific physical or social meaning. Empty airspace turned out to be a form of organizing air communications. The empty space around the house turned out to be a form of organizing the movement and interaction of people. The empty space around the device or machine turned out to be a condition for their normal use. Things and voids between them turned out to be elements of the organization of human activity, a special flow of time in life and communication between people.

The ancient idea of ​​the chronotope, when the circle was both a form of the space of human existence and a form of the returning time of human life, again became a landmark of the human worldview. Of course, the modern development of this idea has required and will still require great efforts. Without a concrete study of space-time as forms of being of complex cultural and natural systems, the idea of ​​a chronotope remains only a guideline.

As for abstract space and time and their cultural and historical grounding, one should pay tribute to both scientific (which is generally understood) and cultural (which is understood, especially in our society, much less) to their functions. The latter consisted in the fact that a system of social ties was developed, although alienated from the existence of human individuals, but giving these individuals a certain range of opportunities for deploying their forces. Some of the efforts and forms necessary for the existence of the individual have switched, as it were, “into the automatic mode”, they have been transformed into the initial conditions of human existence. A zero cycle was formed, a cultural layer that in developed countries went into the subsoil of human relationships, which began to be deposited in individual development in the form of initial attitudes of personal behavior.

What, in essence, happened: the extremely broad definitions of reality precisely in their breadth and limit, more precisely, in the claim to breadth and limit, are fixed as characteristic forms specific stage of history, specific result, moment, connection (connections) of the social process.

General philosophical definitions of space and time are refined by socio-philosophical analysis; moreover, these clarifications are of a fundamental nature. These are not variations on a general philosophical theme with a certain socio-philosophical addition. This is the understanding of the philosophical categories themselves as forms of the social process, as forms of activity, communication, self-realization of a person.

Such an understanding does not remove the questions traditional for philosophy about the content, objectivity, general significance of categories, etc. In particular, it does not cross out the abstractness of time, but places abstract time "in position" common language, which compares and connects the proper time of different systems. The objectivity of time as a form arising in the real process itself is not crossed out, and therefore not opposed to it as an external scale. All this is especially important for the interpretation of the social process, for the interpretation of space and time as links that organize this process, as forms that ensure the reproduction and development of human forces, the self-realization of human individuals.

In interpreting the human meaning of space and time, it is important to overcome a number of simplifications associated with the general philosophical tradition of speaking about a person in such a way that he is present in reasoning and at the same time “does not arise” with his specific individual traits. It must be emphasized that the sociality of space and time can be truly understood precisely at the level of the human individual. Not only in linking space-time to the functioning of large social systems, but in the forms of communication between individuals, the chronotope reveals its social significance and reveals it precisely in the most direct human acts and interactions.

Space-time is, in fact, the most important component of the order of things and people, which ensures the flow of people's daily lives, their communication, the way of their direct personal existence. The formation of the human individual, the formation of his personality is largely determined by his familiarization with the existing order of space-time, and above all, of course, by the very fact of his presence. Flaws in the development of the child, including those associated with mental disorders, are often associated with his lack of skills to include in the simplest rhythms of relationships with people. Lack of family education early age- this is, first of all, a “pass” by the child of the most intimate, very first and most important connections who, thanks to the mother and loved ones, could naturally and gradually include the child in more complicated relationship with division of action.

The development of the child is largely determined by the mode of care, the orderly rhythm of his contacts with loved ones, through which the infant begins to assimilate the elements of communication, actions with objects, and spatial forms.

The repeated and changing contacts of the child with loved ones create such a duration of actions and representations, such a constantly acting "cinema" in which more and more new objects appear, and they seem to take on flesh in the joint action of an adult and a child, and at the same time their own human being. meaning. The rhythm of activity receives objective support, material fixings. So, spatial forms not only embody a certain organization of human activity, but also act as qualitative characteristics of a person's time, its content, its intervals.

The space for the child is also revealed not as physical, but as a space of organized human activity, as a space of communication. Things, their forms, their mutual arrangement and orderliness - all this exists in the child's behavior through his interactions with loved ones, through the specific human meanings of things. Having mastered and “beat” these simple meanings, the child gets the opportunity to penetrate into the meanings of things hidden for the time being, to discover other orders of their comparison, interaction, use, in general, to think of order as something separate from things. In the meantime, acquaintance with simple temporal and spatial forms of activity, provided by the connection between the child and the adult, creates the initial "canvas" of the chronotope. The deployment of the forces and abilities of the emerging individual on this basis opens the way for him to cognize the multidimensional relations of reality.

It can be said that a normal child from the very beginning of his personal development is drawn into the metaphysical exploration of reality. Entering into purely physical, it would seem, contacts with things, he is forced to master human ways of interacting with them. Subsequently, he will face the problem of a multidimensional interpretation of social and natural processes.

§ 3. Social philosophy - the metaphysics of human existence

The metaphysical attitude of a child to things is akin to the metaphysical attitude to things of a social philosopher. For a child, the thing retains the warmth of human closeness, a certain magnetic nature of the connection of human desires, acts as an incentive to some kind of action, entertainment, and games. She is "played out" in various ways of acting and symbolic meanings. A chair, for example, can turn out to be a burrow, a castle tower, or a dump truck. In a similar way - on the scale, of course, of a more developed and structured worldview - for a social philosopher, a thing, in addition to its direct function, can open up both as an instrument of activity, and as a measure of human strength, and as a standard of communication, and, in the aggregate of all this, as crystallization of various social ties. And it is not important here because of its natural matter, but, first of all, by the interweaving of social meanings and meanings, which is revealed in it when it comes into contact with creative human activity. Therefore, in socio-philosophical research, it is not so much about a thing as about social objectivity, about an object that, in the material of matter, signs and corresponding images, fixes and connects various social meanings and human meanings. Each such object "comes to life" only when it is included in the current activity of a person, and through it enters into connection with other objects and, therefore, with the social qualities and meanings embodied in them. Then "mutual disclosure" of directly material and sign-symbolic forms of objectivity is possible, because they turn out to be moments of a single process of carrying out activity, its divided and connected motives. If, on the other hand, objects are excluded from the activity process, they begin to gravitate towards material isolation and hide the diversity of social meanings.

Philosophy has so far paid insufficient attention to the social significance of human objectivity. Of course, objectivity was somehow taken into account in interpretations of human interactions, but these interpretations usually left out the understanding of objects as carriers of social qualities and forces that concentrate the form and energy of human activity and expand the real possibilities of social individuals.

Social philosophy of the XX century. focused on the sign-symbolic aspects of the existence of human objects, on their ability to represent different languages, forms of culture, sociality, knowledge, spiritual connections. So, for example, the Russian economist N.A. Kondratiev spoke of human objects as embodiments of spiritual culture, as spatial-figurative representations of social functions. K. Jaspers talked about the "ciphers" of transcendence, i.e. about the symbols of imperceptible, supersensible, embracing human being connections, indirectly revealed by objects. Much has been said about the significance of objects in the composition of social reality - structuralism, in the composition of social relations - symbolic interactionism.

These indications outlined the metaphysical plan for the existence of social objectivity, its inclusion in various connections of being, not described by natural science research, but determining the real life of people. This metaphysics implied various "layers" of being: both cosmic, and natural, and directly social. Philosophy, apparently, traditionally returned to the broadest, most abstract metaphysical plans for describing people's lives. But the “nearest” – associated with the process and multidimensionality of social existence – metaphysics turned out to be underestimated. Therefore, the dependence of economic, technological, and cultural schemes on the quality of people's forces and abilities, on the energy they embody in an objective way, seemed unworthy of special attention. Therefore, the complex diversity of natural matter, mastered by man, for the time being was not taken into account in the practice of society.

When we notice that for social philosophy it is not the natural matter of a thing that is important, but those connections and forms of human activity that are embodied in it, this does not at all belittle the importance of natural matter. Accounting for its significance is not only in interpreting it as the material of activity (“raw material”, as they sometimes say), but also in understanding its own complexity, which has arisen and manifests itself outside the framework of forms of human activity. But this complexity, precisely because it is not generated by human activity, cannot be characterized within the boundaries of social philosophy. The latter is only able to warn the thinking and action of people from a simple relationship to things, from only a physical explanation of things and their interactions. Implicit in this warning is a view of natural things, which can also be called metaphysical. But this view should be developed no longer in social philosophy, but in other areas of human thinking and exploration of the world, including physical knowledge.

Returning to the limits of social philosophy, it is worth emphasizing: the simplest functions and meanings of things, as well as more broad meanings their existence in the social process, are the result of the embodiment of social forms, forms of human activity, i.e. they are the results not of a physical but of a social process.

Consequently, by clarifying the socio-philosophical metaphysics of things, we expose not so much the physical way of understanding them as the quasi-physical, but essentially socially one-dimensional way of seeing and using them.

The metaphysics of social philosophy turns out to be not an attempt to overcome natural elements and in this sense - not an attempt to overcome the physical logic that expresses this element, but an attitude to expose science, which operates with low-quality things, one-dimensional characteristics of people and objects of their life activity.

Social philosophy as metaphysics is opposed not to physics, not to physical way understanding of natural interactions, but the absolutization of certain, limited physical representations, the tradition of interpreting these representations as universal aids for explaining a wide variety of systems. Social philosophy does not pretend to limit the scope of these ideas to any specific framework, but it points to their limitations, associated with the cultural and historical conditions of their origin, with the natural limitations of those worldview attitudes and technical means, which served as the basis for the emergence and reproduction of a certain physical logic in people's activities. Social philosophy as metaphysics critically analyzes not the “resolving” ability of this logic in the study of various natural systems, but its ability to serve as the basis, standard, and even more so the standard of human rationality.

Since social philosophy develops approaches for elucidating different cultural and historical forms of scientificity and rationality, it gets the opportunity not only to compare their possibilities and limits. It acquires the means to select such conceptions of scientificity and rationality that stand the test of suitability for needs. modern society and a person. It seeks and finds such methods of rational and scientific activity that do not oppose the being and cognition of specific human individuals, but reveal the forms of their existence and cognition, deepen ideas about people's lives, and at the same time preserve and develop rational means and learning methods.

For traditional philosophy, which worked out the ultimate General characteristics of being and cognition, and therefore finding a place for specific human individuals and for the corresponding social philosophy only on the periphery of its possessions, such a turn turns out to be impossible. Moreover, it is against the background of traditional philosophy that traditional scientificity and rationality clearly presented their immunity to humanitarian issues, and to an individualizing approach in any field of knowledge, including the knowledge of natural systems.

That is why many areas of modern philosophy, based on the "classics", revised in it precisely the sections that are in contact with the interpretation of rationality, significantly "reduced" the importance of scientific knowledge, engaged in its criticism or directly turned to extra-scientific and irrational means of comprehending being. Criticism of rationalism has become a fashionable topic; its massive development was reflected in everyday consciousness: the value of common sense, the understanding of the usefulness of an argument, the foundations of thinking and actions are being lost.

Criticism of the structure of human cognition and thinking, the limitations and rigidity of this structure, which did not have a serious socio-philosophical and cultural-historical support, turned into skepticism about the decency of the human mind and the science that serves it.

In this context, the desire of modern social philosophy to find and offer a person scientific and rational, i.e. ordering, coordinating, explaining and orienting means of thinking and activity.

Social philosophy seeks to unite seemingly incompatible attitudes. She is critical of the standards of well-known and traditional science. It introduces into the scope of its consideration such aspects of human existence - individuality, quality, supersensible forces, connections, trajectories of people's actions, hypothetical combinations, "fields" of such trajectories - which classical science ignored or considered the subject of extrascientific forms of cognition.

However, this does not at all mean an attempt by social philosophy to abandon our understanding of being or to push scientific methodology to the "outskirts" of philosophizing.

It should be about using scientific culture in full, in its most developed forms, which, in fact, have not yet been used and adapted to the scale of being and understanding of people.

Society in social philosophy ceases to be a system of abstractions, it "comes to life" and grows in complexity and scale, saturated with the movement and development of various acts of human self-realization.

A scientific apparatus is needed that uses the entire range of approaches known to science in order to fix the living connections of the social process, and not so much to write a “big picture” of it, but to identify the forces that reproduce and develop this process.

The striving of social philosophy for a multidimensional, three-dimensional "coverage" and a concrete reflection of the social process - we emphasize again - does not at all run counter to the principles of scientific knowledge for explanation, forecasting, for the use of theoretically substantiated concepts, models, schemes, etc. Social philosophy includes this apparatus in its work, but constantly reveals its dependence on the course of action. social evolution, takes into account the limitations of schemes and conventionality of models in the description of the polyphony of the social process.

In this regard, social philosophy can be interpreted as a social ontology or a system of schemes that describes the dynamics and structure of the social process, its specific forms that are realized in different combinations of people's activities. Social ontology is built in the course of generalizations of human experience, refracted into knowledge of the social and humanitarian disciplines, expressed in people's awareness of the problematic nature of their daily practice. Social ontology, therefore, is not postulated - as it was in traditional metaphysics - but "derived" from various aspects of the spiritual-theoretical and everyday-practical activities of people. Linking different pictures, models, "freeze frames", describing the versatility of social life, social ontology builds its generalized image. With all the conventions, this image is extremely important, since it allows people to identify the system of orientation of their activities, determines the structure of their worldview.

In our further presentation, we will try to present social evolution in a sequence of descriptions aimed at clarifying how its main forms arose, how they functioned, and what caused their change. In constructing these descriptions, the experience of identifying in social evolution a) agrarian, technological, post-technological stages, b) traditional, industrial, post-industrial societies, c) systems of directly personal, material and indirectly personal dependence between people will be taken into account. The selection of such steps is large enough to see how the connections that shape the interdependence and unity of the social world are changing. At the same time, the proposed approach does not underestimate the socio-historical differences of individual societies, and makes it possible to place social forms in a special national and cultural context. Such an ontology does not serve to reduce the cultural and historical differences of social systems to simple explanation or rule, but concretization of the scale of social evolution, identification of key moments and landmarks of its movement, i.e. performs a cosmic function. Its goal is not an abstract generalization, but a “generalization”, taking into account the possibility of coordinating different approaches, models, schematizations of the social process.

Main literature

1. Bourdieu P. Social space and the genesis of classes // Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics. M., 1993.

2. Levinas E. Totality and infinity: an essay on appearance // Vopr. philosophy. 1999. No. 2.

3. Marx K. Commodity fetishism and its secrets // Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 23.

4. Merleau-Ponty M. Temporality // Historical and Philosophical Yearbook - 1990. M., 1991.

5. Trubnikov N.N. The time of human existence. M., 1987.

6. Florensky P.A. Time and space // Sociol. research 1988. No. 1.

7. Heidegger M. Time and Being // Heidegger M. Time and Being. M., 1993.

8. Modern philosophical dictionary. London, 1998; articles: "Things", "Social Time" and "Social Space", "Social Qualities", "Social Metaphysics", "Social Ontology".

additional literature

1. Gachev G. European images of space and time // Culture, man and picture of the world. M., 1987.

2. Kemerov V.E. Metaphysics-dynamics // Vopr. philosophy. 1998. No. 8.

3. Kuzmin V.P. The principle of consistency in the theory and methodology of K. Marx. M., 1980. Ch. 3.

4. Lola G.N. Design. Experience of metaphysical transcription. M., 1998.

6. Meshcheryakov A.I. Deaf-blind children. M., 1974.

7. Sartre E.-P. primary relation to another: love, language, masochism // The problem of man in Western philosophy. M., 1988.

8. Foucault M. Words and things. M., 1977.

9. Huebner K. Reflection and self-reflection of metaphysics // Vopr. philosophy. 1993. No. 7.

Interest in the topic of social space and time is associated with cultural and phenomenological contexts and is dictated by the relevance of these problems in modern Russian society. Over the past 20 years, Russian culture has faced a number of difficult challenges. The unprecedented scale of sociocultural changes, the development of globalization processes, the strengthening of foreign cultural influence, as well as the influence of the media, the increasing level of sociocultural differentiation - all these factors put Russian culture facing the threat of identity change. In the context of the sociocultural transition, there are significant gaps in ideas about cultural space and time. This is manifested, in particular, in a sharp narrowing of the space of identity to a narrow local level (clan, corporate, ethnocentric, etc.) with a simultaneous strengthening of global thinking. In the perception of cultural flint, there are tendencies to destroy the semantic unity

relationship between past, present and future. For a deeper understanding of the foundations of civilizational integration, it is necessary to consider the issues of semantic development of space and time.

The social space, inscribed in the space of the biosphere, has a special human meaning. It is functionally divided into a number of subspaces, the nature of which and their interrelation historically change as society develops. The peculiarity of social space lies in the fact that the world of things of culture surrounding a person, their spatial organization has supranatural, social significant characteristics. The integral system of social life has its own spatial architectonics, which is not limited to the relations of material things, but includes their relation to a person, his social connections and those meanings that are fixed in the system of socially significant ideas.

The specificity of social space is closely related to the specificity of social time, which is the internal time of social life and, as it were, is inscribed in the time of natural processes external to it.

Social time is a quantitative assessment of the path traversed by mankind, a measure of the variability of social processes, historically emerging transformations in people's lives. In the early stages of social development, the rhythms of social processes were slow.

Tribal societies and the first civilizations that came to replace them ancient world for many centuries reproduced a certain way of social life. Social time in these societies was of a quasi-cyclical nature, the reference point for social practice was the repetition of already accumulated experience, the reproduction of actions and deeds of the past, which acted in the form of traditions and often had a sacred character. Linearly directed historical time manifests itself most clearly in the society of the New Age, characterized by the acceleration of the development of the entire system. social processes. To an even greater extent, this acceleration is characteristic of the modern era.

Revealing the role of spatio-temporal factors in modern socio-cultural dynamics is of particular importance in the context of a radical change in ideas about space and time associated with globalization. Globalization and localization dictate new requirements for understanding the problems of civilizational and cultural identity. Many of these problems can be solved within the spatio-temporal, chronotopic (according to M. M. Bakhtin) analysis of modern civilization.

The categories "space" and "time" are given an important place in the theory of civilizations. For any civilization, if we consider it in line with the cultural-historical approach, spatio-temporal characteristics are characteristic, reflecting the deep relationship of culture and the corresponding “place of development” (P.N. Savitsky) or landscape (L.N. Gumilyov), which set the limits timing variability. In this sense, according to A.S. Panarin, the civilizational paradigm “rehabilitates” the category of space and opposes progressive progressive concepts based on the belief in overcoming any spatial differences over time. Each local civilization is also described as a keeper of time, which reflects the history corresponding to this civilization, linking the past, present and future, as well as "eternal" values.

Of particular importance in connection with the analysis of the methodological foundations of the modern theory of social space and time is Bakhtin's legacy. In his works, he presented a theoretical justification for the concept of "chronotope", reflecting the semantic unity of the space-time continuum, and also showed the role of chronotopic certainty in the processes of meaning formation. Chronotope (literally “time-space”) Bakhtin called “the existing interconnection of temporal and spatial relationships, artistically mastered in literature ". Chronotopes concentrate various temporal realities: the time of human life, historical time, ideas about Eternity and are a kind of structuring base of the semantic space into which the meanings of each specific event fit.

“The signs of time are revealed in space, and space is comprehended and changed by time,” Bakhtin noted, believing that living contemplation “grabs the chronotope in all its integrity and completeness”, and our artistic representations “are permeated with chronotopic representations of various degrees and volumes” . This creates an opportunity to comprehend events, chains of connections (plot lines) through the chronotope, which serves as the primary point of meaning and semantic concretization of certain events and processes. At the same time, each chronotope includes a set of chronotopes of specific events and processes related to smaller spatio-temporal scales, which, in turn, are integrated into a common, relatively integral chronotopic model. In the structure of this model, individual chronotopes can be included in each other, contrast, coexist, intertwine, change, etc. Bakhtin characterized the relationship between chronotopes as dialogic (in the broadest sense).

The concept of chronotope is also applicable to the assessment of existing cultures and civilizations. From the point of view of chronotopic analysis modern civilizations appear as internally heterogeneous in cultural and spatial terms. Each ethnic group, Gumilyov believed, carries within itself character traits formed in a particular landscape. When resettling or settling, ethnic groups are looking for areas that correspond to their cultural characteristics: “Ugric peoples settled in the forests, Turks and Mongols - in the steppes, Russians, mastering Siberia, settled in the forest-steppe strip and river banks” .

The complex interaction of any civilization with its spatial environment determines the specifics of the signification of space and the flow of cultural time. Different cultures (including within the same civilization) have their own, specific options for understanding time. We can talk about different depths of awareness of time, about differences in the nature of temporary changes, building accents on the past, present or future, about the preference for stability and order or change and diversity. Gumilyov noted that in different cultures and civilizations people count time according to their own needs. If they don't use complex systems

reference, it is not because they do not know how, but because they do not see the point in it. So, the Turks introduced a linear chronology when they found themselves at the head of a huge power, but as soon as the kaganate fell, they returned to the cyclical counting of time. In this regard, it is not reference systems that are important, but their diversity, which characterizes the degree of complexity of a culture. Gumilyov singled out the phenological time reference system necessary for the adaptation of the team to natural phenomena; cyclic calendar used for fixing everyday events; "living chronology" - to refer to events within the life of one generation; linear timing - for political and business purposes, etc. In addition, time can be divided into separate eras, which are somehow reflected in the public consciousness.

Civilization keeps time by linking the past, present and future, thereby creating a special - supra-human, supra-ethnic, supra-local dimension of time, expressed in a great tradition and characteristic ideas about the historical process and having a significant impact, including on everyday life. This is connected not only with the developed systems of perception and time reference that exist in every civilization, but also with ideas about timeless “eternal” values, images and meanings that constitute the sacred sphere of civilizational regulation.

REFERENCES

1. Bakhtin M.M. Epic and novel. SPb., 2000.

2. Berdyaev N.L. The fate of Russia. M., 1990.

3. Gorin D.G. Space and time in the dynamics of Russian civilization. M., 2003.

4. Gumilyov LN Ethnosphere: History of people and history of nature. M., 1993.

5. Husserl E. The crisis of European humanity and philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. 1986. No. 3.

6. Panarin L. S. Russia in the cycles of world history. M., 1999.

7. Heidegger M. Art and space / / Self-consciousness of European culture of the XX century. M., 1991.

8. El and hell M. The myth of the eternal return. Archetypes and repetition. SPb., 1998.

9. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M., 1991.

Andrey Shabaga

To begin with, we will make the following statement: the course of social development in general and the identity of the historical subject in particular are influenced, first of all, by the social characteristics of space and time. It follows from the statement that we are going to consider not so much the physical characteristics of changes in time and space in which this or that society develops, but the features of the involvement of society in one or another social chronotope. That is, in the totality of social space-time, perceived as a single phenomenon. For social space generates social time, which, in turn, manifests itself through social space.

Therefore, from our point of view, in a correct description of the identity of any historical subject, along with social space, its temporal characteristics should also be indicated. At the same time, by different phases of social time-space, we mean states of social space that are qualitatively different from each other. From which it follows that social time is a way to measure changes in social space . Therefore, such well-known phenomena as urbanization, Christianity, colonialism, post-industrialization, as well as communism, neo-feudalism, etc., can be attributed to social chronotopes. It follows from this that social time-space can have both speculative (proposed social chronotope), and the embodied character (realizable social chronotope). Note also that almost all social chronotopes, being by their nature associated with changes in social thought and social relations, were somehow offered to society. But not all of them were chosen. There were different reasons: and rejection by society, and unwillingness, and the impossibility of acceptance due to external dependence, etc.

We also note that the changes generated by the social chronotope can occur immediately (synchronously) or have a delayed form. We give examples for both cases. We will illustrate the first in connection with the dramatic spatial changes in Moscow that occurred as a result of the choice made by Peter. This choice led to an attempt to forcefully impose on Russian society of the late 17th - early 18th centuries the Western European (Dutch) chronotope taken as a model. One of the immediate consequences of this effort was abrupt change appearance of Moscow. Of course, Moscow did not acquire either the appearance or the status of a Western European historical subject (since this model was obligatory only for nobles and service people). But, nevertheless, in a short period, government offices, and after them the palaces with estates, followed by the dwellings of the common people, moved from the city center to the north. In the German Quarter and the area adjacent to it, the buildings of the Senate, the royal residence, etc. were built. Needless to say, the architecture of these structures and the layout of the area differed sharply from the Kremlin model.

Even now, to the north of the Kremlin, the bulk of the palaces, both government and private, are concentrated. These buildings still, even having lost their former status, determine the features of the city's development. They continue to set the tone for the organization of the "ideal" space with its orderly architectural layout, parks that include regulated water basins etc., that is, everything that was inherent in the pre-Petrine way of organizing space to an extremely small extent.

Let's take another example. We know that main street in modern Moscow is Tverskaya. But she was not always in charge. Tverskaya, according to sources, arose in the 15th century on the site of a country road from Moscow to Tver. At that time, Tver was the largest of the cities located relatively close to Moscow. However, knowledge of the nuances of this kind does not yet give us an answer to the question why it was she who became the main one, and not part of it. former road another Big City- Dmitrov, which turned around the same time into Dmitrovka Street (now - Bolshaya Dmitrovka Street, located not far from Tverskaya). So let's continue our research. Looking at the literature on XVIII century, we will find a message that as a result of the transfer of the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg, this street received a special status: Russian tsars passed through it for the coronation in the Kremlin and returned back to St. Petersburg. And although the last coronation was in Russia more than a hundred years ago social structure streets has developed so firmly that even after repeated changes political regimes Tverskaya retained not only those social functions that were inherent in it before, but also added new ones.

In addition to the house of the Moscow mayor (the current mayor's office), new ministries and departments appeared on Tverskaya - that is, its importance as an administrative center increased. In addition to the old, well-known Moscow shops (Eliseevsky grocery store, Filippovskaya bakery), new ones appeared, old hotels were reconstructed and expanded (National, Central, etc.). This increased the importance of Tverskaya as a commercial and tourist center. The transfer of the State Duma to the corner of Tverskaya raised the status of the street to the level of one of the political centers of society. Thus, we see how social time-space creates the prerequisites for changing urban space and gives impetus to the development of diverse social ties in this part of Moscow.

Let's take a few more examples. Let's start with post-revolutionary Paris. One of the outer manifestations social change caused by the Great Revolution, was its spatial reconstruction. But if the Bastille was demolished at the very beginning of the revolutionary events (a square appeared in its place), then it took about a hundred years for the appearance of numerous avenues and boulevards that arose on the site of former ramparts, private estates and monasteries. They connected different parts of the city, which directly met the needs of the victorious strata (bourgeoisie, merchants, artisans, workers). As a result, Paris completely lost traces of the feudal system, which corresponded to the old time and the spatial way of organizing society. Similar attempts to fit physical space to mental spatial constructs were characteristic of later social radicals. In Soviet Russia, private property was replaced by communal houses, which transformed the environment of cities and buildings into a space consistent with the concept of mutual assistance and support.

In fascist Italy, an attempt was made to transform the social environment, based on the combination of classical ideas about the organization of space with the functionalism of the first decades of the twentieth century. In the capital of the country, Mussolini, trying to inspire the Romans to extend Italian rule over the Mediterranean space (once part of the empire), ordered the demolition of hundreds of buildings in order to open access to the forums of the era ancient rome. Bearing in mind the ancient Roman way of space exploration, Mussolini gave tasks to his urban planners regarding the construction of cities with a fundamentally new organization space and modernization of old cities due to new functional buildings.

On this basis, we can give another definition social chronotope. It appears to us as a conceivable, ideal time-space, which, if accepted by society, can be realized in physical space. In some cases, this space can be accepted by society, but not have its physical embodiment, i.e. show up as social phantom, or, using the terminology of Aquinas, to exist before its visible manifestation - ante rem. This is a mental space in the sense that, firstly, it is generated by the mind and exists in the minds of people, and, secondly, because the structure of this mentality has a spatial organization. By spatial organization, we mean that the mental structure consists of elements, the connections between which predetermine the volume, both in the case of representing the structure in the form of an image, and in the case of the embodiment of this structure in real space.

One more feature of the social chronotope can be noted: it is a conceptual space. This space is conceptual in the sense that its structure is paradigmatic, that is, it is presented in the form of a certain pattern, following which one can change the "real" space (both physical and social). As a result of the impact of the conceptual space, the physical takes on a form in which everything becomes consistent and proportionate to a person. In particular, this finds its manifestation in a special kind of time. In this regard, V.I. Vernadsky suggested that the noosphere, being the product of “refining the scientific thought of social humanity,” is a special space-time continuum in which time manifests itself not as a fourth coordinate, but as a change of generations.

The spatial organization of the mental chronotope is connected, in our opinion, with the property of human thinking to operate with spatial images in its activity. For lines, schemes and abstract concepts used by a person to describe certain phenomena and processes are for him only a language, that is, a means of conveying certain qualities of the three-dimensional world. This language (both natural and artificial) was intended to describe space and all the phenomena arising in it. Because of this, any attempt to oust spatial characteristics from the language is associated with significant conventions. Let's take Plato's reasoning as an example. Most of his ideas implicitly have spatial characteristics (for example, the idea of ​​a ship, which already has the principle of length, width and height). As for others - for example, the ideas of beauty, virtue or freedom - about which the Platonic Socrates so liked to talk - they are also unthinkable outside of space or, more precisely, social space. In short, spatial thinking has been characteristic of all social thinkers, both ancient and modern.

Thanks to this, we not only understand, but also represent the utopian societies of Plato (which he depicted in the story of Atlantis and in the dialogue about the state), T. Mora and their numerous followers. Some of them preferred to populate with their constructs southern islands, others are distant lands, and in the last two hundred years they began to create samples of ideal societies on other planets (let alone islands and planets, even if heaven and hell, according to a number of Christian concepts, have their own topography). Such creations are usually classified as socio-philosophical literature, defining them as utopian (that is, describing a non-existent place). Such a name, which after T. Mora's "Utopia" began to define the whole genre, served as an indication that it was only a conceptual, and not a real space.

But to neglect the significance of such conceptual spaces, which have a paradigm potential for transformation, would also be very reckless. For, if they do not always have a direct influence on the choice of a model with which the majority of society would like to be identified in one way or another, then an indirect influence (sometimes in a very distant perspective) on the search for the desired social space is hardly worth proving to anyone.

But, of course, the search for a new conceptual-spatial identity was characteristic not only of social thinkers; it was and is a ubiquitous phenomenon. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the fact that, firstly, ideas about the need to change the social landscape were often born even at the bottom (as evidenced by numerous riots and uprisings of the poor in different countries). And, secondly, in the works of recognized and influential philosophers, the most significant and sought-after phenomena (such as freedom, individual rights, etc.) were sometimes so succinctly described that it gave the impression of a deliberate absence of exact definition. Let us consider this statement on the example of the concept of "freedom", which was the key for a significant part of the French of the 18th century, who could not imagine the future reorganization of the social space of France without it.

At the same time, the French (we mean, first of all, the so-called third estate) at the end of the 18th century did not fight for some abstract ideas of freedom and equality. To think so is to grossly underestimate their intelligence. They understood perfectly well that these ideas merely expressed in a simplified way what they quite clearly imagined in the form of quite everyday values ​​embodied in time-spatial coordinates. And sometimes they were represented very differently from how they were portrayed by recognized ideologists of that time (such as Voltaire, encyclopedists, Rousseau). Which, by the way, quite corresponded to the ideas of one of them (Helvetius), who noticed that one cannot demand perfection from the unfortunate. In addition, ideologists, focusing on their conceptual spaces, essentially called for different freedoms. Voltaire was quite satisfied with the space of contemporary France, which needed only to be arranged differently (by the way, under the supervision of royal power). But Rousseau argued that true freedom was possible only in the bosom of nature, in a space devoid of almost any signs of culture, because the cultural space, unthinkable without private property, as well as the civil society that gave rise to it, are the greatest evil of mankind.

All this led to the fact that the ideas of the enlighteners were adapted to the pressing problems of the most radical representatives of the third estate, who preached a merciless war against the aristocrats. The concept of freedom (as, indeed, equality and fraternity) was so distorted that it manifested itself in the almost permissiveness of the masses, led by "friends of the people." The immediate consequence of this was social aggression. At first, it was turned inside society (which led to terror unprecedented in France), and then redirected outward (in this case, everyone became the object of terror). European states). As a result, the social space and time of France, and then the societies of Western and Central (victims of French aggression) changed almost beyond recognition. And this, in turn, could not but affect the identification changes.

The French have never parted with their sense of personal freedom. In other Western European countries, under the influence of the ideas about the primacy of the nation introduced by the French, the feudal (i.e., narrow-class) identity of their communities gradually changed and there was a clear tilt towards the formation of nation-states. In other words a change in the social chronotope necessarily entails a change in the identity of the historical subject.

More: Shabaga A.V. Historical Subject in Search of His I. - M.: RUDN University, 2009. - 524 p.

Description of time and space in social and humanitarian knowledge differs significantly from their representation in natural science. The main features are that the development of knowledge in the sciences of the spirit and culture already has, as an implicit basic premise, a certain picture of the world, including natural scientific ideas about space and time. Without addressing them directly and not always aware of their implicit presence, the humanists create their texts on the basis of these premises. At the same time, these texts form or apply ideas about space and time that characterize society, culture, history, the spiritual world of a person, which do not have a physical or biological nature. This is a socio-historical time and space of human existence and the existence of human culture.

Consideration of the problem of time in the humanities can rely on the most important ideas of philosophers who thought about the nature of time and space. Two ideas follow from Kant's concept of time, which are important for clarifying both the forms of the presence of time in cognition, on the one hand, and the ways of knowing time itself, on the other. The first is the idea of ​​a priori ( apriori- before experience) of time as a necessary representation underlying all cognition as its "general condition of possibility". It is represented by axioms, the main of which are the following; time has only one dimension; different times do not exist together, but successively. These principles have the meaning of rules according to which experience is possible at all as a consequence of sensible contemplation; they instruct us before experience, and not through experience, as a priori knowledge they are necessary and strictly universal.

The second important idea that follows from Kant's understanding of time is the vision of it as “a form of inner feeling, i.e. contemplation of ourselves and our internal state”, as “the direct condition of internal phenomena (our soul)”, which determines the relationship of representations in our internal state.

The French thinker A. Bergson developed the concept of time as duration. As a duration, time appears indivisible and integral, it implies the penetration of the past and the present, the creation (creation) of new forms, their development. The introduction of the concept of duration by Bergson testifies to a certain philosophical reorientation associated with the formation of the historical self-awareness of science, with the study of the methodology of historical knowledge, attempts to describe reality itself as historical. This approach is central to phenomenology.

So, the phenomenological method of time analysis is the exclusion of objective time and the consideration of the internal consciousness of time at two levels of grasping duration and sequence - the level of awareness of time and the level of temporality of consciousness itself. Phenomenological ideas significantly change the traditional, often simplified, naive-realistic ideas about time, the overcoming of which serves as a condition for understanding the specifics of time in the sphere of "spirit", society and culture.

Based on the ideas of the leading philosophical teachings about time, let's turn to specific areas of social and humanitarian knowledge to consider the experience of understanding time and ways of representing it in this area.

The problem of time in the humanities is fundamental, to some extent it has been studied for a long time, but rather empirically, descriptively, rather than conceptually. The problem of social time, the specifics of historical time, the nature of time in various social sciences and the humanities - these are the most common areas of research, i.e. the very passage of time creates change. This approach corresponds to the distinction between “astronomical” and “social” time, carried out quite a long time ago by P. Sorokin and R. Merton, which was left without attention for a long time, although in parallel, for example, in the economic literature, a distinction was also made between two types of time - time as a “pattern of thinking” and time as the "engine of experience". In historical research, both types of time are present, although in "different proportions", which also depends on whether it is the time of the observing or acting subject. The knowledge of historical time takes place in the "space of social sciences", in particular political science, economics, sociology and psychology.

A special topic, to which so far undeservedly few works have been devoted, is the introduction of the time factor into literary texts, the elucidation of its role, image and methods of presence, reversibility, changes in the flow rate and many other properties that are not inherent in real physical time, but are significant in art and culture. generally. So, M.M. Bakhtin combines consciousness and "all conceivable spatial and temporal relations" into a single center. Rethinking the categories of space and time in a humanitarian context, he introduced the concept of a chronotope as a specific unity of spatio-temporal characteristics for a specific situation. Bakhtin left a kind of model for the analysis of temporal and spatial relations and the ways of their "introduction" into artistic and literary texts. Taking the term "chronotope" from the natural science texts of A.A. Ukhtomsky, Bakhtin did not limit himself to the naturalistic idea of ​​the chronotope as a physical unity, the integrity of time and space, but filled it with humanistic, cultural, historical and value meanings. He seeks to reveal the role of these forms in the process of artistic knowledge, "artistic vision". Justifying the need for a single term, Bakhtin explains that in the “artistic chronotope” there is “the intersection of rows and the merging of signs” - “time here thickens, condenses, becomes artistically visible; space is intensified, drawn into the movement of time, plot, history. Signs of time are revealed in space, and space is comprehended and measured by time.

In general, reflections on Bakhtin's texts about the forms of time and space in literary and humanitarian texts lead to the idea of ​​the possibility of turning the chronotope into a universal, fundamental category, which can become one of the fundamentally new foundations of epistemology, which has not yet fully mastered and even avoided specific spatio-temporal characteristics of knowledge and cognitive activity.