UDC

165.41

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V324

Authors

Sergey V. Komarov¹
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Prof. at the Philosophy Department, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology, Perm State National Research University (address: ul. Bukireva 15, Perm, 614068, Russian Federation).
¹e-mail: philos.perm@gmail.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7358-6151
Sergey V. Porosenkov^2*
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Prof. at the Philosophy Department, Perm State National Research University (address: ul. Bukireva 15, Perm, 614068, Russian Federation).
²e-mail: svp53@mail.ru*, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-8276

Abstract

This article analyses the urgent issue of the growing distrust of humanities knowledge. This problem is important both for those who create, systematize and broadcast humanities knowledge and for social actors whose legitimacy of actions is based on humanities knowledge. Moreover, this issue is of particular significance to those involved in public administration and education. Trust in knowledge is characterized by the recognition of its truth in the epistemological sense and of its positive meaning in the axiological sense. From this point of view, the social distrust of humanities knowledge can be explained by the socio-economic processes that generate alienation, which forms an objective basis for distrust. Narrow specialization due to the deepening division of labour, as well as technicism, consumerism and the priority of information and information technology give rise to the distrust in humanities knowledge as an expression of truth. Specifically, this is manifested in the lack of trust between wielders of power and bearers of humanities knowledge, between representatives of technical and humanities knowledge, and between actors of humanities knowledge itself, as well as in society’s deepening distrust of scholarship in general. On the whole, the integral social meaning of the growing distrust in humanities knowledge lies in the increasing subordination of humans to modern sociotechnical systems, whose elements they are becoming. The axiological component of distrust of humanities knowledge is related to its value meanings. Firstly, humanities knowledge necessarily includes value components, which causes distrust among social actors who are guided by different or opposing ideas. Secondly, humanities knowledge is inherently pluralistic, reflecting the manifoldness of human existence. Since the social and value determinants of distrust in humanities knowledge are intensifying in modern society, the article concludes that this process is objective. The results of the study may have a positive impact on the practical and cognitive activities of social actors involved in interaction causing trust and distrust.

Keywords

humanities knowledge, trust, mistrust, social meaning, value meaning, objective meaning

References

1. Bakeeva E.V. Vera. Ekzistentsial’no-fenomenologicheskiy ocherk [Faith: An Existential-Phenomenological Essay]. Yekaterinburg, 2022. 192 p.
2. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Prikladnaya etika kak proektno-orientirovannoe znanie (teoriya i opyt novogo osvoeniya Oykumeny prikladnoy etiki) [Applied Ethics as a Project-Oriented Knowledge (Theory and Experience of New Mastering of Oecumene of Applied Ethics)]. Eticheskaya mysl’, 2015, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 108–122.
3. Dolin A.A. Gumanitarnoe obrazovanie v Yaponii: nevelikoe v malom [Humanities Education in Japan: The Small in the Minor]. Istoriya i sovremennost’, 2020, no. 3, pp. 63–94. https://doi.org/10.30884/iis/2020.03.04
4. Zborovskiy G.E. Klyuchevye problemy doveriya v vysshem obrazovanii: izuchenie i reprezentatsiya [Key Issues of Trust in Higher Education: Study and Interpretation]. Vestnik Surgutskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2018, no. 5, pp. 17–25. https://doi.org/10.26105/SSPU.2019.56.5.002
5. Privalov Yu., Ozhovan M., Loshchinin M. Kak sotsiologiyu i ekonomicheskoe znanie vernut’ v sem’yu ob”ektivnykh nauk? Kritika sovremennogo sostoyaniya gumanitarnogo znaniya. Ch. I [How to Return the Sociology and Economics to the Family of Objective Sciences? Criticism of the Current State of Humanitarian Knowledge. Pt. I]. Eur. Res. Ser. A, 2020, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 159–208. https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2020.3.159
6. Sokolov A.S., Yuzhakova L.V. Nekotorye problemy gumanitarnogo obrazovaniya inzhenera [Problems of Humanitarian Education of Future Engineers]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2009, no. 4, pp. 90–93.
7. Myasnikova T.A. Filosofskie aspekty tekhnokratii v tsifrovom mire [Philosophical Aspects of Technocracy in the Digital World: Diss.]. Moscow, 2023. 147 p.
8. Mironov A.V. Tsennosti tekhnokratizma [The Values of Technocracy]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Ser.: Filosofiya, 2009, no. 2, pp. 5–12.
9. Sztompka P. Zaufanie. Fundament społeczeństwa. Kraków, 2007. 424 p. (Russ. ed.: Shtompka P. Doverie – osnova obshchestva. Moscow, 2012. 445 p.).
10. Foucault M. Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris, 1966, 405 p. (Russ. ed.: Fuko M. Slova i veshchi. Arkheologiya gumanitarnykh nauk. St. Petersburg, 1994. 405 p.).
11. Suvorov G.V. Yazyk gumanitarnogo poznaniya. O nauchnosti gumanitarnykh issledovaniy [Language of Humanities. About the Science of Humanitarian Researches]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Filosofiya, 2020, no. 3, pp. 156–161.
12. Glushko I.V. Doverie i nedoverie kak mental’nye ustanovki v rossiyskom obshchestve [Trust and Distrust as a Mental Attitude in Russian Society]. Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye znaniya, 2016, no. 7, pp. 15–20.
13. Kaymuldina A. Osobennosti gumanitarizatsii vysshey tekhnicheskoy shkoly v SShA [Humanitarization of Higher Technical Education in the USA]. Nauka i novye tekhnologii, 2010, no. 4, pp. 274–276.
14. Vorobieva O.V. About Problems and Prospects of Humanities and Humanitarian Education in Russia. High. Educ. Russ., 2019, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 22–33 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-11-22-33
15. Tsimbal E.A. Dukhovnyy mir i identichnost’ lichnosti v obshchestve potrebleniya [Spiritual World and Identity of the Individual in a Consuming Society]. Filosofiya prava, 2017, no. 4, pp. 56–62.
16. Komarov S.V. Mashina i vremya: schet, pamyat’ i skorost’ [Machine and Time: Calculation, Memory and Speed]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya, 2017, no. 3, pp. 341–351. https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2017-3-341-351
17. Evangeli A. Formy vremeni i tekhnogennaya chuvstvennost’ [Forms of Time and Technogenic Sensuality]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2019. 272 p.
18. Hübner B. Sinn in SINN-loser Zeit. Metaphysische Verrechnungen – eine Abrechnung. Vienna, 2002. 368 p. (Russ. ed.: Khyubner B. Smysl v bessmyslennoe vremya: metafizicheskie raschety, proschety i svedenie schetov. Minsk, 2006. 384 p.).
19. Komarov S.V., Porosenkov S.V. The Social Significance of Distrust of Humanitarian Knowledge. Bull. Chelyabinsk State Univ., 2023, no. 1, pp. 22–33 (in Russ.).
20. Komarov S.V., Porosenkov S.V. The Problem of Formation of the Subject of Global Activity. Bull. Chelyabinsk State Univ., 2022, no. 10, pp. 13–23 (in Russ.).
21. Ivin A.A. Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki [Modern Philosophy of Science]. Moscow, 2005. 592 p.
22. Edmonds D. Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong. Princeton, 2013. 240 p. (Russ. ed.: Edmonds D. Ubili by Vy tolstyaka? Zadacha o vagonetke: chto takoe khorosho i chto takoe plokho? Moscow, 2019. 264 p.).