Corresponding author: Larisa P. Kiyashchenko ( larisakiyashchenko@gmail.com ) © 2020 Larisa P. Kiyashchenko.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Kiyashchenko LP (2020) Transdisciplinary Strategies of Discursive Practice: Procreation Effect. Population and Economics 4(4): 67-73. https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58665
|
The paper aims at building a chain of semantic relations between the key concepts of the transdisciplinary discourse practices in relation to the procreation effect. To reveal the connections of the problem complex, the author provides a preliminary interpretation of concepts and semantic constructs forming a thematic thesaurus. Its key element is the concept of procreation, the definition of which derives its outline in the ways and rules of discursive practice, facilitating or hindering the impact of procreation on the process of normogenesis in the transdisciplinary perspective.
transdisciplinarity; discursive practice; effect; normogenesis; procreation
Over the past 50 years, reference to interdisciplinary research has emerged in almost all areas of human activity focused on joint solution of problems that go beyond disciplinary restrictions on subject, methodology or language. Interdisciplinarity acts as the tool for harmonization of the languages of related disciplines, or for alignment of the languages of different and not necessarily close disciplines, and as a heuristic hypothesis-analogy, a constructive project, i.e., organized form of interaction of many disciplines for understanding, justifying and possibly managing the phenomena of supercomplex systems, and also as network, or self-organizing, communication (
The practical orientation of the transdisciplinary strategy contains an impetus to the need for ethical justification and self-justification of decision-making and actions in human activity. This ability and possibility is rooted in the nature of human focused on the dual reproduction of oneself – on the one hand, as a bodily, psychophysical being represented in self-description practices in the language of ordinary representations, and on the other, as a creature that can go beyond the given circumstances of being, look at oneself and at the whole semantic texture distantly, which is characteristic of the philosophical approach. These conditions of transdisciplinary orientation can be considered independently of each other up to a certain point, but at the same time one should bear in mind their principled procedural relationship. The focus of the transdisciplinary approach brings together philosophical, theoretical and practical flows aimed at solving the arising problem. For this reason, the concept of transdisciplinarity has not only an applied aspect, but also a fundamentally existential character, significant to all those who professionally or by belief, by faith and by their life principles make choice in favour of a responsible, moral act (Kiyashchenko et al. 2009).
Transdisciplinarity belongs to those modern areas of scientific research, in which, using the expression of Jürgen Habermas (
In the understanding the above-mentioned transdiciplinary generality, the position of the philosophy of transdisciplinarity is also close to the ideas of Habermas (Habermas 2002: 21), who argued that the meaningful comprehension of the arising existential and philosophical problems is somehow connected with the scientific and philosophical mind coming close to the borders with the living world. The structures of the living world begin to perform the functions that fundamental philosophy used to claim, i.e., the function of an entity uniting the world or interconnecting life experience.
This metaposition of the transdisciplinary strategy is similar to the action of philosophical reflection, which, as a form of complex reflexive analysis of existence associated with relevant terminology, is certainly distant from common sense and ordinary consciousness, but nevertheless bonded to this ordinary consciousness with invisible threads, always acting as a form of deep personal consciousness. This is not just a collection of knowledge, but also personal experience of the world, which means that there is always some projection on the world of individual consciousness (
To clarify the meaning of discursive practice used in our context, we will indicate how we see it. It consists, firstly, of the concept of discourse and, secondly, of the concept of discourse analysis. To date, there is a wide variety of their interpretations contained in numerous academic works. Systematization and bringing this diversity to a common foundation is a matter of the future, if it is, anyhow, possible. However, it is obvious that there is a great demand for these concepts. Discourse, discourse analysis and, finally, discursive practice, as a unifying concept, were formed at the end of the last century within the framework of social constructionism. These terms reflect a theoretical understanding of communication processes and their practical embodiment, and have proved to be in demand not only in linguistics, but also in other social sciences focused on solving interdisciplinary problems.
So, if discourse is a verbally articulated form of objectification of the content of human consciousness which is regulated by the type of rationality dominant in a particular sociocultural tradition, and discourse analysis is a set of analytical methods of interpretation of various kinds of texts or statements as products of verbal activity carried out in specific socio-political circumstances and cultural and historical conditions (https://gtmarket.ru/), then discoursive practice, which combines the meanings of the discourse and discourse analysis concepts, unfolds in the space of communicative interaction when solving interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary problems in a conversational mode. Discursive practice is both a method of cognition and a creative act. In other words, it is responsible for carrying out an integrated transdisciplinary experience in which activities are to a certain extent proceduralised in a disciplined manner and at the same time forced to withdraw beyond normative and empirical limits. Existential experience of transdisciplinarity can be described from the point of view of the special mood of communication participants, of the mood for opposition to the interaction of the universal and the special. Here arises a new type of experience, when the universal participating in it is transferred to the private cases of personal special existence, and the latter “glow” with the code of the universal and holistic. At the same time, “the aspects of things most important to us, – Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, – are concealed because of their simplicity and mundaneness. (They are not noticable because they are always before one’s eyes). In other words, what we do not notice [up to a certain moment], having been seen once, turns out to be the most exciting and strong” (
Thus, moving from the background topic setting in the concept of “transdisciplinary strategies” through reference to the fundamental move of conducting these strategies – discursive practice, we stated the combination of linguistic realities (rules and norms) of everyday language of description (discourse) and conceptual nomenclature in subjective (reflexive) execution of existing rules and norms (discourse analysis). It was noted that updating the creative potential of discursive practice is possible through overcoming (resolving) obstacles (antinomies, paradoxes, failures in understanding communication) at the boundaries of interaction of everyday language describing a private case with a reflexive assessment of its vision as a whole in the integrated perspective of the transdisciplinary approach and its norms. It can be said, in a known approximation, that normogenesis is the epicenter that dynamizes transdisciplinary study.
It is observed that increasing complexity is based on dissipation and increasing chaos. This is the paradoxical meaning of Prigozhin’s term dissipative structure: the ordered structure arises not in spite of, but due to dissipation. The tendency of increasingly complex structures to emerge in the course of evolution and self-organization is associated with increasing creativeness, the birth of innovation, which some scholars call the order for freedom (
Now, we have approached the key concept of our research – procreation. It is known that the scope of application of this concept is related to procreation, reproduction of offspring, a specific direction of human activity in the field of medical care, not devoid of sociohumanitarian attributes. However, the use of this concept in a broader context, as a process and result of sociocultural normogenesis, makes it more fundamental, applicable to other areas of human activity and testifies to the metaphorical nature of the concept of procreation. With this approach, occur a shift and enrichment of the meaning of the concept, and this does not abolish its use in the medical field, where it originates from. Procreation, as a living metaphor (
Any scientific study, understood as a communicative process, is a complex variety of cognitive acts includes questioning and anticipation of the answer, consent and objection to other communication participants. The cutting edge of science is the field of interaction of many fundamentally equal consciousnesses, in which there is a divergent, differentiated agreement. Science, understood as interference of acts of communication, is subject to certain norms and patterns of interaction of scientists. These norms and samples, which ensure the stability of scientific knowledge, are deposed in the system of disciplinary knowledge and in certain ideals and criteria of scientific knowledge identified by the methodology of science (
Acknowledgements . The research was carried out with the financial support of RFBR within the framework of scientific project No. 20-011-00609
Larisa Pavlovna Kiyashchenko – Doctor of Sci. (Philosophy), Leading Researcher at Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: larisakiyashchenko@gmail.com