Cultural and historical interpretation of VM Rozin...

2.17. Cultural-historical interpretation of VM Rozin

Vadim Markovich Rozin (born 1937), following VG Gorokhov, also established himself as one of the leaders of the national philosophy of technology. Rosin went through an interesting path of methodological development, which deserves special attention. Initially, he followed the Moscow philosopher GP Shchedrovitsky, the author of the system-driven methodological methodology (SMD methodology), who believed that she was translating knowledge into practice2 into engineering. It is in the latter that a concentration of methodological activity takes place.

Theoretical development

GM Shchedrovitsky's SMD methodology puts at the center of his interests not natural and humanitarian, but technical and technical sciences.

In this connection, the need to justify the status of technical sciences is no longer necessary. In justification, moreover, in vain, they do not need, but natural science with its knowledge approach and humanitarianism, with its separation from actual vital problems. Both a knowledgeable and culturological approach are only pale gleams of an artificial-technical approach, according to which technology is the path from interests and thoughts to goals. SMD-methodology is situational, it is aimed at finding ways to achieve specific goals. The views of Shchedrovitsky are inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx. Thus, we are again talking about a certain version of post-Marxism.

In the early 1970's. between Shchedrovitsky and Rozin disagreements are growing. They both criticize the knowledge approach, but differently assess the role of culture. For Rosin, thinking activity has a cultural and historical character, so as a basis of methodology he considers not only activities, but also culture, society, personality. According to Rosin, the SMD methodology is devoid of values. In turn, Schedrovitsky accuses Rosina of forgetting really topical practical issues.

As a representative of the cultural and historical school, Rozin emphasizes the relevance for him of the views of the outstanding domestic psychologist L. S. Vygotsky, after which he attaches paramount importance not to the substantive, but iconic human activities. Rozin resolutely objects to reducing the spiritual world of man to objectivity. In interpreting the nature of technology, he implements a cultural-historical, humanitarian approach. Describing the crisis features of the modern era, Rosin comes to the conclusion that "it's not a matter of technique, but of the type of sociality that has developed in the last centuries." Thus, the sociality, is primary, and the technique is secondary, always and everywhere. But what is technology? Rosin does not give a direct answer to this question, but offers some project for its development.

"Of course, the very understanding of technology should change. First of all, it is necessary to overcome the naturalistic, instrumentalist view of technology. It should be replaced by an understanding of technology, on the one hand, as manifestations of complex intellectual and sociocultural processes (cognition and research, engineering and design activities, technology development, economic and political decision-making, etc.), on the other, as a special medium inhabiting a person, imposing environmental archetypes, rhythms of functioning, aesthetic images, etc. "

The main drawback of Rosin's views can be considered ignoring the technical sciences. The antidote to naturalism and instrumentalism he discovers exclusively outside the technical sciences, especially in psychology and even in the field of esotericism. Like other authors writing about technology, but only occasionally recalling technical sciences, Rosin clearly suffers from an anti-scientific syndrome. As a result, he remains within the framework of metaphysics.

As one could understand from my reflections in previous works (see, for example, the book "The Philosophy of Technology"), in the concept and essence of technology, "writes VM Rozin," I include "understanding" and conceptualization of technology. But this means that technology as an object of studying the philosophy of technology is a very special entity: although empirically it is given to us as constructions and outwardly resembles objects of natural and technical sciences, in the philosophical study of technology it is rather an object of humanitarian cognition .

This conclusion is clearly controversial. First, technology is an object of technical sciences, and not the philosophy of technology. The object of technical philosophy is technical sciences. Secondly, technology is not an object of humanitarian knowledge, which is traditionally associated with the field of social sciences, including art history. Of course, it does not follow from this that technology in any way detracts from the dignity of man: like any other science the technique is humane.

As we see, in the work of both V. G. Gorokhov and V. M. Rozin, an extraordinary development of the way of evolution of Soviet philosophy with its emphasis on Marxism was received. First, SL Rubinstein and AN Leontiev came up with a psychological theory of activity. Then came the turn of the philosophical theory of activity - EG Yudin, IS Alekseev, and others. Another version of post-Marxism was the system-based thinking methodology of GP Shchedrovitsky. In psychology from the theory of activity, LS Vygotsky and AR Luria deviated toward sign-symbolic concepts. So there was a cultural and historical school. The philosophical character was given to her by VM Rozin. Surprisingly, all these authors, whose works are noted by numerous remarkable innovations, managed to do without metascience. Their unspoken motto: first - philosophy, then - science. But in this case science does not become an object of investigation, it simply prescribes the canons allegedly contained in the work of Marx.

As shown above, VG Gorokhov in the interpretation of the nature of technology emphasized the philosophical theory of activity. VM Rozin preferred cultural and historical teaching. Both "left Marx", but for the sake of justice it should be noted that Rosin deviated far from orthodox Marxism much further than his main authorities - Vygotsky and GP Shchedrovitsky.

Conclusions

1. VM Rozin considers technology from the standpoint of social and humanitarian knowledge and philosophy.

2. At the same time, VM Rozin does not pay proper attention to the technical sciences themselves.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)