Article authors

  • Shulha M. O.
    Dr. Habil. in Sociology
    Professor, Corresponding Member NAS of Ukraine
    chief scientist, department of social psychology
    Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
    12, Shovkovychna Str., Kyiv, 01021, Ukraine
    i-soc@i-soc.org.ua
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sociology

Overbuilt level of symbolic universe: theoretic sketch

Ukr. socìum, 2016, 1(56): 82-89
Language:
Ukrainian
https://doi.org/10.15407/socium2016.01.082
467
4
Article(UKR)(.pdf)

The article dwells upon three domains of rationale creation: art, philosophy and science as the part of the overall concept of symbolic universe. The last is defined as semantic meta-systems that form the matrix of their own vision and offer interpretation of the objective, intersubjective and subjective events or phenomena. The most important characteristics of symbolic universe are defined as isolation and integrity, so it sets the boundaries of communication and interpretation in everyday life.

The essential ability of symbolic universe is its integrity: it organizes social system for social actor after his birth to death. The existence of a symbolic universe is driven by objective and subjective reasons, therefore, the existence and struggle of universes are inherent in any society. According to the present concept, the hierarchy of symbolic universe domains includes language, values, economics, history, politics, religion, art, philosophy, science – the last three refer to the latter, the superstructure level. This is the essential feature of all three isolated areas: in these semantic fields the diffusion processes of symbolic universes occur the fastest. These realms begin the process of universe’s symbolic struggle and eventually invade other levels and domains and make them a clash field of alternative or opposite meanings.

That is why the active phase of the struggle of two or more symbolic universes for cultural hegemony are immediately indicated in these domains and they are illustrated in them. Then, in the process of fight between symbolic universes more fundamental domains are attracted – politics, religion, economics, value and so on. Such involvement is inevitable, because the allocated domains are in dialectical unity and, therefore, the changes in the top level are necessary and lead to changes at the bottom.

  1. Shulha, O. (2014). Structure and struggle of symbolic universes. Sotsiolohiia: teoriia, metody, marketyng – Sociology: it’s theory, methods, marketing, 3, 116-130 [in Ukrainian].

  2. Shul’ga, A. (2015). The hierarchy of the domains of the symbolic universe. Sotsial’ni vymiry suspil’stva – Social dimensions, 7 (18), 230-241 [in Russian].

  3. Shulha, O. (2016). Language domain as the integral domain of symbolic universe. Sotsiolohiia: teoriia, metody, marketyng – Sociology: it’s theory, methods, marketing, 1, 83-96 [in Ukrainian].

  4. Srubar, I. (2007). Das Politische und das Populäre. Die Herstellung alltagsimmanenter Transzendenz durch die Massenkultur. In H.G. Leghissa, M. Staudigl (Eds.), Lebenswelt und Politik. Perspektiven der Phänomenologie nach Husserl (pp. 229-243). Würzburg: Verlag Königshausen & Neumann [in German].

  5. Schutz, A. (2004). Mozart and the philosophers. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya [in Russian].

  6. Pedone, N. (1995). Intersubjectivity, time and social relationship in Alfred Schutz’s philosophy of music. Axiomathes, 6, 2, 197-210.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02284701

  7. Kristeva, Yu. (2004). Selected works; French transl. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN) [in Russian].

  8. Shulha, O. (2015). Symbolic enclaves and changes of symbolic universes. Sotsiolohiia: teoriia, metody, marketyng – Sociology: it’s theory, methods, marketing, 3, 95-107 [in Ukrainian].

Full text