Impermissible as a social knowledge structure: an empirical sketch on the example of Kharkovites’ perception

93
4
Article(UKR)(.pdf)

The article analyzes the knowledge structures of Kharkov residents on the example of judgments about permissible and unacceptable. Using the conceptualizations of Z. Freud, M. Mauss, E. Durkheim, J. Baudrillard, S. Zizek, the author performs a retrospective analysis of sociological developments in the area of prohibited, unacceptable and correct. Based on the methodology of “synthetic” theories (primarily P. Bourdieu), as well as the developments of phenomenology (P. Berger, T. Luckmann), theories of consciousness (J. R. Searle), the theories of the sacred (Collège de Sociologie and others), the author explores the inner structure, content and parameters of a set of judgments about permissible and unacceptable. The author tests these theoretical achievements on an empirical basis using index, factor, and cluster analyzes. Based on the results of an empirical study conducted in December 2017 by a team of the Sociology Department of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, the author describes the latent structure of knowledge aggregates about the unacceptable. The ratios between the permissible and the unacceptable are demonstrated, and the possible axes of the (un)acceptable for the Kharkovites are highlighted. The internal structure of judgments about the unacceptable in different groups and in relation to various objects of prohibition is investigated. A final conclusion that the multitude of judgments about the (un)acceptable, despite its apparent discontinuity, is a consistent set of judgments internally connected into a single continuum of social knowledge, is formulated. Author describes the limitations of the study associated with the categories of doxa, fabrication and social construction.

  1. Baudrillard, J. (2000). The Temptation. Moscow: Ad Marginem [in Russian]

  2. Zizek, S. (2013). From the prohibition of pleasure to the enjoyment of prohibition. New Literary Review, 1 (119), 16-27 [in Russian]

  3. Luhmann, N. (2001). Power. Moscow: Praxis [in Russian]

  4. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Practical sense. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya [in Russian]

  5. Berger, P., Luckmann, T. (1995). Social construction of reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Medium [in Russian]

  6. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Begins. Choses dites. Moscow: Socio-Logos [in Russian]

  7. Rosengren, M. (2012). On the issue of doxa: the epistemology of new rhetoric. Questions of philosophy, 6, 63-72 [in Russian]

  8. Habermas, J. (1993). Relationship between the system and the vital world in the conditions of late capitalism. THESIS, 1, 2, 123-136 [in Russian]

  9. Bauman, Z. (2005). Individualized society. Moscow: Logos [in Russian]

  10. Lyotard, J.-F. (1998). The state of the postmodern. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology, Saint Petersburg: Aletheia [in Russian]

  11. Bauman, Z. (2008). Liquid modernity. Saint Petersburg: Peter [in Russian]

  12. Stedman, J.D. (2012). Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Oxford: Princeton University Press

  13. Elias, N. (2001). Society of individuals. Moscow: Praxis [in Russian]

  14. Freud, Z. (2009). Totem and taboo. Psychology of primitive culture and religion. Kharkiv: Folio [in Russian]

  15. Kant, I. (1966). On the agreement of politics and morality from the point of view of the transcendental notion of public law. In I. Kant, Works. In six volumes. Volume 6 (pp. 302-310). Moscow [in Russian]

  16. Elias, N. (2001). On the process of civilization. Sociogenetic and psychogenetic studies. Volume 1-2. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: University Book [in Russian]

  17. Baudrillard, J. (2006). Consumer Society. His myths and structures. Moscow: Cultural Revolution, Republic [in Russian]

  18. Baudrillard, J. (2000). The transparency of evil. Moscow: Dobrosvet [in Russian]

  19. Douglas, M. (2000). Clean and Danger. Analysis of the ideas of desecration and taboos. Moscow: Kanon-Press-C, Kuchkovo Pole [in Russian]

  20. Durkheim, E. (1998). Elementary forms of religious life. In Mystic. Religion. The science. Classics of world religion. Anthology. Moscow: Canon [in Russian]

  21. Eliade, M. (1958). Patterns in Comparative Religion. New York, London: Sheed and Ward

  22. Boroday, Yu.M. (1996). Erotic – death – taboo: the tragedy of human consciousness. Moscow: Gnosis, Russian Phenomenological Society [in Russian]

  23. Toropova, A.V. (2005). Political taboo: problem statement. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 12: Political Science, 5, 94-97 [in Russian]

  24. Folieva, T.A., Shinkar, O.A. (2008). The problem of taboos in the British social anthropology F. Steiner. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 9: Studies of young scientists, 7, 105-107 [in Russian]

  25. Belyaeva, E.V. (2010). What did the taboos become? Human, 1, 58-65 [in Russian]

  26. Bourdieu, P. (1996). University doxa and creativity: against scholastic divisions. In Socio-Logos’96. Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociological Research of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (pp. 8-31). Moscow: Socio-Logos [in Russian]

  27. Tsydendambaeva, O.S. (2010). Taboo as a source of euphemism. Bulletin of the Vyatka State Humanitarian University, 4-2, 33-37 [in Russian]

  28. Levi-Strauss, C. (1994). Unspanded thought. In C. Levi-Strauss, Primitive Thinking. Moscow [in Russian]

  29. Fortes, M. (2012). Totem and taboo. Personality. Culture. Society, 2 (71-72), 55-68 [in Russian]

  30. Kochetova, L.A. (2014). Conceptualization and dynamics of taboos in advertising discourse. Language and culture, 2 (26), 5-17 [in Russian]

  31. McIntyre, A. (2000). After Virtue: Studies of the Theory of Morals. Moscow: Academic project, Ekaterinburg: Business Book [in Russian]

  32. Tulnova, M.A. (2010). Taboo in the context of globalization. Political linguistics, 4 (34), 176-181 [in Russian]

  33. Zaitseva, I.A. (2016). Gender and gender as social constructs of cultural transformations: intrigues, temptations and taboos of emancipating culture. In Modernization of culture: from cultural policy to the power of culture (pp. 158-162). Samara [in Russian]

  34. Kokambo, Yu.D. (2013). Euthanasia: right or taboo? In The main paradigms of modern social and humanitarian knowledge (pp. 139-143). Blagoveshchensk: ASU Publishing House [in Russian]

  35. Ionin, L.G. (2004). Sociology of culture. Moscow: Publ. House of Higher School of Economics [in Russian]

  36. Ayalon, L., Tesch-Römer, C. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. Preston: University of Lancashire.

  37. Sinelnikova, L.N. (2016). Trolling discourse is communication without taboos. Actual problems of stylistics, 2, 139-148 [in Russian]

  38. Golikov, A.S. (206). Right as a form of social consciousness: knowledge, practice, trust. Ukrainian sociological journal, 1-2 (15-16), 65-73 [in Russian]

  39. Golikov, A.S. (2015). Landscape of social through the optics of objective knowledge: from intimate to public. Methodology, theory and practice of sociological analysis of modern society: Collection of scientific works, 21, 55-64 [in Russian]

Full text