The article dwells upon a vital matter of the logos’ mental transformation in metamodern logic, which determined its novelty. The article aims to conceptualize the concept of “logos” within the “depth sociology” (sociology of imagination) and study the socio-psychological process of its change in the current socio-crisis conditions. As the methodological basis of the research, the author suggests the psychoanalytic approach and rich scientific heritage of G. Durand, whose 100th anniversary would be celebrated on May 1, 2021, by the world scientific community. In the world, he is known as a sociologist and researcher of forms and functions of imagination, the author of the concept, theory and scientific method of “depth sociology” (sociology of imagination). The study also used general scientific and psychoanalytic methods of cognition and an interdisciplinary approach, which paved the way for the use of culturological and hermeneutic analysis methods. At the same time, other elements of culturological and sociological cases have been adopted, borrowing concepts and perspectives for explaining socio-psychological phenomena that have a complex psychological nature. Based on the theoretical analysis results, a generalized description of the logos is presented within the framework of its conceptualization in the topic of depth sociology, which to some extent reveals the psychological nature and meaning of the concept. The author proposes a modification of the paradigmatic model of logos variability. The socio-psychological process of its transformation is studied based on G. Durand’s construction. Based on the results of the analysis of the logos state in the current social crisis, the paper shows fragments of its varieties and probabilistic mechanisms of variability. Simultaneously, the institutional uncertainty of the modern geopolitical future in the world creates a basis for pressure on the “two-story” (socio-psychological) topic, where the prospect of further research will be the problem of synchronicity (according to C.-G. Jung).
Weber, M. (1990). Selected works. Moscow: Progress.
Akker, R. van den, Gibbons, A., Vermeulen, T. (Eds.). (2017). Metamodernism: Historicity, Affect, and Depth after Postmodernism. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Martin, R. (2016). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Moscow: Yurait [in Russian]
Eve, M.P. (2012). Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace and the problems of “Metamodernism”. C21 Literature: Journal of 21st Century Writings, 1, 7-25.
Sobolnikov, V.V. (2020). Problems of information and psychological analysis confrontations in the logic of metamodern psychology. Profesionalnoe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire – Professional education in the modern world, 10, 4, 4347-4358 [in Russian]
Baudrillard, J. (2020). Consumer Society. Moscow: AST [in Russian]
Timofeev, A.A. (2016). Change of the political elite as a necessary factor of economic development. Kommunicologiya – Communicology, 6. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/smena-politicheskoy-elity-kak-neobhodimyy-faktor-ekonomicheskogo-razvitiya-strany [in Russian]
Freinacht, H. (2017, April 8). The Reign of Hackers, Hipsters & Hippies. URL: http://metamoderna.org/the-reign-of-hackers-hipsters-hippies?lang=en
Guseltseva, M.S. (2018). Metamodernism in psychology: New methodological strategies and changes of subjectivity. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiya – Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Psychology, 8, 4, 327-340 [in Russian]
Jung, C.G., Samiels, E., Odainik, V., Hubbuck, J. (1997). Analytical Psychology: Past and Present. Moscow: Martis [in Russian]
Durand, G. (2016). The Anthropological Structures of the Imaginary. Introduction to general archetypology. Paris [in French]
Durand, G. (1992). Mythical figures and faces of the work: from mythocriticism to mythanalysis Ile verte. Paris: Dunod [in French]
Rishar, J.F. (1998). Mental activity. Understanding, reasoning, finding solutions. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences [in Russian]
Dorst, B., Fogel, R. (Eds.). (2016). Active imagination. Jungian approach. Active imagination. Kharkov: Humanitarian Center, A.V. Kochergin [in Russian]
Lebedko, V.E., Lebedko, O.V. (2010). Rejected goddesses. Femininity and masculinity. Vestnik Baltiiskoi pedagogicheskoi akademii – Bulletin of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, 96, 64-75 [in Russian]
Durand, G. (1998, Mai). Anthropology and structures of the complex. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de Recherches et Études Transdisciplinaires – Interactive Bulletin of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and Studies, 13. URL: http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b13.php [in French]
Hollis, J. (2010). Mythologems: Incarnations of the Invisible World. Moscow: Klass [in Russian]
Jung, C.G. (1996). The structure of the psyche and the process of individuation. The structure of the psyche and the process of individuation. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian]
Jung, C.G. (1997). Synchronicity. Moscow: Refl-book, Kyiv: Vakler [in Russian]
Kirby, A. (2006, November – December). The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond. Philosophy Now. A magazine of ideas, 58. URL: https://philosophynow.org/issues/58
Gachev, G. (2015). National images of the world. Cosmo-Psycho-Logos. Series: Technologies of Culture. Moscow: Akademicheskii Proekt [in Russian]
Gumilev, L.N. (2001). Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the Earth. St. Petersburg: Kristall [in Russian]
Averintsev, S.S. (2006). Sophia-Logos. Dictionary. Kiev: Dukh I Litera [in Russian]
Kreik, A.I. (2013, April). Connectivity / destructiveness is the main emergent effect that determines the possibility of the existence of social formations. Psykhologiya, sotsiologiya i pedagogika – Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy, 4. URL: http://psychology.snauka.ru/2013/04/2111 [in Russian]
Durand, G. (1964). Symbolic imagination. Paris: PUF [in French]