The article assesses the state of sociological theorizing in Ukrainian sociology from the last years of the Soviet period to the present. It was stated that, despite the lack of ideological pressure, after institutionalization of Ukrainian sociology as an independent academic discipline, its development was mainly due to the construction of the middle range theories and, to a greater extent, through the implementation of applied sociological research. At the same time, the structure of sociological knowledge in Ukrainian sociology was incomplete and it was not completed by the establishment of its higher level – the general sociological theory. Author considers the reasons of methodological chaos and phobia for theorizing, which in many respects are due to the so-called Soviet heritage (Soviet legacy). It is emphasized that the construction of a general sociological theory in both its branches (“grand theory” and meta-theory) in modern conditions is possible either through the efforts of the sociologists themselves or through the application of interdisciplinarity, and it is argued that the second option at the beginning of the 21st century is the mainstream of world sociological thought. Nowadays, methodological turns and interdisciplinarity are examples of scientific reflexivity that provide a significant increase in sociological knowledge in its entirety and at all levels of theorizing through interfaces of sociology and other branches of scientific knowledge, including the natural sciences. The cases of the exchange of meanings between sociology and philosophy (mostly post-classical) that can be considered new to Ukrainian sociology are analyzed; attention is focused on new possibilities of studying modern social systems in coordination with new discoveries of natural sciences. It is substantiated that such kind of interfaces form horizontal locus of mutual interaction of sciences without the dictation of any of them and on the terms of contingent consent and a polylogue between them. An authorial position is formulated in relation to the meanings that sociology today is able to emit for its own sake, based on the reflections on globalization and fragmentation of mankind.
Chernysh, N.Yo. (2018). Condition of contemporary general sociological theorising: global experience and local specifications. Ukr. socìum – Ukrainian society, 1 (64), 19-35 [in Ukrainian]
Romanovskiy, N.V. (2009). Contemporary sociology – determinants of changes. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia – Sociological Studies, 12, 26-35. URL: http://www.isras.ru/files/File/Socis/2009-12/Romanovsky.pdf [in Russian]
Urry, J. (2003). Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rovenchak, O., Chernysh, N. (2006). Basic concepts and provisions of the socio-cultural approach and the specifics of their application in sociology. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 1, 37-54 [in Ukrainian]
Romanovskiy, N.V. (2016). Interdisciplinarity: interaction of natural sciences with social and humanitarian knowledge – 17th A. Khartchev Readings. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia – Sociological Studies, 2, 155-157 [in Russian]
Kiyashchenko, L.P. (2016). Interdisciplinarity – the area of interaction of philosophy and sociology. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia – Sociological Studies, 2, 3-11 [in Russian]
Lubskiy, A.V. (2015). Interdisciplinary research: cognitive ‘fashion’ or social ‘challenge’. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia – Sociological Studies, 10, 3-12 [in Russian]
Interdisciplinarity problems of teaching and research in universities. (1972, January). URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234737333_Interdisciplinarity_Problems_of_Teaching_and_Research_in_Universities
Lenk, H. (2009). About the significance of philosophical ideas of V.S. Stiopin. Voprosy filosofii, 9, 9-11 [in Russian]
Reznik, Yu. (2007). Social theory and theoretical sociology on the path of integration. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia – Sociological Studies, 9, 1-17 [in Russian]
Momdzhyan, K.Kh., Podvoiskii, D.G., Krzhevov, V.S., Antonovskii, A.Yu., Barash, R.E. (2016). System-theoretical approach to the explanation of social reality. Philosophical or sociological methodology? Voprosy filosofii, 1, 17-42 [in Russian]
Edwards, M.G. (2013). Misunderstanding Metatheorizing. System Research and Behavioral Science. Wiley Online Library.
Capra, F. (2004). Uncommon Wisdom. Moscow: Sofiya [in Russian]
Capra, F. (2017). The Tao of physics. An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Moscow: Mani, Ivanov i Ferber [in Russian]
Nazaretyan, A. (2004). Civilizational crises in the context of Universal History (Synergetics – Psychology – Forecasting). Moscow: Mir. URL: http://spkurdyumov.ru/philosophy/civilizacionnye-krizisy-v-kontekste-universalnoj-istorii/ [in Russian]
Haken, H. (1980). Synergetics. Moscow: Mir [in Russian]
Haken, H. (2003). The mysteries of nature. Synergetics: the science of interaction. Moscow: Institut komp’yuternykh issledovanii [in Russian]
Borisov, A. (2017). Explain everything: as a conformal bootstrap solves all the problems of physics. URL: https://lenta.ru/articles/2017/03/06/bootstrap/ [in Russian]
Kazanskii, A.B. Models of Organizationally Closed Systems and Circuits of Development of New Approaches in the Field of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science. URL: http://spkurdyumov.ru/networks/modeli-organizacionno-zamknutyx-sistem/ [in Russian]
Lotov, A. (2008). The bootstrap philosophy. URL: http://alexlotov2.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_24.html [in Russian]