RGSU scientific notes. Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University: journal
With. 1
SCIENTISTS
NOTES
RUSSIAN STATE
SOCIAL UNIVERSITY
Shlykov V. M., candidate of philosophical sciences, professor.
Bakhtin M.V., candidate of philosophical sciences, associate professor.
Prokhorov V.L., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor
POSTMODERNIST MODEL OF SOCIAL HISTORY: SEARCH FOR A “NEW” SOCIALITY
Annotation:The article analyzes the problems and features of the model social history.
Keywords:postmodernism, postmodern model, history, social history, hermeneutics, paradigm, configurations, design, philosophical innovations.
Knowledge of past times and knowledge of the countries of the world is the decoration and food of mankindbrains
Leonardo da Vinci
The purpose of history is to know the movement of mankind
L. Tolstoy
Not a rustle in the midnight distance.
Not the songs that my mother sang,
We never understood
Something worth understanding.
N. Gumilev
The term "postmodernism" does not have a generally accepted social meaning; it is very vague, indefinite, changeable and often polemically loaded. Therefore, a number of researchers either do not use this concept or specify its non-conceptual status.
Postmodernism is a complex, heterogeneous sociocultural phenomenon, which established itself in Western society and became especially popular in the 80s. XX century.
Postmodernism fits well into the anti-scientist traditions of philosophy, whose representatives opposed their views to science, scientific thinking, and rationalism in general. According to M. Foucault, postmodernism precisely declared “the right to rebel against reason.”
Postmodernism, according to some authors, arose as a result of the global social crisis of modern Western society, which encompassed politics, economics, culture, and the spiritual sphere. For example, I. A. Gobozov believes that “... the origins of the philosophy of postmodernism should be sought in the crisis of society and in irrationalist philosophical movements, especially in the philosophy of Nietzsche.” He characterizes the postmodern era as “... an era without ideals, without moral principles and norms, without a future, without social progress and without social responsibility, an era without heroism, an era of indifference to the pain of others.” Postmodernism is individualism and neoliberalism, freedom from everything and everyone: including traditional morality, sexual prohibitions and the like. This is the era of hypertrophy of means and atrophy of goals (P. Ricoeur). Other researchers give a softer description of the new era.
Contemporary American philosopher of social history A. Megill writes: "The Postmodern Condition" is a manifesto in a classroom populated by campus conservatives and liberals, members of bisexual, gay and lesbian unions, several varieties of Christian activism, Asians, Europeans and African-Americans and a lot of them mixtures; people whose native languages are Spanish, Chinese, German and English, not forgetting people whose tastes range from punk to classical." Here we are dealing with boundaries that cannot be removed.
The emergence of postmodernism in this case is associated with the entry of Western society into the era of post-industrialism, information civilization and culture, which serve as the social ontology of postmodernity.
One of the leaders of postmodernism J.-F. Lyotard defines it as distrust of old knowledge, functioning in the form of large (meta) stories.
It's about not so much about “distrust” as about criticism of classical rationalism, fundamentalism, objectivism, truth, systematicity, theoreticality. A transition to a linguistic paradigm of philosophy based on relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and anti-theoreticism is proclaimed. After all, any knowledge, according to Lyotard, is just a language game. A scientist, according to Lyotard, is first of all one who “tells stories”, which he must then verify.
However, the latter is not at all necessary. After all, most postmodernists consider the question of the correspondence of scientific knowledge to socio-historical facts to be obsolete. Scientific knowledge, in their opinion, receives its legitimacy in language games.
The postmodern tradition has raised doubts about the possibility of a general explanation of the course of social history, caused distrust in global historical concepts, “... a wary or even contemptuous attitude towards theory in general and the theory of history in particular.”
Postmodern philosophy of science insists on the priority of social instability, locality, chance, diversity of possibilities, instead of stability, totality, necessity, reliability of events, and so on.
Construction (systematicity, structure, integrity, theoreticality, etc.) is understood as an established and therefore outdated way of philosophizing. Postmodernism is the deconstruction of the traditional, the dispersion of the established. The emphasis is on difference rather than identity, on uncertainty, disorder, multiplicity rather than unity, discontinuity rather than social progress.
For example, uncertainty is the basis of the thinking of one of the “prophets” (Megillus) of postmodernism, J. Derrida. It is from the point of view of social uncertainty that Derrida reads the world. In this regard, V. A. Kanke notes: “Derrida is especially guilty of pseudo-scientific phantasms... Deconstruction, as we know, does not spare anything, including the correlation between theory and facts, from which, after deconstructive fragmentation, nothing remains except fiction, barely discernible traces of words and things. Scientific meaning is translated into meaninglessness." If, for example, Hegel tried to synthesize and unite social opposites, then Derrida destroys and fragments them. Logic in this case is the absence of logic. Likewise, postmodern theory is the absence of theory.
Summing up the results of the philosophical project of postmodernism, we can agree with Kanke, who states the following: “In the shortest generalization, the dominants of philosophical postmodernism are agonism (confrontation - Sh.V.) of language games, disconsensus (and not consensus), discreteness (and not continuity and progress ), plurality (and not unity), instability (and not stability), locality (and not spatial universality), fragmentation (and not integrity), randomness (and not systematicity), play (and not purpose), anarchy (and not hierarchy ), dispersion (and not centering), apophatic (negativity - Sh. V.) (and not positivity), movement on the surface of words and things (and not deep into them), trace (and not signified and signified), simulacrum (and not an image) ..., a labyrinth (and not linearity), uncertainty (and not certainty ... ").
How to evaluate the philosophical innovations of postmodernism? In our and foreign literature there are directly opposite opinions. Some philosophers speak sharply negatively about postmodernism, while others, on the contrary, welcome it and even admire it.
“I don’t presume to judge other areas of culture,” writes the philosopher Gobozov, already mentioned by us, “but regarding postmodern philosophy I can say that this is a step back in philosophical reflection. The writings of postmodernists are sometimes meaningless and empty." He calls some statements of postmodernists, for example, Deleuze, Guattari and others “gibberish”, “nonsense”, casuistry, balancing act.
As is known, most representatives of postmodernism were philologists by training. This circumstance played an important role in the fact that the linguistic component in postmodernity is the most significant. Words, signs, symbols, simulacra (virtual information constructions that have no referents), texts replace objects, things, social reality, including historical reality.
Similar ideas have been seen in the past. An understanding of the world as a text can be found in medieval authors.
In the Middle Ages, the text was considered a word spoken by God, therefore it had primacy in relation to socio-historical reality and to the reader. Text and language precede reality because the Word of God created reality. Reality is a representation of the text, rather than the text being a representation of reality. Consequently, the practice of interpreting texts, their individual reading, is unknown to the medieval consciousness. Everything has changed since the Cartesianism of the 17th century: the knowing subject moved away from the previous direct contact with reality into itself, turning into a transcendental subject. Now the social subject could no longer merge with the text, which was required, for example, for the medieval reader. An epistemological barrier was erected between subject and object. “Cartesianism caused the alienation of everyday reality from the knowing subject (an alienation that was in fact a condition of possibility modern science), and in the same way texts now acquired, together with their “meaning,” an aura of “noumenal” mystery that they had never possessed before... Hermeneutics was faced with the task of explaining how, in one way or another, we could regain our understanding of meaning text..." .
It is not surprising that hermeneutics was one of the philosophical sources of postmodernism, and M. Heidegger is considered one of its “prophets” (Megillus).
Philosophical hermeneutics, as is known, proceeded from the fact that language is the house of being, that it is also the boundary of consciousness. Hermeneuts of the 20th century loved to repeat Heidegger’s words that it is not we who speak with language, but language that speaks with us. It is not surprising that the idea of influence, “transfer” of the structure of the language in which we describe reality, appears on social reality itself. In short, the external world was replaced by language, linguistic reality, truth by meaning. Words not only reflect social reality, but create it.
F. R. Ankersmit critically remarks in this regard that “...for Gadamer there is nothing besides... histories of interpretation, besides the language of interpretation in which, like a capsule, these stories are contained. We can comprehend the past only insofar as it is reduced to the “language” of these stories of interpretation, while the past itself (to which these stories owe their existence) no longer plays any role in Gadamer’s narrative. All history, all its drama, its tragedies, triumphs and greatness, is thus forced into the narrow framework of how it has been interpreted through the centuries in the language of historians. We are now left with only language, only the language of historians - this is the world in which we act, and there is nothing outside it. The obvious consequence is that... we can understand the past only insofar as it obligingly takes the form of language.”
Western philosophy of the 20th century was primarily a philosophy of language. Language became the intellectual field on which all movements known in the history of philosophy were initiated and reproduced. The idea of postmodernism is simple - language determines social types and ways of thinking, the characteristics of the culture of a particular era. And the individual's thoughts are controlled by "laws and patterns of language of which he is not aware." "R. Barthes argued that repression is inherent in the most fundamental of all representational systems, our primary means of constructing the world and interacting with others, namely, language. The predicative structures and operations of language impose attributes and identities that we have not chosen ourselves... language is a fascist, imprisoning us within the boundaries of its own terms: the syntax of a sentence is like a sentence in a legal sense, imprisonment, as Nietzsche said, in the prison of language."
Postmodernists' understanding of language is based on traditions coming from F. de Saussure, who is considered the founder of structural linguistics. Linguistics, according to Saussure, is a science that studies “the life of signs within the life of society,” and language is interpreted as a system of signs expressing concepts.
“The life of signs,” according to this approach, exists on its own, within itself. Language, being an abstract sign system, is something that is outside of specific individuals and functions as a kind of invariant on an unconscious level. This invariant manifests itself in a number of variants of language constructions, which, in fact, is the structure of language, which is considered by Saussure synchronically, “horizontally”, abstracting from the history of the development of language. The latter allows you to highlight the elements of the structure and a certain network of relationships between them. Linguistic elements and their meanings, according to Saussure, depend on the entire system of language, the place of a given element in relation to others. The primacy of relationships between elements, rather than the elements of language themselves, is affirmed. For example, the meaning of words is constituted by their relationship to other words, and is not determined by the objects they denote, since the connection between a word and a social object is arbitrary and it is impossible to specify two languages in which words and objects would be combined in the same way.
Consequently, language is considered by Saussure not as a substance, but as a form, which later served as the basis for the absolutization of the concept of structure, its actual replacement of the concept of object, subject.
Saussure, of course, did not deny that the elements of language can and do designate objects, things, but he considered this connection to be conditional and insignificant, since “if language were used only to name objects, its various members would not be interconnected, they would exist separately, like the objects themselves."
The linguistic sign almost does not “touch” objects, does not “catch” surrounding a person the world, since it (the linguistic sign), according to Saussure, is connected primarily not with objects, but with their concepts. The world is such as the structure of the language that describes the world is. The problem of social truth is the problem of the meaning of words, concepts, method, form of description. Concepts construct social reality to the same extent as they express it.
From here it is not far to the conclusion that language does not represent reality, that it is not a “window” to the outside world. On the contrary, language is something like a “linguistic prison”, the lattice structures of which limit and determine our access to it.
The postmodern episteme essentially reaches a similar conclusion when it asserts that linguistic expressions cannot be correlated with the external world, but only with other linguistic expressions, since social reality is beyond the boundaries of language. Moreover, language in postmodernism is interpreted as the main meaning-forming factor that determines the thinking and behavior of people. If Saussure recognized the presence of a signifier and a signified in a text, Derrida completely denied the existence of an extra-textual reality.
Now let's see how postmodernist ideas were reflected in the philosophy of history and in historical science.
In historiography, postmodernism clearly manifested itself in the 90s. XX century
In postmodern philosophy of history, we are talking mainly about the specifics of the historical text as a special linguistic phenomenon. Literary criteria began to be applied to historical texts. “When writing history, language offers the historian ready-made constructions into which he “fits in” historical events. Thus, the activity of a historian is akin to literary activity. The order that the historian ascribes to events and their interpretation are something akin to a literary plot."
In 1973, H. White’s work “Metahistory” appeared with the characteristic subtitle: “Historical Imagination in 19th-Century Europe.” Although the author himself attributes it to the structuralist stage of development of Western humanitarian thought, its turn towards postmodernism is obvious.
White examined how the social concepts of some 19th-century historians were constructed logically and linguistically. He developed the so-called tropological theory of history, which is sometimes also called “aesthetic historicism” or the literaturization of history.
White comes to the conclusion that history is a specific type of literature, “an operation to create fiction.” Fiction is an inherent property of historical texts, White believes, and he characterizes the work of the historian as “a verbal artifact, a narrative prose discourse, the content of which is as much invented or invented as it is discovered or discovered.”
A historical work, according to White, is a combination of a specific set of research and narrative operations. The first type of operations answers the question: why the event happened this way and not otherwise. The second operation is a social description, a story about events, an intellectual act of organizing factual material. And here, according to White, a set of ideas and preferences of the researcher, mainly of the literary and historical genre, comes into play. Explanation is the main mechanism that becomes the connecting thread of the narrative. Explanations are realized through the use of plot (romantic, satirical, comic and tragic) and a system of tropes - the main stylistic forms of text organization, such as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony. The latter had a decisive influence on the results of the work of historians. The historiographical style is subject to the tropological model, the choice of which is determined by the individual linguistic practice of the historian. Once the choice has been made, the imagination is ready to construct a narrative.
Historical understanding can only be tropological, says White. The historian chooses certain paths, and then theoretical concepts come. Narrative, according to White, is a tool for indicating the social meaning of the world in which we live, it gives integrity and continuity to the historical narrative. In a narrative, it is not the events themselves that are important, but what people say about them, the essence of the events. In short, narrative is the ability to “produce” meaning and comprehend events.
How to evaluate the influence of White's philosophy of history and postmodernism in general on historical science? It must be said that opinions are divided here too.
For example, V.N. Kravtsov believes that White created a new theory of historiographic analysis, a new historiographic language.
As for historical science, according to the same author, “...the intellectual “aggression” of postmodernism was directed, first of all, against those foundations of “scientificness” that aroused criticism in professional historiography itself: attitude to sources, contradictions between explanation and understanding of a historical text, imperfection of professional language, and so on. Postmodernism gave this dissatisfaction with the old foundations of science a new quality and strengthened the critical impact on professional historical science."
However, one of the greatest modern philosophers of history, F. R. Ankersmit, believes that the value of theories like White's is insignificant, "since they were no more than a codification of the unique experience of reading." It is in the new readings of historians of the past that we must see the originality and strength of “Metahistory”; White's introduction and conclusion to this book merely codify these results. And the theories presented there would be completely unconvincing if not for these new readings. Good interpretations are not a by-product of good hermeneutics, but good hermeneutics is simply a by-product of good interpretations.” Ankersmit calls for a “goodbye” to hermeneutics, deconstructivism, semiotics, tropology, and so on, and to build on the concept of historical experience. .
“Only those theories that prescribe to the historian how he should interpret the texts of the past should be discarded,” he writes. The theorist of history should not interfere with the activity of the historian, but must accept it as it is and limit himself to thinking about it.” Instead, theorists constructed "abstract and pretentious mirages" to tell historians how they should read their texts.
There is no opportunity here to consider Ankersmit’s social interpretation of the so-called “sublime” historical experience,” but the very call of one of the leaders close to the currents of philosophical and historical thought under consideration to hand over deconstructionism, hermeneutics, semiotics, and the like to the “antique shop” is symptomatic. Moreover, Ankersmit even calls hermeneutics “aimless somnambulism” and deconstructivism “impudent absurdities.” The advice of the famous modern postmodernist R. Rorty to replace Descartes and Kant with Gadamer and Derrida was advice to replace the Devil with Beelzebub.”
It should be noted that H. White, H. Kellner, G. Iggers, J. Topolski and other famous thinkers believe that shifting emphasis to the problem of historical experience is a fundamental point of view for the future of history, its social aspects and philosophy of history.
L.P. Repin, in turn, criticizes postmodernism for questioning:
“...1) the very concept of historical reality, and with it the historian’s own identity, his professional sovereignty (having erased the seemingly inviolable line between history and literature);
criteria for the reliability of the source (blurring the line between fact and fiction) and, finally,
faith in the possibilities of historical knowledge and the desire for objective truth...”
So, as noted, postmodernism prefers difference to identity, thereby affirming the pluralism of socio-historical descriptions. “It is not continuity and evolution, not comparability and transformation, but discontinuity and the unique otherness of each of the phenomena under study that increasingly fills the intellectual field of the historian.”
Under the influence of such attitudes, some historians began to think of the past as something discontinuous and fragmentary; its comprehension is identified, first of all, with the analysis of social differences and demarcations. For example, American medievalist historians in this case do not consider the Middle Ages as a natural predecessor of the future European world, and do not look for what led to this result. On the contrary, as has been said, they seek differences and reject ideas of continuity and progress in the development of society. The same trends exist in France (J. Le Goff, J.-C. Schmit and others).
“It is not difficult to notice,” writes Yu. L. Bessmertny, “that historical analysis is understood here differently than in French history 25-30 years ago. Such analysis now means not so much the study of successive changes experienced by the phenomena of the past, but rather an understanding of the uniqueness of each of them separately, as well as filling our present-day memory of these phenomena. We are talking about content, based, of course, on the most thorough study of historical monuments and presupposing an intense dialogue with them. But the ultimate goal of this dialogue with historical monuments- not so much a reconstruction of the real upheavals of the past (that is, a reproduction of “how it really was”), but rather our own understanding of these upheavals and their individual constituent elements, that is, our sense-making.”
The historian, postmodernists say, deals not with social reality, but with texts, which are not something like transparent glasses through which this reality is clearly visible. The only conceivable reality is the text itself, its writing, reading, interpretation.
A historian-researcher, through his activities (concept, language, etc.) shapes historical reality. The classical positivist-naturalistic model of cognition proceeded from the primacy of the social object and the maximum elimination of the subject.
Such ideas can have a serious impact on the research activities of people dealing with texts, documents, and the like. For example, historians often set the task of identifying the author's meaning of a written source. How can this be done if we believe that meaning is determined more by the formal structure of language than by the intention of the author? It turns out that the author of the text cannot convey “his own” personal meaning. What happens is what Barthes called the “death of the author.” But the “death of the author” also presupposes the “death of the reader,” since he, too, is not free in semantic activity, being captive of the “linguistic prison.”
Meanwhile, the actual practice of the same historian testifies that:
firstly, historical science is still interested in the “author’s thoughts”, without the understanding and reconstruction of which it would cease to be history;
secondly, historical texts, contrary to the extreme statements of postmodernists, still represent social reality, reflect events and phenomena that lie outside the text (for example, in digital indicators of trade, population census, etc., the connection between the text and reality is obvious, even if not always accurate);
thirdly, historical texts are placed by historians in historical time, in its context, and not in the context of other texts, as deconstructionists do.
It is clear that such conclusions cannot be accepted entirely. In our opinion, they can rightfully be called “linguistic Berkeleyanism” of the 20th century. Most historians view them either sharply negatively or, at least, warily. In the figurative expression of L. Stone, the texts appeared as a hall of mirrors, reflecting only each other, and there was no place for “truth” here. Words are “human toys” and they cannot play with each other.
Being locked into textual reality and the inability to get out of it leads to the fact that postmodernism “almost completely ignores the broad undercurrents of historical causality, since they are not clearly visible in the texts.” In this case, the causal connection between events is replaced by “discursive” connections between texts, as a result of which the socio-historical explanation is declared a chimera. Postmodern history is depicted as an incoherent sequence of social situations, periods, worlds, and the like.
As a result, historians do not discover the past, they invent it, and history is what historians write. From this point of view, there is no difference between fact and fiction, truth and error.
It turns out that historical texts different eras are equal. It cannot be said that the later text more adequately reproduces reality than the previous one. This - different ways conceptualization of the past. “From the point of view of postmodernists, the texts of ancient Greek historians are quite worth the texts written by historians of the 20th century. They differ in the way they are written. They present reality differently. They are neither closer nor further away from the truth. After all, the truth of historical research is not separated from linguistic representation. Just as all genres of literature are good in their own way and should exist in the cultural memory of mankind, so different genres of historical description form a holistic image of history.”
At the same time, it should be noted that the so-called linguistic “turn” made it possible to begin (even if partially) an epistemological “turn” in historical science, which allowed historians to pay attention to themselves, to the reflection of their linguistic and cognitive activity. Almost for the first time, a transition has been made to the empirical study of the historical mind itself, to how historians think, what influence language has on the work of the historian. The nature of socio-historical research has again come into focus. It is in this that we see the significance of all kinds of “turns” and their revolutionary influence on the epistemology of the social and human sciences.
Postmodernists drew the attention of historians to the fact that texts are not only custodians of information, a “window to the past,” but that they (sources) were created in certain systems of social meanings and, moreover, rarely unambiguous, indisputable ones. The past, its order, according to postmodernity (and not only it) are created by historians themselves.
The postmodern paradigm has forced many historians to shift their emphasis to the analysis of the so-called “periphery of discourse,” associated with the interpretation of non-obvious meanings, unconscious motives, and the like. The concept of a historical source was expanded, that is, it included “things” that “speak” but are not text (dreams, illnesses, and the like). It can be said that, to some extent, postmodernism pushed historians to compare events from different time layers, to study what did not happen, but could have happened, not to mention the fact that the explication of literary conventions embedded in the socio-historical narrative played a particularly important role in understanding historical work as a form of literary creativity with its inherent rhetorical techniques and rules that set the discursive strategy of the text.
“With the advent of the concept of “deconstruction” in history, not only and not so much the methodology changes research work, as much as the way of thinking of a historian. Deconstruction itself is aimed at identifying the internal inconsistency of the text, discovering in it hidden and unnoticed not only by the inexperienced reader, but also by the author himself, “sleeping” residual meanings. We inherited these residual meanings from the speech practices of the past, enshrined in the language of unconscious stereotypes, which, in turn, are also unconsciously and independently of the author of the text transformed under the influence of the linguistic clichés of his era." We can say that under the direct influence of deconstructionism, women's and gender history, as well as their theoretical justifications, feminism and postfeminism, from the very beginning of their development, followed the path of deconstructing “traditional” male discursive practices.
So, postmodernism denies the idea of history, its social aspects as a single movement from one stage to another, denies the ideas of social progress, freedom, democracy, class struggle, questions any generalizing schemes, attempts to link the historical narrative into a coherent concept.
Postmodernism mixes history as a science with literature. However:
history is primarily a social study, and literature is a story;
history requires social argumentation, literature does not need it;
the goal of history is socially cognitive (achieving truth), literature is aesthetic;
the configuration of socio-historical works is determined by the logic of research procedures, namely the problem, hypothesis, argumentation, and so on. The configuration of literary works is determined by the genres of poetics. Experience, of course, cannot be completely reduced to discourse, to speech practice, and the impossibility of direct perception of social reality does not mean the complete arbitrariness of the historian in its “construction.”
Literature:
Ankersmit F.R. Sublime historical experience. - M.: Publishing house "Europe", 2007.
Bessmertny Yu. L. Tendencies of rethinking the past in modern foreign historiography // Questions of history. 2000. No. 9.
Gobozov I. A. Social philosophy: a textbook for universities / Gobozov I. A. - M.: Academic project, 2007.
Gubin V.D., Strelkov V.I. The power of history: Essays on the history of the philosophy of history. M.: Russian. state humanist univ., 2007.
Kanke V. A. Basic philosophical directions and science concepts. Results of the 20th century. - M.: Logos, 2000.
Kravtsov V.N. Metahistory: Historical imagination in Europe of the nineteenth century/X. White//Images of historiography. M.: RSUH. 2000.
Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographical process // Images of historiography. M.: RSUH. 2000.
Lyotard J.-F. The state of postmodernity. - M.: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998.
Megill A. Historical epistemology: Scientific monograph (translation by Kukartseva M., Kataeva V., Timonin V.). M.: “Canon+” ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2007.
Methodological problems of history. - Mn.: TetraSystems, 2006.
Repina L.P., Zvereva V.V., Paramonova M.Yu. History of historical knowledge. - M.: Bustard, 2004.
Repina L.P. The challenge of postmodernism and the prospects of a new cultural and intellectual history// Odysseus. 1996.
Saussure F. de. Notes on general linguistics. M., 1990.
Saussure F. de. Works on linguistics. M„ 1977.
Stone L. The future of history / DNEBB. 1994. Vol. 4.
Tosh J. The pursuit of truth. How to master the skill of a historian. M., 2000.
Freedman P. and Spiegel G. Medievalisms Old and New: The Rediscovery of Alteritj in the North. American Medieval Studies. -AHR,Vol. 103, 1998, No. 3.
To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:
You can search in several fields at the same time:
Logical operators
The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:
research development
Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values in the group:
study OR development
Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:
study NOT development
Search type
When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:
$ study $ development
To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:
study *
To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:
" research and development "
Search by synonyms
To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " #
" before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.
# study
Grouping
In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:
Approximate word search
For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:
bromine ~
When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify maximum amount possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:
bromine ~1
By default, 2 edits are allowed.
Proximity criterion
To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:
" research development "~2
Relevance of expressions
To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^
" at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:
study ^4 development
By default, the level is 1. Valid values are a positive real number.
Search within an interval
To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.
Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.
1. Anufrieva Natalya Ivanovna, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences. Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Sociology and Philosophy of Culture, Director of the Institute of the Higher School of Music named after. A. Schnittke (institute), acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sociocultural Activities, RGSU / Anufrieva Natalia Ivanovna, doctor of pedagogical sciences, associate professor, professor of the department of sociology and philosophy of culture, director Higher school of music n.a. A. Schnittke (institute), acting dean of the faculty of arts and socio-cultural activities, RSSU.
2. Babosov Evgeniy Mikhailovich, academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.
3. Basimov Mikhail Mikhailovich, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Labor Psychology and Special Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, RSSU / Basimov Mikhail Mikhailovich, doctor of psychological sciences, associate professor, professor of the department of labor psychology and special psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
4. Vitkova Marie, Doctor of Philosophy. Sciences, Professor of the Department of Special Pedagogy at the University. Masaryk (Czech Republic, Brno) / Vitkova Mari, doctor of philosophical sciences, professor of the department of special pedagogy of Masaryk University (Czech Republic, Brno).
5. Denisenko Sergey Ivanovich, doctor of pedagogy. Sciences, professor, professor of the department of social, general and clinical psychology, faculty of psychology, RSSU / Denisenko Sergey Ivanovich, doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor, professor of the department of social, general and clinical psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
6. Karpov Vladimir Yurievich, Doctor of Pedagogy. Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of Theory and Methods physical culture and sports faculty of physical culture, RSSU / Karpov Vladimir Yurievich, doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor, professor of the department of theory and methods of physical culture and sports of the faculty of physical culture, RSSU.
7. Kislyakov Pavel Aleksandrovich, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Labor Psychology and Special Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, RSSU / Kislyakov Pavel Alexandrovich, doctor of psychological sciences, associate professor, head of the department of labor psychology and special psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
8. Krylov Alexander Nikolaevich, Doctor of Philosophy, professor of the Berlin West-OST Institute, director, vice-president of the Bremen School of Economics (Germany, Berlin) / Krylov Alexander Nikolaevich, doctor of philosophy, professor of Berlin West-OST Institute, director, vice-president of the Bremen School of Economics ( Germany, Berlin).
9. Lukovich Erzsebet, professor of the Institute of Conductive Pedagogy (Hungary, Budapest).
10. Mironova Oksana Ivanovna, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Social, General and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, RSSU / Mironova Oksana Ivanovna, doctor of psychological sciences, associate professor, professor of the department of social, general and clinical psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
11. Seselkin Alexey Ivanovich, doctor of pedagogy. Sciences, professor, professor of the department of adaptive physical education and recreation of the faculty of physical culture, RSSU / Sesyolkin Alexey Ivanovich, doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor, professor of the department of adaptive physical education and recreation of the faculty of physical culture, RSSU.
12. Sizikova Valeria Viktorovna, doctor of pedagogy. Sciences, Professor, Dean of the Faculty social work, RGSU / Sizikova Valeria Viktorovna, doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor, dean of the faculty of social work, RSSU.
13. Strelkov Vladimir Ivanovich, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, professor, professor of the department of labor psychology and special psychology, faculty of psychology, RSSU / Strelkov Vladimir Ivanovich, doctor of psychological sciences, professor, professor of the department of labor psychology and special psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
14. Tsvetkova Nadezhda Aleksandrovna, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Social, General and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, RSSU / Tsvetkova Nadezhda Alexandrovna, doctor of psychological sciences, associate professor, professor of the department of social, general and clinical psychology of the faculty of psychology, RSSU.
15. Yanchuk Vladimir Aleksandrovich, Doctor of Psychology. Sciences, Professor (Republic of Belarus, Minsk) / Yanchuk Vladimir Alexandrovich, doctor of psychological sciences, professor (Belarus, Minsk).
