Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies

Grigoriy Illarionov

doi:10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158

UDC

VAK Russia

09.00.11 12.00.03 12.00.01 12.00.08 12.00.09

5 more Collapse

09.00.01 09.00.13 13.00.01 13.00.04 13.00.08

AXIOLOGICAL VS. COMMUNICATIVE ASPECTS IN SOCIO-CULTURAL TRADITION STUDIES Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies

АА Аа

Published in Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences · Pages 151–158 · Rubric: PHILOSOPHY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158

Received: 02.09.2019 Accepted: 03.09.2019 Published: 03.09.2019

Authors

Grigoriy Illarionov

Academic degree: candidate of philosophical sciences

Siberian Federal University Docent · Gumanitarnyy institut

ABSTRACT

The paper features the problem of correlation between two approaches to the phenomenon of tradition. The value approach sees tradition as a stable and transferable object. The communicative approach considers tradition as a construct that reflects the current perception of the past. The author analyzed the reasons for the formation of positions and their ratio. A phenomenological analysis proved that the separation and opposition of both approaches is structurally conditioned. The transfer of tradition involves its deconstruction, i.e. isolation of its substantial core from the context of the past to reconstruct it in the context of the present. Transfer depends on the type of communication, which, by developing from non-written to digital, increased the gap between the contexts of the transmitter and the recipient. As a result, the tradition is getting more deconstructed, while its core is becoming more susceptible to change. The value and communicative components of the tradition reflect the views on its different parts-reconstruction and deconstruction, respectively. The value approach assumes the point of view from the side of reconstruction, or reproduction of the core of tradition: this approach goes "from within" tradition and denies the deconstructive aspect. The communicative approach is a view from the side of deconstruction while striving to objectify the tradition. The communicative approach demonstrates the core of the tradition, thus putting the subject beyond the frame of values, outside the tradition. Hence, the principle of complementarity should be applied when considering tradition, both in its specific forms and in the conceptual aspect.

KEYWORDS

reproduction of culture, social inheritance, structure of tradition, the core of the tradition, the context of tradition, the deconstruction of traditions, the reconstruction of tradition

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Bronner S. J. Explaining Traditions: Folk Behavior in Modern Culture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011. 520 p.

2. Ben-Amos D. The Seven Strands of Tradition: Varieties in its Meaning in American Folklore Studies // Journal of Folklore Research. 1984. Vol. 2. № 3. P. 97-131.

3. Polonskaya I. N. Ponyatie tradicii: problema opredeleniya // Izvestiya vysshih uchebnyh zavedeniy. Severo-Kavkazskiy region. Seriya: Obschestvennye nauki. 2006. № 2. S. 6-10.

4. Genon R. Ocherki o tradicii i metafizike / per. s franc. V. Yu. Bystrova. SPb.: Azbuka, 2000. 320 s.

5. Kravchenko A. I. Kul'turologiya. M.: Akademicheskiy Proekt, Triksta, 2003. 496 s.

6. Kairov V. M. Tradicii i istoricheskiy process. M.: Luch, 1994. 188 s.

7. Chistov K. V. Narodnye tradicii i fol'klor. Ocherki teorii. L.: Nauka, 1986. 304 s.

8. Veber M. Izbrannye proizvedeniya. M.: Progress, 1990. 808 c.

9. Glassie H. Tradition // Journal of American Folklore. 1995. Vol. 108. № 430. P. 395-412.

10. Arendt H. Tradicii i sovremennaya epoha // Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 7: Filosofiya. 1992. № 1. S. 80-95.

11. Hobsbawm E., Ranger T. The Invention of Tradition. N. Y.: Columbia University Press, 1993. 309 p.

12. Giddens A. Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics // Concepts and Transformation. 1997. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 107-118.

13. Hopper L. M., Spiteri A., Lambeth S. P., Schapiro S. J., Horner V., Whiten A. Experimental studies of traditions and underlying transmission processes in chimpanzees // Animal Behaviour. 2007. Vol. 73. № 6. P. 1021-1032.

14. Yadgar Y. Tradition // Human Studies. 2013. Vol. 36. Iss. 4. P. 451-470. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10746-013-9294-9

15. Hupeniya N. R. Smyslovoe mnogoobraziya ponyatiya tradiciya // Kontekst i refleksiya: filosofiya o mire i cheloveke. 2016. № 2. S. 12-27.

16. Ong W. J. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word. London; N. Y.: Methuen, 1982. 256 p.

17. Shils E. Tradition and Liberty: Antinomy and Interdependence // Ethics. 1958. Vol. XLVIII. № 3. R. 153-165.

18. Assman Ya. Kul'turnaya pamyat'. Pis'mo, pamyat' o proshlom i politicheskaya identichnost' v vysokih kul'turah drevnosti. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul'tury, 2004. 368 c.

19. Giddens E. Uskol'zayuschiy mir: kak globalizaciya menyaet nashu zhizn'. M.: Ves' mir, 2004. 116 s.

20. Rudolph L. I., Rudolph S. H. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. University of Chicago Press, 1984. 316 p.

21. Bronner S. J. Explaining Traditions: Folk Behavior in Modern Culture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011, 520.

22. Ben-Amos D. The Seven Strands of Tradition: Varieties in its Meaning in American Folklore Studies. Journal of Folklore Research, 1984, 2(3): 97-131.

23. Polonskaya I. N. The concept of tradition: the problem of definition. Izvestiia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Severo-Kavkazskii region. Seriia: Obshchestvennye nauki, 2006, (2): 6-10. (In Russ.)

24. Guenon R. Essays on tradition and metaphysics, transl. Bystrov V. Yu. Saint-Petersburg: Azbuka, 2000, 320. (In Russ.)

25. Kravchenko A. I. Culturology. Moscow: Academicheskii proekt, Triksta, 2003, 496. (In Russ.)

26. Kairov V. M. Tradition and historical process. Moscow: Luch, 1994, 188. (In Russ.)

27. Chistov K. V. Folk traditions and folklore. Essays theory. Leningrad: Nauka, 1986, 304. (In Russ.)

28. Weber M. Selected Works. Moscow: Progress, 1990, 808. (In Russ.)

29. Glassie H. Tradition. Journal of American Folklore, 1995, 108(430): 395-412.

30. Arendt H. Tradition and the modern era. Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. Ser. 7: Filosofiya, 1992, (1): 80-95. (In Russ.)

31. Hobsbawm E., Ranger T. The Invention of Tradition. N. Y.: Columbia University Press, 1993, 309.

32. Giddens A. Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics. Concepts and Transformation, 1997, 2(1): 107-118.

33. Hopper L. M., Spiteri A., Lambeth S. P., Schapiro S. J., Horner V., Whiten A. Experimental studies of traditions and underlying transmission processes in chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 2007, 73(6): 1021-1032.

34. Yadgar Y. Tradition. Human Studies, 2013, 36(4): 451-470. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10746-013-9294-9

35. Khupeniya N. R. The semantic diversity of the concept of tradition. Kontekst i refleksiya: filosofiya o mire i cheloveke, 2016, (2): 12-27. (In Russ.)

36. Ong W. J. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word. London; N. Y.: Methuen, 1982, 256.

37. Shils E. Tradition and Liberty: Antinomy and Interdependence. Ethics, 1958, XLVIII(3): 153-165.

38. Asman Ya. Cultural memory. Letter, memory of the past and political identity in the high cultures of antiquity. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul'tury, 2004, 368. (In Russ.)

39. Giddens A. A slipping world: how globalization is changing our lives. Moscow: Ves' mir, 2004, 116. (In Russ.)

40. Rudolph L. I., Rudolph S. H. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. University of Chicago Press, 1984, 316.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

PDF Text JATS XML

Chief editor

Irina Morozova

ishmorozova@yandex.ru

Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Egor Trezubov

egortrezubov@mail.ru

9123

downloads

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons

GOST

Illarionov G. A. Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies // Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019. no. 2. pp. 151-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158. (Date of access 07.09.2026).

MLA

Grigoriy Illarionov. "Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies." Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences 3.2 (2019): 151-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158.

APA

Illarionov G. A. (2019). Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158

Chicago

Grigoriy Illarionov. "Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies." Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences 3, no. 2 (2019): 151-158. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Illarionov G. A. | title = Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies | journal = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences | year = 2019 | volume = 3 | issue = 2 | pages = 151-158 | doi = 10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-151-158 }}

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

AXIOLOGICAL VS. COMMUNICATIVE ASPECTS IN SOCIO-CULTURAL TRADITION STUDIES Axiological vs. Communicative Aspects in Socio-Cultural Tradition Studies

Confirmation