The problem of compromising humanitarian knowledge in Russia during the creation of the “big science”

The purpose of the research is analysis of the features of changes in attitudes toward the Humanities in Russia during the construction of the “Big Science”. The author turned to the problem ol compromising and discrediting humanitarian knowledge, which is still topical. He considered the ideas of such little-known figures of Russian science and education as Dmitry Martynov, Wolf Gordin and Pavel Arbuzov. The research based on published works of chosen scholars and manuscripts of their works and correspondence found in the collections of the State archive of the Russian Federation and the St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The author also used the works of their contemporaries: scientists and politicians, which allowed understanding their attitude toward the role and importance of humanitarian knowledge during the large-scale social transformations of the 1st third of the 20 century. Time ol building “Big Science” was characterized by a desire to scientilic revisionism, to reduce established scientific knowledge, which could be combined with attempts to undermine the dominant conservative customs and practices. Instead, they could offer theories that were far from scientific and contributed to compromising and discrediting humanitarian knowledge. Bright examples are the ideas of Dmitry Martynov, especially his language theory. With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, the topic of protection of humanitarian knowledge has not lost its relevance, but for other reasons: attention began to focus on the development of technical and natural science disciplines. In such circumstances, the idea of a complete rethinking of the role of humanitarian knowledge found radical supporters. One of the thinkers who most loudly declared this was the anarchist Woll Gordin. In his unpublished book “Pantechnicalism” (1918) he wrote about the need to refute all the basic principles of science and assertion the truth of technology alone. Another striking example of a non-trivial theory of reforming scientific knowledge, which appeared in the first post-revolutionary years, is the “method ol scientilic syncretism” proposed by Arbuzov to Nikolas Marr. In it, he argued that scientilic syncretism is a communism ol ideas, and all sciences must be combined into one. The author comes to the conclusion that the chosen examples were ideas transferred by both scientists and the authorities, but brought to radicalism: revision of humanitarian knowledge on new grounds, strict subordination to the official ideology, and the principle of utility as the main argument lor their implementation. Such “paper science” is interesting as an additional characteristic ol the climate of the era. On the one hand, the phenomena of Martynov, Gordin, or Arbuzov are example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. On the other hand, it is an integral feature of the field of scientific experiments that led to the devaluation of humanitarian knowledge.

Keywords

Authors

References