Prospects of conceptualization of M. M. Bakhtin's dialogical approach in the structure of modern cultural and philosophical knowledge

Yurchenkova Nina Georgievna ORCID: 0000-0001-6167-738X Doctor of Philosophy Professor; Department of Humanities and Special Disciplines; Russian Law Academy of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation' Sredne-Volzhsky (Saransk) branch 6 Fedoseenko str., Saransk, Republic of Mordovia, 430032, Russia nina-saransk@mail.ru Somkin Aleksandr Alekseevich ORCID: 0000-0001-7833-0729 Doctor of Philosophy Professor; Department of Speech Theory and Translation; N. P. Ogarev National Research Mordovian State University 84 Popova str., Saransk, Republic of Mordovia, 430032, Russia alexsomkin@mail.ru

Kuznetsova Yuliya Viktorovna ORCID: 0000-0001-8709-6081 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Design and Advertising; N. P. Ogarev National Research Mordovian State University 68 Bolshevistskaya str., Saransk, Republic of Mordovia, 430005, Russia kuv@bk.ru

Next year, the scientific and creative community will celebrate two significant dates for every representative of the humanities in our country: the 130th anniversary of the birth and the 50th anniversary of the death of the outstanding Russian philosopher, philologist, cultural critic and literary critic Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975). He lived a difficult but happy life as a man who managed to preserve his self-esteem and love for pure (non-partisan) science in difficult times for the country and the people. His works have received wide, unfortunately, mostly posthumous recognition both among domestic specialists and abroad. His ideas and intuitions, which made him one of the most influential Russian theorists, penetrated deeply into all the humanities ("sciences of the spirit" according to M. M. Bakhtin). Currently, modern humanitarianism is impossible without such concepts as dialogue and polyphony, author and Other, act and responsibility, etc.

Every year there are more and more works devoted to the work and biography of M. M. Bakhtin (see, for example, ^{[4; 11; 13; 15; 16]} and others). However, in most studies, scientists mainly focus on analyzing and summarizing the semantic and ideological content of his manuscripts. In such works, it is rare to find reflections on the specific prospects for the further, albeit largely hypothetical, development of Bakhtin's ideas. I think it would be interesting to try not only to interpret what has already been stated (stated) by M. M. Bakhtin in his texts, but also, in particular, to present (predict) what he could (would) like to say (write) to us today.

Therefore, here, basing our research on the methods of logical extrapolation and modeling, we will try to outline the possibilities of using Bakhtin's dialogism as a universal methodological principle in various fields of modern philosophical knowledge and culture.

M. M. Bakhtin's Philosophy of Dialogue: a Look into the Future

In our previous work ^{[15, pp. 51-55]}, we examined and substantiated the position that the principle of M. M. Bakhtin's dialogical thinking is his main scientific discovery and acts as a universal methodological tool in modern social and humanitarian cognition.

By modeling the application of this methodological principle in key branches of cultural and philosophical knowledge, we can identify four aspects of its application.: 1) historical-cultural and historical-philosophical, 2) epistemological, 2) axiological and 4) socio-cultural.

So, in the field of cultural history and philosophy, M. M. Bakhtin's methodological approach can act as a principle of constructive dialogue between different cultural and philosophical trends and concepts. The application of this principle will, in our opinion, significantly increase the level of interrelationships, mutual enrichment and mutual understanding of different cultural and philosophical doctrines; at the same time, it will eliminate the danger of their eclectic mixing. In addition, from a methodological point of view, such an approach will contribute to the final overcoming of the outdated Engels paradigm based on the principle of "two competing parties" in social science.

This principle was first formulated by F. Engels wrote in the century before last in his work Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886). True to the ideas of materialism, he believed that the social laws of the development of human thought necessarily lead it upward from idealism to materialism. And then all representatives of the humanities, depending on the answer to the question "... about what is primary: spirit or nature," can be divided "into two large camps according to how they answered this question. Those who claimed that the spirit existed before nature... formed an idealistic camp. Those who considered nature to be the main principle joined various schools of materialism" ^{[21, pp. 32-33]}. This is how two main directions in social cognition appeared – materialism (which recognizes the primary matter, the natural world) and idealism (which considers consciousness, the spiritual world, to be the primary one).

The ideologization of the entire teaching of K. Marx and F. Engels (his focus on the confrontation between bourgeois and communist ideology) in this case is clearly manifested in the absolutization of only two directions in philosophy. This was included in all university textbooks on philosophy of the Soviet period as a template formulation: "the line of Democritus is the line of Plato."

This understanding seems to be a gross simplification of philosophical issues. Of course, philosophy is a constantly evolving field of knowledge that reflects the views and thoughts of people in a certain era. In the course of analyzing various doctrines and trends of philosophy, it is possible to identify periods when certain doctrines or trends dominated others in the process of social development and the ideological competition generated by it. However, such a predominance (i.e., a somewhat relative separation in the relationship of different teachings) is possible only at a certain historical stage. It is known, for example, "that Plato wanted to burn all the works of Democritus that he could collect, but the Pythagoreans Amicles and Clinius prevented him, pointing out that it was useless: many of his books were already in their hands" ^{[7, p. 345]}. Thus, if Plato had succeeded in his idea of eliminating an ideological competitor in such a barbaric way, then the scientific dispute between these teachings would have stopped (a variant of the dialogue in which "truth is born"). The process of developing an entire section of cognition would also be suspended.

In reality, the works of ancient thinkers represent a very diverse set of philosophical doctrines and teachings. Ancient Greek philosophy already contained many alternative trends and trends, including materialism and idealism, gnosticism and skepticism, dialectics and sophistry, etc. However, over time, progress in the development of world culture and philosophy has led to a significant increase in alternative directions and approaches to solving key issues of social science. Rationalism and irrationalism, gnosticism and agnosticism, scientism and anti-scientism, technocratism and anti-technocratism, Marxism and positivism (empirio-criticism), globalism and anti-globalism, and their successor glocalism, have been added to the above.

Later, Engels' idea of the struggle of "two parties" was adopted and brought to the extreme of ideological confrontation in the works of V. I. Lenin, in particular in his article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism" ^[10]. He applied this idea to literature, putting forward, "as opposed to the bourgeois entrepreneurial, mercantile press, as opposed to bourgeois literary careerism and individualism, ... and the pursuit of profit, ... the principle of party literature" ^{[9, p. 100]}, according to which all literature should adopt the position of strict communist partisanship in combination with militant materialism and atheism. However, "it was possible to develop this principle and implement it in the fullest possible and integral form" [Ibid.] only during the "Stalinist period", when it was extended to all fields of science, culture and art.

Assigning a leading role to Marxism as the "only true" (the most advanced and progressive scientific doctrine reflecting the true interests of the proletariat), V. I. Lenin declared an irreconcilable ideological war on bourgeois, and therefore entirely "idealistic", "unscientific" and "reactionary" philosophy. It is logical that, subsequently, this led to the postulation of the actual monologue and dogmatization of Marxist doctrine. In the theoretical writings of its followers, who proclaimed the absolute fidelity and immutability of its basic principles, it isolated itself from other concepts and closed in on itself.

The utopian nature of Marxist doctrinarianism was demonstrated by the entire subsequent course of world processes in the last century. This inevitably led to "stagnation" in the sphere of ideology, culture, politics and economics, the direct result of which was the disillusionment of the majority of the population in the ideals of communism, the weakening of political positions both within the state and in the international arena, the gradual decline in the pace of development of the country and its economic lagging behind the leading world powers.

The methodological inconsistency of the principles of "partisanship" and "monologue" was also theoretically revealed by the science of synergetics, which arose more than half a century ago. This science (represented by its founders – G. Haken ^[20], I. Prigozhin, I. Stengers ^[14]) has shown that any system, being isolated (without external energy and information influence), ceases to develop and degrades.

As an alternative to the deconstructive principle of "partisanship", M. M. Bakhtin put forward the principle of "responsible [ideological] non-participation" ^[3] of a scientist and a cultural and artistic figure, meaning the independence of the latter from political, ideological, party and other preferences.

At the same time, it is necessary to understand that with this approach, various forms of struggle in society are not at all denied. Society, as an integrated system, contains components in its structure (individuals and social groups with opposing interests) that are in contradictory relationships. According to Bakhtin's principle of "constructive dialogue," such confrontation is an integral part of society's existence. "But what is the difference from the previous arguments, then?" – the attentive reader will ask. The point is that we are talking mainly about the political sphere of society and about political civilized forms of struggle (without compromising, slandering rivals, falsification and falsification of voting results, etc.), for example, during an election campaign.

Here M. M. Bakhtin called for abandoning the absolutization of political confrontation in the life of society and wrote about the inadmissibility of its spread to other spheres of its life, especially science, culture and art. Obviously, it is absolutely unacceptable to spread the principle of partisanship in these areas of human thought. In the natural and exact sciences, the leading position is given to the methodological principle of researcher's objectivity, i.e. his independence from personal interests and desires, as well as career or other market preferences. In the socio-humanitarian sciences, this principle is complemented by the Bakhtin principle of responsible non-involvement of the researcher (author), meaning his position "regardless" of party, political, group or corporate interests as a scientist. In culture and art, this requirement even takes on a somewhat exaggerated meaning, bringing to the fore aesthetic and universal principles that subordinate socio-group or narrowly elitist aspirations.

In the field of epistemology, the principle of dialogicity can be clarified, and along with other basic principles of modern epistemology (the knowability of the world, the interrelation of sources of knowledge, the active nature of creative cognition, the complex criterion of truth, etc.), it is presented as the principle of dialogicity of the human cognition process.

The following types of cognitive dialogue can be distinguished.

● Teacher-student educational dialogue as one of the most effective ways to integrate into the educational process.

● Critical dialogue of a scientist within the framework of the research process (with other scientists or revised (outdated) theories). This principle, which means the non-acceptance of any postulates and doctrines, but their detailed verification by methods and means of scientific knowledge, formed the basis of the cognitive process among such outstanding thinkers as Aristotle, I. Kant, F. Bacon, R. Descartes, K. Marx, etc.

Thus, the Stagirite, criticizing the views of his teacher Plato, uttered "winged words" that have come down to us in a somewhat paraphrased form: "Plato is my friend, but the truth is more precious" ^{[1, p. 59]}. Kant's three most fundamental philosophical works begin with the word "criticism": "Critique of Pure Reason", "Critique of Practical Reason", "Critique of the Faculty of Judgment" ^[8]. Bacon, criticizing his predecessors, demanded a revision and restoration of pure science, thereby laying the foundations of the scientific method in the form in which it is known to us today. To do this, the researcher needs to free his consciousness from four ghost idols, like cataracts in the eye, which prevent him from seeing the light of Truth: "ghosts of the family", "ghosts of the cave", "ghosts of the market" and "ghosts of the theater" ^[5]. Descartes, in his "Discourse on Method", called for never "accepting any views as true" ^{[6, p. 195]}. This method of skepticism is considered the beginning of modern philosophy. Developing this line in Modern European philosophy, Marx adopted the phrase as the motto of his life as a scientist: "Question everything!" ^{[12, p. 492]}.

● Objective dialogue of the scientist with the results of his research. To a large extent, this applies to representatives of the natural and exact sciences who conduct their research in the framework of practical experiments and deal with a "voiceless thing" (a natural object or phenomenon). The situation is quite different in the humanities, where, according to M. M. Bakhtin, a scientist is dealing with a "speaking being" (an individual and the author of his actions) ^{[2, p. 383]}. The dialogical world, built by M. M. Bakhtin, is based on a peculiar opposition of a social subject (personality) and a natural object (thing); this opposition of "social vs natural" simultaneously acts as the limit of knowledge itself, conditioned by the specifics of the subjects of study. "Exact sciences are a monological form of knowledge: the intellect contemplates a thing and speaks about it" [Ibid.].

Here, the philosopher somewhat absolutizes the "voicelessness of a thing", pointing out its lack of ability to communicate verbally. However, nature also speaks, but in a different form, influencing the senses of the person observing it (a tracker, a natural scientist, an art worker or a scientist). This aspect was subtly noticed back in the 19th century by the outstanding Russian poet F. I. Tyutchev in his brilliant poem: "Not what you think, nature: / Not a cast, not a soulless face — / She has a soul, she has freedom, she has love, she has language..." ^{[18, p. 169]}.

Further, M. M. Bakhtin writes: "The task is to force the material environment, which acts mechanically on a person, to speak, that is, to reveal a potential word and tone in it, to turn it into a semantic context..." ^{[2, p. 387]}. That is, in order to force the studied natural object to manifest itself, the naturalist artificially influences it by placing it in special conditions of a scientific experiment, the results of which will be a kind of "answer" of the natural object to the scientist's questions.

In the theory of social values and assessments (axiology), M. M. Bakhtin's thesis can be represented as the principle of a polyphonic axiogenic dialogue between different subjects of society and culture. The meaning and ultimate goal of such a dialogue is the construction of a harmonious system of spiritual values from four basic subsystems: "1) "universal" (humanistic) moral values (based on the "categorical imperative" of I. Kant); 2) "alternative" personal values associated with the free choice of life priorities (profession, religion, political affiliation, etc.); 3) "state-ideological" values prevailing in a particular country in a certain historical period; 4) the highest integrative values of humanity at the present crisis stage of development" ^{[19, pp. 131-136]}.

It should be noted here that axiology emerged as an independent philosophical science in the middle of the last century. However, in Russia it has long been under an ideological ban (as an alleged "bourgeois pseudoscience", along with genetics, cybernetics and sociology). The works of Russian axiologists appeared only in the 1970s. V. P. Tugarinov is considered one of the first among them. He tried to substantiate the existence of a special Marxist trend in this science ^{[17, pp. 256-291]}.

The incompatibility of European axiological concepts (M. Weber, M. Scheler, V. Windelband, etc.) with Marxism manifested itself in three main aspects: 1) they recognize the priority of universal human values (as opposed to the party-class approach), and, as a result, 2) pluralism of value systems is declared, which presupposes the free choice of appropriate guidelines in life; 3) special attention is paid to the importance of religious values, as opposed to the rabid atheist propaganda and "militant materialism" that has unfolded in our country.".

From a sociocultural point of view, the dialogic paradigm can serve as a basis for substantiating the principle of equal partnership dialogue in interstate relations. This principle presupposes, first of all, the rejection of the use of military force and economic pressure in international affairs, as well as the rejection of models of aggressive cultural expansion.

This position was developed in the works of the famous Austrian thinker of the late twentieth century, Christoph Herbert Gunzl. Reflecting on the prospects of global development, he came to the conclusion that in the future a natural transition of all countries to unification into a single world community based on the principles of "global partnership integration" is inevitable ^{[22, S. 19-20]}. This transition will take approximately half a century, starting in the late 1980s and lasting until about 2030 [Ibid.].

Today, it is obvious that these processes are gaining momentum and, despite serious opposition from the leading countries of the Western world (especially the United States), are gradually becoming the prevailing trend in global development and the main content of the modern era. These ideas mark a situation of transition from the former stability of the bipolar world through chaos and conflict to the restructuring of the world system based on the principles of global partnership integration.

K. G. Gunzl justified the scientific forecast that Russia's historical mission is to become the leader of this process in the 21st century. Here, systemic multipolarity (of the transition period) should not be confused with the diversity of national cultures in the world.

All four philosophical aspects of the methodological principle of M. M. Bakhtin's dialogical thinking are presented holistically in the system-logical scheme 1.

Scheme 1

The main cultural and philosophical aspects of the methodological principle

M. M. Bakhtin's dialogical thinking

In conclusion, summing up all of the above, it is important to note the main feature of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin's work. Namely, that his ideas and designs are filled with anticipation of the future. They were way ahead of their time. Probably for a century! Being "shackled" by the harsh conditions of the "monologue" totalitarian regime, despite external pressure, he was able to find the spiritual strength to resist it intellectually. In the era of the struggle against spirituality, he courageously defended the ideas of humanism and humanistic values in his works. M. M. Bakhtin called for dialogue as a means of reconciliation between the government and the people, classes and parties, etc. In his thoughts and aspirations, the great Russian thinker already lived in a completely new era: "post-Soviet", "post-capitalist" and "post-oligarchic".

It should be honestly admitted that even now, in the third decade of the 21st century, we are still very far from the ideals of M. M. Bakhtin. The main condition for the real implementation of a constructive dialogue is equality and honesty of partners. However, not all countries are ready to give up their dominance, hiding their true intentions to preserve world domination by fighting for alleged equality and pseudo-democratic values. This is not a constructive "dialogue of equals," but a distorted, hypocritically ostentatious, condescending "dialogue of masters and servants." However, we are given a glimmer of hope by the fact that there are more and more leaders and countries in the world who dare to talk about this and, finally, openly discuss the problems posed by Mikhail Bakhtin more than half a century ago.