THE STUDY OF THE SOCIO-CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN STUDENTS: THE IMPACT OF REQUIREMENTS OF “THE SOCIAL ORDER” ON PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH RELATED TO THEIR POTENTIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Abstract

The article analyzes the research of Anna Zharkova, which is very relevant in modern conditions, devoted to problems of socio-cultural development of students. The article is not aimed at criticizing any of the statements contained in the studies of A.A. Zharkova. Moreover, it is important to note that the research of this author is deep, complex and multidimensional. Within their framework, many features of both the socio-cultural life of modern students and the problems and prospects of socio-cultural work with them are competently and deeply considered. A.A. Zharkova’s research significantly expands the knowledge and ideas about modern student youth, as well as about what forms and directions of work in the field of its socio-cultural development are the most preferable and promising in modern conditions. Thus, the research of A.A. Zharkova has great both theoretical and practical significance. At the same time, according to the author of this article, the existing traditional canons and ideas about the “practicality” of scientific research have aspects that not only contribute to, but also hinder the development of social and humanitarian sciences. It is important to note that the influence of “the social order”, which requires practicality from researchers, forces the author not to focus on the socio-heterological aspects of his works. Many of the provisions and conclusions of A.A. Zharkova’s scientific research have similarities with T.H. Kerimov’s social heterology. Therefore, the formulations of the author’s research related to the problems of development and implementation of socio-cultural and pedagogical methods are very similar to the formulations of classic scientific concepts. This circumstance creates an opportunity for potential critical interpretations of A.A. Zharkova’s research. At the same time, such potential criticism cannot be called fair.