THESAURUS APPROACH AS A SPECIAL METHODOLOGY FOR THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL LIFE OF MODERN YOUTH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE RESEARCH OF VALERY LUKOV: HETEROLOGICAL ASPECTS AND PROBLEMS OF POTENTIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Abstract

The article analyzes the research of Valery Andreevich Lukov in the field of social life of young people. The main concept is the “thesaurus approach” as a special methodology that allows conducting a most systematic and comprehensive study of features of the life of young people in modern society. Thanks to the use of the “thesaurus approach”, V.A. Lukov manages to identify and describe many aspects of the life of modern youth in his research – relatively stable and rapidly changing aspects, particular and general patterns, etc. The scientist comprehensively characterizes the interrelationships and contradictions of traditions and innovations in the social life of young people, as well as complex interactions of general civilizational, ethno-cultural, group, microsocial and personal factors in the youth environment. It is important to note that the “thesaurus approach” is both complex, multidimensional, flexible and changeable; it always has the potential for variation, complication, etc. It should be noted that this article is not aimed at criticizing any ideas contained in the scientific research of V.A. Lukov. Recognizing the great scientific value of V.A. Lukov’s research, the author considers the hypothetical problems associated with possible scientific interpretations of these studies. These problems are considered by the author in the context of “social heterology” by T.H. Kerimov. The paper, first of all, reveals the crisis state of the traditional paradigm of “classical science” (which manifests itself, first of all, in the form of certain attitudes, traditions and principles of positivism). This paradigm literally “requires” researchers to use formulations, expressions, etc., characteristic of the “exact” methodology of the natural science type (which play the role of special criteria for the “practicality” of scientific works). The forced use of the above formulations by scientists creates situations in which one-sided (and sometimes clearly erroneous) interpretations of the results of their research appear in an unambiguous “classical-scientific” sense. The author is convinced that these problems with hypothetical interpretations of research are associated with the crisis of the entire methodology of socio-humanitarian scientific knowledge.