Are the Accusations against Methodologists Fair? Methodologist’s Answer

Abstract

The article analyzes the discussion by political scientists and some Russian intellectuals of the ideas of the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC), whose representatives are accused of arming the modern government with inadequate methodology, trying to control it, almost ideologically preparing a special military operation. The author separates two main directions of methodology - philosophical research and applying it into practice, arguing that the accusations relate primarily to the second direction, in addition, he argues that there is no single methodology, there are different groups of methodologists with different views and tasks. In order to develop criteria for understanding and evaluating the discussion, a reconstruction of the evolution of the views and concepts of the MMC is proposed: from the first program for the study of thinking, through the program for constructing the theory of activity and mental activity, to organizational activity games (OAG) and the concepts of management and OLM (organization, leadership, management). At the same time, the influence of Marxist ideas, which led to the reduction of sociality and management to activity, is demonstrated. The nature of the OAG is discussed. At the end of the article, the achievements of methodology are characterized, which the author refers to the “golden fund of methodology”, obtained in the framework of philosophical research. The study is accompanied by an analysis of the positions of methodologists and their critics, as well as social situations that predetermined the development of methodology. In particular, they point to the crisis of socialism in the USSR, the weakening of ideological pressure, the expansion of freedom, and the expansion of the activity of philosophers and scientists. According to the author, the main methodological schemes for reforming sociality were created at the MMC (Moscow Methodological Circle) without a serious study of sociality, which was used by some political scientists and ambitious intellectuals, blaming methodologists, attributing imperious intentions and goals to them. As the author shows, everything is much more complicated, it is necessary to take into account both the difference in methodological views, and the division of methodology into two directions, as well as the political context influencing it.