E.S. Markarian’s traditiology is considered in the article against the background of foreign tradition theories by R. Redfield, A. Royce, E. Shils and S. Eisenstadt. All Western authors who wrote about tradition, one way or another base on the dichotomy of “tradition-modernization” what is not typical for Russian scientists. Tradition itself for them is a mechanism for the development of any society. S. Eisenstadt’s tradition theory, as well as E.S. Markarian’s traditiology assumes variability of tradition, the presence of creative component in it. The difference lies in the fact that Markarian’s tradition itself has a mechanism of self-development, and development is a natural characteristic of tradition and acts, in turn, as a mechanism for the development of society. Markarian’s traditiology describes the world volatile in its nature and a conservative component of tradition in the works by Markarian is paid much less attention. Markarian closely links traditiology with his theory of adaptation and activity approach in culturology. Markarian’s traditiology is convenient as a theoretical justification of ethnology tools that allows to observe what in culture is permanent and what changes, and how. The history of Soviet and Russian traditiology is considered in the article as well
展开▼
机译:E.S. R. Redfield,A。Royce,E。Shils和S. Eisenstadt在外国传统理论的背景下,对Markarian的传统进行了研究。所有西方作家都以“传统-现代化”的二分法为基础,以一种方式或另一种方式来论述传统,这对俄罗斯科学家来说并不常见。对他们而言,传统本身就是任何社会发展的机制。艾森斯塔特(S. Eisenstadt)的传统理论以及Markarian的传统认为传统是多变性的,其中包括创造性的成分。不同之处在于,马卡良的传统本身具有自我发展的机制,而发展是传统的自然特征,反过来又充当了社会发展的机制。 Markarian的传统学描述了世界在本质上的动荡,而Markarian作品中保守的传统成分却很少受到关注。 Markarian将文化学与其在文化学中的适应和活动方法理论紧密联系在一起。作为人种学工具的理论依据,Markarian的传统学很方便,它可以观察文化中什么是永久性的,什么变化以及如何变化。本文还介绍了苏联和俄罗斯传统的历史
展开▼