Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)


For citation:

Dolmatov A. A. The potential of I. Lakatos’ methodology in the study of socio-political discourses . Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2025, vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 100-104. DOI: 10.18500/1819-7671-2025-25-2-100-104, EDN: GQWTEK

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 441)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
[1:316](470+571)+1(410)+929Лакатос
EDN: 
GQWTEK

The potential of I. Lakatos’ methodology in the study of socio-political discourses

Autors: 
Dolmatov Anton A., Ulyanovsk State Technical University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article outlines research positions within the framework of the study of socio-political discourse. Theoretical analysis. It is noted that socio-political discourse should be explicated as a mode (order) of communication between government and society for the purpose of developing a consensus. The study of socio-political discourses as different modes (orders) of communication between authorities and society is presented in the article based on the methodology of I. Lakatos’ research programs. The notion of a research program from Lakatos’ conception is considered coherent with the notion of socio-political discourse. In this regard, the conceptual Lakatos’ terminology is considered as a metaphor for explaining socio-political dynamics. In the description and analysis of socio-political discourses, along with the research program, such central metaphors as the metaphysical core («hard core») and the protective belt are highlighted, according to the terminology used by Lakatos. The rivalry between the socio-political discourse of liberal values and the socio-political discourse of traditional values is outlined as the main trend of the modern period. It is stated that a special feature of the discourse of liberal values is the simulacrum of the metaphysical core. Conclusion. The socio-political discourse of traditional values served as the basis for the majority consensus when adopting amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020 and, thus, became pivotal in the dynamics of the modern socio-political system of Russia.

Reference: 
  1. Voronkova O. A. The crisis of ideology and the development of socio-political discourse in Russia (1985–2010). Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Polit.). Moscow, 2011. 25 p. (in Russian).
  2. Zaitsev A. V. Institutionalization of the dialogue between the state and civil society in the sociopolitical discourse of modern Russia. In: Mnogolikiy diskurs [Khvoshchev V. E., Malyshev M. A., total eds. A multifaceted discourse]. Chelyabinsk, YUUrGU Publ., Izd-vo NOTS “KLON”, 2012, pp. 359–370 (in Russian).
  3. Tarasova A. N. On some discussion points of the discourse theory and discourse genres. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities], 2018, no. 11 (804), pp. 325–336 (in Russian).
  4. Shilikhina K. M. Ironic expression of deontic evaluation in public political discourse. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political Linguistics], 2013, no. 1 (43), pp. 121–127.
  5. Chekmenev D. S. The construction of socio-political discourse in modern Russian public policy. Diss. Dr. Sci. (Polit.). Pyatigorsk, 2020. 400 p. (in Russian).
  6. Feofanov K. A. Post-truth – a factor of the degradation of socio-political discourse. Obozrevatelʼ [Observer], 2023, no. 2 (397), pp. 36–51 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.48137/2074-2975_2023_2_36
  7. Habermas J. Demokratiya. Razum. Nravstvennostʼ: Moskovskie lektsii i intervʼyu [Democracy. Reason. Morality: Moscow lectures and interviews]. Мoscow, KAMI, 1995. 245 p. (in Russian).
  8. Lakatos I. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. In: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1970, vol. 1970, pp. 91–136 (Russ. ed.: Lakatos I. Istoriya nauki i ee ratsionalʼnye rekonstruktsii. In: Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy. Sost. V. Yu. Kuznetsov. Moscow, OOO “Izdatelʼstvo AST”, 2001, pp. 455–524).
  9. Kara-Murza S. G. Ideologiya i matʼ ee nauka [Ideology and its mother science]. Moscow, Eksmo, 2002. 256 p. (in Russian).
  10. Lakatos I. Falsifi cation and the Methodology of Scientifi c Research Programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A., eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, 1970, pp. 91–195. (Russ. ed.: Lakatos I. Falʼsifi katsiya i metodologiya nauchno-issledovatelʼskikh programm. In: Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy. Sost. V. Yu. Kuznetsov. Moscow, OOO “Izdatelʼstvo AST”, 2001, pp. 269–453).
  11. Berdyaev N. A. I and the world of objects. The experience of the philosophy of loneliness and communication. In: Berdyaev N. A. Filosofi ya svobodnogo dukha [Philosophy of the free spirit]. Moscow, Respublika, 1994, pp. 229–316 (in Russian).
  12. Derrida J. L’écriture et la difference. Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1967. 435 p. (Russ. ed.: Derrida J. Pisʼmo i razlichie. Moscow, Akademicheskiy Proekt, 2000. 495 p.).
  13. Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii (s gimnom Rossii) [The Constitution of the Russian Federation (with the Russian National anthem)]. Moscow, Prospekt, 2025. 64 p. (in Russian).
Received: 
17.07.2024
Accepted: 
22.04.2025
Published: 
30.06.2025