DOI: 10.46340/eppd.2024.11.4.3
Mykhailo Kovalchuk, PhD in Political Science
Department of Theory and History of Political Science, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine
Khrystyna Khvoinytska-Pereima, PhD in Philosophy
Department of Philosophy, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine
How to cite: Kovalchuk, M., & Khvoinytska, K. (2024). Scientific Paradigms and Political Ideology: an Inseparable Connection Using the Example of the Methodology of Political Science. Evropský politický a právní diskurz, 11, 4, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2024.11.4.3
Abstract
The article examines the interaction between ideology and political science through the lens of their interaction in the process of constructing scientific knowledge about politics. It substantiates the direct influence of political ideology on the actualization of social demands, which directly determine the formation of the subject and object of political science, as well as its methodology in general, establishing a clear connection between the ideological situation in society and the development of social sciences. It is proposed to consider political ideology not only as an object of political science research but also as a direct participant in the process of forming its methodology and scientific discourse. The extreme manifestations of the ideologization of political science within the framework of the Marxist paradigm of social sciences are outlined through the prism of the scientific discourse of the USSR, which had a significant impact on the formation of the tradition of political science in Ukraine and the former Soviet countries. Scientific communism is considered an extreme manifestation of the ideologization of political science, and the main dangers of this phenomenon in scientific discourse are outlined. The irreversibility of the process of ideologization of scientific discourse is argued within the scientific article, and it is also proven that the situation of dogmatization of scientific theories is a general scientific phenomenon that has a regular character.
The difference between internal scientific dogmatization of the scientific environment and external political ideologization, which is characteristic of political science in both cases, is outlined. The specificity of political science as a system of scientific knowledge within which ideologization is the strongest and most noticeable is characterized. The process of ideologization and dogmatization of scientific theory, as well as the political establishment of scientific theory as a metatheory of scientific discourse, are demonstrated using the example of the Marxist paradigm within the discourse of the social sciences of the USSR. The main challenges facing political science in its close interaction with political ideology are characterized.
Keywords: political science, methodology, political ideology, scientific discourse, Marxism, subject of political science.
References
Apel, K.-O. (1980). Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. London.
Bachelard, G. (1986). The New Scientific Spirit. Boston.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality : a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York.
Denysenko, V. (2015). «Mifolohichne znannia»: postanovka problemy shchodo usvidomlennia yoho predmetnosti [“Mythological Knowledge”: Framing the Problem of Understanding its Objectivity]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu: Seriia filosofsko- politolohichni studii [Journal of Lviv University. Series of Philosophical and Political Studies], 6. 6-14. [in Ukrainian].
Fedorchuk, O. (2017). Evoliutsiia predmeta politolohii:osnovni etapy rozvytku [Evolution of the Subject of Political Science: the Main Stages of Development]. Evropsky Politicky a Pravni Diskurz [European Political and Law Discource], 3, 83-87. [In Ukrainian]
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London.
Fukuyama, F. (2006). The End of History and the Last Man. New York.
Habermas, Yu. (2006). Zaluchennia inshoho: studii z politychnoi teorii [The Inclusion of Other: Studies of Political Theory]. Lviv. [in Ukrainian].
Harbadyn, A. (2015). Neklasychni pidkhody do interpretatsii piznavalnykh praktyk subiekta v politytsi [Non-Classical Approaches to the Interpretation of Cognitive Practices of the Subject in Politics]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia filosofsko-politolohichni studii [Journal of Lviv University. Series of Philosophical and Political Studies], 6, 42-49. [in Ukrainian].
Karmazina, M. (2010). Politychna nauka: predmet, struktura, metodolohiia [Political Science: Subject, Structure, Methodology]. Politychnyi menedzhment [Political Management], 1, 19-33. [in Ukrainian].
Kovalchuk, M., Khvoinytska-Pereima, Kh., Shypunov, H., & Kovalchuk, Yu. (2024). Social Rationality as the Basis of Political Discourse. Evropsky Politicky a Pravni Diskurz [European Political and Law Discource], 11(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2024.11.1.3
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London.
Mykhalchenko, M. (2016). Politychna problematyka u radianskomu suspilstvoznavstvi (1922-1991) [Political Issues in Soviet Social Sciences (1922-1991)]. Politychna nauka v Ukraini. 1991-2016: Politychna nauka: zakhidni trendy rozvytku y ukrainska spetsyfika [Political Science in Ukraine. 1991-2016.Political Science: Western Development Trends and Ukrainian Specificity]. Kyiv, 200-216. [in Ukrainian].
Patnem, H. (2003). Rozum, istyna y istoriia [Reason, Truth and History]. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Patochka, Ya. (2001). Yeretychni ese pro filosofiiu istorii [Heretical Essays on the Philosophy of History]. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Milton Park.
Rotar, N. (2016). Teoretyko-metodolohichni pidkhody v politychnykh doslidzhenniakh [Theoretical and Methodological Approaches in Political Research]. Politychna nauka v Ukraini. 1991-2016: Politychna nauka: zakhidni trendy rozvytku y ukrainska spetsyfika [Political Science in Ukraine. 1991-2016. Political Science: Western Development Trends and Ukrainian Specificity]. Kyiv, 92-140. [in Ukrainian].
Rudych, F. (2003), Politychna nauka v Ukraini: stan i perspektyvy [Political Science in Ukraine: State and Prospects]. Politychnyi menedzhment [Political Management], 1, 5-18. [in Ukrainian].
Rutar, S. (2011). Chy mozhlyva chysta politolohiia v Ukraini? [Is Pure Political Science Possible in Ukraine?] Visnyk Lvivskoho Universytetu. Seriia filosofsko-politolohichni studii [Journal of Lviv University.
Series of Philosophical and Political Studies], 1, 109-115. [in Ukrainian].
Shypunov, H., & Kovalchuk, M. (2021). Dialogic Basis of the Categories of “Openness” and “Tolerance” to the “Other” in Modern Political Discourse – Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel. Studia Warmińskie [Warmia Studies], 58, 87-99.
Shypunov, H. (2018). Neomarksyzm ta ideino-instytutsiina evoliutsiia livoho politychnoho rukhu [Neo-Marxism and the Ideological and Institutional Evolution of the Left Political Movement]. Visnyk Lvivskoho Universytetu. Seriia filosofsko-politolohichni studii [Journal of Lviv University. Series of Philosophical and Political Studies], 19, 194-203. [in Ukrainian].
Shypunov, H. (2018). Ideino-instytutsiina evoliutsiia KPRS v konteksti transformatsii politychnoho rezhymu SRSR [Ideological and Institutional Evolution of the CPSU in the Context of the Transformation of the Political Regime of the USSR]. Hileia: naukovyi visnyk [Hileia: Scientific Journal], 137, 365-369. [in Ukrainian].
Vdovychyn, I. (2015). Perspektyvy zastosuvannia hermenevtychnoho pidkhodu dlia doslidzhennia ukrainskoi politychnoi dumky pershoi polovyny XX stolittia[ Prospects for Applying the Hermeneutic Approach to the Study of Ukrainian Political Thought in the First Half of the 20th Century] Politykus. Naukovyi zhurnal [Politikus. Scientific Journal], 1, 5-10. [in Ukrainian].
