English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The article discusses some problematic relations between the individual and the social levels of existence and cognition of society. It states diversity and lack of integration of methodological approaches to the analysis of a systemic organization of society. The article also raises the question of the ontological status of the “level” category. The author comes to the conclusion that the “level” belongs to two languages of the object description: the subject language and the meta-language, the fact being not always taken into account when it comes to creation of generalizing concepts that reflect the specificity of social determinism, the specificity of the “part-whole” relationship in the system, including consciousness, goal-setting, and creativity. The author states that the methodological pluralism is a reflection of an antinomic nature of the “individual-social” (“I-S”) pair, the nomological synthesis is limited to this antinomy, and the analysis of these bounds (limits) has a heuristic significance. It implies clarification of the content of the psychological analysis to understand social realities. Psychological explanation works for the events in loci that are sensitive to individual characteristics of the subjects of social action. Social determinism is characterized by a different depth of interpenetration of the individual and the social; availability of dynamic and probabilistic regularities, a different degree of similarity of the elements and the system, the individual and the social. The consequence of these features is that it is not always correct to explain social realities by deep historical reasons, since the individuality in the society is manifested, in particular, in a certain historic period which will be included in actual social existence. The explanation of social realities by the past condition of the society is limited to the points of choice and / or creativity.

The Individual and the Social: Limits of Nomological Synthesis and Powers of Social Analytics