Morphogenetic social theory: more questions than answers

and the aim of the study. The paper analyzes the place and role of morphogenetic theory within a framework of contemporary socialtheoretical discourse. M. Archer’s morphogenetic theory and P. Donati’s relational conception are considered as two examples of this discourse. Methods. The authors use analytical methods (analysis, synthesis, etc.), applied in contemporary philosophy of social sciences. Scientific novelty. The key idea of the paper is analyzing morphogenetic social theory in terms of analytical scholasticism as a deviant way of contemporary social theory development. Results. Morphogenetic theory is rather a sociological theory than interdisciplinary social theory; the sophisticated language of “morphogenists” mat seem difficult for other scholars to understand; morphogenetic theory demonstrates indefinite perspectives concerning interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary discourse in the context of contemporary stage of social-humanitarian knowledge development. Conclusions. The status of “morphogenetic theory” among other directions of social theory is by far “peripheral”.