Narrative, interest, motivation: L. I. Petrazhitsky vs Ya. E. Golosovker

Abstract

The modern philosophy of science pays special attention to the processes of social regulation of the researcher’s activity. In fact, today, the epistemologist is approaching the boundaries of the sociology of science. Rather often, his reasoning turns out to be consonant with the concepts of specialists in the field of social management. But when the discussion begins on how to build a particular “program”, sociologists, as a rule, will not include in their research the historical experience of knowledge. Nevertheless, both epistemologists and sociologists agree that meaningfulness forms the basis of the productivity of human activity (in any sphere). But how to achieve it? Under what social conditions does a person have the intent to think? The article actualizes the ideas of social programming aimed at creating such conditions. The author refers to the intellectual heritage of Russian philosophers and humanities scholars of the early 20th century, L. I. Petrazhitsky and Ya.E. Golosovker, to show the methodological effectiveness of their reasoning about “motivation” and “interest”, as well as the fundamental ideological consonance of their philosophical research programs. Petrazhitsky speaks of motivation from the philosophical and legal fields, while Golosovker proceeds from the logic of the imaginary. But both of them understand the importance of story (narrative) for the emergence and cultivation of motivation and interest in knowledge.