Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 75–93

Social heterology in the context of the principle of uncertainty of social cognition

Zhussupova B. Z. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Karipbayev B. I. 1 (Karaganda , Republic of Kazakhstan), Soloshchenko P. P. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan)
1 Ye.A. Buketov Karaganda State University, Kazakhstan

Introduction. The article is devoted to the problem of substantiating the necessity of a heterological model of post-non-classical socio-philosophical discourse within the framework of “turbulent” modernity. The purpose of the article is to reveal the epistemological potential of social heterology in the context of the principle of uncertainty of social cognition.
Materials and Methods. The study is based on critical analysis of the works of European and Russian philosophers, and methods of social synergy and social heterology in the study of modern social processes.
Results. The authors have revealed the heterogeneous nature of modern society, which has a complex ontological organization, nonlinear structure, openness, and disequilibrium. The authors have distinguished two main models, two main approaches to explaining social being: ontological and heterologous. The views of Russian and European philosophers on the necessity and essence of post-non-classical methods and paradigms of social cognition, which have a heterological character, have been analyzed and summarized. It is noted that the world of society, with people as carriers, is moved not only by objective laws of being, but also by free human wills, including irrational, which sometimes makes it unexpected, sudden and unpredictable. The authors' position is that social heterology constitutes the principle of uncertainty of social cognition as its inevitable attribute, which testifies to the complex dynamics of self-development of social processes, the carriers of which are the plurality of singularities. The authors justified the position that the heterological paradigm brings us closer to understanding of contradictory modern social processes, not only from cognitive interest, but mainly from the practical one, to develop human-scale tactics and development strategies in order to avoid social tension and social cataclysms.
Conclusions. The authors conclude that social heterology as a new methodology of social cognition has sufficient grounds to become a new paradigm necessary for the study of society in conditions of a decentered, fractal modernity. Social heterology adequately correlates with the principle of uncertainty of social cognition and possessing a positive potential in the study of modern social processes.


Heterogeneous society; Post-nonclassical discourse; Post-nonclassical methods; Epistemological potential; Cognitive interest; Heterological paradigm; Plurality of singularities; Nonlinear structure; Dynamics of self-development; Human-like tactics

74.917 Martin Heidegger | Vilnius | Russian Philosopher

Social heterology in the context of the principle of uncertainty of social cognition

For citation:
Zhussupova B. Z., Karipbayev B. I., Soloshchenko P. P. Social heterology in the context of the principle of uncertainty of social cognition. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 75–93. DOI:
  1. Griffith A. M. Social construction: big-G grounding, small-g realization. Philosophical Studies, 2018, vol. 175, issue 1, pp. 241–260. DOI:
  2. Bertrand M. Fundamental ontological structure: an argument against pluralism. Philosophical Studies, 2017, vol. 174, issue 5, pp. 1277–1297. DOI:
  3. Dawes G. W. Identifying Pseudoscience: A Social Process Criterion. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2018, pp. 1–16. DOI:
  4. Kerimov K., Kerimov T. The Evanescent Thing: Heidegger and Ozy. KronoScope, 2014, vol. 14, issue 2, pp. 195–210. DOI: 15685241-12341305
  5. Laurence J., Schmid K., Hewstone M. Ethnic Diversity, Inter-group Attitudes and Countervailing Pathways of Positive and Negative Inter-group Contact: An Analysis Across Workplaces and Neighbourhoods. Social Indicators Research, 2018, vol. 136, issue 2, pp. 719–749. DOI:
  6. Lazar S. In dubious battle: uncertainty and the ethics of killing. Philosophical Studies, 2018, vol. 175, issue 4, pp. 859–883. DOI:
  7. Hvidtfeldt R. Interdisciplinarity as Hybrid Modeling. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2017, vol. 48, issue 1, pp. 35–57. DOI:
  8. Mäki U. Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How?. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2016, vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 327–342. DOI:
  9. Mäki U., MacLeod M. Interdisciplinarity in action: philosophy of science perspectives. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2016, vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 323–326. DOI:
  10. Deviatko I. F. Metatheorizing Or Philosophy Of Social Sciences?. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia, 2017, no. 12, pp. 3–9. (In Russian) DOI:
  11. DeLanda M. A New Ontology for the Social Sciences. Logos Journal, 2017, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 35–56. (In Russian) URL:
  12. Zbrozhek E. A. The ontology of the gap as a key for understanding Zizek’s philosophy. Proceedings of Voronezh State University, 2012, no. 2, pp. 115–120. (In Russian) URL:
  13. Ignatyev V. I. Social Theory in the Contact Zone of the Methods of Natural Science: Informational Resonance Approach to Interpreting Social Reality. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia, 2017, no. 3, pp. 3–13. URL:
  14. Kerimov T. Kh. Ontology as Onto-Theology and the Ways to Transcend It. Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Political Science and Religion Studies, 2015, vol. 14, pp. 106–113. (In Russian) URL:
  15. Kerimov T. H. Overcoming of Metaphysics: Presuppositions and Landmarks. Intelligence. Innovations. Investments, 2016, no. 10, pp. 23–25. (In Russian) URL:
  16. Kerimov T. Kh., Burbulis Ju. V. Irreductionism as the main methodological principle of modern social ontology. Humanities, Social-Economic and Social Sciences, 2015, no. 11-1, pp. 26–28. (In Russian) URL:
  17. Krasavin I. Heterarchy of the Multitude. Logos Journal, 2017, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 173–198. (In Russian) URL:
  18. Lapin N. I. Anthroposociocultural Evolutionism – A Metatheoretical Principle of Studying Human Communities. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia, 2018, no. 3, pp. 3–14. DOI:
  19. Pickering A. New Ontologies. Logos Journal, 2017, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 153–172. (In Russian) URL:
  20. Pilugina E. V. Phenomenology of the rhizome. Rizomorphic media. Periodic Scientific and Methodological Journal Koncept, 2013, vol. 3, pp. 3101–3105. (In Russian) URL:
  21. Platonova S. I. Epistemological features of modern social-humanitarian knowledge. Context and reflection: Philosophy of the World and Man, 2017, vol. 6, no. 3A, рp. 131–142. (In Russian) URL:
  22. Podoprigora A. V. Reality generator: information and mechanisms of self-organization. Institute of Philosophy and Law. Urals Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2016, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 17–32. (In Russian) URL:
  23. Stepin V. S. Historical-Scientific Reconstruction: Pluralism and Cumulative Continuity in the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Questions of Philosophy, 2016, no. 6, pp. 5–14. (In Russian) URL:
  24. Shevlokov V. A. Sustainable development of society: synergetic approach. Bulletin KRASEC. Physical & Mathematical Sciences, 2016, no. 2, pp. 62–67. (In Russian) URL:
Date of the publication 31.08.2018