Are the Accusations against Methodologists Fair? Methodologist’s Answer
Rozin Vadim
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2023-15.1.1-176-196

The article analyzes the discussion by political scientists and some Russian intellectuals of the ideas of the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC), whose representatives are accused of arming the modern government with inadequate methodology, trying to control it, almost ideologically preparing a special military operation. The author separates two main directions of methodology - philosophical research and applying it into practice, arguing that the accusations relate primarily to the second direction, in addition, he argues that there is no single methodology, there are different groups of methodologists with different views and tasks. In order to develop criteria for understanding and evaluating the discussion, a reconstruction of the evolution of the views and concepts of the MMC is proposed: from the first program for the study of thinking, through the program for constructing the theory of activity and mental activity, to organizational activity games (OAG) and the concepts of management and OLM (organization, leadership, management). At the same time, the influence of Marxist ideas, which led to the reduction of sociality and management to activity, is demonstrated. The nature of the OAG is discussed. At the end of the article, the achievements of methodology are characterized, which the author refers to the “golden fund of methodology”, obtained in the framework of philosophical research. The study is accompanied by an analysis of the positions of methodologists and their critics, as well as social situations that predetermined the development of methodology. In particular, they point to the crisis of socialism in the USSR, the weakening of ideological pressure, the expansion of freedom, and the expansion of the activity of philosophers and scientists. According to the author, the main methodological schemes for reforming sociality were created at the MMC (Moscow Methodological Circle) without a serious study of sociality, which was used by some political scientists and ambitious intellectuals, blaming methodologists, attributing imperious intentions and goals to them. As the author shows, everything is much more complicated, it is necessary to take into account both the difference in methodological views, and the division of methodology into two directions, as well as the political context influencing it.

"Progressors": Methodological Movement before and after Perestroika
Zhezhko-Braun Irina
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2023-15.1.1-197-231

The widespread use of game methods for solving problems and developing thinking in the 1980s - 1990s, in other words, the game movement, was one of the forms of participation of the intelligentsia in the transformation of Soviet society. It began with organizational-activity games (OAG), created in the Moscow Methodological Circle under the leadership of the philosopher G.P. Shchedrovitsky. The article analyses the gaming movement, its influence, efficiency and social responsibility. Methodologists practiced several forms of social engineering activity: OAG organizer - game technician - political strategist - political consultant - designer of the state system - trainer and teacher of the administrative elite. There are many modern politicians from the first echelon of power among those who have been trained in seminars and games. Methodologists began their social engineering activities during the “Perestroika” period. The article analyzes the game at the RAF (1987), where the theme of democratization was discussed within the framework of the election of the plant director. Game technicians acted as ‘foremen of perestroika’ or ‘progressors’ and offered their own interpretation of democratization, which turned out to be unrealizable in Soviet life. Following the OAG, new types of games were formed: design, problem-practical, simulation, innovation and other games. The gaming movement ended in the late 1990s. Among the external reasons for stopping the gaming movement were: the ill-conceived perestroika program, the collapse of the USSR and the course towards strengthening the new Russian goverment. Among the internal problems are: misunderstanding of the situation in the country by game technicians, the inadequacy of the proposed mechanism for social change to the social and political nature of Russian society, the replacement of the concepts of democracy and democratization with managerial concepts. This ended with the commercialization of the gaming movement, merging it with power structures, serving the state and various social movements. The methodologists have demonstrated their failure in the role of ‘progressors’ and in this sense they have shared the fate of the Soviet intelligentsia. Having suffered a defeat in the role of social engineers, methodologists returned to Castalia to practice and develop methodology in various fields of academic and pedagogical activity.