Savchenko I.A. Systemic Dichotomies of the Academic Profession (for Robert Merton’s 115th Birthday). Sociology of science and technology. 2025. Vol. 16. No. 1. Pp. 74-90. DOI: 10.24412 ...

Òåêñò ñòàòüè íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà URL: https://sst.nw.ru/Files/2025/2025_1-5.pdf (äàòà îáðàùåíèÿ 23.06.2025)

Abstract

The article was written on the eve of the 115th anniversary of the birth of the founder of the modern sociology of science, R.K. Merton. In the seventies of the twentieth century, Merton formulated nine normative principles of a permanently ambivalent scientific ethos, each of which contains an internal contradiction. A half of a century after the publication of Merton’s essay, this article offers a modern interpretation of the ambivalent pairs of the ethos of science. It is shown how a scientist builds the trajectory of his intellectual search, resolving the inevitable contradictory configurations within the framework of professional activity.  The ambivalence of the scientist is realized against the background of the dialectic of freedom of choice and freedom of action (O.V. Aksenova). It is established that the researcher-sociologist largely lacks freedom of choice, simply because he is not free to choose the historical period and the social conditions in which he lives and works. At the same time, he has freedom of action: in the field of given dichotomies, the actions of a scientist express his attitude to science, ethics and modernity.  The following systemic antinomies of a scientist's professional activity are revealed: identity — originality, solidarity — protest, habitus — reflection, past — future, life world — science, value — truth, theory — practice, virtue — sin, erudition and inspiration. It is concluded that ambivalence is not a matter of choice, it is an immanent characteristic of the activity of a “normal” (in the terminology of I.T. Kasavin) scientist. Avoiding ambivalence produces either moralizing or scientism. In conclusion, it is suggested that, in relation to the dichotomous nature of the scientific ethos, new ambivalent pairs may be identified and justified in the future. In particular, the dichotomy of migration and settlement in the activity of a scientist is already waiting for its justification.