CC BY
84
Секция 8. Педагогика
Klinkov Georgi Todorov, University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Bulgaria Senior Assistant Professor PhD, The Faculty of Pedagogy
E-mail: starcom2@abv.bg
Axiology of the technical artifact
abstract: Studying of the process of using one specialised word (seen within a context as an idea, category, term) inevitably passes through an analysis of the etymological meaning. In archaeology, artifact is a manmade object, which is discovered after a significant period of time during archaeological excavations.
Key words: axiology, technical artifact, complex lexicology.
In the sphere of primary domestic science and professional-technical education, which are considered to be separate normative stages of one overall educational paradigm, the process of defining, within interpretational limits, the value-oriented meanings of the technical and technological terminology (extending beyond the informative and applied field of the segmenting notions and terms introduced within certain limits, standards and time in the educational practice), is of specific methodological importance.
Authors like Asima Turekhanova and Gülnar Aitzha-nova believe that this process is impossible without the active help of cognitive linguistics, which helps with the description of professional vocabulary from the point of view of anthropocentrism, the study of the connections with the language, thinking and culture of a respective nation [16, 2-5].
The object of study is the technical artifact, considered as constitutive element of the material sphere (according to some authors, an element of the living space).
The subject of study is the explication of the technical artifact in its different dimensions (mostly axiological).
Studying of the process of using one specialised word (seen within a context as an idea, category, term) inevitably passes through an analysis of the etymological meaning (in most cases of a foreign language).
Artifact comes from the Latin artefactum, a combination of arte — artificial and factus — created. In our everyday vocabulary, artifact is every artificially created object, a product of human activity.
Artifact has complex lexicology, and its dictionary interpretation could be an object with a specific shape, created by man, such as tool or a work of art; a special material obj ect with certain archaeological interest" [17, 78].
The American Heritage Science Dictionary gives a very full definition of the term artifact, there its meaning is considered on 5 etymological levels: 1) any object made by human beings, especially with a view to subsequent use; 2) a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier
time or cultural stage, especially such an object found at an archaeological excavation; 3) any mass-produced, usually inexpensive object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture; 4) a substance or structure of artificial (technological) origin; 5) a spurious observation, result, experiment [19].
The Russian Psychology Dictionary, defines artifact as “. a fact, uncharacteristic of a given process, which is usually caused artificially” [12].
In addition to its complex lexical nature (in line, to some extend with the semiosis of the language), the term has multiple meaning: if at its basis is placed the etymological sign — an object, then on this basis we have three classical meanings of the word artifact — archaeological, social and cultural.
In archaeology, artifact is a manmade object, which is discovered after a significant period of time during archaeological excavations. The social artifact is usually a product of a specific group of people, reflecting their behaviour. A simple example of social artifact is the document. The cultural artifact is a manmade object, a typical example of a specific culture or culturally determined historical trend [20].
Evgeni Belov considers the artifact a structural unit of culture. His idea is based on the fact that in most natural and humanitarian sciences “there are fundamental units”, which determine the status of each science (the cell theory in biology; the atomic theory on the nature of matter and chemistry and physics; the “sign” in semiotics; the “word” in linguistics)” [1].
The technical objects and their related processes, which the students learn in certain normative volume and contents at school, very often enter into the semantic and lexical realm of the term artifact.
The “exclusive rights” the term artifact to be used in archaeology should not be absolutized only because of the specific semantics. Apparently almost all archaeological findings are result of the socializing man. The term is used only in the cases of analyzing and comparing the origin of the object, between objects with “natural ori-
63
Section 8. Pedagogy
gin" and objects materialized with the help of “changing" technological actions of man.
The students make (in a purposeful and planned manner) technical objects, which in their field of application are individual, unique, and utilitarian in respect to the axiological points of reference used in them.
We should not forget, that the term technical object, which is present in the normative and curricular-interpretive content of almost all educational programs (that is mainly the programs, which were implemented after 1981, starting with the curriculum on Work and Art, authored by N. L. Bozhkov and ending with the 2000 curriculum, known still as Domestic Science and Equipment for 1st — 4th grade, and Domestic Science and Economics for 5th — 7th grade) included this term, as close as possible to artifact, as its main normative and substantive descriptor or determinant.
Its ontological, gnoseological and especially axiological nature brings it closer to the main differentiating characteristics of the artifact. The students analyze and design technical objects of different class and type — domestic, didactic orientated, game-related, dynamic, entertaining, which at their basis objectify their available social-working experience based exactly on their knowledge of the historical artifacts and their relation in functional and technological aspect (in the process of making the respective technical object), according to their normative planning.
V. I. Kazakova, in her PhD thesis The Technical Artifact in the Living Space (discussed as separate ontologies), using a balanced historiographical approach of interpretation, studies the origination and the evolution of artifact first of all as being an object of studying by the philosophy of technology. The socio-cultural dimension of technology, according to her, is associated with the works of E. Agazzi, T. Adorno, N. A. Berdyaev, A. A. Bogdanov, J. Baudrillard, S. N. Bulgakov, G. Marcuse, J. Martin,
H. Lenk, H. Rickert [6].
The artifact realizes this trinity, within the context of uncovering the materialistic nature of the social environment of man; the theoretical possibilities for knowing this world; the level of priority of the category value in the process of active mastering the material nature of the world through its studying-knowing.
This trinity (discussed mostly in contextual, rather than functional aspect) is maintained by the socio-cultural and anthropological dimensions of the artifact.
An interesting idea is to represent the technical artifact to some extend (normative, substantive and methodological) as interference of two educational postulates:
technical-engineering and humanitarian (within the context of value-goal reference points).
The works of V. V. Belyakova, I. A. Bikovski, B. M. Galeeva, E. G. Zinkova, G. Roberts, O. V. Romanova, K. I. Romashkina, contain significant studies, which uncover the culturological aspect of the origination and differentiation of artifact.
The ontological determination of artifact is introduced by the requirement to analyze its subject area, to define optimally the base ontological components (objects, their attributes, relations and processes), and in parallel with that to operate with them (within the limits of the educational field of primary domestic science and professional training) [18, 155].
The technical constructions can be viewed as basic ontological components in the sphere of the traditional domestic science. The applied, technological and engineering characteristics of the constructions can be identified as qualities of the objects. The operations with them can be discussed as active attitude toward their conceptual or applied (according to their purpose and principle of operation) modification and supplementation.
In the mid 1980s, the concept of ontology was rediscovered. Partially this is due to the then popular CYC project for compiling database with the so-called common sense knowledge. It turns out that many elements (not only in informative, but most of all in methodological aspect) encoded in CYC have universal meaning and are accepted in the same way by different people and societies.
There is the understanding that the possible research planning (within possible predictive action) is unthinkable without the quality of intermediate layer. Such intermediate layer is the vocabulary (semantic array) of some subject area, including the special words — terms, used by the researchers in this scientific or applied area.
Ontology can also be considered as “knowledge base, describing facts which are supposed to be always true within specific mutual society based on the general meaning of the used vocabulary” [8].
In the curriculum on equipment and technologies (this unification gives the freedom of interpretation regarding the possible modifications in the overall educational paradigm) there are several subject areas, each of which can be classified as separate ontology (domain ontologies) — knowledge on materials; knowledge on instruments; knowledge on operations (technologies); knowledge on the specific organization of the socio-working space: knowledge on the behavior and the group management of the production processes.
64
Секция 8. Педагогика
N. S. Rozov supports the thesis, that the material artifacts need to be viewed as subject field, a sort of “philosophical training ground" for ontological developments and discussions. According to him, the artifacts have specific restricting nature, combing the characteristics of the nature, the social environment, the culture and the mentality [10, 90].
In the school practice, the term artifact is interpreted within the limits of its historically completed “technological optimization”. Over the course of its historical evolution, each artifact increases its positive properties (complexity of application, ease of technological planning and production realization).
As educational concept, the artifact can be discussed also within epistemological limits, determined by the application of one active theory of knowledge.
The modern man knows the artifact based exclusively on the knowledge of different forms of industrial equipment (in the formulations of the classicist M. Heidegger and the postmodern M. Mcluhan).
In this context, it can be discussed both as a sort of construct (logical or intellectual formation, analogical to the notion), and as a concept (in the context of polysemantic notion or content of the notion).
The Dutch scientists W. Houkes and P. Vermaas consider the possible methods for analysis of the technical artifacts in line with the formulations of the analytical philosophy. Based on the semantic approach towards the artifact, they are interpreted in their capacity as objects, whose material nature does not depend on the human interest. If complying with this observation, the technical in nature artifacts would be considered as independent to such extend, as for example are the physical objects [14].
The use of the understanding of the artifacts (seen in the interpretative field of the archaeology, culture, sociology and methodology) within the conditions of the specialized educational practice, satisfies the necessary grounds the term artifact to be an active supplement of the term technical object (without having the condition of them being equivalent).
On this ground, the artifact should be considered as a special construct, which is connected first of all with the culturology and its defining individual disciplines: art study, ethnology, ethnography and archaeology.
A. Y. Flier defines the cultural artifact as “interpretive personification of a cultural form in a specific material product, behavioral act, work of art, informative message or evaluation [13, 199].
One of the first postmodern philosophers, such as
J. Baudrillard, in his study The System of Objects (placed
on the same interpretive level as M. Foucault’s The Order of Things) ignores the term artifact and replaces it with object (an object, thing, item, article), taking the liberty to include in the interim methodology the term technema (based on the possible semantic similarity with moneme and phoneme, from the applied linguistics). These peculiar informative concepts express, in his opinion, “simple technical elements, which are different than the real things, and on whose combination is based the technological revolution” [2].
In this respect, the understanding of artifact as educational and normative component, which supplements the category technical object, with regard to its social and cultural definitiveness, allows its classification based on the following type distinctions:
1. Indicator — material artifacts through type differentiations (material constructions, archaeological objects, items, systemic material formations, tools, paintings).
2. Indicator — second-order artifacts during analysis (scientific theory, legal norm, painting, literature character), in a word, action related to the “realization of material image” [7, 75].
E. A. Orlova offers differentiation of the artifacts based on the following systematizing classes, according to their functional characteristics:
1) Things used for organizing the objective-spatial environment;
2) Materialized images ideas, filling in the symbolic intersubjective space and used in the process of communication;
3) Technologies, realizing instrumental functions in the process of producing other classes of artifacts;
4) Regulatory formations, maintaining the processes of interaction and communication;
5) Evaluation criteria, allowing the arrangement of other classes of artifacts, social relations, socio-cultural events, conditions of the social systems [9, 7].
E. A. Gavrilova and collective offer the following 3 types of ontologies, related to the interpretation of artifact:
Object-oriented ontology (Domain-oriented ontology) — it is specific for certain type artifact.
Task-oriented ontology — it is the usual ontology, using educational applications. It contains the terminology used in the process of solving different problems with technical or technological meaning, and also terms having some common methodological actions.
Basic technical ontology — it can describe the common characteristics of the artifacts. It can describe the
65
Section 8. Pedagogy
knowledge, related to the visible physical processes: technological effectiveness, instrumentality, production organization [3].
Outside the limits of the possible ontologies, related to the artifact, it is necessary to clarify, within the limits of a staging generalization, that the artifacts, which are barely discussed, in the broad sense are first of all material carriers, materializing the blueprint of the human activity, belonging definitely to the world of men and designating (in material aspect) this world [15, 2].
Following this classical idea, I. F. Ignatieva comes to even more radical conclusion, that “if we separate the artifacts of culture and the artifacts of civilization; and artifacts of science and artifacts of technology, the material artifacts, the ideal artifacts, then the modern man is born in almost complete artifact environment [4, 3].
I. G. Suhina points out the following personal contributions in the systematizing of this philosophical category: H. Lotze — who laid the foundations of the axiology study in philosophy; H. Rickert and W. Windelband — the Baden School of Neo-Kantianism; M. Schiller and H. Münsterberg — within the postclassical European philosophy; M. Kagan, M. Krimski, M. Popovich — of the Ukrainian and Russian philosophy schools [11, 233-234].
The possible application of the complex knowledge about the artifact with educational purpose in the curriculum for primary domestic science and specialized technical training raises an interesting question, and its answer will somewhat result in revising the boundaries of interpretation of the artifact (discussed within the context of technical artifact).
Every curricula and school discipline, related to domestic science and technical training and education, has a basic methodological requirement (which has become a pragmatic goal, educational norm, content descriptor) for material result from the student’s work (activity).
The cultural-education program Domestic Science and Equipment, which includes the school disciplines Domestic Science and Technology, Domestic Equipment and Economics and Technologies, creates the necessary (most of all programs, but without normative content) grounds for the students to form differentiat-
ing idea about the artifact in its classical forms of display and dependence: archaeological, cultural-historical, technical-ethnographic, socio-ethnological).
The interpretive explanations (adaptation) of the informative and methodological limits of display of the artifact are made by the author based on the classical understanding about the historiographic nature of interpretation and classification of the artifact and the availability of instrumental (technological) determinant (determining its position in the educational environment of the specialized domestic science and technical training).
In none of the school curricula, the materialized expression of the specialized training is not systematized and standardized within the possible standards (outside the technical, technological, organizational; related to the ontological and gnoseological characteristics of this type of work).
A possible educational standard could be the “value" of the produced item (thing, article, object).
M. Kagan writes similarly that, “the value is presented to us as an attitude, specific enough, because it does not combine and does not connect one object with another, but with the subject, i. e. the carrier of the cultural and social qualities, defining the super-individual content of its spiritual activity [5, p. 67].
Very appropriately I. G. Suhina unites all this formulations, which connect the artifact with the methodology of culture (as axiological component), and the understanding of “values” as a semantic component of the human life, and as a result it is rationalized, realized, experienced and evaluated existentially, becoming pro-ductively-active” [11, 235].
In the process of “introducing” the artifact for educational needs, the possible relation between its two classical interpretation lines (as naturally and artificially existing), is not so definitive. The reason for this is the fact, that the students create artificially existing (only within the limits of the specific subject matter; school assignment with technical condition, in the conditions of social-working environment) artifacts (single things, items, parts of systems), which in the end of their analysis and realization have natural (material) nature.
References:
1. Belov, E. I. Artifact as Structural Unit of Culture, e-source http://sibac.info/index.php/
2. Baudrillard, J. The System of Objects, M. Radumino, 2001, p.11, quotation of Belov, E. I. Artifact as Structural Unit of Culture, e-source http://sibac.info/index.php/2009-07-01-10-21-16/6226-2013-02-05-15-51-46.
3. Gavrilova, E.A et al, Modern Technologies in Communication Science, e-source http://www.benran. ru/Magazin/cgi-bin/Sb_03/pr03.exe?!15.
66
Секция 8. Педагогика
4. Ignatieva, I. F. The Problem of Artifact: Ontology, Epistomology, Axiology, Veliky Novgorod, 2002
5. Kagan, M, Philosophical Theory of Values, M. S. Kagan, St. Petersburg, TOO TK, Petropolis, 1997
6. Kazakova, V. I., Technical Artifact in the Living Space, 2011, electronic access http://www.dissercat. com/content/tekhnicheskii-artefakt-v-gorizonte-zhiznennogo-prostranstva.
7. Krasnoglazov, A.B, Functioning of Artifact in the Cultural-Semantic Space: PhD Thesis — M. 1995
8. Ontologies and Ontological Systems, web source www.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/Members/marian/411430437438 .../at.../file.
9. Orlova, E.A, Artifact as a Unit of Socio-Cultural Microdynamics, Cultural Observatory, 2010
10. Rozov, N.S, Multi-Paradigmal Ontology and Ritual-institutional conception ofbeing and historical development of artifacts. Artifact Ontology: interaction between “natural” and “artificial” components of the living space, Moscow, Delo 2012;
11. Suhina, I. G. Values and Cultural Picture of the World: on the Question of Cultural Axiology; lectures, Taurida National V. I. Vernadsky University
12. Psychological Dictionary, source: http://psychology.net.ru/dictionaries/psy.html?word=66
13. Filer, A. Y. Culturology for Cultural Experts, Moscow, Academic Project, 2000
14. quotation of Kanke, V. A. Philosophy and Methodology of Technology and Informatics, web source http://uchebniki.ws/121705014891/filosofiya/ontologiya_priroda_tehnicheskih_artefaktov.
15. Heidegger, M, Things and Creations, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Language Philosophy, M. 1993 (1954);
16. Asima M. Turekhanova, Gulnar D. Aitzhanova. Representation of Value and Estimation Meanings in the Terminology of Railroad Sublanguage. European Researcher, 2014, Vol (70), № 3-1.
17. Collins English Dictionary-Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. William Collins Sons & ltd. 2009.
18. Smith, B. (2003) Ontology, in Floridi L. (Ed) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
19. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Published by Houghton Miffin.2002.
20. http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki.Артефакт.
Georgi Todorov Klinkov, University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Bulgaria Senior Assistant Professor PhD, The Faculty of Pedagogy
E-mail: starcom2@abv.bg
Sociometry and the behavioural axiom
Abstract: Sociometry means the theoretical and practical orientation of sociology, which deals with the social and psychological interrelations and connections among people in small groups. The most important tools of analysis are sociometric tests, as well as various social matrices and sociograms, which in many ways draw upon the sociometric method.
Key words: sociometry, behavioural axiom, microsociology, tests.
The widespread use of psychoanalysis and Gestalt theory in psychological tradition in the 1930s resulted in the formation of a new branch of sociological knowledge, called sociometry or microsociology. Sociometry means the theoretical and practical orientation of sociology, which deals with the social and psychological interrelations and connections among people in small groups.
Sociometry (deriving from the Latin “societas” — society and metrics) is separated as a branch of social psychology, which deals with interpersonal relationships, diagnostic attention being paid to its quantitative indicators [13].
The creator of this theory is a disciple of Sigmund Freud, who emigrated from Romania to the United States, a psychiatrist and sociologist Jacob Levy Moreno (1892-1974).
J. Moreno defined the discipline he created as: “A mathematical study of the psychological characteristics of the population, experimental techniques and results obtained during the application of quantitative and qualitative methods.” He put forward three basic concepts as being the most important to sociometry, called sotsius — “colleague”; metrum — “measurement”, drama — “action.” “Instead of doing an analysis
67
