A sociologist through a journalist's eyes

We have already reported on the evening held in the Blue Drawing Room of the House of Cinema, at which the leading Ukrainian sociologists Yevhen Golovakha (from the stage) and Volodymyr Paniotto (on video) presented their two books — “Alternative sociology” by Yevhen Golovakha and “Sociology in anecdotes” by Volodymyr Paniotto.

Present at that meeting was a journalist from one of the country's best newspapers — Den — Ihor Siundiukov, who shared his impressions with the paper's many readers. For such a highly intellectual newspaper, an interest in the problems of sociology and in the views of the country's sociologists has been a conscious priority for many years. And they confirmed it again in a piece entitled “Sociology: on facts and jokes”, observing that sociology, “which studies the real rather than the expected or hoped-for state of society, makes it possible to forecast that society's future accurately”.

In the address by the Director of the Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine, Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor Yevhen Golovakha, who was introduced as a long-standing and regular contributor to Den, the journalist singled out several basic propositions, or, as he called them, “knots”, namely:

- The first knot. Sociology and power. A sociological idea, if it contradicts the notions of those at the helm of power, is perceived by them not as an object of enquiry but as someone's ill intent. Perhaps that is why the phenomenon still often occurs in which the authorities and the media are wary of giving the floor to sociologists with contemporary knowledge (or do not consider it necessary). This is dangerous for society.

- The second knot. For sociologists the most complex object of study is human communities and social institutions. Sociology, moreover, has a basic, defining category — the set of rules and norms by which people live; and it should be borne in mind that even bad rules are better than no rules at all. A very important category is the legitimacy of power, connected with trust in it (the legality of power is something rather different, belonging to the legal plane).

- The third knot. The law of social inertia operates — realities change, but because of inertia a substantial part of society blocks the changes. This can lead to revolutions with entirely unpredictable consequences. I personally, Yevhen Ivanovych noted, am an adherent of social evolution, and that (another joke) is “the path of social change whose adherents die their own, natural death”.

Unlike many revolutionaries! Today's Russia has not travelled that path, which largely explains its aggressiveness, its nightmares and its tragedies.

(Here the journalist recalled in passing that Yevhen Ivanovych has personal experience — this was during perestroika — of “teaching” Russia's future high officials, in particular the Russian deputy prime minister Mikhail Poltoranin and the present mayor of Moscow Sergei Sobyanin, the foundations of democracy, including political ethics. Yevhen's account of this appeared in the book “Detox” in the series “Library of the newspaper Den” (pp. 407–411). The interested reader may consult it.)

- The fourth knot. Things are very hard for us now. But I fear, and there are grounds for it, Yevhen noted, that after the war ends still harder trials await us. For there will be a substantial stratification of society, since a great many groups and strata have appeared whose interests they perceive as a priority, as supremely important, without regard for other groups (hence the “cracks” in outlook and behaviour). This concerns many groups and strata that in essence did not exist before the war. These are external and internal migrants; soldiers returning from the front (and, on the other hand, those who were not at the front); those who lost relatives and loved ones, their housing and all their property during the war. All of this may spill over after the war. Extremely serious problems await us.

- The fifth knot. There is a real danger that our young people will be swallowed up by social networks, that they will “drown” in them. But a far greater danger, a simply frightening one, I personally see, the speaker said, in the incredibly rapid, global spread of artificial intelligence (AI). Already now AI often writes scholarly articles (and even literary texts) no worse than a human being, and sometimes better. For the time being AI serves us. But what will happen tomorrow? For the danger here is that the components of AI will learn not from a human being but from one another. What will they learn? To design routes to Mars, to penetrate human consciousness or to create terrible instruments of war? No one knows — and that is an enormous threat to humanity as a whole.

Summing up, the journalist called the audience of this exceptionally useful and interesting meeting like-minded in outlook, noted the great interest and attention of those listening and remarked on the good mood and satisfaction of those present, quoting also Yevhen Golovakha's closing words: “Without direct communication with an audience, with people, a scholar loses interest in his own work. Here we have met, and my mood improved at once.”

Illustrating his conclusion about the mutual good mood, the journalist cited several professional jokes by sociologists from the two authors' presented books.

It should be noted that the attention of so authoritative a newspaper as Den is a mark of the respect of a highly intellectual publication with a mass audience for the work of Ukrainian sociologists, both in its serious form and with apt professional humour.

The full material is here: https://day.kyiv.ua/article/den-ukrayiny/sotsiolohiya-pro-fakty-i-zharty