Constructive and destructive aspects of G.P. Shchedrovitsky's methodology

The author's article is dedicated to a critical reassessment of the methodological legacy of G.P. Shchedrovitsky and the history of the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC). The occasion for reflection was a proposal from colleagues to organize a large-scale research project on the history of the MMC, from which the author declined to participate. The refusal is motivated by three circumstances: the existence of already published authorial reconstructions, the change in social reality since the 1990s (which puts into question the relevance of several ideas of Shchedrovitsky), and the risk of distorting methodological ideas under the influence of intellectual marketing. The focus is on analyzing the discrepancies between the author and the teacher that emerged in the second half of the 1960s. These discrepancies relate to the understanding of science (orientation not only towards the natural sciences but also towards the humanities). They also concern the status of the individual (contrary to Shchedrovitsky’s thesis of impersonal thinking) and the nature of the historical process (abandoning the Marxist idea of changing the world in favor of discrete cultural-historical dynamics). The author proposes to distinguish between two approaches in Shchedrovitsky’s methodology: “pan-methodology” (the claim to manage the totality of human thought and activity) and “private, servile methodology” (orientation towards servicing specific disciplines). The first approach is assessed as destructive, leading to asociality and ethical neutrality, while the second is considered productive. It is noted that the MMC programs (theory of thinking, theory of activity, ODI) did not lead to the stated results; however, the experience of the MMC can be classified as part of the “golden fund” of domestic methodology. In the concluding part of the article, a discussion about methodology is presented in the context of the crisis of modern culture and the emergence of “future culture.” The author asserts that the traditional foundations of modern European civilization (Nature, Reason, Individuality, World Order) have ceased to function, and the risks of humanity's self-destruction are increasing. Under these conditions, methodology cannot remain ethically neutral; its task is to participate in the formation of a new meaningful worldview, oriented towards a planetary scale, an understanding of the fragility of life, and the idea of salvation.