Historical and current day forms of self-actualization of politics are constantly transforming the image of this social force, intervening in the settlement of internal and interstate conflicts, initiating strategies and projects that affect the changing position and identification patterns of various groups and individuals. The complexity of this phenomenon is reflected in its numerous theoretical and intellectual versions, risk reflections and outright misconceptions of the scientific mind. The co-existence of various theoretical interpretations of politics in the article is explained by its multisubstantial nature, combining within its “human” nature naturalistic, social, technical and even those substantive characteristics that are inexplicable from the point of view of modern science. In this context, the article concludes that in the future, scientific reflection on politics will retain both essentialist and “controversial” (family) interpretations of this concept, suggesting its simultaneous interpretation in different ways. In this regard, the author considers it justified to further deepen knowledge about politics by developing separate epistemes, each of which retains the possibility of updating references reflecting the volatile nature of the evolution of the political in social and natural contexts. Despite the fragmented nature of the theoretical search, this situation allows us to see a number of priority areas of modern “disenchantment” of politics, in particular, concerning the study of latent structures and relations in the space of power. As applied to the description of the contours of political science of the future, this allows us to link its epistemic perspectives with the dominant forms of government organization, as well as with the state of the scientific community, which preserves the internal conflicts of political scientists and the diversity of ethical standards linked to their professional activities.
A.I. Solovyov (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: