МІЖДИСЦИПЛІНАРНІ ПІДХОДИ ДО РОЗУМІННЯ «НОРМИ»

Abstract

The article examines the main approaches to understanding the concept of the relevance of the study is led to its universal nature. It has been established that various spheres of life activity of an individual have their own methodological approaches to understanding the concept of norm. The author defines quantitative-statistical and qualitative-unitary approaches as the most common for understanding the norm, where the first approach suggests the greatest frequency or repeatability of the characteristics of individual elements of the majority, and the second - as what is established as optimal within a certain discursive practice. The specified interdisciplinary approaches to the study of the concept of is used in the article, it focuses on the study of the main features and characteristics of this concept. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the dichotomy of approaches to the norm is accepted by the majority of researchers in one form or another. The first approach is statistical, and it is dynamic and variable, the norm depends on social and other changes. The second approach fixes the norm as universals or an established indicator. In real life, the interaction between the two vectors of understanding the norm is fixed. Setting a task and analyzing recent publications. The modern state of the problem of understanding the concept of is controversial because the scientific tradition uses this concept in different ways. Particularly requires attention to the understanding of its nature and essence. The study of the concept of is one of the urgent and necessary tasks of modern philosophy, the understanding and solution of which depend on the prospects of the development and functioning of the individual and civil society. For the analysis of such a phenomenon as a the work of Foucault M. were necessary. He showed the in the system of education, the penitentiary system and medicine. Presenting main material. The concept of acts as an interdisciplinary term, is used in various spheres of our lives, has an extremely versatile. The dichotomy of approaches to the norm is the most common and indigenous, in one form or another it is formulated by all researchers norm. The first approach is statistical, variable, the norm changes with the changes inside the group. The second approach considers the norm is a strictly universal, less flexible and extremely static one, which is established in order to evaluate, is based on a certain indicator, elements of the group that change their qualities, but the norm itself does not change. It does not depend on statistical changes inside the group. Our social space is like fabric woven from threads of various discursive practices that are closely interwoven, where they intersect with each other, enter into constructive interaction and come out of each other. These practices can be considered as separate discourses that are superimposed on each other. These may be rules of institutional organizations, legal laws and codes, religious doctrines, scientific paradigms, different language interactions, media space interactions, corporate ethics, subcultural associations, national customs, cultural traditions of local regions, etc. So, we find that in our scientific tradition we call social reality, which has its standards of admissibility and acceptability, which we call norm. Conclusions . The approaches to understanding the meanings of the word are not only methodological aspect of this problem, although they include the most fundamental methodological strategies, however, in each particular discursive practice there is a huge number of their own specific methodologies for setting the norm. In other words, the dichotomy of the fundamental understanding of the norm as a statistical majority and as a standard is only a way of the most general and broad division of approaches inherent in all kinds of specific methods that exist in different social practices, and the complete reduction of individual methods in particular practices to one or the other approach. It would be negligence because of ignoring the individual discursive features of understanding the norm in each particular case.