“Self” and “Other” in M. M. Bakhtin’s Philosophy and Modern Reality

Abstract

Introduction. The key challenges of our time are caused by the expansion of the semantic space represented by the dual opposition “identical – other”. The scale of each side appeals to a new interpretation of the concept of M. M. Bakhtin, extrapolated to the actual existence of man. The purpose of the article is to discuss the problem of “Self” and “Other” in the philosophy of M. M. Bakhtin, understood from the perspective of modern reality. Materials and Methods. The methodology of the article is the dialectical idea of a critical analysis of significant socio-cultural phenomena that encourage the subject to master the objective reality that opposes him. The leading method of dual opposition in the study focuses on the analysis of the relationship between the whole and its significant parts. The solution of the research problem is also provided by the method of philosophical interpretation of social reality, allowing to remove the one-dimensionality of knowledge of the infinitely changing world. Results. The ambivalence of new socio-cultural meanings growth points that record differences between the standards of the domestic and the Western society, despite the widespread expansion of the latter, was revealed. The interpretation of M. M. Bakhtin’s approach in the context of modern reality leads to the conclusion that each person has his own model of the world, which he does not lose, by getting used to the personality of the “Other”. The manifestation of duality in the concept of “Self” significantly expands the semantic base of philosophical knowledge, fundamentally opposing the semantic representation of the “Other” in Western philosophy. Discussion and Conclusions. Studying the problem of “Self” and “Other”, in the works of M. M. Bakhtin, conditioned by the dynamics of the development of nonlinear modernity while preserving the traditional layer, allowed us to find two lines of building relations between them. The coexistence of various ethno-national and cosmopolitan attitudes in the modern world, which paradoxically lead to dialogue, testifies to an ambivalent trend of development – “forward”, from totalitarianism to democracy, then “backward”, from conditional democracy to a new totalitarianism. The preservation of the national culture from these positions and its development becomes fundamentally important for the Russian society.