The article analyzes the project of scientific justification of language Reforms, realized by the Soviet regime in 20s and 30s, elaborated by Russian and Soviet linguist Evgenij Polivanov (1891-1938). Polivanov claims that a Soviet linguist should not limit his interests to the “general linguistics" and become an active “language builder" and “language politician". The reforms should be carefully planned by the experts in language sciences who master as well the methodology of dialectical materialism. In the polemics against Nikolai Marr's Japhetidology (...) Polivanov argued that linguistics is a strict science and its deductions are not contradictory to Marxism, as the latter is primarily a materialist philosophy. His minimal program consisted in explaining his views on the evolution of language in the Marxist terms. The evolution of language is explained by the influence of internal and external factors. The socio-economical factors are not influencing the language in a direct manner, but their analysis allows to change the channel of language evolution. According to Polivanov, the introduction of Marxism into linguistics will make possible to explain the relationship between intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors and will transform the sciences of language into “social engineering of the future". (shrink)

The aim of the present paper is to show that the fundamental transformation of Russian society that had been realized by the Soviet government since the early twenties included not only the reforms of scientific institutions or the creation of a new educational system but also a radical reevaluation of the social role of the expert knowledge. It proposes a transversal analysis of the institutional history of the Soviet science and its complex relations with the state apparatus in order to (...) show that the research policy of the twenties should be considered not only as an attempt to stimulate a “catch up growth,” but rather as an anticipation of some essential problems discussed in the contemporary social epistemology. The early Soviet government had a very particular vision of “social engineering” that was both utopian and extremely pragmatic. The Soviet Union was considered as the first truly “scientific state,” based on the idea that the historical development could be accelerated due to a party lead popular mobilization. The result of this conviction was the policy of “state-sponsored evolutionism” that created a high demand for the experts in all fields of knowledge. First, it focuses on the dualism of scientific institutions in the twenties when the “old” Academy of Sciences composed of the scientists formed under the Old Regime was disputing the role of the leading research institution with the newly created Communist Academy. This period could be described as the era of “New Scientific Policy” or some kind of “primitive accumulation” of the expert knowledge. Later it explores another dualism that existed since the creation of the Soviet Union: it consisted of the opposition between two rival projects of state building. The first one was promoted by State Planning Committee and made an emphasis on the administrative division based on economical basis, the second one was a project of People’s Commissariat of Nationalities, that proposed a creation of multiple soviet “national states” based on the principle of self-determination. Both projects required a large amount of data in various fields of knowledge and promoted a creation of new research institutions and favored the pioneering study in both central economy planning and social engineering. The aim of this article is to place the soviet experience in the comparative perspective, claiming that the communist modernization should be analyzed in the context of elaboration, in Foucault’s terms, of new “governmental technologies” which are supposed to be the products of new research institutions directly or indirectly influenced by a modern state. (shrink)

The discussion is devoted to the notion of context and its use in connection to the notion of interdisciplinarity. These two notions are claimed to be crucial for understanding how “naturalization of social epistemology” can be possible and whether it can be exhausted by an interpretation of knowledge in social context and whether it has its own philosophical importance. These questions were initially raised in the works of I.Kasavin.