2408-932XResearch Result. Social Studies and Humanities2408-932X10.18413/2408-932X-2022-8-3-0-112871MISCCELLANEOUS: MESSAGES, DISCUSSIONS, REVIEWS<strong>Human understanding (toward a hermeneutic of the norm)</strong><strong>Human understanding (toward a hermeneutic of the norm)</strong>StojanovićVojislavStojanovićVojislavvstojanovich_26@yahoo.comBelgorod State National Research University20228300

Human understanding of many phenomena and appearances depends, first of all, on experience of the self and understanding of the self. Through this starting point we lay the foundations of our attitudes towards the environment. Insufficient analysis of experience (presented in this article as platform perception) can call into question the correctness (by correctness I understand everything that is in tune with objective logic, but also something that is useful in a positive (good) sense&nbsp;&ndash; a good intention followed by a good process and a good result) of one&#39;s understanding of normality. However, the thing that can be confusing in trying to understand the modern concept of normality is the well-known fact that it covers two different categories&nbsp;&ndash; what is usual and what is correct. The usual is not necessarily correct, and the correct is not necessarily usual. The relativizer of normality is the ever-present possibility of its change. Normality and non-normality not only influence each other, but are also conditioned by each other. Together they essentially constitute an understood and evaluated known physical reality. The changeability of human understanding, needs, attitudes, assessments, as well as change of circumstances affect the transformation of normality. The article discusses, among other things, the difference between the normal as a subject and an object. The consideration of these problems was approached from a multidisciplinary aspect, mainly relying on sociological, philosophical and psychological sources.

Human understanding of many phenomena and appearances depends, first of all, on experience of the self and understanding of the self. Through this starting point we lay the foundations of our attitudes towards the environment. Insufficient analysis of experience (presented in this article as platform perception) can call into question the correctness (by correctness I understand everything that is in tune with objective logic, but also something that is useful in a positive (good) sense&nbsp;&ndash; a good intention followed by a good process and a good result) of one&#39;s understanding of normality. However, the thing that can be confusing in trying to understand the modern concept of normality is the well-known fact that it covers two different categories&nbsp;&ndash; what is usual and what is correct. The usual is not necessarily correct, and the correct is not necessarily usual. The relativizer of normality is the ever-present possibility of its change. Normality and non-normality not only influence each other, but are also conditioned by each other. Together they essentially constitute an understood and evaluated known physical reality. The changeability of human understanding, needs, attitudes, assessments, as well as change of circumstances affect the transformation of normality. The article discusses, among other things, the difference between the normal as a subject and an object. The consideration of these problems was approached from a multidisciplinary aspect, mainly relying on sociological, philosophical and psychological sources.

understandingnormnormalitynormalnon-normaltransformation of the normalunderstandingnormnormalitynormalnon-normaltransformation of the normalСписок литературыAlexander,&nbsp;P. (1973), &ldquo;Normality&rdquo;, Philosophy, 48 (184), 137-151.Allport,&nbsp;G.&nbsp;W. (1958), &ldquo;Personality: Normal and abnormal&rdquo;, The Sociological Review, 6 (2), 167-180.Anderson,&nbsp;L. (2017), Deviance: Social Constructions and Blurred Boundaries, University of California Press, Oakland, California.Asch,&nbsp;S.&nbsp;E. (1956), &ldquo;Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority&rdquo;, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70 (9), 1-70.Becker,&nbsp;H.&nbsp;S. (1966), Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan Limited, New York, London.Blackburn,&nbsp;S. (2005), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.Canguilhem,&nbsp;G. (1978), On the Normal and the Pathological, translated by Carolyn R.&nbsp;Fawcett with editorial collaboration of Robert&nbsp;S.&nbsp;Cohen, D.&nbsp;Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.Cryle,&nbsp;P. and Stephens,&nbsp;E. (2017), Normality: A Critical Genealogy, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Durkheim,&nbsp;E. (1962), The Rules of Sociological Method, 8th edition translated by Sarah A. Solovay and John H. Mueller, edited by George E. G. Catlin, The Free Press of Glencoe Glencoe, IL.Foucault,&nbsp;M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by Alan Sheridan, Pantheon Books, New York.Glare,&nbsp;P.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;W. et al. (eds.) (1968), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford.Hacking,&nbsp;I. (2005), The Taming of Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hanumanthaiya,&nbsp;K. (1968), &ldquo;The Goals of Administrative Reforms&rdquo;, in Personnel Administration &ndash; The Need for Change, Report of the Conference held during March 5-9, 1968, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, 60-65.Heckert,&nbsp;A. and Heckert,&nbsp;D.&nbsp;M. (2002), &ldquo;A New Typology of Deviance: Integrating Normative and Reactivist Definitions of Deviance&rdquo;, Deviant Behavior, 23 (5), 449-479.Heckert,&nbsp;D.&nbsp;M. (1989), &ldquo;The Relativity of Positive Deviance: The Case of the French Impressionists&rdquo;, Deviant Behavior, 10 (2), 131-144.Horwitz,&nbsp;A.&nbsp;V. (2016), What&rsquo;s Normal? Reconciling Biology and Culture, Oxford University Press, New York.Laing,&nbsp;R.&nbsp;D. (1967), The Politics of Experience, Pantheon Books, New York.Lemert,&nbsp;E.&nbsp;M. (1951), Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.Lewis,&nbsp;Ch.&nbsp;T. and Short,&nbsp;Ch. (1879), Harpers&rsquo; Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund&rsquo;s Latin-German Lexicon, edited by E.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;Andrews, LLD, American Book Company, At the Clarendon Press, New York, Oxford.Maslow,&nbsp;A.&nbsp;H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper &amp; Row, Publishers, New York.Procter,&nbsp;P. (ed.) (1995), Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Sherif,&nbsp;M. (1936), The Psychology of Social Norms, Harper &amp; Brothers Publishers, New York.Soniewicka,&nbsp;M. (2015), &ldquo;Norm&rdquo;, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Tannenbaum,&nbsp;F. (1963), Crime and the Community, Columbia University Press, New York.