On advantage or disadvantage of academic scholarship for life

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

On Advantage or Disadvantage of Academic Scholarship for Life

Mariia Kultaieva, Nadiia Grygorova

Abstract

The article with allusions on Nietzsche's provocation about history lessons proposes an interdisciplinary approach to academic scholarship considered as a special cultural and organizational form of advanced studies aimed at professional development or skill exchange, which have influence on human being in contemporary societies involved in the process of globalization. The theoretical conceptualization of institutionalized forms of scholarships and internships is analyze in connection with its practical representation and economical allocation. Pathological representations of academic scholarship as an end in itself are unveiled as a kind of conspicuous consumptions symbolizing the status position or exclusivity on the borders between academic community and mass-media. The purpose of this article is to explicate some representations of academic scholarship in the contexts of the academic capitalism searching the way of overcoming its utilitarian limitations with universal ethical imperatives. To realize such a purpose, phenomenological reduction is applied in combination with the biographical method. Assumptions made in the article are verified on biographical fragments of curriculum vitae of influential sociologists such as Ralf Dahrendorf and Niklas Luhmann, because the social and professional self-realization and revision of the life-priorities of them was due in many aspects to academic scholarship gained by different ways but with success, especially in the field of educational policy and in the case of establishing democracy in the process of post-totalitarian transformation in Germany. This experience can be useful for Ukraine as well. The phenomenon of the cultural shock and its influence on visiting

Keywords: academic scholarship, academic integrity, academic capitalism, epistemic culture, cultural shock, Ralf Dahrendorf, Niklas Luhmann, life, education, globalization.

Анотація

Марія Култаєва, Наталія Григорова. Про користь і шкідливість академічного стажування для життя

В статті з алюзією на провокацію Фрідріха Ніцше щодо уроків історії пропонується міждисциплінарний підхід до аналізу академічного стажування як специфічної культурної та організаційної форми навчання закордоном з метою підвищення кваліфікації та обміну досвідом, що має вплив на людське буття у сучасних соціумах, які зазнали викликів глобалізації. Теоретична концептуалізація інституціональних форм стажування науково- педагогічних і науково-дослідних кадрів розглядається у тісному зв'язку з їхньою практичною репрезентацією та економічним запитом на результати стажування. Патологічні репрезентації академічного стажування як самоцілі розкриваються як різновид престижного споживання, яке не відповідає настановам академічної доброчесності у її широкому розумінні, символізуючи статусну позицію або ексклюзивність особистості науковця на межі між науковою спільнотою та медійним простором. Метою статті є розкриття модифікацій наукового стажування у контекстах академічного капіталізму та виявлення можливостей виходу за його утилітаристські обмеження на основі етики відповідальності. Це здійснюється через здійснення феноменологічної редукції із залученням біографічного методу. Зроблені припущення верифікуються на матеріалі біографій видатних соціологів Ральфа Дарендорфа та Нікласа Лумана, суспільна самореалізація яких у різних галузях політики, в тому числі й в освіті, відбулась у ході критичного опрацювання результатів наукового стажування, під впливом якого певною мірою відбулась переорієнтація їхніх життєвих пріоритетів, передусім у галузі освітньої політики та розбудови демократії у Німеччині, що може бути корисним для України. Розкриваються негативні наслідки культурного шоку, які криють у собі ризики дезорієнтації у процесу стажування та навчання закордоном, запобіжником якої мають служити національні пріоритети рідної країни науковця. Показана роль комунікації між епістемними культурами у цьому процесі, а також у подолання епістемної несправедливості. ,

Ключові слова: академічне стажування, академічна доброчесність, академічний капіталізм, епістемна культура, культурний шок, біографія, Ральф Дарендорф, Ніклас Луманн, життя, освіта.

Introduction

The title and the problem setting of this article include an allusion on well- known essay of Nietzsche dealing with critically notes about history meaning and its consequences for human life. The same might be said by considering of academic scholarships, which exist today in different forms with very broad functional range from self-realization up to institutional and political design. Today these established forms of academic mobility are recognized in the global world officially as a significant fact in curriculum vitae of every member of academic communities or researches' teams as stages to the upper rating in the world competitions. The struggle for recognition takes place today in the globalized academic communities on the field of academic capitalism with its distributing of scholarships and grants. However the efficiency of scholarship in reality is often considering isolated from its influence on the life strategy of individual and his career. The practices of academic scholarships depend on economic factors and educational management, but also not less on cultural conditions of everyday life.

The concept of life is used here in its broad sense as integrating of social, political and private processes in human being. In the case of academic mobility is on principle the distinction between donation, gift of destiny and moral obligation. For the clarifying some aspects of that here is used the procedure of phenomenological reduction which is often made by applying of the biographical method because life histories must be de-randomized fo the analytical aims [Luhmann 2004: 268]. This methodological combining gives a possibility both for theoretical and practical considering, that is necessary in view of the tendency to appraise the academic scholarships and even academic mobility at whole in frames of conspicuous consumption This tendency is typically not only for academic capitalism It took place also in early Modernity, e.g. in Ukraine since 18-th century. Hryhoriy Skovoroda e.g. had critically reflected it in this parable “The Poor Lark” [Kultaieva 2022a: 19-20].. Since last decade of the former century the educational mobility was often also designated by the term “global students migration” identified with the economic one [Stichweh 2000: 160-161] . However unlike the economic migration its student's analogue is more institutionalized, has its own cultural and economic forms both without and within of educational structures. The academic scholarship as an institutional organized form of student mobility represents in its different modification symbolically the goal and vehicle of this movement both in two directions: towards the global center or from it towards (semi-) periphery of the globalized world. In some paradox cases especially in the dimension of “life” the both goals can be combined in humanitarian sciences, what often occurs with philosophers and representatives of other social sciences/ especially in the case when their theories should be coalesced with their biographies, which partly were formed by extraordinary scholarship stories1. academic internships organizational

The purpose of this article is to explicate some representations of academic scholarship in the contexts of the academic capitalism searching for the way of overcoming of its utilitarian limitations with universal ethical imperatives. In this article was made an attempt to show the role of the cultural, social and anthropological aspects of academic scholarship imbedded in the frames of academic capitalism with its opportunities and risks. This intention might partly contribute to actual narrative on epistemic injustice and hermeneutical justice See more on this extended biographical approach identifying theory with biography of its author: [Thoma et al 2015: 8, 11] The whole issue of the journal “Social Epistemology is devoted to this problem however first at all on the field of gender justice [Altanian, & El Kassar 2020].. As the cultural phenomenon the academic scholarship takes a special place in intercultural relation including diversities in epistemic cultures as cultures of knowledge with national articulation. Although this aspect is more important for humanities, it may be the subject of interest also for natural sciences because the laboratory life has also its communicative codes rooting in national cultures despite of all efforts to unify educational and research practices made by global academic capitalism. The academic scholarship as an actual cultural form of studies abroad contributes to making synthesis or building hybrids from different epistemic cultures. The article makes an attempt to show the resonance of those transformations turning to biographical factuality of two world-known representatives of social science, namely of Ralph Dahrendorf and Niklas Luhmann. This choice was done not only because they had the similar start position and trying to recover their war trauma as re-educated individuals, although this experience can be considered as enlightening one for the post-communist countries despite of the time-gap. But it is more important to clarify their logics of taking decision for the academic scholarships in USA founded on ethics of responsibility. For them both it was a rational choice with the perspective of further critically consideration in accordance with their own national interests on the begin of the European integration with already showing the illusory contours of the Bologna process at its horizon.

The disappointment about the Bologna process of German academic representatives and a great part of the civic society was still analyzed in issues of this journal1. In Ukraine as well in others post-communist countries the educational integration process was accepted as the fulfillment of old dreams about moving in direction towards European standards. The appeal “Doing Europe” which was actual in Europe during last decades See [Kultaeva 2018]. See [Beck 2005: 32]. became no resonance in the post-communist societies that were involved in the process decommunization as end itself Peter Sloterdijk describes this process as “an adventure of the post-communist soul [Sloterdijk 2006: 294-295].. The opportunity to study or research aboard was always recognized in Ukraine as a very efficient form which contributes to increasing the potential the level of teachers and students, opens new horizons for self-realizations of scholars and researches, gives opportunity for exchange of students, cooperation between educational and research institutions. All this directions of educational mobility are critically analyzed and reflected by Ukrainian and foreign authors. Among of those who had made some successful attempts by considering new tendencies of internationalization of the high education in Ukrainian contexts, can be especially named contributions of Viktor Andrushchenko, Nataliia Boichenko, Vasyl. Kremen, Valentyna Sahuichenko, Denis Svyrydenko etc. The ideas of Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Michael Polanyi had given also impulses for considering academic scholarships in sociocultural and socio-anthropological dimensions. Furthers impulses for considering the scholarship in the frames of life came from Axel Honneth, namely from his attempt to analyze Adorno's social theory as reproducing “a physiognomy of the capitalist form of life” [Honneth 2009: 54-55].

However the problem of functional adequacy of academic scholarship for life in all its dimensions needs further explorations because of hidden risks connected with it This article is focused on those dangers for scholarships, which are caused by economic, social and psychological factors, including the cultural shock as a side effect of academic scholarship. The problem which is put here deals with the life-world dimension of scholarship in its instrumental and cultural meaning. Bracketing out the scope the sociological factuality it is necessary to unveil general disturbing factors in self-knowing of young researcher und lectures for further description of academic scholarship as cultural and social phenomenon. The phenomenological approach is here used as precursory attitude for the interdisciplinary analysis of potential risks hidden in framework conditions of all programs of academic scholarship without their more detailed considering.

Academic scholarship as cultural form in European educational tradition

The educational mobility has a long tradition. Its roots could be go into ancient educational practices and medieval European universities with their foreign students which were ex-territorial because of guiding by their own private interests. Since appearance of national states with their systems education the academic scholarships were institutionalized as learning and gaining experience practices which served for national needs The road from “perigrinatio academica” of the pre-modernity to the global students migrations was connected with the problem, how it should be possible to become concordance between national education systems with all its distinctions [Stichweh 2000: 146-147].

The cultural form of academic scholarship was crystalized after the process of reciprocal nearing by different national cultures. The late Modernity in diversity to the Enlightenment advocates national cultures and their achievements and makes a hidden attempt to turn the construct of the world culture into cultural parliament founded on the universal values, moral and rule strengthening all that by education democracy. This construction in its main features is corresponded to the political motto of EU: “United in Diversity”. The cultural form of scholarship in all its modifications has incorporated these principles in its shape making accent on unification. Despite of Bologna process the unification of the European educational landscapes, including the cultural form of the students exchanges and scholarships, opens itself for national specifics. The cultural experience, which was brought from the native country, and those gained abroad in unknown cultural and social surround can be accepted as a good opportunity for so-called “extensional education” which includes some “non-planed side effects” of studies or researches in other cultural environment [Treml 2000: 79 ]. It means learning everyday life and national culture in the host countries as side-effect of academic studies. However the cultural shock can sometimes minimize the positive effect especially that received especially from the shot-term scholarships or studies abroad.

The concept of cultural shock with its stages comes into use at the beginning of globalization and became popularity by describing of the cross- cultural mobility of economic migrants [Oberg 1960: 143-144]. The stages of the cultural shock described by Oberg - euphoria (honeymoon), frustration, adaptation and acceptance - keep their validity also in the case of academic scholarship. But taking in account the duration and special timing of academic scholarship all these stages only seldom appear in its continuity, especially by the short-term study tours. Reducing stages of cultural shock depends on psychological, cognitive and social characteristics of scholars and students. However some of them can get stuck at the first stage (euphoria)for a long time replacing their illusions or an inadequate evaluation of native conditions in modernization projects. Some of reforming propositions especially in education can bear prints of that illusions without understanding of mechanism and resources of innovation adoption which were very attractive in universities abroad1.

Besides its cultural dimension the academic scholarships have also social and economic characteristics. On the social field the academic scholarship contributes to knowledge production, building of national elites training them for leadership in the civic society opened to the world. During of the long industrialism period, which in the late Modernity is drifting into postindustrialism, the scholarships were regarded as a human capital that belongs to the national state. The individual scholarships were controlled by national state and economic bureaucracy. The reproduction of national political elites in the West and Central Europe needed academic scholarships and internships for strengthening of international contacts on the individual level [Hartmann 2007: 238-239]. In the East-European post-communist countries the formal availability of scholarships and internships was in many cases a statusbuilding action or the legal form of brain-draining. The academic capitalism despite of its contradictions remains an attractive target for some scientist in post-communists countries with their great ambitions and small resources.

Academic capitalism as sponsor and beneficiary of scholarships and scientific internships

The academic scholarship as well in its theoretical and practical representations belongs to the proved forms within system of contemporary higher education, especially in advanced studies. The history of education can be considered from this point of view as an illustration for transformation of the role of educational mobility in its different institutional forms. The leap in the future with new digital technologies is their combined with looking back in direction of the Pre-modernity. The autonomy of early universities means opening of this institution for all scholars which were interested to join to this community without borders The well-known professor and Dean at American Catholic University of Notre Dame (College of Art and Letters) Mark W. Roche had made some useful notes on “what is worse for the German University to learn from the American ones and what should be better avoided” [Roche 2014: 258-261]. In post-communist countries this topic wasn't on the agenda because the ecstasy of the De-communization had substituted thinking in the mood of rational choice [Sloterdijk 2006: 302]. See more [Pedersen 1998: 190-195]. The economy and social conditions of developed industrial society in the period of its post-industrial transformation create new models of academic competitions and academically life at whole, that is titled as academic capitalism1.

The structuring of the higher education as a global project was speeded up by new opportunities opening with digital technologies. However the internalization of education is a process burdened with contradiction. Conditions of the academic capitalism change the role reality of the leading actors in educational process. In relation to academic scholarship and more widening to academic mobility there is remarkable a striking change of motivation. A new type of the postindustrial homo oeconomicus seems to replace the well-known figure of homo academicus because he tries to transform educational institutions accordingly the logic of enterprising. The concept of “education quality” is connected with semantics of producing for the market. Richard Munch had characterized this tendency very apt as foundation of the “audit-university” [Munch 2011: 9495]. This type of university, which seems to establish also in Ukrainian, set other priorities as it was in the classical one. The knowledge production is here separated from searching for truth and serving to science and mankind. The civilizational mission of Scholar and Teacher disappears in academic capitalism. The functions and content of academic scholarships are also changed, however their formally proceeding seems to be preserved. As the result the academic scholarship was embedded in the social construction for reproducing of statushierarchies by ranking universities or research institutions [Munch 2011: 219, 346]. Therefore the academic community becomes features of the corporation with its utilitarian ethics and economized culture.

The academic capitalism on the one hand shows the tendency of increasing organization complexity by transformation of the higher education but as result the quality of knowledge production declines. This economization of education, science and culture provokes transfer by evaluating of the production in marketing sphere. The semblance substitutes the real result of research and education. This phenomenon results consequently the dominance of the marketing interests. Konrad Paul Liessmann notes, that the semblance is another name for lies, which are produced by “the post-factual politics” and “the post-factual science ... provoking sabotage of thinking” [Liesmann 2023: 19-20]. The real content of academic scholarships, which is represented by “the audit-university” and research internships in “the audit-laboratory” Some characteristics of the academic capitalism were critically analyzed on the pages of this journal [Pashov, & Khovrich 2009] The more detailed description of it see [Latour, & Woolgar 1986]. is corresponded only seldom to previous intentions of Scholars or Fellows because of its subordination to economic and political goals that could be stayed invisible during a long time for interns. Bruno Latour illustrates the discrepancy between the dream and reality in the professional life strategies of scientist using for this aim two mottos. So the dream could be expressed by parodying Archimedes “Give me a laboratory and I will move society” [Latour 1983: 167]. The wishful freedom of scientist was never given him so much as he wanted. So even the highly valued academically freedom has its restrictions in the struggle for social recognition. Latour proposes to make this thesis more convincing by periphrases of the well-known statement of Clausewitz: “Science is politics pursued by other means” [Latour 1983: 168].

The academic capitalism not less than its other historical forms is oriented on maximizing of profit by knowledge producing because knowledge isn't a good of the long-term storage. Exploitation and aliening are the by-side effects caused by the operating mode of Taylorism management theory and practice. The simulating of achievements or even scientific discoveries is one of the pathological by-effects of Taylorism in the educational policy. The highest rating index had showed not necessarily the real best, but it could be imitators far away from the principles of the academic integrity, because the strong control and pressing on the scientists and higher school's lectors can break their creativity and self-emendation as personalities. The criminal experiments of establishing research teams in prisoner's camps made by totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Union confirm the assumption about essential role of social freedom for activities of scientists.

As another form of Taylorism is its soft version. It is realized in research centres and institution which are symbolized by the Silicon Valley. The hybrid forms of tradition and innovation determinate there professional occupying and everyday life of high-tech specialists The comparison between descriptions of the Silicon Valley made in the second half of 20th century and in the last decade of the 21-th allows to state that there are no principle distinctions in it. See the analyses of Werner Rugemer [Rugemer 1986] and Christoph Keese [Keese 2016].. The prestigious American and West-European universities and institutions of informal education propose very much charitable programs for different groups of students, researchers and professorship with a noble goal to contribute to their professional and personal growth. It isn't only about the MINT-directions, but also is dealing with social and human sciences. The competitions of candidates for getting scholarship or receiving grants can contributes to their self-knowing and maturity but only in the case of their pragmatic motivation. All other incentives, such as “to see more of the world” or “to be on the top of rating at home” can be defined from this point of view only as a lost time. The logic of selection used by the soft academic capitalism is oriented on pragmatic testing of the best specialists who should be able - actually or afterwards - to increase the producing of knowledge or technology. However there is a trap for academic capitalism because it deals often with simulacra because selection of grant or scholarships applicants is made at last by artificial intelligence after all interviews1.

Academic capitalism shows the tendency shows its preference to the instrumental rationality in research and advanced studies without making distinctions between fundamental and applied, natural and human sciences. Consequently it is sometimes very difficult to join existential and pragmatic motives of academic scholarship especially in the East-European countries with the communist past. Ukrainian isn't an exception in this case. The deficit of pragmatism in educational politics in these countries is often compensated by axioms of faith and utopian wish-thinking. However the “transatlantic export” of the pragmatic educational management and the models of American “mass-university” become priority on European continent The German magazine “Information Philosophie” had reprinted anonym the list of “the most influenced philosophers”, which was drawn up by “AcademicInfluence'' for the year 2021, with a sharply comment: “Never mind if you don't know some of names on the list because it was made by AI on the basis of citations: 1. Sally Haslanger. 2. Daniel Dennett. 3. Linda Martin Alcoff. 4.Martha Nussbaum. 5. David Chalmers. 6. Jennifer Saul. 7. Noam Chomsky. 8. Jurgen Habermas. .9. Robert Bernasconi. 10. George Zanci” [Redaktion 2021: 47]. See more [Roche 2014]..

Bureaucratizing, which took place in the educational institutions joined to Bologna process, provokes the appearance of simulacra in science and higher education because university professorship, junior and senior researches exist not only in the space of academic capitalism and in modus of necessity, but they need social and academic freedom for scientific researching and also for everyday life. Furthermore the struggle for recognition which always takes place in the academic communities is burden with the resentment and envy The short time staying in educational institutions and research laboratories during academic scholarship can awake illusion about the very favorable atmosphere among teachers and researches staff which should be perceived as an ideal team work or ideal academic community, which exist only in imagine of the visiting scholars See more [Roche 2014: 136-138].. The same can be said about subjective perception of freedom in institutions where academic scholarship takes place.

So Christoph Keese as intern in one of Research Centers in Silicon Valley sees in academic freedom a great advantage by organization of his internship in German International School of Silicon Valley. He had used it “for gaining practical skill in high-velocity economy” whereas attending lectures was for him “relaxation” [Keese 2016: 120, 54]. The symbolic meaning of Silicon Valley and accordingly of Stanford University as a field of experimentalism and metaphor for a new world of work in the frames of post-industrialism should be considered as the hidden program of life strategies for ambitions scholars devoting themselves entirely to work inspired of new opportunities opening for research. Anyway this enthusiasm is also included in program of the soft Taylorism. One of those enthusiasts was the world-known sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf which aimed to develop the theory of “responsive capitalism” with key words freedom and justice, but going out utopia . His experience gained at begin of the second half of the 20-th century was ahead of time and can be instructive for contemporary scholars which intent to make academic scholarship to a part of the own life-strategy.

Ralf Dahrendorf and Niklas Luhmann: impetus for constructive changes

Though the above-mentioned influential representatives of social sciences began to build their career immediately after the Second World War, their scholarship's activities can indicate the evidence of synergy by national, cosmopolitan and private interests. It was the time, when the first European institutions such as European Commission and Parliament were established comin into publicity with a new political rhetoric which expresses meaning of European Conventionon on Human Rights. Therefore the heuristic metaphor for changes took its place on this international space with its “laboratory for new regimes” [Wallace 2002: 260-261]. The design of academic scholarships for perspective was created in such “laboratories” producing also new biographical narratives.

The reciprocal visiting of European and American scientists has a long story. For example, significant for humanities, especially for pedagogues, was visit of Georg Kerschensteiner in America on beginning of the 20 th century and his debates with John Dewey [Knoll 2018: 271- 289].

Dahrendorf and Luhmann were in another situation. They tried to give an answer how it is possible globalization of science and education without losing national achievements on this field. Their biographies despite of all diversities show a similarity of the start position: Luhmann was prisoners of American's war camp with its re-educational practices. The life story of Dahrendorf was more complicated because he was a prisoner in concentration camp in Polen, was released by Soviet army and then ran away to Hamburg, towards British occupied zone, and must be re-educated in Great Britain (1948) taking lessons on democracy and political education. This extraordinary experience of humanitarian re-education practices contributed to clearing of life-strategies moreover giving chance to improve their English, that furthermore was successful used by them.

a) Dahrendorf as a cosmopolitan-national personality, scientist, educational philosophy and government functionary

Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009) as a world-known sociologist has made not only society, but also his own life to the object of detailed analysis in his memoirs “Crossing Borders” (Uber Grenzen. Lebenserinnerungen). By his own admission the scholarships and internships, which he used as emendation opportunity, contributed to his life-styling in the patch-work design [Dahrendorf 2002: 9]. Holding dual citizenship of the UK and Germany he made political career in both countries on the top level He was in the different periods of his life a Member of German Parliament, European Commissioner for Research, Science and Education. Member of the British House of Lords, since 1993 he was awarded to Baron for his merits for British Crown [Meifort 2017: 12-14].. Dahrendorf describes himself in his memoirs as “men of the world” with practical intentions and researching interest. The work on his promotion thesis was finished in1950 at University in Hamburg. It was devoted to Karl Marx theory on justice. It wasn't a reconstruction of Marx social philosophy, but the critical analysis of validity of Marxist's approach for the developed industrial society. Revision of Marx' theory from the standpoint of structural functionalism was by Dahrendorf always connected with practical task of realization of freedom and justice also with educational practices, which might contribute to establishment of the responsible capitalism, which was far away from its Marx's conceptualization because of emerging of new classes and interests groups in industrial societies. However untypically for many scholars he decided to gain PhD for sociology in London School of Economics with the thesis paper “Unskilled workers in British industry” (1952). Remarkable in this two papers was not only Dahrendorf's struggle for recognition in Great Britain, but also his intention to show the compatibility of German and British epistemic cultures on the materials of Marx reception. In the same year he came as a visiting professor in USA to take advanced studies at Columbia University, where he became an opportunity to learn more deeper potential of the structural- functional approach in social and political sciences that was completely new in Germany.

The American, British and German industrial societies despite of their similarities have some distinction in their conflict situations and tendencies to cooperate with another. To proof his intuitions and became a look into the future the decided to continue his studies at Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Polo Alto (Stanford University in Silicon Valley). Dahrendorf describes detailing all stages of the cultural shock which he get in Silicon Valley which he named “the Lab for the future world of work”. He notes: “At first after arrival I felt bliss, drank whiskey and wrote poetry. ...Then it was less whiskey and poetry” [Dahrendorf 2002: 22]. It is very remarkable how detailed describes Dahrendorf his life strategy: “ Promotion with 23, habilitation with 27 - the professorship, 28 - professorship in Hamburg” [Dahrendorf 2002: 24]. His academic career he always connected with political activity in Germany, taking part in democratic transformations in Germany. Dahrendorf was one of the founders of the University in Constance (1966). In his dreams it should be “a little Harvard on Lake Constance” [Meifort 2017: 131].

In diversity to Theodor Adorno, one of the head figures of the Frankfurt School, which felt himself uncomfortable in USA and in his works followed only German epistemic culture, Dahrendorf was interested in searching of social and cultural innovations on the international level in conviction, that it should be useful for German society. Adorno, just the opposite, rejected all research projects with applied science, which that times were very popular in America, because he generally was concentered on himself [Thoma et al 2015: 158-159] But Dahrendorf tried always - like Karl Popper, which was advisor of his first thesis- to build bridges between different epistemic cultures putting into brackets their ranges and medial positions. His scholarships and visiting professorships were never goal in itself. The opportunities for advanced studies Dahrendorf had always used for making links with colleagues abroad. But he had early elaborated ability of critical thinking on authorities Dahrendorf's criticism on Parsons' structural functionalism was published in USA at the end of 50-th [Dahrendorf 1958].. In his article “Out of Utopian” he argued with some week points in Talcott Parsons' theory of social systems, exposing its utopian elements, which are connected with the claim to represent the universal explanation model for social interaction. The conclusion of Dahrendorf was resolute: “The system theory of society comes^ dangerously close to the conspiracytheory of history” [ Dahrendorf 1958: 120]. Furthermore, so Dahrendorf, this methodology opens the door for research-simulations. He names some topics of such thesis founded on evidences: “Social Structures in Hospital” or “The Role of the Professional Football Players” [Dahrendorf 1958: 123]. This note is very actually today because those topics are often considering only as factuality for bloggers without further generalizing.

The truth is one of the central concepts of German epistemic culture. Dahrendorf avoids to identify it with successful problem solving or with it plural forms He returns rather to its classical meaning but with ethical aura and freedom. His claim is: “Neither fashions nor interests might disturb the truth” [Dahrendorf 2006: 70]. From that point of view Dahrendorf had analyzed scientific contribution and political engagement of intellectuals. Criterion for decision there was the relationship both to the truth and to the freedom. The scholars which had keep themselves far away from policy, have represented themselves as ordinary participant observers. Therefore those with the interest for truth and freedom were named by Dahrendorf “engaged observer”. This semantically and functional distinction may be useful for establishment of democracy in academic communities. However the position of “engaged observer” was described from the standpoint of the role theory as `paradox or contrary in itself': the engaged scholars were politician, in turn for politicians they were to “academic” and many others saw in them journalists [Dahrendorf 2006: 70]. The ontological place for “engaged observer” isn't located definitely in think tanks as special research institutions founded for political, economic or cultural consultations. This partial skepticism is justified because it deals there with institutionalized bureaucratic version of individual position in relation to the matter of research or considering [Dahrendorf 2006: 71]1. Another opportunity for intellectual development and self-realization of scholars opens their involving in communications as well on specific scientific topics and on political and social problems.

Provoking discussions was one of remarkable features of Dahrendorf resulting from his advanced studies. In his social and political explorations he wasn't only conflict theorist, but also paid attention to educational practices and scientific communication. The intellectual fashion on great discussions and debates has a long tradition in Europe, however Dahrendorf had organized and supported generally those which were dealing with methodological problems Dahrendorf verifies this statement using biographical approach: “Popper and Berlin had neither time nor interest for Institutes of Political Consulting, whereas Aron (as well as Hannah Arendt ) might not always keep distance to them, anyway his independence meant more for him. They all demonstrated self-control, discipline and cautiousness, all that were necessary for planning their intellectual route on their own authority [Dahrendorf 2006: 71]. See Debates on Habermas-Luhmann debates : Berghaus Margot (2004). Luhmann leicht gemacht. Eine Enfuhrung in die Systemtheorie . Koln-Wien: Bohlau, p. 21. ; Horster Detlef. Niklas Luhmann. Munchen: Beck, 1997: 16-18. One of the most influential contemporary philosophers Karl-Otto Apel in his report “Science as Emancipation” had emphasized the role of Dahrendorf by debates with students and in student's organizations [Apel 199: 151-152].. The methodological competence is one of conditions for mutual understanding between cultures although it isn't taking in account in intercultural political communication.

b) Luhmann's advantage from his scholarship and its critical elaborating

Luhmanns biography has many common points with that of Dahrendorf, but with some important exceptions. As a prisoner of war taking by American troops Luhmann ought to pass completely the program of denazification On the way and content of this exam with humanitarian intentionality without any violence had talked Karl-Otto Apel during his visiting professorship in Kyiv. See more [Kultaieva, 2022a: 56 ] .. He became there an opportunity to prove his English but in its American version. Dahrendorf in contrary speaks fluently British English and showed preference British epistemic culture in comparison with American one. This moment is impotent for clarifying of the discrepancy between Dahrendorf and Luhmann in their critically assessment of Parsons' theory with they learned during their American scholarships. Furthermore Max Weber and Edmund Husserl were more significant for Luhmann as lawyer with competences in phenomenology.

In his interview given to Detlef Horster Luhmann as a former lawyer manager at state agencies had talked about his lucky circumstance to get a scholarship for advanced studies in Harvard (1961-1962) and to study by Parsons [Luhmann 1997: 25-47]. It was a chance giving him from American academic capitalism. Luhmann gave a commentary of his arriving to America made with subjective reasoning: he should like to see, “how sufficient it is to rely only on reading and making notes” [Luhmann 1997: 33]. However the objective circumstances were also analyzed by Luhmann. He considered his scholarship as result of social system on some problems within it. Thinking back Luhmann states: “It could be happened because Washington was interested to eliminate the shortage of official-managers. It was done in the frames of the New Deal” It was the serial of programs (1933-1969) enacted by the President of USA Franklin D. Roosevelt aiming the development of democracy. See more: [Schlesinger 2003]. [Luhmann 1997: 32- 33]. Learning by Parsons and critically examining his approach Luhmann also had paid attention on subtle differences in epistemic cultures, especially in the case of those concepts, which have the duple functionality: in methodology and by theory constructing what Parsons had ignored [Luhmann 1997: 36].

Luhmann's academic scholarship had turned his biography and career. Learning by Parsons, searching with Parsons and thinking against Parsons had made him at last to one of the most influential contemporary sociologists. His appeal for the sociological Enlightenment, which was born during his academic scholarships, expressed in allusion on Hamlet's question as “learning or not learning”, means today an actually choice for the perspectives of the renewed decentered democracy [Willke 2016: 16].

Conclusion

Academic scholarships in variety of their organized form are a great achievement of the human cultural history. They contribute to speeding of knowledge production and open perspective for new forms of cooperation between scientists in the digitalized world. This opportunity is very important especially for the post-communist societies. It might be recognized that futurological exploration made on this problem field could be very useful for educational policy. However the retrospective analysis of academic scholarships on biographical materials as self-description within advanced studies might be also useful for making acceptable some principles of the academic capitalism and rejecting another because of their incompatibility with national interests of scholars of countries which need modernization. The new actual narrative on epistemic injustice and hermeneutical justice in the social sciences show advantages and disadvantages of academic scholarships both for producing knowledge and development of scientist personality As prototypes on activities in this direction can serve some fragments of Dahrendorf's and Luhmann's biographies from the period of establishing of democracy in the post-totalitarian society. I can be useful for Ukrainian scholars which demonstrate often the will to emendation, but without readiness for critically evaluation of content and experience gained on their studies and scholarships abroad. The real advantage of academic scholarship can be evident only on practical results achieved on the fields of science and education with taking in account national interests of the homecountry.

References

1. Altanian, M., & El Kassar, N. (2020). Epistemic Injustice and Collective Wrongdoing: Introduction to Special Issue. Social Epistemology, 35(1), 1-10.

2. Apel, K.-O. (1999). Wissenschaft als Emanzipation? - Eine kritische Wurdigung der Wis- senschaftskonzeption in der „Kritischen Theorie". In: Apel K.- O. Transformation der Philosophie. Band. 2. Das Apriori Der Kommunikationsgemeinschaft. (S. 128-154). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

3. Beck, U. (2005). Waszur Wahlsteht? Berlin: Suhrkamp.

4. Dahrendorf R. (2006). Versuchungen der Unfreiheit. Die Intellektuellen in Zeiten der Pru- fung. Munchen: Beck.

5. Dahrendorf, R. (2002). Uber Grenzen. Lebenserinnerungen. Munchen: Beck.

6. Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Out of Utopia. Towards a Reorganization of Sociological Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 115-127.

7. Hartmann, M. (2007). Eliten und Macht in Europa. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Frank- furt/New York: Campus.

8. Honneth, A. (2009). Pathologies of Reasons. On the Legacy of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

9. Keese, C. (2016). Silicon Valley: Was aus dem mdchtigsten Teil der Welt auf uns zukommt. Munchen: Penguin.

10. Knoll, M. (2018). John Dewey und Georg Kerschensteiner im Streit um die Berufs- und Allgemeinbildung. In: Konrad F.-M., & Knoll, M. (Hrsg.). John Dewey als Pddagoge. Er- ziehung - Schule - Unterricht. (S. 271-291). Bad Heilbronn: Julius Klikhard.

11. Kultaieva, M. (2018). The Provocative Philosophy of Education: Fata Morgana of Universalism and Temptations of Singularities. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophy of Education, 23(2), 32-69.

12. Kultaieva, M. (2022a). Education and Self-knowing: On Actuality of philosophical-educational ideas of Hrygorij Skovoroda and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophy of Education, 28(2), 8-36.

13. Kultaieva M. (2022b). K.-O. Apel: The Art of Living in the Modus of the Discourse Ethics. [In Ukrainian]. Filosofska Dumka, (2), 52-65.

14. Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In: Knorr-Cetina, K., Mulkay, M. (Eds.). Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. (Pp. 141-170). London: Sage.

15. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). The Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Fact. Princeton: Princeton University Press

16. Liessmann, K. P. (2023). Lauter Lugen und andere Wahrheiten. Wien: Paul Zsolnay Verlag.

17. Luhmann, N. (1997). Biographie im Interview. Gesprach am 8. Januar 1996 in Oerlinghausen. In: Horster D. Niklas Luhmann. (S. 25-47). Munchen: Beck.

18. Luhmann, N. (2004). Erziehung als Formung des Lebenslaufs. In: Niklas Luhmann. Schrif- ten zur Padagogik. (S. 160-177). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

19. Meifort, F. (2017). Ralf Dahrendorf Eine Biographie. Munchen: Beck.

20. Munch, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus. Uber die politische Okonomie der Hochschul- reform. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

21. Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural Shock. Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Practical Anthropology. (7), 177-182.

22. Pedersen, O. (1998). The First Universities. Studium Generale and Origin of University Education in Europe. Trans. from Dutch by R. North. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

23. Pashov, R. & Khovrich, N. (2009). Academic Capitalism as the Destructive and Productive Power in Educational System. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophy of Education, 8(1-2), 2009, 174-182.

24. Redaktion (2021). Einflussreichste Philosophinnen und Philosophen. Information Philo- sophie. Heft 3, September 2021, p. 47.

25. Roche, M. W. (2014) . Was die deutschen Universitaten von den amerikanischen lernen kon- nen und was sie vermeiden sollen. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

26. Rugemer, W. (1986). Neue Technik - Alte Gesellschaft: Silicon Value, Zentrum der neuen Technologien in den USA. Koln: Pahl Verlag.

27. Schlesinger, A. M. (2003). The Coming of the New Deal: The Age of Roosevelt, 1933-1935. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.

28. Sloterdijk, P. (2006). Zorn und Zeit. Politisch-psychologischer Versuch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

29. Stichweh, R. (2000). Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

30. Thoma, D., Kaufmann, V., & Schmid, U. (2015). Der Einfall des Lebens. Theorie alsgeheime Autobiographie. Munchen: Karl Hanser Verlag.

31. Treml, A. K. (2000). Allgemeine Padagogik. Grundlagen, Handlungsfelder undPerspektiven der Erziehung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

32. Wallace, H. (2002). Experiments in European Governance. In: Jachtenfuchs, M., & Kondt, M. (Hrsg). Regieren in internationalen Institutionen. (S. 255- 271). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

33. Willke, H. (2016). Dezentrierte Demokratie. Prolegomena zur Revision politischer Steue- rung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Посилання

1. Култаєва, М. (2018). Провокативна філософія освіти: Fata morgana універсалізму та спокуси cингулярності (К. П. Лісман, Р. Д. Прехт і А. Реквітц). Філософія освіти. Philosophy of Education, 23(2), 32-69.

2. Култаєва, М. (2022a). Карл-Отто Апель: мистецтво жити у модусі дискурсивної етики. Філософська думка (2), 52-65.

3. Култаєва, М. (2022). Виховання і самопізнання: до актуальності філософсько-освітніх ідей Григорія Сковороди і Йоганна Готліба Фіхте. Філософська думка, 28(2), 8-36. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2022-28-2-1

4. Пашов, Р., & Ховрич, Н. (2009). Академічний капіталізм як руйнівна продуктивна сила системи освіти. Філософія освіти , 8(1-2), 174-182.

5. Altanian, M., & El Kassar, N. (2020). Epistemic Injustice and Collective Wrongdoing: Introduction to Special Issue. Social Epistemology, 35(1), 1-10.

6. Apel, K.-O. (1999). Wissenschaft als Emanzipation? - Eine kritische Wurdigung der Wis- senschaftskonzeption in der „Kritischen Theorie". In: Apel K.- O. Transformation der Philosophie. Band. 2. Das Apriori Der Kommunikationsgemeinschaft (S. 128-154). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

7. Beck, U. (2005). Waszur Wahlsteht? Berlin: Suhrkamp.

8. Dahrendorf R. (2006). Versuchungen der Unfreiheit. Die Intellektuellen in Zeiten der Pru- fung. Munchen: Beck.

9. Dahrendorf, R. (2002). Uber Grenzen. Lebenserinnerungen. Munchen: Beck.

10. Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Out of Utopia. Towards a Reorganization of Sociological Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 115-127.

11. Hartmann, M. (2007). Eliten und Macht in Europa. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Frank- furt/New York: Campus.

12. Honneth, A. (2009). Pathologies of Reasons. On the Legacy of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

13. Keese, C. (2016). Silicon Valley: Was aus dem mdchtigsten Teil der Welt auf uns zukommt. Munchen: Penguin.

14. Knoll, M. (2018). John Dewey und Georg Kerschensteiner im Streit um die Berufs- und Allgemeinbildung. In: Konrad F.-M., & Knoll, M. (Hrsg.). John Dewey als Pddagoge. Erziehung - Schule - Unterricht. (S. 271-291). Bad Heilbronn: Julius Klikhard.