Scientific and Technological Progress and Ontological Provincialism

The paper analyzes the reasons for the ontological dominance of the West, which at the dawn of capitalism benefited from investments in natural sciences. The latter provided its technological superiority and made possible its colonial expansion. The export of innovations became one of the tools of its ontological dominance and the "provincialization" of the rest of the world. It was promoted primarily by the longexisting Western monopoly on the marketing of innovations. After all, it presented a finished product, promoting the Protestant cultural code as the only possible norm. This created a "modernization trap." Westernization embedded the modernized subject into the Western system as a province. Yet "marketing machinery" does not answer the question of how innovations are generated and how scientific revolutions can occur. The authors, relying on the theory of scientific revolutions formulated by Thomas Kuhn, identify another key component, namely, club science. It is a community of the most prominent scientists built on the network principle. They are capable of generating innovations going beyond the usual paradigms. The authors put forward their own model of organizing scientific production, which represents the coexistence of "club" and "normal" science. The first one – the network consisting of members with equal rights known for their results– is able to transcend the dominant paradigms and formulate new ones. The second one – hierarchical – maintains paradigms, verifies and legitimizes them, making them part of basic education. Their coexistence, in fact, creates a full-fledged structure of innovative science. The authors also analyze the Soviet attempt to create its own "club science," which provided the country with nuclear sovereignty, and consider the reasons for its subsequent decline. In conclusion, the authors offer a number of specific steps in terms of gaining absolute sovereignty in the field of scientific production, largely relying on Chinese experience.

1. Biryukov N.I., Sergeev V.M. (2004). Stanovlenie institutov predstavitel'noy vlasti v sovremennoy Rossii [The formation of institutions of representative power in modern Russia]. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy servis. 543 p.

2. Biryukov N., Sergeyev V. (1997). Russian Politics in Transition. London: Routledge. 340 p. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780429424977

3. Comte O. (2003). Duh pozitivnoj filosofii. Slovo o polozhitel'nom myshlenii. [Discours sur l'esprit positif], Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix,

4. Danin D. (1985). Trudy i dni Nil'sa Bora [The works and days of Niels Bohr]. Moscow: Znanie. 80 p. Feyerabend P.K. (2007). Protiv metoda. Ocherk anarkhistskoy teorii poznaniya [Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge]. Moscow: AST. 413 p.

5. Feyerabend P. K. (2010). Nauka v svobodnom obshchestve [Science in a Free Society]. Moscow: AST. 378 p.

6. Foucault M. (2010). Istoriya bezumiya v klassicheskuyu epokhu [Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason]. Moscow: AST. 698 p.

7. Grigoriev O.V. (2014). Epoha rosta. Lekcii po neokonomike. Rascvet i upadok mirovoj ekonomicheskoj sistemy. [The epoch of growth. Lectures on neoconomics. The rise and decline of the global economic system]. Moscow: Career Press. 448 p.

8. Heidegger M. (1961). Nietzsche i pustota. [Nietzsche and the void]. Moscow: Algorithm.

9. Heidegger M. (1986). Nauka i osmyslenie [Science and Understanding]. In: P. S. Gurevich (ed.). Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade [The new technocratic wave in the West]. Moscow: Progress. P. 67–84.

10. Horkheimer M. (2011). Zatmenie razuma. K kritike instrumental'nogo razuma. [The Eclipse of the Mind. On the criticism of instrumental reason]. Moscow, Canon +.

11. Huntington S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. New York: Penguin Books. 367 p.

12. Jaspers K. (1986). Sovremennaya Tekhnika [The Modern Technology]. In: P.S. Gurevich (ed.). Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade [The New Technocratic Wave in the West]. Moscow: Progress. P. 119–146

13. Kharichev A.D., Shutov A.Yu., Polosin A.V., Sokolova E.N. (2022). Vospriyatie bazovykh tsennostey, faktorov i struktur sotsial'no-istoricheskogo razvitiya Rossii (po materialam issledovaniy i aprobatsii) [Perception of basic values, factors and structures socio-historical development of Russia (based on research and testing materials)]. Journal of Political Studies. No. 3. P. 9–19. DOI: 10.12737/2587- 6295-2022-6-3-9-19

14. Koktysh K.E. (2022). Stanovlenie kognitivnogo koda sovremennosti [The formation of the cognitive code of modernity]. Polis. Political studies. No. 6. P. 94–113. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.06.09

15. Kuhn T.S. (1977). Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]. Moscow: Progress. 300 p.

16. Kuhn T.S. (1997). Logika otkrytiya ili psikhologiya issledovaniya? [The logic of science or the psychology of research?]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki. Vol. 3. P. 20–48.

17. Lakatos I. (1967). Dokazatel'stva i oproverzheniya [Proofs and Refutations]. Moscow: Nauka. 152 p.

18. Lakatos I. (1995). Fal'sifikatsiya i metodologiya nauchno-issledovatel'skikh program [Falsification and Methodology of Research Programs]. Moscow: Medium. 236 p.

19. Lakatos I. (2001). Istoriya nauki i ee ratsional'ne rekonstruktsii [The History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions]. In: T.S. Kuhn. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]. Moscow: AST. P. 455–524.

20. Lazar M.G. (2015). Grantovye sistemy finansirovaniya nauki: vozniknovenie i osobennosti funkcionirovaniya v raznyh stranah (stat'ya 1-ya) [Grant systems for financing science: the emergence and peculiarities of functioning in different countries (Article 1)] // Scientific Notes of the Russian State State University, Issue No. 38, 2015. Р. 260–270.

21. Lovelock J. Novacene (2019). The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

22. McLuhan H.M. (2003). Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka [Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man]. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole. 464 p.

23. Mill J. (1817). The History of British India. In 3 volumes. Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy. 697 p.

24. Pervushin A.I. (2015). Atomnyj proekt. Istoriya sverhoruzhiya. [The atomic project. The history of superweapons]. St. Petersburg: «Amfora». 241 p.

25. Rousseau J.-J. (2013). Obshchestvennyy dogovor, ili osnovaniya politicheskogo [On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Right]. Saint-Petersburg: Rostok. 640 p.

26. Salai S. (1986). Zamechaniya o nauchnoy byurokratii [Remarks on scientific bureaucracy]. In: A.S. Vasiliev (ed.). Sotsial'nye pokazateli v sisteme nauchno-tekhnicheskoy politiki [Social indicators in the system of scientific and technical policy]. Moscow: Progress. P. 384–393.

27. Sergeev V.M, Koktysh K.E. (2023). Konflikty elit v trekhsotletney istorii rossiyskoy modernizatsii [Elite conflicts in the three-hundred-year history of Russian modernization]. Polis. Political studies. No. 1. P. 173–182. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.01.13.

28. Sergeev V.M. (2013). Narodovlastie na sluzhbe elit [Democracy in the Service of the Elites]. Moscow: MGIMO University. 265 p.

29. Sergeyev V., Biryukov N. (1993). Russian Road to Democracy. Parliament, Communism and Traditional Culture. Aldershot: E. Elgar. 240 p.

30. Toulmin S.E. (1984). Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts]. Moscow: Progress. 328 p.

31. Weber M. (1978). Economy and Society. Volumes 1–2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1469 p.

32. Weber M. (1990). Protestantskaya etika i dukh kapitalizma [The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]. Moscow: Progress. 808 p

33.