The place of bibliography in the system of related disciplines. Section I. Theory of bibliography. Bibliography and Documentation Science

The foundations of bibliographic science as a science, the features of the system of modern bibliography as an activity are outlined, and all possible diversity of modern bibliographic products is typologically characterized.

Chapter 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY AS A SCIENCE

The main attention is paid to the qualifications of the object and subject, the methodology and system of basic categories of bibliography, the place of bibliographic science in the modern system of sciences.

1.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RELATED SCIENCES

The first attempts to solve this important and complex problem in our country belong to the founders of Russian bibliography - V.G. Anastasevich and V.S. Sopikov [for more details, see our textbook: Bibliographic Science. P. 24-30]. But the still prevailing identification of bibliographic studies and bibliology did not allow us to more or less clearly solve the problem of the relationship between bibliographic studies and related sciences. The works of N.M. Lisovsky and A.M. Lovyagin should be considered more fruitful in this regard [for more details, see: Ibid. P. 52-72]. As we have already noted, their main achievement is the awareness of the relative independence of bibliographic science in the system of bibliography as a generalizing science about books and book publishing. During the Soviet period of development of bibliography, typological models were also proposed, the most interesting of which in their chronological sequence are the approaches of M.N. Kufaev, M.I. Shchelkunov, N.M. Somov, I.E. Barenbaum, A.I. Barsuk , I.G.Morgenstern, E.L. Nemirovsky, O.P. Korshunov, A.A. Belovitskaya, E.A. Dinershtein [for more details, see our work: Bookmaking as a system; and also - Fomin A.G. Book studies as a science//Fav. M., 1975. S. 51-111].

Their main feature is the desire for maximum, rather than optimal, specialization of the book business. Therefore, in general, they do not offer fundamentally new solutions (with the possible exception of M.N. Kufaev and M.I. Shchelkunov), primarily due to the violation of the principles of activity and consistency. In the case of the principle of activity, the stage of book production is usually ignored, as well as the mandatory presence in the book business system of such a specialized component that is designed to carry out the management function. As a result, the latter (or, in our opinion, bibliography) usually refers to the end of the book business process, as was the case in N.M. Lisovsky’s well-known formula “book production - book distribution - book description, or bibliography.” Although already at the First All-Russian Bibliographical Congress, in the reports of N.Yu. Ulyaninsky and M.I. Shchelkunov, bibliography was given the second, middle place [Proceedings of the First All-Russian Bibliographical Congress. M., 1926. S. 226, 233-238]. True, N.M. Lisovsky himself understood this, as follows from his introductory lecture at Moscow University (1916): “When a book is technically produced and published for distribution, then special work is done on it - bibliographic, consisting of description of the book according to previously developed and established techniques" [Book studies, its subject and tasks//Sertum bibliologicum in honor of... prof. A.I. Maleina. Pg., 1922. P. 5].

But, oddly enough, it was the linear formula of N.M. Lisovsky that received its development in modern book studies, which can be judged even by the names of the proposed schemes: “The Path of the Book” - by I.G. Morgenstern, “The Path of Information to the Consumer” - from E.L. Nemirovsky. However, taking into account the particular complexity of the book business, the implementation of the principle of systematicity in its linear-descriptive form is insufficient here. The accumulated experience of scientific development of the problem under consideration is already enough to form a system of bibliological disciplines hierarchically and integrally. The experience of hierarchical construction is given in the models of A.I. Barsuk and E.A. Dinerstein.

Of particular interest to us is the approach of O.P. Korshunov, which can be called hierarchical-cyclical [see: Bibliography: General course. P. 73-74]. In the proposed scheme "Structure and inclusion of bibliography in various spheres of human activity", based on the principle of activity, two main levels are identified - bibliographic activity and human activity, the elements of which are distributed in a circular sequence. And yet, such a scheme, despite its active nature, cannot be completely accepted, for at least three reasons. Firstly, the main elements of activity lack the most defining element in this case - information activity (information communication, communication). Secondly, bibliographic activity is correlated only with practical activities, i.e. narrowly, since activity as a whole, which we already know, includes, in addition to practice, other components (shown in O.P. Korshunov’s model plus information activity). Finally, thirdly, management is also interpreted too narrowly - as “organizational and methodological guidance,” without taking into account the informational nature of the bibliography itself.

Based on the analysis and generalization of domestic experience, we propose our own typological model of information activity (see Fig. 3), which also reveals the relationship between bibliographic science and its related disciplines. The model is integral in nature, i.e. combines everything possible options its construction: hierarchical, cyclic, linear, etc. First of all, four main activity levels are hierarchically taken into account: bibliography, book publishing, information activities, and social activities. Further, linearity is visible in the use of N.A. Rubakin’s well-known formula “author - book - reader”: in this case - “author (book production) - book - reader (book use)”. The cyclicality is indicated by the boundary levels of differentiation of the book business: on the one hand, science is activity, or “book science - book science,” on the other hand, production - consumption, or in our case, “book production (author studies) - book use (reader studies).”

But the main thing is that our diagram shows the place of bibliographic science in the system of bibliological disciplines, its relationship with bibliology and the now possible generalizing science of information activity. As you can see, book publishing is represented by three blocks (groups) of relatively independent scientific disciplines. The first (central) block represents bibliographic studies. The second (book production, or publishing) includes three scientific disciplines: author studies, theory and practice of editing, and artistic design of a book (“the art of the book”). A special issue is related to the need to develop a generalizing scientific discipline that studies book production, i.e. in our case - publishing. The third block (book use, or book distribution, or book consumption) also consists of three scientific disciplines - bibliopolitics, library science and reader studies. And here the question arises of forming a unified scientific discipline that studies book consumption. In general, judging by our model, bibliology is modern stage consists of seven scientific disciplines, the central place among which is occupied by bibliographic science.

It is important to emphasize that the object of all book science disciplines, including bibliography, is the same: bookmaking as a process, and the book as a way of its materialization and existence in space, time and society. Their difference is determined by the characteristics of the objects, reflecting the functions of the parts of the book business and books they study. On this basis, it is only possible to say, as O.P. Korshunov states, that bibliography (like bibliographic science) is an integral part of the specialized components of the book business branch, for example: publishing bibliography, bookselling bibliography, library bibliography (and the corresponding parts of bibliographic science).

The main thing that should be specially noted is that bibliographic science is currently so specialized that it has an independent and not an auxiliary significance, just like its object - bibliography in the book business system. Only after this statement can we talk about the close relationship of bibliographic science with other book science disciplines and, accordingly, branches of the book business. Each science and the field of activity associated with it is auxiliary in relation to others, functioning in an integral system of social activity. The question then arises, why is it that in relation to bibliographic science and bibliography they so often talk about auxiliary?

The considered scheme reflects, one might say, traditional ideas about bibliographic science in the system of related sciences. As we have already noted, radical changes are currently taking place in the development of information activities. Along with the printed book, new ways and means of information communication emerged. Consequently, in this sphere of social activity the very object of scientific knowledge is modified. But this only implies the need to take a concrete historical approach to changes in the very system of sciences that study information activity in all the diversity of the methods and means of its implementation used here. In other words, does book science still retain its role as a generalizing science not only about traditional book publishing, but also about information activities carried out on the basis of new electronic technology?

The answer to this question should also be sought specifically historically. Currently, searches are being conducted in two main directions. Representatives of the first of them are trying to create a new generalizing scientific discipline, the second is to modify and bring the previous science, bibliology, into line with modern achievements of scientific and technological progress.

In the first case, great hopes were placed on computer science - a new scientific discipline, the need for the development of which was required by modern conditions of information activity. They are closely related to the next scientific and technological revolution, which determines the introduction of computer technology. This coincided in time with the 60s of the last century, when the effectiveness and prospects for the development of modern society depended on the information support of science. The name computer science to denote the corresponding science both in our country and abroad was created by combining the concepts of “information” plus “automation” - “computer science” [for more details see: Mikhailov A.I., Cherny A.I., Gilyarevsky R. WITH. Fundamentals of computer science. M., 1968. S. 42-61]. True, even then different interpretations of the object and subject appeared new science. First of all, it originated from the concept of documentation (from the word “document”), introduced into scientific circulation at the beginning of the 20th century. (1905) P. Otlet - one of the directors of the International Bibliographical Institute and theorists of modern information activities. In particular, he was the first to use this concept to introduce into scientific circulation all documentary sources of information and to show the insufficiency of the object of bibliology, library science and bibliography (bibliographic science), limited only to printed works.

In 1934, the term became part of the name of the International Institute of Documentation, into which the International Bibliographic Institute was transformed, and in 1937 - into the name of the organization organized on its basis and still existing today. International Federation according to documentation (MFD). It is noteworthy that the IDF long-term program defines documentation “as the collection, storage, classification and selection, dissemination and use of all types of information.”

In our country, this trend has given rise to new designations - documentary, document management. And yet, over time, the basis for the term designation of a possible science of information activity was taken not by its object (document, book, etc.), but by its subject, content - information. In this regard, in our country and abroad, in addition to “informatics”, new terms were proposed: “information science”, “information science”, “information science”, “information science”, etc. In our country, the term “computer science” has acquired a predominant meaning as “a scientific discipline that studies the structure and properties (and not the specific content) of scientific information, as well as the patterns of scientific information activity, its theory, history, methodology and organization. The goal of computer science is to develop optimal methods and means of presentation (recording), collection, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, retrieval and dissemination of scientific information" [Ibid. P. 57].

As we see, the object of computer science is not all social information, as in book studies and documentation, but only such a part of it, albeit the most important one, as scientific information. By the latter, the cited authors understand “logical information obtained in the process of cognition, which adequately reflects the laws of the objective world and is used in socio-historical practice.” Scientific information, as opposed to information in general, which, according to the point of view of the French scientist L. Brillouin, “is raw material and consists of a simple collection of data, while knowledge presupposes some reflection and reasoning that organizes data by comparing and classifying them” [Ibid. P. 55].

Limiting the object of computer science to scientific information, scientific information activities and the corresponding methods of its materialization (scientific documents) already puts this scientific direction of bibliology in a subordinate position, the object of knowledge of which until our time was all sources of documentary information. In addition, the book business itself became so specialized that special directions for its development emerged - precisely in approaching professional (scientific) book publishing. The most actively developing special branches of the book business are socio-political, pedagogical, artistic, natural science and technical, agricultural bibliology, etc. In accordance with this specificity, areas of bibliology began to actively form, generally called special bibliology. Moreover, with the creation of GSNTI in our country, scientific and information activities took on practically the functions of special, or industry, as well as critical, or, in modern designation, scientific auxiliary bibliography. It was in domestic computer science that the concept of secondary information, secondary documents and publications appeared as a result of analytical and synthetic processing of documents (more precisely, documentary information).

The further replacement of bibliography with scientific information activities was further strengthened by the introduction of a new approach in the scientific conceptualization of bibliography itself. We are talking about a “secondary information (secondary documentary) approach” to bibliography, developed in the works of O.P. Korshunov. As a result, the subject of bibliography (and, accordingly, the object of bibliographic science) was reduced to the narrow concept of bibliographic information as information about documents.

Therefore, speaking about the possible prospects for the relationship of bibliographic science with book science and information science, we consider the second direction, associated with the need for a modern modification of traditional sciences, to be more fruitful. First of all, it should be recalled that P. Otlet himself, the founder of documentation as a science, on the fundamental basis of which new scientific disciplines were then formed - documentary studies, computer science, etc., did not deny the effectiveness of bibliology (bibliology) and bibliography as a science [more see: Fomin A.G. Favorite P. 58-60]. P. Otlet’s idea that “we need a general theory of books and documents” has become, as it were, a testament for modern specialists in information activities.

Among foreign ones, the approaches of French bibliologists are especially noteworthy. Thus, famous in our country for his work “Revolution in the World of Books” [M., 1972. 127 p.] translated into Russian, R. Escarpi published a new work “General Theory of Information and Communication” [Paris, 1976. 218 p. Rus. lane Not yet]. The name itself suggests that the task of creating a general science of information activity is international in nature. In this regard, the bibliographic activity of another French scientist, R. Estival, deserves even more attention. He is known not only as a theorist of bibliology (book studies in our broad sense), but also as the organizer of the International Bibliological Association. In one of his works “Bibliology” [Paris, 1987. 128 p. Rus. lane not yet] he expands the traditional object of bibliology to a generalizing “science of written communication,” regardless of the methods and means of its implementation.

Russian bibliologists have not yet developed the problem as extensively as their French colleagues, although there is no doubt about its relevance. Another thing is noteworthy: domestic computer scientists have fully realized the inadequacy of the previous interpretation of scientific information activities, limited to the purposes of collection, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, retrieval and dissemination of scientific information, and information support for specialists. Thus, A.V. Sokolov in his works develops the idea of social informatics, expanding its object to all social information and including in its composition all the main scientific disciplines of traditional bibliology [see: Basic problems of computer science and library and bibliographic work: Textbook. allowance. L., 1976. 319 pp.; “I think I’ll find the words...”//Sov. bibliogr. 1989. No. 1. P. 6-18. Interview with A.V. Sokolov and a fragment of his textbook "Social Informatics"]. A definition of computer science close to this point of view is given by the authors of the university textbook “Informatics” [M., 1986. P. 5]: “Informatics as a science studies the patterns of information processes in social communications. Information processes (IP) is a broad concept that includes collection processes and transmission, accumulation, storage, retrieval, issuance and delivery of information to the consumer."

As you can see, there is an expansion of the object of computer science from the previous special (scientific) communication, scientific information to social communication, social information, i.e. to what we call information activity (information communication). And it increasingly uses not only traditional “book”, but also the most modern “non-book” (paperless) means of communication [for more details, see: Glushkov V.M. Basics of paperless information. 2nd ed., rev. M., 1987. 552 pp.]. Another authoritative representative of computer science, academician. A.P. Ershov in his works most clearly expressed the departure that has emerged in recent years from the narrow and one-sided interpretation of computer science as the science and practice of using computers for information processing. He put forward a broader understanding, defining computer science as the science "of the laws and methods of accumulating, transmitting and processing information - the knowledge that we receive. Its subject has existed as long as life itself. The need to express and remember information led to the emergence of speech and writing , fine arts. Caused the invention of printing, telegraph, telephone, radio, television." According to A.P. Ershov, one should distinguish between computer science as a science, as a “sum of technologies” and as a field of human activity. The subject of computer science as a science is the study of the laws, methods and methods of accumulating, transmitting and processing information, primarily with the help of computers [for more details, see his works: On the subject of computer science//Vestn. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1984. No. 2. P. 112-113; Computers in the world of people//Sov. culture. 1985. April 24 S. 3; Union of Informatics and Computer Science - for the service of society//Microprocessor tools and systems. 1987. No. 1. P. 1-3].

Thus, on the one hand, the subject of computer science is clearly expanding in comparison with the point of view that has long been established in our country, according to which the central subject of computer science is the study of the general properties and patterns of not all social information, but only scientific information. On the other hand, a new, broader approach outlines a clear convergence of computer science with bibliology and other sciences of the information and communication cycle. Moreover, bibliology has always considered communicative processes in society in the broadest, most general sense. And such a broad approach is characteristic not only of domestic book studies, but is also becoming widespread abroad. In our works, we adhere to the point of view according to which bibliology should be formed as a science of sign communication (information activity) [for more details, see: Grechikhin A.A. Object and subject of bibliology: (Experience of modern interpretation)//VIII Scientific conference on problems of bibliology: Abstracts. report M., 1996. P. 12-15].

Regardless of what the general science of information activity will be called in the future (computer science, bibliology, etc.), bibliography as a science of information management will occupy a central place in it.

M.I. Shchelkunova, N.M. Somov, I.E. Barenbaum, A.I. Barsuk, I.G. Morgenstern, E.L. Nemirovsky, O.P. Korshunov, A.A. Belovitskaya, E.A. Dinershtein [for more details, see our work: Bookmaking as a system; and also - Fomin A.G. Book studies as a science//Fav. M., 1975. S. 51-111].

Their main feature is the desire for maximum, rather than optimal, specialization of the book business. Therefore, in general, they do not offer fundamentally new solutions (with the possible exception of M.N. Kufaev and M.I. Shchelkunov), primarily due to the violation of the principles of activity and consistency. In the case of the principle of activity, the stage of book production is usually ignored, as well as the mandatory presence in the book business system of such a specialized component that is designed to carry out the management function. As a result, the latter (or, in our opinion, bibliography) usually belongs to the end of the book business process, as was the case in N.M. Lisovsky’s well-known formula “book production - book distribution - book description, or bibliography.” Although already at the First All-Russian Bibliographical Congress, in the reports of N.Yu. Ulyaninsky and M.I. Shchelkunov, bibliography was given the second, middle place [Proceedings of the First All-Russian Bibliographical Congress. M., 1926. S. 226, 233-238]. True, N.M. Lisovsky himself understood this, as follows from his introductory lecture at Moscow University (1916): “When a book is technically produced and published for distribution, then special work is done on it - bibliographic, consisting of description of the book according to previously developed and established techniques" [Book studies, its subject and tasks//Sertum bibliologicum in honor of... prof. A.I. Maleina. Pg., 1922. P. 5].

Of particular interest to us is the approach of O.P. Korshunov, which can be called hierarchical-cyclical[see: Bibliography: General course. P. 73-74]. In the proposed scheme "Structure and inclusion of bibliography in various spheres of human activity", based on the principle of activity, two main levels are identified - bibliographic activity and human activity, the elements of which are distributed in a circular sequence. And yet, such a scheme, despite its active nature, cannot be completely accepted, for at least three reasons. Firstly, the main elements of activity lack the most defining element in this case - information activity (information communication, communication). Secondly, bibliographic activity is correlated only with practical activities, i.e. narrowly, since activity as a whole, which we already know, includes, in addition to practice, other components (shown in O.P. Korshunov’s model plus information activity). Finally, thirdly, management is also interpreted too narrowly - as “organizational and methodological guidance,” without taking into account the informational nature of the bibliography itself.

Based on the analysis and generalization of domestic experience, we propose our own typological model of information activity (see Fig. 3), which also reveals the relationship between bibliographic science and its related disciplines. The model is integral in nature, i.e. combines all possible options for its construction: hierarchical, cyclic, linear, etc. First of all, four main activity levels are hierarchically taken into account: bibliography, book publishing, information activities, and social activities. Further, linearity is visible in the use of N.A. Rubakin’s well-known formula “author - book - reader”: in this case - “author (book production) - book - reader (book use)”. The cyclicality is indicated by the boundary levels of differentiation of the book business: on the one hand, science is activity, or “book science - book science,” on the other hand, production - consumption, or in our case, “book production (author studies) - book use (reader studies).”

But the main thing is that our diagram shows the place of bibliography in the system of bibliological disciplines, its relationship with bibliology and the now possible generalizing science of information activity. As you can see, book publishing is represented by three blocks (groups) of relatively independent scientific disciplines. The first (central) block represents bibliographic studies. The second (book production, or publishing) includes three scientific disciplines: author studies, theory and practice of editing, and artistic design of a book (“the art of the book”). A special issue is related to the need to develop a generalizing scientific discipline that studies book production, i.e. in our case - publishing. The third block (book use, or book distribution, or book consumption) also consists of three scientific disciplines - bibliopolitics, library science and reader studies. And here the question arises of forming a unified scientific discipline that studies book consumption. In general, judging by our model, book science at the present stage consists of seven scientific disciplines, the central place among which is occupied by bibliographic science.

The main thing to specifically note: bibliographic science is currently so specialized that it has an independent, and not an auxiliary, value, just like its object - bibliography in the book business system. Only after this statement can we talk about the close relationship of bibliographic science with other book science disciplines and, accordingly, branches of the book business. Each science and the field of activity associated with it is auxiliary in relation to others, functioning in an integral system of social activity. The question then arises, why is it that in relation to bibliographic science and bibliography they so often talk about auxiliary?

In the first case, great hopes were placed on computer science - a new scientific discipline, the need for the development of which was required by modern conditions of information activity. They are closely related to the next scientific and technological revolution, which determines the introduction of computer technology. This coincided in time with the 60s of the last century, when the effectiveness and prospects for the development of modern society depended on the information support of science. Name Informatics to designate the corresponding science both in our country and abroad, it was created by combining the concepts of “information” plus “automation” - “computer science” [for more details see: Mikhailov A.I., Cherny A.I., Gilyarevsky R.S. Fundamentals of computer science. M., 1968. S. 42-61]. True, even then various interpretations of the object and subject of the new science appeared. First of all, she was led from the concept documentation(from the word “document”), introduced into scientific circulation at the beginning of the 20th century. (1905) P. Otlet - one of the directors of the International Bibliographical Institute and theorists of modern information activities. In particular, he was the first to use this concept to introduce into scientific circulation all documentary sources of information and to show the insufficiency of the object of bibliology, library science and bibliography (bibliographic science), limited only to printed works.

In 1934, the term became part of the name of the International Institute of Documentation, into which the International Bibliographic Institute was transformed, and in 1937 - into the name of the International Documentation Federation (IFD), organized on its basis and still existing today. It is noteworthy that the IDF long-term program defines documentation “as the collection, storage, classification and selection, dissemination and use of all types of information.”

In our country, this trend has given rise to new designations - documentary, document science. And yet, over time, the basis for the term designation of a possible science of information activity was taken not by its object (document, book, etc.), but by its subject, content - information. In this regard, in our country and abroad, in addition to “informatics”, new terms were proposed: “information science”, “information science”, “information science”, “information science”, etc. In our country, the term “computer science” has acquired a predominant meaning as “a scientific discipline that studies the structure and properties (and not the specific content) of scientific information, as well as the patterns of scientific information activity, its theory, history, methodology and organization. The goal of computer science is to develop optimal methods and means of presentation (recording), collection, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, retrieval and dissemination of scientific information" [Ibid. P. 57].

Limiting the object of computer science to scientific information, scientific information activities and the corresponding methods of its materialization (scientific documents) already puts this scientific direction of bibliology in a subordinate position, the object of knowledge of which until our time was all sources of documentary information. In addition, the book business itself became so specialized that special directions for its development emerged - precisely in approaching professional (scientific) book publishing. The most actively developing special branches of the book business are socio-political, pedagogical, artistic, natural science and technical, agricultural bibliology, etc. In accordance with this specificity, areas of bibliology began to actively form, generally called special bibliology. Moreover, with the creation of the State Science and Technology Institute in our country, scientific and information activities took on practically the functions of a special, or sectoral, as well as a critical, or, in modern designation, scientific and auxiliary bibliography. It was in domestic computer science that the concept of secondary information, secondary documents and publications appeared as a result of analytical and synthetic processing of documents (more precisely, documentary information).

Russian bibliologists have not yet developed the problem as extensively as their French colleagues, although there is no doubt about its relevance. Another thing is noteworthy: domestic computer scientists have fully realized the inadequacy of the previous interpretation of scientific information activities, limited to the purposes of collection, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, retrieval and dissemination of scientific information, and information support for specialists. Thus, A.V. Sokolov in his works develops the idea social informatics, expanding its object to all social information and including in its composition all the main scientific disciplines of traditional bibliology [see: Basic problems of computer science and library and bibliographic work: Textbook. allowance. L., 1976. 319 pp.; “I think I’ll find the words...”//Sov. bibliogr. 1989. No. 1. P. 6-18. Interview with A.V. Sokolov and a fragment of his textbook "Social Informatics"]. A definition of computer science close to this point of view is given by the authors of the university textbook “Informatics” [M., 1986. P. 5]: “Informatics as a science studies the patterns of information processes in social communications. Information processes (IP) is a broad concept that includes collection processes and transmission, accumulation, storage, retrieval, issuance and delivery of information to the consumer."

Thus, on the one hand, the subject of computer science is clearly expanding in comparison with the point of view that has long been established in our country, according to which the central subject of computer science is the study of the general properties and patterns of not all social information, but only scientific information. On the other hand, a new, broader approach outlines a clear convergence of computer science with bibliology and other sciences of the information and communication cycle. Moreover, bibliology has always considered communicative processes in society in the broadest, most general sense. And such a broad approach is characteristic not only of domestic book studies, but is also becoming widespread abroad. In our works we pursue the point of view according to which bibliology should be formed as a science of sign communication (information activity)[for more details see: Grechikhin A.A. Object and subject of bibliology: (Experience of modern interpretation)//VIII Scientific conference on problems of bibliology: Abstracts. report M., 1996. P. 12-15].

Chapter 1. Bibliography as a science

The main attention is paid to the qualifications of the object and subject, the methodology and system of basic categories of bibliography, the place of bibliographic science in the modern system of sciences.

1.1. ORIGIN AND ESSENCE OF THE CONCEPTS BIBLIOGRAPHY" AND "BIBLIOGRAPHY STUDIES"

Culturally and historically, the concept of “bibliography” arises at a certain stage in the development of information activity, when the need for the targeted development of this most important sphere of social activity, culture, is realized. In our time, we can speak with complete certainty about four main periods in the history of bibliography: Period I - the emergence in Ancient Greece bibliography (5th century BC) as book writing, as the work of a book writer (“bibliographer”); II period - the emergence of bibliography (XVII-XVIII centuries) as a generalizing science about books and book publishing (information activities) and as a special literary genre; III period - the emergence of bibliography (late 19th - early 20th centuries) as a special science of the bibliological (information) cycle; IV period (modern) - awareness of bibliography as a special field of book (information) business with its own specific discipline - bibliographic studies.

Domestic scientists, especially A.N. Derevitsky, A.I. Malein, A.G. Fomin, M.N. Kufaev and K.R. Simon, also contributed to the development of the origin and history of the development of bibliography abroad.

The first period, as established at the beginning of the 20th century. our compatriot A.I. Malein is associated with the appearance and functioning of the word “bibliography” in Ancient Greece in the 5th century. BC. The main meaning of this word was “not book description, but book writing, i.e. the creation or distribution of a book using the only method available to antiquity for this - writing or correspondence” [Malein A.I. About the term "bibliography" // Bibliography. sheets Rus. bibliologist islands 1922. L. 1 (Jan.). P. 2-3]. In other words, bibliography from the very beginning of its appearance meant what we now call “book business,” or more broadly, “information activity.”

The second period is associated with the formation in Europe of the 17th century. system of sciences, which still exists with some changes and additions. The word "bibliography" along with others - bibliology, bibliosophy, biblionomics, bibliognosy, etc. - began to mean the science of books (book writing, information activities). According to K.R. Simon, the word “bibliography” could either be borrowed from existing experience, or reinvented on the model of similar names of sciences (for example, geography). The palm in this matter belongs to French scientists. It was in the French interpretation that bibliography as a science appeared in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century.

It should be noted here that Russian scientists not only borrowed the basics of bibliographic science, but, relying on their centuries-old historical experience, introduced a lot of originality. And we can only regret that many achievements in the history of Russian bibliography are either insufficiently studied or are simply ignored in favor of independent, pseudoscientific constructions.

The particular innovation of Russian bibliography manifested itself in the next third period of its development at the beginning of the 20th century. Russian bibliographers in their scientific developments were now on par with Western European and, therefore, the whole world. It is enough to refer to Russian participation in the work of the International Bibliographic Institute in Brussels, to the consonance of the ideas of N.M. Lisovsky, A.M. Lovyagin and N.A. Rubakin with the ideas of P. Otlet (one of the founders of the named institute). Moreover, our scientists were ahead of foreign researchers in many respects, especially theoretical ones.

The most important of the domestic achievements of the period under review is that the specific role of bibliography was realized as an activity in a broader system of information activities (book publishing, documentation), and bibliography as a science in the system of book science (document science, computer science, etc.) . In particular, the notorious reduction of bibliography to book description began to become obsolete. This was especially facilitated by the interpretation of the so-called types of bibliography proposed by N.A. Rubakin and then N.V. Zdobnov. Methodologically, this was shown in the works of A.M. Lovyagin, which are still hushed up - either deliberately or out of ignorance. And he developed, among many others, the following two, one might say, outstanding ideas. The first concerns the definition of bibliography (book science) as the science of human communication, i.e. about book publishing, information activities, communication. The second is associated with the use and specification in relation to the tasks of bibliography of such a dialectical method as ascent from the abstract to the concrete. In contrast to the technocratic approach of N.M. Lisovsky ("book production - book distribution - book description, or bibliography") A.M. Lovyagin interpreted information communication as an ascension, as a methodological reduction from description to analysis, and from there to synthesis (remember the Hegelian formula " thesis - antithesis - synthesis"). Moreover, bibliography occupies a middle position here, since the synthesis of its results and their elevation to the general cultural level are possible only through the methodology of a more general science - bibliology (or the now possible broader science of information activity). And the middle, central place of bibliography here cannot be considered accidental, since information communication is a dialectical process with feedback, when, according to the views of the same A.M. Lovyagin, constant revival is required - in itself dead - paper culture, i.e. introduction at each dialectical turn of information activity of everything that is most valuable and socially significant in the cultural and historical development of society. In this regard, it is noteworthy that P. Otlet went even further in his theoretical constructions, considering bibliography a metascience in relation to documentation, i.e. system of all sciences of the information and communication cycle.

Truly, the third period in the development of bibliography was its golden age. Unfortunately, we still do not make enough use of his innovations. Meanwhile, the ideas of A.M.Lovyagin and N.A.Rubakin were further developed in the works of M.N.Kufaev, but his creative heritage has not been adequately studied and is not used.

The modern, fourth period in the development of bibliography that we are experiencing begins around the 60s, when the next scientific and technological revolution began, associated with the introduction of new information technology (computerization), and such new scientific directions as cybernetics were rapidly formed , information theory, computer science, semiotics, etc. New scientific principles, for example, activity and consistency, were also substantiated more deeply. It is in accordance with the principle of activity that they began to interpret in a new way the typical structure of both human activity in general, and book business (information activity) in particular, where bibliography, as we have already noted, is correlated with such an integral component of any type of social activity as management, more precisely - information management.

It was at the present stage and only in our country that a new concept was introduced to denote the science of bibliography - “bibliographic science”. It was first proposed in 1948 by I.G. Markov, who, however, understood bibliography and the science of it too narrowly and pragmatically: “Bibliography is indexes and reference books that have books as their object, and bibliographic science is the theory of creation , design and use of bibliographic indexes" [On the subject and method of bibliography//Tr./Moscow. state bib. int. 1948. Issue. 4. P. 110]. The new designation of bibliographic science was included in GOST 16448-70 "Bibliography. Terms and Definitions", also introduced for the first time in world practice. Then the term "bibliographical science" was repeated in new edition the specified regulatory document - GOST 7.0-77. But, unfortunately, the new name of bibliographic science was missing in the new edition - GOST 7.0-84. But, as we know, the first university textbook was published under the following title: “Bibliography. General Course.”

New discussions and approaches are possible. It is important to emphasize that giving bibliography a managerial function as specific to its social role in information activities is seen as a defining trend throughout its history in our country (V.G. Anastasevich, M.L. Mikhailov, A.N. Soloviev). But for some reason little importance is still attached to this; it is simply not taken into account in the conceptual constructions of bibliography and the science of it that are currently being proposed. But there is no other alternative. Moreover, it is the information management function that distinguishes both past and contemporary bibliographic practice. For example, the task of “reading guidance” is inscribed on the banner of one of the functional areas of bibliography - recommendatory. The bibliographic subsystem with the defining management function is characteristic, as we have already noted, of the traditional book apparatus; moreover, it is becoming a specific part of modern automated information systems (AIS) - all kinds of information systems, databases, knowledge bases, ES, AI, etc.

Thus, based on the specific features of the emergence and development of bibliography and bibliographic studies, we can assume that the defining essence of this specific branch of information activity is information management.

1.2. BASIC FUNCTIONS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY

This is one of the most difficult and defining problems in modern bibliographic science. There is still controversy surrounding it, since the qualification of the social essence of bibliographic activity depends on its scientifically based solution.

Determining the social essence of bibliography is associated primarily with clarifying the social purpose of bibliography, its social purpose as an activity in general. Purpose is the most important characteristic of any human activity. It determines all its other characteristics, acting in the form of an abstract idealized model that “anticipates” the concrete, practical embodiment of this activity as a whole.

It is important not only to state in general this expediency and purposefulness in relation to bibliography, but also to indicate specifically what it consists of. Instead of the term “purpose of bibliography”, others are often used: purpose, function, social purpose, functional purpose, intended purpose, social function, etc. The use of the word “function” can be considered the most unfortunate due to its special polysemy. This is the commission, execution, external manifestation of something, and the relationship, dependence of any elements, parts, including parts and the whole, and the role, and the methodological principle (“functionalism”), and a special method of systemic research (functional, structural-functional), etc.

As you can see, the function only remotely, indirectly manifests itself as a goal. Nevertheless, in the textbook we found it possible to use the now widely used term “public (or social) function of bibliography,” understanding it as the goal that bibliography fulfills in the system of information activity. Moreover, this goal is somewhat dependent on the goals of other parts of the book business (information activities) as a whole. Therefore, the purpose of bibliography is truly realized as a specific function or role in the system of all purposes of information activity. In the philosophical understanding, a function (from the Latin functio - commission, execution, activity) is qualified as a relationship between two (groups) of objects, in which a change in one of them is accompanied by a change in the others, or, from the point of view of management, worldview, as identifying the dependence of a given part and the whole: in our case - bibliography and information activities. The latter is called functioning. Moreover, some scientists present functioning as a reflection of the very process of social activity.

Logically, such an essential characteristic should be reflected in the very definition of bibliography. But an analysis of the definitions proposed in our country and abroad shows that the function in them is qualified either too broadly (“know books”), or too one-sidedly (“book description”), or also insufficiently when a whole series of individual goals are listed (book description , criticism, recommendation, classification, orientation, assistance, etc.). In all cases, they do not reflect the social specifics of bibliography as a whole. It is necessary to find a single generalizing function of bibliography that would reflect and embody all the real and possible diversity of purposes of its social manifestation.

The defining social function of bibliography is management. And from these positions we can now appreciate the insight of V.G. Anastasevich, who considered bibliography to be a guide and mentor in choosing books. In the middle of the 19th century. he was echoed by the then famous democratic poet M.L. Mikhailov, emphasizing that the “science that guides” the selection of books is bibliography. At the end of the 19th century. A.N. Soloviev, in a peculiarly corrected form, almost repeats the words of V.G. Anastasevich that bibliography is “a guide in choosing books to read.” It is no coincidence, apparently, that modern theorists of recommendatory bibliography also still express its main function in the formula “reading guidance.” Of the modern interpretations of bibliography, the one closest to the proposed understanding is the definition given in GOST 7.0-77: “Bibliography is an area of scientific and practical activity for the preparation and delivery of bibliographic information to consumers in order to influence the use of printed works in society.” In other words, bibliography is the control subsystem of information activity, which can be expressed by an elementary formula: production - bibliography (management) - consumption (Pr-B-Pt). It shows that bibliography is included in information activity in a certain way, as if dissolved in it. But in reality, in order to effectively exercise control over the entire information process, the bibliography must rise above it and be separated into a special and integral “control block” (subsystem). With the scientific idealization of this process, the bibliography should become the pinnacle of the corresponding fundamental model, as shown in Fig. 1.

The idea of the managerial function of bibliography is easy to understand on the basis of a generalization of the historical experience of its development; moreover, in modern conditions, the problem of “information and management” has become a general scientific, general cultural one. It was also expressed by bibliographers, including O.P. Korshunov. It is embedded in the “organizational-channel structure of Soviet bibliography” proposed by him [see. in his work: Bibliography: Theory, methodology, technique. M., 1986. P. 91; Wed textbook: Bibliography: General course / Ed. O.P. Korshunova. P. 113]. But he did not take another step towards understanding bibliography as a special controlling and integral “circuit”, stopping at understanding it only as an auxiliary, secondary documentary and dispersed circuit. Therefore, in his scientific constructions, bibliography does not organizationally stand next to other institutions of information support for society, but is located within them, each performing its own specific functions. O.P. Korshunov develops the same approach (“documentographic” as opposed to “book criticism”) in a recently published textbook, based, as he believes, “on the immutable and completely objective fact of the organizational fragmentation of bibliographic activity (emphasis added. - A.A. .G.), its organic involvement in various organizationally formed public institutions in the system of documentary communications, i.e. in library, editorial, publishing, archival business, in the book trade, in scientific and information activities. In these public institutions in specific each of them forms and bibliographic activities are carried out" [Bibliography: General course. P. 12].

But according to the principle of activity (it will be discussed in more detail below), management is an obligatory component of any type of social activity (along with others - practice, science, communication, education, etc.), including information. It is noteworthy that O.P. Korshunov uses this standard model to demonstrate the structure and inclusion of bibliography in various spheres of human activity. However, this model does not show information activity, the inclusion of which would make it easier to understand that bibliography does not replace all components of information activity, but implements in it and in human activity in general its special function (goal, social purpose, etc.) - information control.

During the discussion on theoretical and methodological issues that unfolded on the pages of the journal "Bibliography", O.P. Korshunov, in our opinion, did not quite justifiably oppose the use of the word "impact" as defining the essence of the managerial function of bibliography. He defends something else - “assistance”, absolutizing the “auxiliary” of bibliography, reducing it to passive contemplation and descriptiveness and not recognizing its active influence on the process of information activity, which is so necessary in modern society [see: Korshunov O.P. Reading with eyes closed//Sov. bibliogr. 1988. No. 3. P. 22].

And yet, albeit intuitively, O.P. Korshunov also stands on the path to the correct solution to the question of the main social function of bibliography. After all, it is the managerial meaning that the concept he introduced about the bibliographic implementation of correspondence (emphasis added by us. - A.A.G.) in the document-consumer (D-P) system has, which should in this case be interpreted not formally - as a mathematical function, but according to essentially, sociologically - as the main social function of the control influence on the D-P system. Then bibliographic information will occupy its proper place in this system, fulfilling its specific function: to be the content (subject) of the bibliography and, therefore, a means of information management. There will be no need to double the functions of the bibliography, and other delays in O.P. Korshunov’s concept are easily eliminated. It is noteworthy that this is exactly how “correspondence” is interpreted by another modern bibliography theorist V.A. Fokeev: “Implementation of correspondence between a document and a consumer for the purpose of managing reader activity” [On the essence and main qualities of bibliographic information//Sov. bibliogr. 1983. No. 6. P. 58].

In any case, one cannot ignore the universe of bibliographic activity, or the general bibliography, which exists independently, in relative isolation from other parts of information activity. And it is impossible to replace the universal (general) bibliography with an industry bibliography - library, publishing, bookselling, etc., which, indeed, are an integral part of the relevant branches of information activity (library, publishing, bookselling, etc.). A universal (general) bibliography is an integral part of information activities as a whole, i.e. specialized, functionally independent industry.

Thus, based on the main social function of bibliography, the following definition can be proposed: bibliography is an area of information activity, the main social function of which is to manage the process of production, distribution, storage and use of social information in society, i.e. information management. Taking into account the principle of communication (it will be discussed in more detail below), bibliography can be qualified as management of the process of production, distribution, storage and use of a book (works, documents, publications) in society, or book and documentary management (Fig. 2). This will not change the essence of the basic social function of bibliography.

However, it should be taken into account that the complex process of information activity and its management are currently characterized by a certain differentiation of the main social function of bibliography. In this regard, as noted above, the search for an optimal system of its specialization has been going on for a long time. The newest version of such a system, which includes three functions - search, communication, evaluation, was proposed by O.P. Korshunov. The necessary analysis of them is possible in detail when considering the complex problem of specialization of bibliography (see Chapter 2), but here we will only note that their identification is very arbitrary. Therefore, we should return to the original, culturally and historically established, but now unreasonably rejected system, which in its most general form consisted of the functions of accounting, evaluation and recommendation. This system needs to be supplemented with another function reflecting the self-management of the bibliography - information management of the second degree. Without taking into account the latter, bibliography as an activity loses its integrity, and most importantly, its purposefulness (see Fig. 1).

This approach is due to the fact that information management is not carried out simultaneously and not mechanically, but as a complex differentiated spiritual process of reflection and assimilation in the public consciousness and practice of social information materialized in various kinds of documents. And, like any process of spiritual activity, it is of an axiological (value) nature. In accordance with the principles of dialectical knowledge, three moments, or three stages, are essential here: 1) contemplation, i.e. the stage of recording and empirical cognition of social information as a direct result of social activity; 2) abstract thinking, i.e. theoretical, conceptual cognition of social information, turning it into knowledge; 3) practical development of knowledge, i.e. verification of its truth or value, and on this basis its further use for development, improvement, optimization of human activity.

The results of differentiation of the main social function of bibliography can and should be correlated with these main stages in the dialectics of knowledge, in connection with which we have identified its three main private functions: signaling, evaluative and recommendatory. Signal information management reflects, as it were, the moment of the presence and appearance of new social information (books, bibliographic manuals). Evaluative information management is the moment of checking existing and newly created social information introduced into the communication system for social significance (including, and above all, scientific significance). Recommendatory information management is the moment of direct use of social information by selecting the best and determining the optimal conditions for its development by a particular reader (consumer).

Moreover, such differentiation of the general function of bibliography makes it possible to ensure the necessary independence and continuity of its specialization: without taking into account documentary sources of information and a signal about their presence, it is impossible to ensure a correct assessment of the available social information, and without an assessment its recommendation will be unlawful and random. Moreover, information management can be effective only under the condition that the bibliography carries it out in the optimal unity of three specialized social functions: signaling (accounting), evaluative (criticism) and recommendation. Finally, only with the introduction of the function of bibliographic self-government (information management of the second degree) does the indicated differentiation of the social functions of bibliography as a whole acquire the necessary systemic character. At the same time, self-government of bibliography as a whole, in general, can be specialized, in turn, for the same particular functions: signaling, evaluative and recommendatory information management of the second degree.

So, the universal (general) social function of bibliography should be considered information, or book, management. It is this that determines the relatively independent role of bibliography in the system of information communication. Currently, this main public function of bibliography is differentiated (and specified), firstly, into at least two levels - primary and secondary information management, and secondly, into three private functions - signaling, evaluative and recommendatory information management. And only in the indicated unity of levels and parts should one understand the functional originality of bibliography in information activity in general, as well as in relation to other branches of it in particular.

Solving the problem of the main social function of bibliography makes it possible to build a universal model of information activity, which clearly reproduces the place of bibliography and bibliographic studies, their relationship and interaction with other functional parts of this process and their corresponding scientific disciplines. In its most general form, this model is presented in Fig. 3. It becomes an important methodological tool for researching and explaining all the most complex and pressing issues of bibliography and book science.

1.3. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLIOGRAPHY

Along with the social functions of bibliography, which can be considered “eternal”, constantly operating, therefore any scientific innovations in relation to them should be accepted with caution, the basic principles of bibliography also have a similar normative nature. According to modern logical and philosophical concepts, a principle is understood as the fundamental principle (basic position, starting point, premise) of any theory or concept. Principles are an integral part of the methodology of scientific knowledge. Moreover, it is believed that the most important structural element of a scientific theory is precisely the principle that connects all other elements of the theory into a single whole, into a coherent system.

The principles must satisfy two conditions: firstly, they must not be in logical contradiction with each other, and, secondly, the principle of lesser degree of generality specifies the principle of greater degree of generality. This is important to take into account, since a theory is usually built on the basis of several principles of varying or equal degrees of generality. A special place is occupied by the principles of dialectical knowledge, which play an important guiding, methodological role in the formation of any scientific theory. For example, the cornerstone of the materialistic theory of knowledge is the principle of reflection, which plays an important role in understanding information and information processes in society [for more details, see: Pavlov T. Theory of Reflection. M., 1949. 522 pp.; Ursul A.D. Reflection and information. M., 1973. 231 p.].

An idea, the highest conceptual form of knowledge of reality, can also act as a principle as a basis, a prerequisite for any theory or concept. The concepts “principle” and “idea” are of the same order. But if a theory can have several principles, then the idea underlying it is one [for more details, see the works of P.V. Kopnin: Dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge. M., 1973; Dialectics, logic, science. M., 1973]. A law can also act as a principle - an internal and necessary, universal and essential connection between objects and phenomena of objective reality. This is largely explained by the fact that the concept of law is adjacent to the concept of essence: law and essence are homogeneous (one-order) concepts, or rather, one-degree ones, expressing the deepening of man’s knowledge of the phenomena of the world [for more details, see: Druyanov L.A. The place of law in the system of categories of materialist dialectics. M., 1981. 144 p.].

Finally, a method can also act as a principle. They are united by a certain standardness and unambiguity. In the above works of P.V. Kopnin, methods are considered as rules of action, standard and unambiguous; there is no standard and unambiguity - there is no rule, which means there is no method, no logic. Of course, the rules change, none of them is unique and absolute, but since it is a rule for the action of the subject, it must be certain and standard. It should only be taken into account that, unlike a method, a principle is also a norm, a normative action indicating the obligatory nature of its implementation. In particular, the term “norm” itself comes from Latin and is translated into Russian as “guiding principle”, “rule”, “sample”, “precise prescription”, “measurement”.

There is no clearer interpretation of the principle in the specialized literature yet. We will assume that, along with its logical, theoretical and methodological significance, normative binding is decisive. These qualities are fully inherent in the principles of bibliography.

Traditionally, bibliography has focused on three principles: party affiliation, scientific character and nationality. At the present stage of development of the science of bibliography (bibliographic science), this is no longer enough. In our opinion, several more principles should be added to them: activity, communication, consistency.

The principle of partisanship in bibliography is already due to its informational and, therefore, ideological, worldview character. This is further aggravated by the managerial function of bibliography in information activities, which is associated with the need for a certain impact on individual and public consciousness. In a broad sense, partisanship is understood as the principle of human behavior, the activities of organizations and institutions, and a weapon of political and ideological struggle. In a class society, the highest organizational form of such struggle is a political party. It is she who, expressing the interests of any social class or layer, unites their most active representatives and guides them in achieving certain goals and ideals, primarily in the struggle for the possession of political power.

In the words of V.I. Lenin, “the most integral, complete and formalized expression of the political struggle of classes is the struggle of parties” [Full. collection Op. T. 12. P. 137]. It is V.I. Lenin who has priority in developing the principle of party membership in Russian bibliography. A decisive role in this regard is played by his review of the second volume of N.A. Rubakin’s work “Among Books” and such works as “On Bolshevism”, “Bibliography of Marxism”, etc. [Ibid. T. 22. P. 279-280; T. 25. P. 111-114; T. 26. P. 43-93]. Many prominent Soviet bibliographers devoted their research to the analysis of Lenin’s bibliographic works, including the principle of party membership. The significance of Lenin's works on party membership does not lose its relevance in modern conditions of the restructuring of a sociolist society on the terms of market relations.

True, now some experts, taking into account the fact that V.I. Lenin pursued the principle of Bolshevik (communist) partisanship in his works, generally deny the effectiveness of the principle of partisanship. But the historical experience of bibliography confirms that the results of its activities, especially in the implementation of evaluative and recommendatory functions, have always had the character of a “struggle of ideas.” Let us recall in this regard the famous “lists of true and false books” that arose along with the formation of canonical Christianity, which were systematically updated and which all Christians compulsorily followed; otherwise - auto-da-fe, burning along with books to read. But religion in any form is the very first ideology, a way of viewing the world in the history of mankind.

And modern, so-called free, democratic society has not moved far from this tradition and necessity. And today there is an intense struggle for leadership, for possession of, albeit fourth, power - information. Victory here is a direct path to political, supreme power. The latter has learned well that ideas that are captured by the masses become material force. Therefore, in a free society, the supreme power, under all sorts of pretexts, introduces censorship and exerts forceful and economic pressure on the media so that the struggle of ideas is conducted in the right direction.

For greater clarity and persuasiveness, you can turn to the history of Russian bibliography. For example, the most decisive and universally recognized reformer, Peter I, it seemed, what relation could he have to bibliography? It turned out - straight! In 1723-1724. with the direct participation of the tsar (the manuscript he edited has survived), the political pamphlet “Political Books Sold in Gaga” was published twice in Moscow and St. Petersburg, in which the genre of bibliography in the form of a register, list was used to ridicule various events in Europe and hostile statements against Russia books: "...15. A plucked rooster and a tamed leopard, ironic fables and advice to the defenders of political power through a zealous republican... 21. On the training of the Tsar of Russia, the book of Carolus XII, King of Sweden, after his death, published and composed in the name of England and Holland his breadwinner." The pamphlet was so professionally prepared to match the bibliography of that time that some experts for a long time considered it to be a valid bibliographical aid.

One of the founders of Russian bibliography, V.G. Anastasevich, considered the emergence of time-based publications (magazines and newspapers) in Europe as the beginning of its emergence. In the conditions of an ever-increasing abundance of books, it is they ("hardworking bees") who solve the problem, "extracting the content, or essence of them, with their judgment to protect others from deception (emphasis added - A.A.G.) by the pompous titles of the books." According to V.G. Anastasevich, the bibliographer is worthy of our gratitude for the opportunity to go through the vast field of information he collected under one point of view. And again: “The courage to speak your judgment before the learned world should serve as a guarantee of impartiality” [On bibliography//Beehive. 1811. Part 1, No. 1. P. 14-28].

The great reformers of Russian fiction A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol ran the bibliographic department “New Books” in the Sovremennik magazine. Moreover, they published not just quarterly records of newly published books, but in a certain way commented on the results of book publishing in those years. The corresponding assessments and conclusions were given based on the “general total of books”: “From this register of books, the predominance of the novel and the story, these rulers of modern literature, is noticeably noticeable. There are almost twice as many of them as compared to the number of other books. They are constantly appearing in the world, despite their deep insignificance ", testify to a universal need. History peeps in fits and starts into Russian literature. There are no major and major historical works either in translations or in the originals. There are only hints of statistics and economics. Even in practical knowledge that does not intrude into literary everyday life, the same shallowness is noticeable." [Contemporary, 1836. T. 1. P. 318-319]. That is why we quoted this essentially bibliographic review because it seemed to have been written not in 1836, but in our days, only the “lords of modern literature” are now not novels and stories, but detective stories and pornographic publications. And such a “summary of books” and the corresponding conclusions from it can only be obtained by means of bibliography.

But the possibilities of bibliography were especially actively and purposefully used in the struggle of ideas, in shaping the worldview in the right direction, by various kinds of political parties and movements - revolutionary democrats, populists, social democrats. They well understood and effectively used the managerial role of bibliography in the system of the fourth estate - the press (book publishing, information activities, spiritual communication).

Particularly interesting for us is the experience of implementing the principle of party membership in the bibliography of such revolutionary democrats as V.G. Belinsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov. In particular, V.G. Belinsky, in his annual critical reviews of fiction, sought to influence its development in the spirit of revolutionary democrats. Moreover, recognizing the important social significance of literature, V.G. Belinsky still gave the palm to printing: “literature without printing is a body without a soul.” He assigned an important place to “criticism and bibliography, scientific and literary.” In particular, V.G. Belinsky qualified the above-cited bibliographic review from the “New Books” section of Pushkin’s Sovremennik as one of the “most interesting articles” of the year, however, then stipulating that “it consists more in promises than in fulfillment.” . In the understanding of V.G. Belinsky, bibliography is a small criticism, or review, in another definition - “lower, practical criticism, so necessary, so important, so useful both for the public and for the journal... For a journal, bibliography is just as much soul and life, as well as criticism" [Full. collection Op. M., 1956. T. 5. P. 637; T. 2. 1953. P. 184; Right there. P. 48].

The populist movement also made its contribution to the development and effective use of the principle of partisanship in bibliography. This is due to the desire of the populists to combine their “going to the people” not only with revolutionary, but also cultural activities. To shape the worldview of the most diverse groups of the population in the right direction, they especially actively used the recommendatory function of bibliography, and in such original genre forms as “systematic reading catalogue”, “exemplary library catalogue”, “home reading programs”, etc.

The main uniqueness of the populist approach lies in the desire to proceed from ideological ideas, identifying the cultural level, and providing information to the people themselves. As an example, we can point out the famous work “What should the people read?” [In 3 volumes. St. Petersburg; M., 1884-1906], compiled by a circle of Kharkov teachers under the leadership of Kh.D. Alchevskaya. It is characteristic that for its preparation, extracurricular reading by the students themselves was used, for which special questionnaires were developed, reading diaries were kept, regular discussions of what was read with the preparation of detailed reports, and recordings of observations and conclusions of the teachers themselves.

But the Social Democrats were especially active in using the principle of party affiliation in their bibliography, and representatives of all the main currents of this political movement - the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries. True, the Bolsheviks were particularly active, as evidenced by the bibliographic works of the Bolshevik leader himself, V.I. Lenin. In this regard, the controversy surrounding the famous work of N.A. Rubakin “Among the Books” is indicative. This controversy can serve as a clear example of testing the existence and effectiveness of the well-known principle of partisanship.

Speaking about the principles of bibliography, we simply cannot ignore the issue of partisanship. Moreover, now, in the conditions of capitalist reform of socialism previously built in Russia, the principle of party membership has become the talk of the town both in ideology in general and in bibliography in particular. Some theorists reject it, but this contradicts the experience of world history and our domestic one (see the examples from history given above). Others consider it a product of Bolshevism and its uncompromising ideologist - V.I. Lenin, i.e. reduce the principle of partisanship to a special case. But any principle, if it is a principle, including partisanship, is universal. And who prevented or is preventing other parties from using it, filling it with specific content in the light of their ideology? Yes, under the conditions of totalitarian socialism it was absolutized to the politics of one party, the communist one. But now, in a multi-party environment, one can clearly and practically verify the viability of the party principle.

The principle of partisanship is an objective necessity in the spiritual and, therefore, informational life of society. With its specific implementation, three main options are possible: firstly, direct adherence in the struggle of ideas to the ideology of a certain party (not just one, but one of many!); secondly, covert polemics, or in words - one thing, but in deeds - another, which is typical for any kind of revisionism or in the case of absolutism of one party, when ideological confrontation turns into a monologue and, as a natural consequence, into the suppression of any dissent, and also into ideological hypocrisy; thirdly, ideological objectivism, i.e. the desire for an independent, non- or supra-party point of view, which most often leads to eclecticism - a mechanical displacement of different points of view.

In any case, the principle of party membership is not the idle speculation of V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as some modern ideologists believe, but the objective essence of the spiritual life of society, subjective in its origin, and, therefore, the objective essence of bibliography. To live in modern society and it is not yet possible to ignore the principle of partisanship. The principle of partisanship in bibliography is not only informational, but also social (ideological, political, educational, scientific, aesthetic, moral, etc.) activity of each person. The question is different: is it implemented openly or covertly - in the worst form of polemics, a struggle of ideas.

As for the scientific principle, at first glance, its name is somewhat unfortunate, since it turns out that “non-scientific” principles may exist. In fact, all principles are scientific, including the principle of party membership. In this case, we are talking about the fact that scientific knowledge, scientific activity is only one of the components of social activity and, accordingly, each of its branches. But any activity must ultimately be formed and developed on a scientific basis. This fully applies to bibliographic activities. This is the essence of the scientific principle.

A natural requirement for its implementation is the need to develop the corresponding science - in our case, bibliographic science. As we have already noted, the conditions for its formation in Western Europe arose at the beginning of the 17th century, in Russia - with the founding of the Academy of Sciences (according to the law signed by Peter the Great - 1724, in fact - at the end of 1725 under Catherine I). It is noteworthy that one of the responsibilities of Russian academicians was to compile abstracts, primarily for foreign publications, with the aim of subsequently publishing these, as they were then called, “extracts” in academic works. And since then, right up to our time, the Russian Academy of Sciences has been paying a lot of attention to bibliographic activities. In particular, M.V. Lomonosov in the middle of the 18th century. wrote (1754), then published (1755) in French translation abroad, a special article “Discourse on the duties of journalists when presenting their works...”, dedicated to the scientific methodology of compiling abstracts and reviews: “... To give clear and true brief statements of the contents of appearing works, sometimes with the addition of a fair judgment either on the merits of the matter or on some details of execution.The purpose and benefit of the extracts is to quickly disseminate information about books in the republic of sciences... Magazines could also have a very beneficial influence on increase in human knowledge...") [see: Complete. collection Op. M.; L., 1952. T. 3. P. 217-232]. This work does not lose its scientific and bibliographic significance even today.

Russian bibliographic studies itself (then bibliography as a science) has its fundamental origins in the works of V.G. Anastasevich (1811) and V.S. Sopikov (1813), but more about this is yet to come. It is also important that at the beginning of the 20th century. bibliography became the subject of university teaching for the first time. This was done by the prominent Russian book scholar and bibliographer N.M. Lisovsky in his lectures, first at St. Petersburg (1913-1920) and then at Moscow (1916-1920) universities.

Naturally, not every bibliographer has a universe of knowledge in all scientific fields. Therefore, the principle of scientific character requires the involvement, as far as possible, of a wide range of relevant specialists in the preparation of bibliographic works. In this regard, let us recall that in the above review, V.I. Lenin considered one of the omissions of N.A. Rubakin’s work “Among the Books” to be an insufficiently broad (or rather, just beginning to be used) appeal to specialists on certain issues. N.A. Rubakin, being an encyclopedist in his knowledge, perhaps, in the author's ardor, somewhat ignored the principle of scientific character, which is unacceptable when compiling such a universal bibliographic manual of the recommendatory type as “Among the Books” was. He himself admitted this [for example, in a letter to G.V. Plekhanov, see: Mashkova M.V. History of Russian bibliography of the early 20th century. (until October 1917). M., 1969. P. 196-197] and in some cases actually attracted such quite authoritative scientists of his time as D.N. Anuchin, A.N. Veselovsky, N.I. Kareev, V.I. Semevsky and others .

Taking into account the special importance of bibliography in the book business, in information and, more broadly, social activities, the principle of scientific character in bibliography presupposes that: 1) bibliographic activities should be carried out by highly qualified specialists of the appropriate profile of professional training; 2) be based on the most perfect universal methodology, which is dialectics; 3) develop and improve taking into account the achievements of modern scientific and technological progress.

The principle of nationality (or democracy) determines the implementation of the main information and management function of bibliography in the interests of all workers. This is explained by the decisive role of the people in socio-economic development, in the creation of language and spiritual culture.

In modern conditions of increasing complexity of social life, the awareness of its development largely depends on awareness, which is an objective condition of human existence. Hence the ever-increasing role of the principle of nationality in information activities and in bibliography.

The principle of nationality first of all presupposes that bibliographic activity should be of a state, public nature. It is with such state centralization that the very first, defining function of bibliography - signaling (recording and registration) - can be most effectively implemented. In our country, the experience of state registration of newly published books has been officially carried out since 1837: first directly on the pages of the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, and then (since 1839) as special “Bibliographical Addenda” to it. Registration was carried out on the basis of a legal deposit, which was then received by the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg (now the Russian National Library). After 1855, as a result of all sorts of unsuccessful experiments, they came to the only correct decision - to publish a special journal. It has been published under the title “Book Chronicle” since 1907 until the present day.

During the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, another important project was carried out: the Book Chamber was created, which was entrusted with registering all printed works published in the country, publishing the Book Chronicle, and supplying large book depositories with legal deposit. Even more radical changes in the development of the state character of bibliography occurred after the October Socialist Revolution. The well-known resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of June 30, 1920, signed by V.I. Lenin, "On the transfer of bibliographic affairs in the RSFSR to the People's Commissariat of Education" was adopted. Thus, Soviet bibliography was given a state character. A new Russian Central Book Board was created in Moscow (then the All-Union Book Chamber, and now the Russian Book Chamber). Similar institutions were organized later in all unions and some autonomous republics THE USSR. By analogy with the Book Chronicle, magazines are organized that reflect other types of printed works - periodicals, art publications, cartographic publications, reviews, magazine and newspaper articles, etc. Moreover, the republican book chambers published this kind of bibliographic journals in the corresponding national languages.

Both then and now, the right of every citizen to access state and public book depositories and reference and information funds was constitutionally enshrined. Naturally, the principle of nationality is not limited only to the results of the implementation of the signaling function of bibliography. In particular, such a branch of bibliography, according to GOST 16448-70, began to be called “state”, instead of the previously used terms “registration”, “information”, etc. The principle of nationality requires even greater diversity in bibliographic products that implement the other two main functions of bibliography - evaluative and recommendatory. The evaluation function is performed by such a branch of bibliography, which in GOST 16448-70 was called “scientific auxiliary” (formerly “critical”). The results of the implementation of this function are used primarily by specialists in the relevant fields of knowledge and practice. Scientific auxiliary bibliography has become an integral part of the State System of Scientific and Technical Information (GSNTI) purposefully created in our country since 1966. In modern conditions of transition to a market economy, unfortunately, only a few institutions have survived from this previously widely deployed system.

Particular attention in both pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia was paid to the implementation of the recommendatory function of bibliography. This specialized branch of bibliography has retained its former name in GOST 16448-70 - “recommendatory”. Its importance is determined by the fact that it is primarily aimed at the widest range of information consumers. It is here that the principle of nationality is most clearly manifested. Leading state centers have emerged, primarily the Russian State Library (formerly the State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin) and the Russian National Library (formerly the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). Taking into account the specifics of the reader's address, the recommendatory bibliography has formed its own special genres of aids depending on age, education, profession and other socio-psychological characteristics. Unfortunately, it is in the recommendatory bibliography that there has now been a particularly sharp decline, which indicates a violation of the principle of nationality. Therefore, decisive measures are needed to eliminate the emerging crisis in Russian bibliography.

The importance and necessity of applying the principle of activity in bibliography is due to the fact that bibliography is one of the branches of social (human) activity [see: Vokhrysheva M.G. Bibliographic activities: Structure and efficiency. M., 1989. 199 pp.]. In modern philosophy, activity is understood as a specifically human form of active relationship to the surrounding world, the content of which is its purposeful change and transformation. In other words, human activity presupposes a certain opposition between the subject and the object of activity, i.e. man (society) as a subject of activity opposes to himself an object of activity as a material that must receive a new form and properties, transform from a material into a product of activity.

Any activity includes a certain set of necessary properties and elements: goal, means, result and the process of activity itself. An integral characteristic of human activity is its awareness, purposefulness, and expediency. Activity is the real driving force of social progress and the condition for the very existence of society.

Various classifications of forms of activity are proposed: division into spiritual and material (production), labor and non-labor, reproductive (obtaining an already known result using known means) and productive or creative (developing new goals and corresponding means or achieving known goals with the help of new funds), etc.

It is believed that Hegel was the first to construct the most developed rationalistic concept of activity, but from the standpoint of objective idealism. In this concept, the dialectic of the structure of activity, which includes goal, means and result, is subjected to detailed analysis.

In modern philosophy and social sciences, other typological models of activity are proposed, which, on the one hand, place increasing emphasis on deepening ideas about the human personality, and on the other, on isolating a number of components and factors that lie outside the scope of activity itself, although related with her and influencing her. In the first case, instead of the rational components of goal setting, such voluntaristic and irrational principles as will, impulse and experience are brought to the fore. In the second case, the decisive emphasis is placed on the interpersonal (universal) components of culture, which act as regulators of activity and its direction, for example, the doctrine of values, the concept of the role of sign structures, etc.

Finally, in the conditions of modern scientific and technological progress, primarily in connection with cybernetization and technization, there is an increasing tendency to refuse to consider activity as the essence of man and the only basis of culture. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that ultimately one should proceed from a holistic understanding of activity as an organic unity of rational-sensory-practical forms of activity. This integrity is synthesized in the concept of practice, which includes diverse forms of human activity and prioritizes work as an important form of activity. In particular, labor is understood as a synonym or a certain type of activity; labor is a purposeful activity of a person, during which, with the help of tools of labor, he influences nature and uses it to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs. In our case, we should only take into account that we are talking about information activity (work), the satisfaction of information needs, which is also realized by appropriate means of an informational nature.

In the history of knowledge, the concept of activity has played and continues to play an important role: firstly, as an ideological, explanatory principle, and secondly, as a methodological basis for a number of social sciences, where human activity becomes the subject of study. Such social sciences include bibliology as the science of books and book publishing, and bibliography as the science of bibliographic information and bibliographic activity. Unfortunately, the principle of activity is not yet sufficiently used in modern bibliographic science. Only the very first steps have been taken here. But there are also opponents of it, and relapses into inconsistent application.

This is precisely what is characteristic, for example, of the bibliographic concept of O.P. Korshunov, who unjustifiably opposes the well-known bibliological formula of activity “author - book - reader”, justified by N.A. Rubakin [most thoroughly in the monograph: Psychology of the Reader and Books: A Brief Introduction . to bibliologist. psychology. M., 1977. 264 p. First ed. - 1928] and then supported by A.M.Lovyagin [Fundamentals of bibliology. L., 1926. S. 152-154]. Having somewhat modified it - “author - document - consumer” (A-D-P), O.P. Korshunov emphasizes that it “represents a special case of a more fundamental, general and simple relation D-P... Therefore, it is the relation D -P is truly original" [Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, technique. P. 40]. But in the light of the principle of activity, it turns out just the opposite: the D-P relation is only a special case of activity. Moreover, without the original relations A-D it (D-P) simply does not exist. Such a limited understanding of bibliographic activity naturally leads to the insufficiency of the concept itself, since in it, instead of a holistic understanding of the activity, it is the D-P relation that is one-sidedly absolutized, which, according to O.P. Korshunov himself, is one of the main provisions of his bibliographic concept, the “original cell”, the starting point (“initial abstraction”) of the theoretical reproduction of the system of documentary communications as a whole and each of its constituent social institutions in all their real, concrete, historically determined complexity [Ibid. P. 39].

Such one-sided or inconsistent use of the principle of activity has become a stable trend in modern book and bibliographic studies. For example, the most authoritative concept of I.E. Barenbaum, interpreting the system of book sciences as a whole, is based on the contradictory formula of book science: book - book business - reader [for more details, see his works: Book Science in the System of Sciences//Book. Research and materials. 1985. Sat. 50. pp. 72-83; Functional approach and its application in bibliology//Book and social progress. M., 1986. S. 122-131]. As a result, it turns out that book publishing is possible without production (“author”) and consumer (“reader”), and even without the book itself. Another famous Soviet bibliologist and bibliographer A.I. Barsuk, relying on the principle of activity and trying to substantiate the place of bibliographic science in the system of bibliographic disciplines, also proceeds from the truncated formula of book science: work (book) - reader [Barsuk A.I. Bibliographic science in the system of bibliographical disciplines disciplines. M., 1975. S. 27-31].

We consider it necessary to return the original meaning to the principle of activity, already substantiated in domestic bibliology [for more details, see: Grechikhin A.A. Book publishing as a system. M., 1990. 80 p.]. In addition, this principle is actively being developed and used in various areas of modern social science [see, for example: Kagan M.S. Human activity. M., 1974. 328 pp.; Dmitrenko V.A. On the methodological significance of the activity approach to science // Issue. methodol. Sci. 1975. Issue. 5. P. 3-20; Naumova N.F. Principle of activity in sociology: Methodology. problem research activities//Ergonomics. 1976. Issue. 10. P. 128-142; Yudin E.G. Systematic approach and operating principle. M., 1978. 204 p.].

The classical scheme of the principle of activity is defined by the following statement: “Without production there is no consumption, however, without consumption there is no production, since production would be aimless in that case” [Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. T. 12. p. 717. A more detailed definition is given further - on p. 726]. Taking into account the modern division of labor, Russian scientists have proposed a standard system of social activity, consisting of four main subsystems: management, knowledge, practice and communication. It is important for us to emphasize that the basis of information communication is the book business and, accordingly, the management function in the book business is carried out by bibliography.

The principle of activity was used by us to determine the relationship between bibliology and the theory of book trade (bibliopolitics) and their place in the system of bibliological disciplines and book science, to build book science as a system, for the typology of educational and pedagogical books, to develop bibliographic heuristics and other bibliological tasks, including for the formation of bibliographic science as a science. The principle of activity is fundamental to the development of the scientific foundations of bibliography. This is due to the fact that the book appears as a kind of intermediary link in the redistribution of the information result of human activity into the total social activities(social consciousness) and, on the contrary, acts in the form of a kind of feedback regarding other components - management, cognition, practice. In this regard, communication itself as a type of activity (and its main component - book writing) appears as a type of activity that mediates the other three, but is also generated and stimulated by them. And this means that the four main types of human activity identified in a purely abstract theoretical analysis form a closed system in which each type of activity as its subsystem is connected with all other direct and feedback connections, i.e. feels the need for them and is supported and mediated by them [see: Kagan M.S. Human activity. pp. 104-105].

The effectiveness of using the principle of activity lies in the fact that we can imagine information communication (book writing) in the form of the same four components, but already conditioned by a functional communicative task. Moreover, the controlling function in the system (more precisely, in relation to all social activities - the subsystem) of information communication will be carried out by bibliography. In turn, the bibliography can be reproduced in combination with the same four components, but already functionally determined by the task of information management. At the same time, bibliographic activity is carried out in the necessary conditionality of the division of social labor in the direction from the general to the particular, individual. Consequently, a unique coordinate system of bibliographic activity can be formed, based on the “principle of activity.”

The theoretical and methodological foundations of the principle of communicability are associated with such categories as communication, social relations, communication, information, sign system, etc. In our case, the importance of the principle of communicability lies in the fact that it determines the specifics of spiritual, or informational, communication in contrast to material communication. This difference is qualified in philosophy by such categories as material and ideal. The sphere of the ideal consists of various forms of reflection of reality in human brain, consciousness: sensory and mental images, concepts and ideas, ways of constructing and operating them, spiritual values and orientations, etc. The ideal acts as a system of relations between objective phenomena independent of consciousness and will and man, society, capable of reproducing and transforming these phenomena in the process of their theoretical and practical activities. Being derived from the material, the ideal acquires relative independence, becoming an active principle of social activity.

It is important to emphasize that the ideal, emerging and developing in the depths of social practice, is not only generated by the material, but is also capable of actively transforming it. In modern science, the spiritual, ideal side of social activity and communication has received an even deeper understanding, especially in such categories as communication and information. True, their scientific interpretation still lacks the necessary unambiguity.

Thus, in philosophy, communication (from the Latin communicatio - message, connection, transfer) is understood as communication, exchange of thoughts, information, ideas, etc.; the transfer of this or that content from one consciousness (collective or individual) to another through signs recorded on material media. In other words, communication can be interpreted as a specific social activity associated with spiritual and informational communication. Moreover, this activity in our time acquires a rather complex hierarchy, the highest level of which is occupied by the so-called mass communication- systematic dissemination of messages (through print, radio, television, cinema, sound recording, video recording) among numerically large, dispersed audiences with the aim of affirming spiritual values and exerting an ideological, political, economic or organizational influence on people's assessments, opinions and behavior.

In this regard, the situation with the definition of information is more complicated (from the Latin informatio - familiarization, explanation, presentation, concept). Currently, there are many different definitions, none of which are generally accepted. The most common are the following: 1) message, information about the state of affairs, information about something transmitted by people; 2) reduced, removed uncertainty as a result of receiving messages; 3) a message inextricably linked with control, signals in the unity of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics; 4) transmission, reflection of diversity in any objects and processes (inanimate and living nature).

Three main directions have emerged in the development of information theory: mathematical, semantic and pragmatic. The most thoroughly developed mathematical, or quantitative, theory of information, in which, along with the classical, Shannon, its other variants appeared - probabilistic, topological, combinatorial, “dynamic”, algorithmic, etc. In general, all of them can be characterized as syntactic. Content (meaning, meaning) and axiological (novelty, value, usefulness) aspects of information are studied in its semantic and pragmatic theories.

It is characteristic that the mathematical theory of information was based on the principle of activity in its most abstract interpretation, interpreting the communication process in the unity of the following components: source of information, transmitter, communication line, receiver. Of particular importance is the use of the concept of information in cybernetics, where it is one of the central categories, along with the concepts of communication and control. The classic version of this approach is the “information vision” of cybernetics, developed by N. Wiener. In our country, the idea of synthesizing knowledge about communications and management is being developed in the so-called “information theory of management”, developed by the school of B.N. Petrov [see: Petrov B.N. The beginnings of information theory of management//Results of Science and Technology. Automation and radio electronics. 1968. Vol. "Technical cybernetics". M., 1970. S. 221-352].

From the point of view of bibliography, the cybernetic understanding of information is of particular importance, since in this case it is determined by the function of managing communication (information activities, book business). Communication, understood as the interdependence of the existence of phenomena separated in space and (or) time, is one of the most important scientific categories. Human knowledge begins with the identification of stable, necessary connections, and the basis of science is the analysis of the connection between cause and effect - the universal connection between the phenomena of reality, the presence of which makes the laws of science possible. In social cognition, the principle of the universal mutual connection of objects and phenomena acts as one of the basic principles of dialectics.

The concept of information has become general scientific, i.e. common to all special sciences, and the information approach has become a general scientific means of research. But for us, of particular importance are the actively developing theories not of information in general, but of social information, closely related to general scientific - semantic and pragmatic - theories [see, for example: Tsyrdya F.N. Social information: Philosophy. feature article. Chisinau, 1978. 144 p.].

And yet, despite the abundance of scientific research in the field of information, the necessary clarity in its definition is not yet available. This, in our opinion, is the important role of the principle of communicability, that its use allows us to move forward in this direction.

For the first time, the principle of communicativeness was concretized by us in relation to the typological model of Russian books in initial stage its development, and then deepened in other works, including in relation to bibliography [see: Typological model of the Russian book at the initial stage of its development//Problems of handwritten and printed books. M., 1976. S. 25-38; as well as the above works: Information publications; Bibliography; General bibliography: Theoretical and methodological foundations]. The methodological basis of this principle is the well-known proposition that from the very beginning there is a curse on the “spirit” - to be “burdened down” by matter, which appears here in the form of moving layers of air, sounds - in a word, in the form of language. Language is as ancient as consciousness; language is a practical consciousness that exists for other people and only thereby for myself, real consciousness, and, like consciousness, language arises only from need, from the urgent need to communicate with other people..." [Marx K., Engels F. Opinion op. T. 3. P. 29] And such a symbolic “burden” is characteristic of the book and other methods and means of information communication.

The principle of communicability requires, on the one hand, to take into account the dialectical unity of the content and sign form of a book, since “ideas do not exist separately from language”, on the other hand, to prevent the identification of content and sign form: ideas “do not turn into language in such a way that At the same time, their originality disappeared." Consequently, language, like other sign systems, has relative independence.

Language forms the basis of such a specific sphere of social activity, which we now call communication or information communication. It is an objective condition of public, socially organized activity. As production methods become more complex in the process of socio-economic development, new, more complex methods of information communication appear: writing, handwritten and printed books, electronic means of communication. It is characteristic that in Russian science, as we have already noted, even V.G. Belinsky, characterizing such a social phenomenon as literature, identified three main historical types in its development - literature, writing, and printing. Moreover, book printing corresponds to the highest form of information communication - mass communication.

It is important for us to emphasize that both the traditional printed book and the newest “electronic book”, according to the principle of communicativeness, culturally and historically arise and develop in the form of an organic trinity (we call this the communicative trinity): content (social information), symbolic (language ) and material and structural form. Only in this trinity can a book (and other means of information activity) carry out its communicative (information) function; it becomes the goal and result of a specific social activity - book publishing, and an object of study by a special science - bibliology.

Separately, each of these three components is the goal, result and object of study of other branches of social activity, other sciences. Thus, social information is the spiritual content and result of all social activity and its branches, therefore, it is studied by the entire system of sciences; the sign form is an object mainly of semiotics and philological sciences; a material-structural form is an object of technology, primarily of such branches as printing, electronics, etc. Consequently, the indicated trinity of the book is of a fundamental nature. Outside of it, the book does not exist as an integral social phenomenon, as a system. Social information as a result of the reflection of social activity in the public consciousness, and through language, literature, books - and in the system of information communication, cannot arise or exist outside of the activities of society and independently of it, outside of its “burdening” with matter (sign). This position underlies the principle of communicability.

The indicated communicative trinity can be correlated with the “sign triangle” known in semiotics by G. Frege, C.S. Pierce, K. Buhler and others [for more details, see: Stepanov Yu.S. Semiotics. M., 1971. 167 pp.; Chertov L.F. Iconicity. St. Petersburg, 1993. 379 p.], which is a unique model of any sign systems used in the process of social activity for information communication. Moreover, this model clearly demonstrates the special specificity of spiritual activity. The sign component here acts as an objective, necessary conditioning.

Taking into account the information and management specifics of bibliography, the principle of communicativeness allows us to more clearly qualify its main components: content - bibliographic information; iconic ways of its reproduction - bibliographic genres as special iconic literary forms that ensure the expression and existence of content; methods of material and constructive reproduction of content - various types of media, both traditional (written and printed) and the latest, electronic-cybernetic. Only in this organic trinity can bibliographic information exist in society and the process of bibliographic activity itself be carried out.

The principle of systematicity was formed on the basis of a systems approach (method, system methodology), which has become decisive in modern science. The systems approach in the broadest, philosophical sense is understood as a direction in the methodology of special scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. In turn, a system (from the Greek systema - a whole made up of parts; a connection) is defined as a set of elements that are in such relationships and connections with each other that a structured integrity is formed in a certain way, a unity that is not reducible to individual components.

Already in ancient Greek philosophy, the idea of systematic knowledge was developed as a reflection of the natural order and integrity of being and the surrounding reality. Although ancient Greek philosophy still had the character of so-called syncretism, i.e. lack of differentiation, underdevelopment, a kind of eclecticism, but in its diverse forms there are in embryo, in the process of emergence, almost all later types of worldviews, including the systemic approach. In Ancient Greece, as we know, bibliography itself arose.

An important role in the development of the principle of systematicity belongs to representatives of German classical philosophy, primarily Hegel, who interpreted systematic cognition as the greatest requirement of dialectical thinking. But for us, the dialectical-materialistic interpretation of the principle of systematicity is of decisive importance, the content of which includes ideas about the universal connection of phenomena, development, contradictions, etc., about the relationship between the whole and parts, about the structuring of each system object, about the active nature of the activities of living and social systems and so on. More detailed information about the main provisions and characteristics of the principle of systematicity in modern science can be found in the relevant publications.

It is important to note that the principle of systematicity has both a universal character, which is developed by a special scientific discipline - “general systems theory”, and a particular one, i.e. concretizes the general theory to its particular tasks of cognition and, in turn, enriches it with the results obtained. At the present stage, the active use of the principle of systematicity has led to special attention to the traditional problems of classification in science. Suffice it to say that only in our country in Lately Interesting publications appeared on general issues of classification, not to mention numerous works on classification in relation to special sciences. Increasingly, the emerging theory of classification (systematization) is called typology, instead of the traditional “taxonomy” and “systematics” originating from biology. Instead of the theory of classification, the traditional scientific name “classiology” is also proposed [see, for example: Rozova S.S. Classification problem in modern science. Novosibirsk, 1986. 223 p.].

The problem is complicated by the fact that even at the most general level, for example, the systematization of philosophical categories, the traditional problem of classification of sciences, etc., obtaining a final version of the system is difficult. On this subject, there is an authoritative statement by F. Engels: “Systematics after Hegel is impossible. It is clear that the world is a single system, that is, a coherent whole, but knowledge of this system presupposes knowledge of all nature and history, which people never achieve. Therefore, whoever builds systems is forced to fill in countless gaps with his own inventions, that is, irrationally fantasize, engage in ideologization" [Marx K., Engels F. Decree. Op. T. 20. P. 630]. This provision also applies to any specific science, in our case - to bibliography, an integral part of which is bibliographic science.

The development of the principle of systematicity in relation to domestic bibliology began in the pre-revolutionary period of its development, especially in the works of N.M. Lisovsky, A.M. Lovyagin and N.A. Rubakin. It is no coincidence that the newest stage of Soviet bibliology is defined as systemic-typological [Belovitskaya A.A. The main stages of the development of bibliology in the USSR: Textbook. allowance. M., 1983. 89 p.], although it would be more accurate to call it systemic book studies, i.e. bibliology is developed and presented as a complex structured whole, as a system. A special role in the development of this approach to bibliology was played by the bibliological typology that is currently being actively developed, which is still conventionally called “book typology” or “bibliotypology”. Bibliotypology is a kind of systems theory in book science. It develops in the unity of several scientific directions: general, special, sectoral typology and the typology of an individual book [for more details, see our works: Modern problems of book typology. Voronezh, 1989. 247 pp.; Bibliotypology, or general theory of systems in book publishing // Book. case. 1995. No. 6/7. P. 75-80].

The most important and quite fruitful area of particular typologies is bibliographic typology. True, its complete theory has not yet been created, but problems such as classification of bibliography, bibliographic aids (publications), streamlining of the conceptual apparatus are being actively solved, which is facilitated by a number of existing GOSTs, etc. The task is to, guided by the principle of consistency, ultimately form a scientifically based system of bibliographic activity, taking into account the specifics of its social function and the achievements of modern science, including the general theory of systems.

Finally, it should be emphasized that one of the most important features of the principle of systematicity is that it is closely related to all other principles of scientific knowledge, including those described above. Moreover, the principle of consistency is considered decisive in scientific activity, the purpose of which is the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality, in our case - about bibliographic activity.

1.4. OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF BIBLIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY STUDIES

Determining the specifics of the object and subject of any branch of social activity, along with the methodology and terminology, is a necessary condition for its scientific qualification. Unfortunately, the problem of object and subject, even in a general scientific sense, does not yet have a sufficiently clear solution. The situation is even more aggravated when we are talking, as in our case, about spiritual activity, the result of which, in contrast to material activity, is the ideal, i.e. material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it. In other words, this is the result of human activity, and more broadly, of social consciousness. The uniqueness of this activity lies in the fact that the reflection of reality in the form of sensory and mental images, firstly, anticipates the practical actions of a person, giving them a purposeful character. Secondly, being a necessary component of creative and transformative practice, ideal results enrich the content of consciousness itself (conceptions, thoughts, ideas, etc.), which are imprinted in various cultural products, but primarily in language and other sign systems, acquiring form of a socially significant ideal and acting as information, knowledge and other spiritual values.

An object in a broad philosophical sense is understood as something that opposes the subject in his objective-practical and cognitive activity. In other words, the object is not simply identical to actual reality, but acts as such a part of it that is in interaction with the subject, and the very selection of the object of knowledge is carried out with the help of forms of practical and cognitive activity developed by society and reflecting the properties of objective reality. The word “object” itself comes from the late Latin word “subject,” its Latin definition as “throwing forward, opposing.” In this case we are talking about an object, or an object that exists outside of us and independently of our consciousness (external world, material reality) [for more details, see: Lektorsky V.A. Subject, object, cognition. M., 1980. 359 pp.]. As we see, an object is defined in two ways: as a movement from a direct object in reality to its ideal reflection mediated by consciousness, i.e. through certain methods of cognitive activity. It is believed that it is this movement from initial sensory data to the ideal reproduction of an object in the form of a system of concepts, from the empirical level of knowledge to the theoretical level that allows us to cognize the corresponding object not externally, superficially, but deeper and deeper. Therefore, the concept of dialectical materialism opposes both those philosophical theories that claim that a cognizable object is directly given to the subject and that the latter’s activity with “givenness” is always a departure from the object, and those that believe that the object is the realization of the internal content of the subject, personalization and personification of objective reality.

Thus, an object in the most general definition should be understood not as an objective reality opposing the subject of activity (man, society), but as a reality in interaction with the subject, i.e. in the need to reproduce it by appropriate means of empirical and logical idealization. But the reconstruction of an object in the form of a system of images and concepts is not a departure from it and not its “creation,” but a necessary condition for its ever deeper knowledge.

The uniqueness of the object of bibliography lies in the fact that it already appears in a certain method of idealization - sign systems for reproducing social information. Its qualification therefore becomes more complicated, since it requires a kind of secondary idealization.

In philosophy, a graphic form has also been proposed that models the entire process of dialectical cognition, the formation of the subject of human activity (science): not a straight line, but a curved line, endlessly approaching a series of circles, a spiral. And again, the general plays a decisive role in this process. This is convincingly stated in one of the passages of Hegel’s “Science of Logic”, which, according to V.I. Lenin, “very well sums up, in a way, what dialectics is” [Poln. collection Op. T. 29. P. 322]: “Knowledge moves from content to content. First of all, this forward movement is characterized by the fact that it begins with simple certainties and that those that follow them become richer and more concrete. For the result contains its beginning, and the movement of the latter has enriched it with some new determination. The universal constitutes the basis; therefore, forward movement should not be mistaken for some flow from some other to some other. The concept in the absolute method is preserved in its otherness, the universal in its isolation, in judgment and reality; at each stage of further determination, the universal raises higher the entire mass of its previous content and not only does not lose anything as a result of its dialectical forward movement and leaves nothing behind itself, but carries with it everything it has acquired, and is enriched and denser within itself..."

In light of all that has been said above, we can now give, in the most general form, definitions of the object and subject of human (social) activity. An object is a real or ideal formation included in the process of activity, to which specific goals this activity is aimed. An object is a result of activity, material or ideal, which allows one to qualify the level (degree, depth) of material transformation and scientific knowledge of the object. Naturally, such opposition arises only in the process of activity. Moreover, both the subject and the object evolve historically, and in such a way that at each subsequent stage of activity the subject, as it were, joins the object and the latter each time appears in a new quality - enriched, modified by activity. The object is also enriched, but this enrichment is of a slightly different kind - by expanding and deepening (“thickening”) the abstract and concrete in thinking, in consciousness, as well as by improving the physical abilities and skills of the subject of activity.

There is another difference: in relation to the same object, an infinite number of objects can exist. Actually, each specific field of activity or science has its own specific subject. According to V.I. Lenin, these difficulties were already solved by Aristotle: “...Excellently, objectively, clearly, materialistically (mathematics and other sciences abstract one of the aspects of the body, phenomenon, life). But the author does not consistently maintain this point of view.” [Lenin V.I. Decree. Op. T. 29. P. 330]. Unfortunately, this problem still causes difficulties.

This is largely due to the fact that in the process of historical development the dialectical combination of the processes of differentiation and integration increases, although the latter always retains its determining role. Accordingly, the system of sciences itself is becoming more complex, in which at the present stage three main relatively independent levels can be distinguished: 1) generalizing, integrating sciences in relation to all other areas of scientific knowledge - philosophy, logic, mathematics, cybernetics, etc.; 2) sciences about the largest specialized spheres of human activity - social science, natural science, technology, art history, etc. (including the science of science - scientific studies); 3) individual (private) sciences - as a result of further specialization and integration of sciences at the above levels.

The proposed systematization of science is very conditional and simplified. But, unfortunately, despite numerous attempts both in history and at the present stage, a complete and holistic, logically rigorous system of sciences has not yet been created. In any case, it is important to emphasize that in accordance with the emerging system of sciences, their objects and subjects are differentiated or integrated. Finally, it should be taken into account that the problem under consideration is not limited only to the object and subject of science, but must be qualified at the level of corresponding human activity. In this regard, it is necessary not only to highlight, but also to show in dynamics the relationship between objects and subjects of various functional components of activity. First of all, this concerns the subject, the possible diversity of which in the most general form can be reduced to three main levels: material (material), empirical and theoretical.

The material component of an object is the direct result of sensory-objective, production activity with an object, obtained with the help of material means and in the form of material products. The empirical component of an object is the result of spiritual activity directly aimed at the object and based on data from observation, experiment and experience. The theoretical component of an object is an indirect result of spiritual activity, reflecting a comprehensive knowledge of the object in its essential connections and patterns. “To really know a subject,” V.I. Lenin pointed out, “we must embrace, study all its sides, all connections and “mediations.” We will never achieve this completely, but the requirement of comprehensiveness will prevent us from making mistakes and from becoming dead. -1. Secondly, dialectical logic requires taking the subject in its development, “self-movement” (as Hegel sometimes says), change... Thirdly, all human practice must enter into full “ definition of an object" both as a criterion of truth and as a practical determinant of the connection of an object with what a person needs. Fourthly, dialectical logic teaches that “there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete...” [Ibid. Vol. 42 290].

As is known, such comprehensiveness, dynamism and integrity of a theoretical subject in the most general form is provided by the scientific picture of the world. In turn, it is built on the basis of a certain fundamental theory (or theories). Consequently, the scientific picture of the world differs from theory not only in the level of abstraction and generalization, but also in structure. If the scientific picture of the world reflects the object, abstracting from the process of obtaining knowledge, then the theory contains logical means of both systematizing knowledge about the object and testing (for example, experimentally) their truth.

In a real activity process, the specified clarity in the hierarchy of the formation of various levels of the subject is not always observed. This is explained by the specifics of the original object, the level of historical development, specific tasks, and other conditions. But it is important not to be limited to the levels of material and empirical formation of the subject, rising to theoretical knowledge of the scientific picture of the world, and not to absolutize the theory: it acts as objective knowledge only when it receives an empirical interpretation and is tested in practice. Moreover, each object of activity (science) seems to generate its own integral version of the subject in the unity of the three main levels indicated - material, empirical and theoretical.

In our case - bibliographic activity - the important condition is that its immediate object is not the material, but the ideal. But most importantly: bibliography is a functional, dependent activity carried out in the system of others. Therefore, even taking into account all of the above, special difficulties arise in qualifying the object and subject of bibliographic activity.

To solve this problem, one should proceed from the fact that the main social function, the purpose of bibliography is information management. But management is only one of the main components of any human activity, along with others - knowledge, practice, communication, etc. And only in the dialectical unity of all these components is activity implemented effectively and efficiently. Bibliography does not have such a defining completeness of activity and, together with other elements, is included in a system of activities of a higher order. It is this feature that determines the functional nature of the bibliography.

Bibliography is part of the system of information activities, or - in the traditional sense - the system of book production. Therefore, based on the definitions given above, we can assert that the object of bibliography is book publishing, since it is aimed at this control action. Unfortunately, as already noted, in modern book studies there is not yet a satisfactory definition of book business; there is a constant discussion around it among specialists [see. our work “Bookmaking as a System” mentioned above].

It is enough to turn to the latest definitions of a book as a scientific category to be convinced that in many cases it is qualified not as the result of a certain human activity, but as a “work of writing and printing”, “a work of a scientific, applied or artistic nature”, “a means of semantic information” etc. But book writing is, first of all, a process, and a book is a way (form, means) of spiritual, or informational, communication, exchange of information in society. We offer, although not indisputable, but a simpler definition: bookmaking is a sphere of spiritual social activity (culture), the main purpose, social function of which is information communication (communication) through the production, distribution, storage and use of books (works, documents, publications) . Accordingly, we define a book in a broad sense as a culturally, historically established and developing method (form, means) of information communication, objectively realized in the organic (dialectical) unity of content (social information), symbolic (language, literature, art, etc. ) form and material (paper code, screen, etc.) design.

In light of the above, we can assert that the object of bibliography is book publishing as a process of information communication, including the ideal content of this process - social information, and the book as an objective way of objectifying and, therefore, the existence and use of information in society. Now we will try to solve an even more complex question - about the subject of bibliography, i.e. its specificity as an information activity.

In general, the subject of bibliography can be defined as the result and, therefore, the content of bibliographic activity. Taking into account the spiritual (informational) specificity of this activity, the subject of bibliography can also be qualified as an ideal result (content) - bibliographic information, and as an objective result (content) of the existence of bibliographic information - a way of objectifying it in the form of a book, but a unique book - a “bibliographic book” ". Unfortunately, modern bibliographic science does not have the necessary clarity on this issue. It is enough to refer to the current GOST 7.0-84 to verify this. In particular, bibliographic information is defined here as “information about documents created for the purposes of document notification, retrieval, recommendation, and promotion.” In other words, the ideal subject of bibliography is reduced to its narrow one-sided understanding, i.e. to its so-called secondary documentary essence.

It turns out that the very process of creating secondary bibliographic information, firstly, is carried out without the necessary scientific justification, determination of the patterns of development of bibliography, without developing its history, theory and methodology, i.e. without direct knowledge of both the object and the bibliographic activity itself and, therefore, without the creation of primary bibliographic information, knowledge. Secondly, it does not take into account that in the process of creating secondary bibliographic information through mental (logical) processing of social information, primary bibliographic information also appears, or the so-called inferential, mediated knowledge, i.e. knowledge obtained from previously established and verified truths, without recourse in this particular case to experience, to practice, but only as a result of applying the laws and rules of logic to existing true thoughts, to documented information.

In any case, the content of bibliographic activity is much richer than just “information about documents” - secondary bibliographic information. It seems to include a certain dialectical unity of direct and mediated (inferential) information, the unity of contemplative, empirical and abstract, theoretical moments of cognition. Taking into account the specifics of bibliography as a sphere of spiritual activity, we can interpret bibliographic information as a unique means for implementing the main social function of bibliography - information management. And in this case, bibliographic information acts as a dialectical unity, on the one hand, of direct - logical processing of documentary information - and indirect - obtaining on this basis original generalizations and conclusions, a kind of bibliographic picture of the world, which becomes a means of information management of the process of production, distribution, storage and use of social information in social activities.

On the other hand, this mediated bibliographic information also includes the result of the implementation of another bibliographic goal - knowledge of bibliographic activity in the unity of its history, theory and methodology, i.e. scientific bibliographic information, bibliographic knowledge. In turn, it also includes direct bibliographic knowledge based on experience, bibliographic practice, and mediated bibliographic knowledge - the result of subsequent theoretical understanding, explanation, evidence, etc. initial, empirical, experimental development of bibliographic activity.

Thus, bibliographic information as an ideal subject of bibliographic activity must be understood not only as a means of realizing its main social function, not only as a result of the implementation of this function in information activity, but also more broadly - as the content of bibliographic activity in the dialectical unity of its object, subject, means and results, direct and indirect, empirical and theoretical, secondary and primary and similar bibliographic information (knowledge). In any case, reducing the ideal subject of bibliography - bibliographic information - to secondary bibliographic information is both insufficient and incorrect. It is characteristic that another one of the founders of bibliographic science in our country, V.G. Anastasevich, considered the content of bibliography in at least two main respects: practical and theoretical, i.e. both as a means of implementing the direct function of bibliography, and as a result of bibliographic knowledge, more broadly, activity. In this regard, the approaches of modern bibliographic researchers are quite legitimate, calling into question the currently dominant interpretation of bibliographic information as secondary.

The subject of bibliography includes, along with secondary, i.e. information about documents, and scientific bibliographic information - the result of bibliographic research, educational bibliographic information created for the purpose of training relevant personnel, journalistic bibliographic information created for the purpose of promoting and popularizing bibliography and bibliographic knowledge in society, etc.

The question of the object and subject of bibliography is also important in another respect - from the point of view of bibliographic science as a science of bibliographic activity.

From the above, we can already conclude in the most general form that the object of bibliographic science is bibliographic activity itself, but not in the narrow (secondary information) sense, but in its broad sense - as an activity that carries out information (book) management. Accordingly, from the point of view of the content of bibliography, the object of the science about it becomes bibliographic information, and the subject - scientific bibliographic information, or bibliographic knowledge.

Consequently, it is important to understand, firstly, the relationship and specificity of two main levels in the interpretation of the relationship between object and subject: the object and subject of bibliographic activity (bibliography) and the object and subject of the science of it - bibliographic science. Moreover, if the subject of bibliography is all bibliographic products, then the subject of bibliographic studies is only part of it: scientific bibliographic products. Secondly, one should take into account the functional and content structure of both the object and the subject, as well as the peculiarities of their division into corresponding components and the interaction of the latter in the system of bibliography and related branches of information activity. Even its simplified modeling (see Fig. 3) is already distinguished by a certain complexity of structuring and qualification of system-forming connections.

1.5. BIBLIOGRAPHY METHODOLOGY

Methodology in any field of activity is one of the most important components, the level of scientific development of which largely determines the quality and effectiveness of the corresponding activity. It should be noted that the level of existing methodology in the bibliography is quite high. And yet, there is still no generally accepted idea of bibliographic methodology, and this problem, judging by the available literature, is not being actively developed [the following works are of greatest interest: Ivanov D.D. On scientific methods of bibliography//Scientific bibliography: From the experience of the FBON AS USSR. M., 1967. S. 7-54; Barenbaum I.E., Barsuk A.I. On the question of methods of bibliological disciplines//Book. Research and materials. 1974. Sat. 29. P. 20-45; Barsuk A.I. Bibliography in the system of book science disciplines. Ch. 5. P. 93-113; Yanonis O.V. Problems and tasks in the development of bibliography methodology // Sov. bibliogr. 1984. No. 1. P. 12-18; Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, technique. Sec. 2. P. 165-236; Belovitskaya A.A. General book science. Ch. 8. P. 215-238]. Unfortunately, in philosophy and logic there is also no strictly developed system of methods.

The word method is of Greek origin and in specialized literature is translated as a way, a way of research, cognition, teaching, presentation, theory, teaching. The essence of the method is defined in just as many ways. For example, in the “Logical Dictionary-Reference Book” by N.I. Kondakov, the method is defined as “a system of rules and techniques for approaching the study of phenomena and patterns of nature, society and thinking; a path, a method of achieving certain results in knowledge and practice; a method of theoretical research or practical the implementation of something, based on knowledge of the laws of development of objective reality and the object, phenomenon, process under study" (p. 348). The "Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary" gives a slightly different definition: method - "a method of constructing and justifying a system of philosophical knowledge; a set of techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality" (p. 364). Taking into account the specifics of bibliographic activity, the following definition of a method can be accepted as a working one: a method of achieving a set goal, implementing the function of information management.

The word methodology, also of Greek origin, is literally translated as the doctrine (word, concept) of method. In modern philosophy, “methodology” is defined as “a system of principles and methods of organizing and constructing theoretical and practical activities, as well as the doctrine of this system” [Ibid. pp. 159-163]. Otherwise, methodology is the study of a system of methods or in general, i.e. in its philosophical meaning, or in particular, i.e. in relation to various areas of practical and theoretical activity, taking into account their specific conditions and tasks. The bibliography should also have its own methodology.

In modern science there are several systems of methodologies, i.e. There is no single generalized methodology. In our case, speaking about the methodology of bibliography, we consider it possible, first of all, to proceed from different levels of knowledge. Taking this into account, universal, general scientific (or special) and methodology of special sciences are usually distinguished. Universal methodology underlies social cognition and its theory. For us, the universal method is dialectics. In general, dialectics (a word of Greek origin, meaning the art of arguing, conversation) is “the science of the most general laws of development of nature, society and thinking, a philosophical theory and method of cognition and transformation of objects, phenomena of reality in their contradictory self-motion” [Kondakov N.I. . P. 143]. The very word “dialectics” was first used by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, understanding it as the art of arguing, dialogue, taking into account mutually interested discussion of a problem and with the goal of achieving truth through confrontation of opinions. His student Plato understood such a dialogue precisely as logical operations of dividing and connecting concepts, carried out through questions and answers and leading to the true definition of concepts. Plato is the founder of the idealistic trend in dialectics, which was developed in medieval philosophy, and in modern times - in the philosophy of Hegel. In particular, in the Middle Ages formal logic was also called dialectics. K. Marx and F. Engels, having critically mastered and creatively developed Hegelian dialectics, developed materialist dialectics. For dialectics, according to F. Engels, “it is essential that it takes things and their mental reflections mainly in their mutual connection, in their cohesion, in their movement, in their emergence and disappearance...” [Marx K., Engels F. Decree. Op. T. 19. P. 205]. V.I. Lenin believed that “in short, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites” [Op. Op. T. 29. P. 203].

All other methods of scientific knowledge are developed on the basis of the universal method. The dialectical method is of particular importance for bibliography. scientific research, consisting in the movement of theoretical thought towards an increasingly complete, comprehensive and holistic reproduction of the subject, which is called the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete. It is taken into account that the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete characterizes the direction of the scientific-cognitive process as a whole - the movement from less meaningful to more meaningful knowledge. Dialecticians define the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete as the most effective method scientific knowledge, with the help of which thinking assimilates the concrete and reproduces it as spiritually concrete.

A necessary theoretical prerequisite for this process (ascension) is the construction of an initial theoretical structure that would express a certain synthesis, an idealization of the starting abstractions. It is after the formation of such abstractions (idealizations) that science begins to implement the “scientifically correct” method of moving from the initial simplest definitions to the reproduction of real concreteness [for more details, see, for example, in the works of D.P. Gorsky: Generalization and cognition. M., 1985. 208 pp.; The concept of real and ideal types // Issue. Philosopher 1986. No. 10. P. 25-34]. Real concreteness appears for theoretical thought in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete as a prerequisite that must constantly hover before our imagination. In particular, K. Marx, in contrast to the Hegelian interpretation of ascension, emphasized that mental concreteness is “in no case a product of a concept that generates itself and reflects outside of contemplation and representation, but the processing of contemplation and representation into concepts,” which is achieved in this process through constant interaction between theory and practice [Marx K., Engels F. Decree. Op. T. 46, part 1. pp. 37-38].

In relation to bibliographic studies, this method was updated by O.P. Korshunov [Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, technique. pp. 185-215, 221-230] and in our works [Bibliographic heuristics: History, theory and methods of information retrieval. M., 1984. 48 pp.; Information publications. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1988. 272 pp.; Modern problems of book typology. Voronezh, 1989. 247 p.]. Only the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete (and vice versa!) should be considered not one-sidedly - only in the unity of the universal, the particular and the individual, i.e. according to the hierarchy of ascent, but also in the dynamics of it as an activity (value) process - according to the well-known formula of V.I. Lenin: from living contemplation (signal, accounting function of bibliography) to abstract thinking (evaluative, scientific-auxiliary function) and practice (recommendatory function).

General scientific methods, or special methodology of bibliography, are determined by the peculiarities of its application to other spheres of social activity, including book publishing (information activities). The basis of such a methodology is primarily the well-known methods of traditional, or formal, logic, the most important of which are description, analysis, synthesis, generalization and deduction. This should also include the methodology of historical, quantitative (mathematical), various modern approaches - systemic, modeling, functional, structural, activity-based, typological, etc. In particular, it is important to take into account the general scientific nature of bibliographic methods in relation to bibliographic studies. The necessary clarity does not exist here either.

Among other general scientific methods in bibliographic science, the following receive primary attention: quantitative (statistical) - statistical-bibliographic method, bibliometrics; value-based - bibliographic criticism, compilation of bibliographic descriptions, annotation, abstracting, review, etc. The statistical-bibliographic method is the most traditional method of book science in general, typical examples of which are the works of A.K. Storch and F.P. Adelung, P.I. Keppen, L.N. Pavlenkov, N.M. Lisovsky and others. [for their characteristics see: Zdobnov N.V. History of Russian bibliography until the beginning of the 20th century. 3rd ed. M., 1955. S. 144-150, 208-215, 386-397]. The statistical and bibliographic work of N.M. Lisovsky “Periodic press in Russia, 1703-1903: Statistical and bibliographic review” [Lit. lead. 1902. T. 4, book. 8. P. 281-306]. Currently, a special yearbook is being published - “The Seal of the Russian Federation in... the Year”. A specific development of value methodology is the socio-bibliological method of A.M. Lovyagin [see. his works: Fundamentals of bibliology. L., 1926. 166 pp.; What is bibliology//Bibliogr. Izv. 1923. No. 1/4. pp. 3-12; Bibliological science: (Introductory article) // Bibliology courses: Prospect. L., 1924-1925. pp. 16-17]; bibliopsychological method of N.A. Rubakin [see. his works: Book wealth, their study and dissemination: Scientific and bibliological essay//Among books. 2nd ed. M., 1911. T. 1. P. 1-191; Selected: In 2 vols. M., 1975; Psychology of the reader and the book: A brief introduction. in bibliol. psychology. M., 1977. 264 pp.]; methods of bibliotypology, which are based on various kinds of particular and general modeling methods [see. our works already mentioned: Modern problems of book typology; Bibliotypology, or general theory of systems in book publishing], etc.

Finally, private scientific methods, industry methodology, or methods of bibliographic science proper, determine the specifics of the rational, scientifically based application of methodology to the theory and practice of bibliographic activity. The science of bibliography—bibliographic science—is called upon to develop its own particular methodology.

In other words, the methodology of bibliographic science represents a certain unity of the universal method, general scientific (special) and specific scientific (bibliographic) methods. It should be emphasized that at the present stage, the methodology of bibliography is developing in the unity of general and specific bibliographic methods. It is also noteworthy that some bibliographic methods themselves have their own theories and scientific disciplines. These include “bibliographic heuristics”, “bibliometrics”, “bibliotypology” (in terms of bibliographic systematization). Quite a lot of theoretical and practical experience has been accumulated in the use of methods such as compiling bibliographic descriptions, annotating, summarizing, reviewing (composing bibliographic reviews), etc., which allows us to formulate particular disciplines of bibliographic science. Our own theory of bibliographic criticism (review) must also be developed. When developing a particular methodology for bibliographic studies, it should be taken into account that both as a whole and in each of its components (individual method) it acts as a unity of the general, the particular and the individual. For example, there should be a general bibliographic heuristic, which is what our textbook “Bibliographic Heuristics” is devoted to, a special bibliographic heuristic, which is now receiving special attention in computer science, and a bibliographic heuristic for certain types, methods, tasks, and topics of information retrieval.

For understanding and further development of bibliography methodology, it is important to resolve questions about the relationship between logic, theory and methodology, methods and principles, methodology of scientific knowledge and methodology of practice [for more details, see our textbook: General bibliography. P. 67-71].

For bibliography as a branch of information activity, the important point is that knowledge (more broadly, social information) is objectified not only in a sign (linguistic) form, but also in the creations of material culture. In this regard, it should be taken into account that practice is not only a criterion of truth, dialectical knowledge and transformation of reality. but also as a goal and result included in the theory, and therefore, the logic and methodology of knowledge. Therefore, practice is “higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate reality” [Lenin V.I. Decree. Op. T. 29. P. 195].

The relationship between theory and practice in bibliography has its own specifics. Traditionally, this problem was solved only in terms of the relationship between bibliography, which was one-sidedly interpreted as bibliographic practice, and bibliographic science - bibliographic science. However, until now the fundamental difference between the scientific study of the patterns of development of bibliographic activity and its practical impact on its object of information management - book publishing - and through it on all social activities as a whole has not been taken into account. It is on this basis that we are talking about two levels in the methodology of bibliography, which can conditionally be called fundamental and applied.

It is the applied (practical) methodology that has received priority development in bibliographic studies. To some extent, this is understandable: bibliography must constantly implement its main social function, which is impossible without an appropriate methodology. At the same time, it should be emphasized that without equally active scientific development of fundamental bibliographic methodology, bibliographic practice will have an empirical, rather than rational, theoretical character.

The main applied methods of bibliography are listed in Table. 1. These groups of methods represent the result of analysis, evaluation and generalization of existing experience both in the history of bibliography and in modern times. In general, it should be noted that the applied methodology has not yet been developed deeply and sufficiently, and there are a number of unresolved issues in it.

Naturally, the applied bibliography methodology we proposed (see Table 1) needs further development, expansion and deepening. In particular, at the level of bibliographic methods, such development was given by us in the second edition of the book “Information Publications”. In relation to the compilation of bibliographic reviews, the corresponding model of the methodology could look like this (Fig. 4). Finally, no less complex in scientific terms is the relationship between method and principle. Taking into account the importance and the presence of already certain experience in the theoretical development of this problem, we have included its consideration in a special paragraph (see § 3 above).

In any case, it is the managerial specifics of bibliography that require a special system of methods and forms of mental processing of documentary information. We are talking about a kind of condensation of information, “synthesis of book thought” (B.S. Bodnarsky). In other words, along with biophysical, cognitive-theoretical (logical), technical (computerization) possibilities for improving the very process of mastering the information accumulated in society, bibliography offers us its own way of condensing knowledge, a kind of bibliographic reduction of information (knowledge). Moreover, bibliographic reduction in our time is carried out in a special system of social coordinates: on the one hand (vertically), from the universe of human knowledge to the information support of each social individual with both specific and universal knowledge, on the other (horizontally) - from fixing everything accumulated knowledge, its assessment of social significance to the necessary recommendations on the effective use of the most valuable information by each specific member of society.

As we see, bibliographic reduction is dialectical and has a spiral nature in its formation and development. Therefore, in the end, we can say that bibliography offers us a unique information model of the world. Consequently, we are talking not only about the scientific, but also about the bibliographic picture of the world (BKP) as one of the most important forms of knowledge and worldview. Moreover, bibliographic formalization is no less effective than, say, mathematical formalization, but is more accessible to anyone, and at the same time it can be easily mathematized and computerized. The originality of BKM should be seen in the following two main features. The first of them was in the middle of the 18th century. qualified in the above-mentioned article by M.V. Lomonosov as “an increase in human knowledge” through “clear and true summaries the content of the emerging works, sometimes with the addition of a fair judgment either on the merits of the matter or on some details of execution,” that is, by summarizing and reviewing (according to the academic regulations - by composing “extracts”). The second feature is correlated with the so-called inferential knowledge, or knowledge obtained not through practical experience or experiment, but only on the basis of logical processing of documentary information.

As can be concluded, BKM differs in both the required capacity and the axiological nature of information. It can be universal (general), professional (scientific), and individual in nature. Particular attention should be paid to the axiology, which is clearly manifested in the system of main types of bibliography, which is formed not at the discretion of individual authors, but as an objectively determined result of the specialization of bibliographic activity, primarily its main social function - information management. Even a universal BCM can be created in a fairly wide variety of content: on the basis of documents, facts, ideas. In particular, one can limit oneself to documentary (documentary or source study) material. But this already plays a big role in shaping the worldview in modern society. Thus, a whole scientific direction has emerged - bibliometrics, which only on the basis of statistics, for example, various types of publications, but processed by a fairly large arsenal of formalized (logical, mathematical, etc.) methods, allows one to make far-reaching and qualitative generalizations, conclusions and forecasts. In particular, at the level of universal bibliographic accounting, it is possible, for example, using such a bibliographic manual as the "Index of Cited Literature", published in the USA, or our yearbook "Bibliography of Russian Bibliography" to determine the creative contribution of a given scientist, scientific school, development and dissemination of ideas , even gross or subtle plagiarism, etc.

But such qualification necessarily requires the targeted formation of BCM of a qualitatively different nature - evaluative (critical). Usually it is interpreted very narrowly - as the result of scientific and auxiliary bibliography (scientific information activities). In fact, the evaluative BCM should be formed on the basis of general social, general cultural significance (scientific, ideological, aesthetic, pedagogical, technical, economic, etc.), i.e. not according to the system of sciences, but according to the system of activity, which is visible in the bibliographic classification that forms the basis of “Among the Books” by N.A. Rubakin (by “areas of life”). True, the evaluative BKM is no longer documentary, but rather factual. Facts become even more effective if they are brought into a certain system. In such a situation, the problem arises of analyzing and selecting the most significant documents and facts on the basis of bibliographic criticism - reviewing.

Finally, the recommendatory BCM reproduces an already possible, but optimal option, more effective for the formation of a worldview. It is this kind of BCM that should be considered ideographic or conceptual - in the sense of the idea, law, principle, theory that forms the basis for its creation. It is here that the role of synthesis, generalization, conclusions and forecasts obtained bibliographically on the basis of inferential knowledge and logical processing of documentary information is more manifested. The recommendatory BKM is the pinnacle of the bibliography. Unlike its predecessors - descriptive (documentary or factual) and evaluative BKM, reflecting novelty and value, an increase in knowledge, and precisely the predecessors, since without them it is impossible, recommendatory BKM is also characterized by usefulness, reflecting the integrity of the most significant information needed to solve this problem and specifically for this consumer (society - collective - individual). The recommendatory BCM is even more predictive than the previous ones, since it more clearly and purposefully shows what information, in addition to what is already available, is necessary and should be created for an effective and high-quality solution to a particular problem of a universal or specific nature.

So, at the present stage of development of bibliographic science, the main task is to form an integral system of bibliographic methodology.

1.6. SYSTEM OF BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES

As already noted, such a terminological system is a necessary condition for the formation and development of bibliography. Each area of professional activity has its own specific language of communication. Moreover, it is important to take into account that the terminological system is historical, i.e. With each historical era it changes, concepts are clarified, deepened, and improved. This was shown above (§ 1) using the example of the emergence and use of the terms “bibliography” and “bibliographic science”.

Unfortunately, in philosophy, logic, especially in specific sciences, there is still much that is unclear in the definition of a concept and its relationship with other forms of thinking. There are still discussions on this issue. Some of them are mentioned in N.I. Kondakov’s “Logical Dictionary-Reference Book”, which we have already cited more than once (p. 456-460). The author himself gives the following definition of the concept: an integral set of judgments, i.e. thoughts in which something is stated about the distinctive features of the object under study, the core of which are judgments about the most general and at the same time essential features of this object. The concept is interpreted somewhat differently in the Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary (pp. 513-514). Here the concept is defined as a thought that reflects in a generalized form the objects and phenomena of reality and the connections between them by fixing general and specific features, which are the properties of objects and phenomena and the relationships between them. Moreover, the object is characterized in the concept in a generalized way, which is achieved by using in the process of cognition such mental actions as abstraction, idealization, generalization, comparison, definition. Through a separate concept and systems of concepts, fragments of reality studied by various sciences and scientific theories are displayed.

In each concept, its content and volume are distinguished. The content of a concept is the totality of the characteristics of objects and phenomena displayed in it. The scope of a concept is a set of objects, each of which has characteristics related to the content of the concept. In logic, in relation to the content and volume of a concept, the law of their inverse relationship is formulated: the greater the content of the concept, the less its volume, and vice versa.

Any science is a harmonious system of concepts in which they are all interconnected and transform into each other. Therefore, any science always requires the study of concepts in motion and interconnection. True, even in logic itself so far unified system no concepts have been created. There are several classification schemes for concepts, for example: 1) depending on the level of generalization of objects - specific and generic concepts; 2) depending on the number of displayed objects - individual and general concepts; 3) depending on the display of an object or property abstracted from the object - concrete and abstract concepts; 4) depending on the nature of the elements of the scope of the concept - collective and non-collective.

It should also be taken into account that in philosophy and other sciences there are extremely general, fundamental concepts called categories (from the Greek kategoria - statement, definition, attribute). In relation to bibliographic studies, we talk about categories, calling them basic concepts. In our case, these are the concepts of “bibliography” and “bibliographic science” that we have already considered.

Finally, one more important point: all concepts are directly fixed and expressed in linguistic form - in the form of individual words or phrases. In scientific practice, such linguistic forms expressing the exact designation of one specific concept are called terms (from the Latin terminus - limit, end, boundary). As we see, one of the main qualities of a scientific term is its stable unambiguity, naturally, in certain specific historical conditions. A bibliographic system of basic categories and concepts, or a terminological system, should strive for such unambiguity. But due to the historical mobility, development of the bibliography itself, and therefore the concepts (terms) used in this branch of activity, the scientific development of such a system has always been and is a complex problem.

In our country, the turning point in the development of bibliographic terminology should be considered 1970, when GOST 16448-70 “Bibliography. Terms and Definitions” was put into effect (the official introduction date was set from July 1, 1971). This was followed by a new (second) edition - GOST 7.0-77. Until now, the third edition was in force - GOST 7.0-84 "Bibliographic activities" (the introduction date was set from January 1, 1986). From July 1, 2000, the next edition (fourth) of GOST 7.0-99 "Information and library activities" came into force , bibliography".

Before the introduction of state standards, the function of unifying the bibliographic system of concepts was carried out by various kinds of reference books, terminological and encyclopedic dictionaries, and encyclopedias. The most famous of them are: “Dictionary of bibliological terms” by E.I. Shamurin [M., 1958. 340 p.], “Book Studies: Encyclopedic Dictionary” [M., 1981. 664 p.], “Book: Encyclopedia” [ M., 1999. 800 pp.]. But due to their general book-study nature, bibliographic terms are presented selectively in them. Therefore, bibliographic dictionaries themselves are of greater interest. In our case, the terminological dictionary by K.R. Simon “Bibliography: Basic concepts and terms” [M., 1968. 159 pp.] is especially noteworthy. In these dictionaries, terms are arranged in alphabetical order and definitions or definitions are expanded into a dictionary entry. In particular, the idea of K.R. Simon was original, who in each dictionary entry tried to reveal not only the history of the origin of the term and existing points of view on its interpretation, but also gave his own definition. Unfortunately, due to the death of the author, the dictionary remained unfinished.

In terminological GOSTs for bibliography, not a dictionary (alphabetical) principle of placing concepts and their definitions is used, but a systematic one, i.e. An attempt was made to build the necessary terminological system as a certain structured integrity. True, so far there has been no logical rigor in such systematization. But it should be considered justified that a special section “General Concepts” was highlighted; some of them are then specified in subsequent sections. It is these general concepts that we consider the basic categories of bibliography.

Taking into account the fact that the use of GOST standards is mandatory for educational books, we present here the basic categories from the current GOST 7.0-84 (Table 2). At the same time, we took into account, firstly, the presence of three editions of GOST and, secondly, obvious contradictions both in the composition and in the definitions of the presented general concepts. Therefore, brief notes are given in the table. Our commentary is given in more detail in the following presentation. The main thing is to outline ways for further improvement of bibliographic terminology in the light of our conceptual understanding of public purpose and the theoretical foundations of bibliography.

As can be seen from the table above, the state of the modern bibliographic terminology system cannot be considered satisfactory. The main reason is the violation or ignorance of the principles of bibliography discussed above, especially such as the principles of activity, communication and consistency. Therefore, we can determine in our own way the composition of the main basic concepts of bibliography, which is presented in Table. 3. These include ten bibliographic categories.

It is they who should be reflected in the first section of the next, improved edition of the terminological standard for bibliography. And then they should be specified in its other sections. In any case, the relationship between the indicated main categories of bibliography will correspond to the requirements of the principle of consistency. This is shown in Fig. 5. The question of terminological standards is generally problematic. The scientific terminological system is so flexible that there is no particular need for its rigid fixation. Apparently, we need to return to publishing the relevant terminological dictionaries of a recommendatory nature.

1.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RELATED SCIENCES

Their main feature is the desire for maximum, rather than optimal, specialization of the book business. Therefore, in general, they do not offer fundamentally new solutions (with the possible exception of M.N. Kufaev and M.I. Shchelkunov), primarily due to the violation of the principles of activity and consistency. In the case of the principle of activity, the stage of book production is usually ignored, as well as the mandatory presence in the book business system of such a specialized component that is designed to carry out the management function. As a result, the latter (or, in our opinion, bibliography) usually refers to the end of the book business process, as was the case in N.M. Lisovsky’s well-known formula “book production - book distribution - book description, or bibliography.” Although already at the I All-Russian Bibliographic Congress, in the reports of N.Yu. Ulyaninsky and M.I. Shchelkunov, bibliography was given the second, middle place [Proceedings of the I All-Russian Bibliographic Congress. M., 1926. S. 226, 233-238]. True, N.M. Lisovsky himself understood this, as follows from his introductory lecture at Moscow University (1916): “When a book is technically produced and published for distribution, then special work is done on it - bibliographic, consisting of description of the book according to previously developed and established techniques" [Book studies, its subject and tasks//Sertumbibliologicum in honor of... prof. A.I. Maleina. Pg., 1922. P. 5].

Based on the analysis and generalization of domestic experience, we propose our own typological model of information activity (see Fig. 3), which also reveals the relationship between bibliographic science and its related disciplines. The model is integral in nature, i.e. combines all possible options for its construction: hierarchical, cyclic, linear, etc. First of all, four main activity levels are hierarchically taken into account: bibliography, book publishing, information activities, and social activities. Further, linearity is visible in the use of N.A. Rubakin’s well-known formula “author - book - reader”: in this case - “author (book production) - book - reader (book use)”. The cyclicality is indicated by the boundary levels of differentiation of the book business: on the one hand, science is activity, or “book science - book science,” on the other hand, production - consumption, or in our case, “book production (author studies) - book use (reader studies).”

But the main thing is that our diagram shows the place of bibliographic science in the system of bibliological disciplines, its relationship with bibliology and the now possible generalizing science of information activity. As you can see, book publishing is represented by three blocks (groups) of relatively independent scientific disciplines. The first (central) block represents bibliographic studies. The second (book production, or publishing) includes three scientific disciplines: author studies, theory and practice of editing, and artistic design of a book (“the art of the book”). A special issue is related to the need to develop a generalizing scientific discipline that studies book production, i.e. in our case - publishing. The third block (book use, or book distribution, or book consumption) also consists of three scientific disciplines - bibliopolitics, library science and reader studies. And here the question arises of forming a unified scientific discipline that studies book consumption. In general, judging by our model, book science at the present stage consists of seven scientific disciplines, the central place among which is occupied by bibliographic science.

In the first case, great hopes were placed on computer science - a new scientific discipline, the need for the development of which was required by modern conditions of information activity. They are closely related to the next scientific and technological revolution, which determines the introduction of computer technology. This coincided in time with the 60s of the last century, when the effectiveness and prospects for the development of modern society depended on the information support of science. The name computer science to denote the corresponding science both in our country and abroad was created by combining the concepts of “information” plus “automation” - “computer science” [for more details see: Mikhailov A.I., Cherny A.I., Gilyarevsky R. WITH. Fundamentals of computer science. M., 1968. S. 42-61]. True, even then various interpretations of the object and subject of the new science appeared. First of all, it originated from the concept of documentation (from the word “document”), introduced into scientific circulation at the beginning of the 20th century. (1905) P. Otlet - one of the directors of the International Bibliographical Institute and theorists of modern information activities. In particular, he was the first to use this concept to introduce into scientific circulation all documentary sources of information and to show the insufficiency of the object of bibliology, library science and bibliography (bibliographic science), limited only to printed works.

In 1934, the term became part of the name of the International Institute of Documentation, into which the International Bibliographic Institute was transformed, and in 1937 - into the name of the International Documentation Federation (IFD), organized on its basis and still existing today. It is noteworthy that the IDF long-term program defines documentation “as the collection, storage, classification and selection, dissemination and use of all types of information.”

Limiting the object of computer science to scientific information, scientific information activities and the corresponding methods of its materialization (scientific documents) already puts this scientific direction of bibliology in a subordinate position, the object of knowledge of which until our time was all sources of documentary information. In addition, the book business itself became so specialized that special directions for its development emerged - precisely in approaching professional (scientific) book publishing. The most actively developing special branches of the book business are socio-political, pedagogical, artistic, natural science and technical, agricultural bibliology, etc. In accordance with this specificity, areas of bibliology began to actively form, generally called special bibliology. Moreover, with the creation of the State Science and Technology Institute in our country, scientific and information activities took on practically the functions of a special, or sectoral, as well as a critical, or, in modern designation, scientific and auxiliary bibliography. It was in domestic computer science that the concept of secondary information, secondary documents and publications appeared as a result of analytical and synthetic processing of documents (more precisely, documentary information).

Thus, on the one hand, the subject of computer science is clearly expanding in comparison with the point of view that has long been established in our country, according to which the central subject of computer science is the study of the general properties and patterns of not all social information, but only scientific information. On the other hand, a new, broader approach outlines a clear convergence of computer science with bibliology and other sciences of the information and communication cycle. Moreover, bibliology has always considered communicative processes in society in the broadest, most general sense. And such a broad approach is characteristic not only of domestic book studies, but is also becoming widespread abroad. In our works, we adhere to the point of view according to which bibliology should be formed as a science of sign communication (information activity) [for more details, see: Grechikhin A.A. Object and subject of bibliology: (Experience of modern interpretation) // VIII Scientific conference on problems of bibliology: Abstracts. report M., 1996. P. 12-15].

In recent decades, either fading or flaring up again, the discussion continues in the special press on a very important and complex issue (which remains relevant today) - the relationship between bibliographic science and practice with related areas of knowledge and practical activity, especially with librarianship and library science , scientific and information activities and computer science, book business and bibliology.

In the area under consideration, there are two series of comparable objects.

First row: bibliographic activities, librarianship, scientific information activities, book publishing.

Second row: bibliographic science, library science, computer science, book science.

Each row unites homogeneous, i.e., comparable objects. It is impossible to compare objects of different series, for example, bibliographic activities with computer science or library science with bibliology. But it is also impossible to separate corresponding objects of different series from each other, since the relationships between related sciences are determined primarily by the relationships between the objects of study, that is, between the corresponding areas of practical activity. Therefore, the comparison of scientific disciplines carried out below in each case begins with a comparison of the corresponding areas of practice and is based on it.

Bibliography as a scientific and educational discipline

The term “bibliographic science” refers to the science of bibliography. For a long time, various theoretical, organizational and methodological issues that arose during the development of bibliographic practice were resolved by practicing bibliographers themselves, and there was no objective need for the formation of a special science of bibliography. Then, gradually becoming more complex, bibliographic practice begins to highlight and isolate a range of interrelated problems in the solution of which it is vitally interested, but cannot do this on its own. And in response to the needs of bibliographic practice, a scientific discipline arises, designed to develop problems raised by practice. There remains close interaction between practice and the science that emerged from it, ensuring their mutual enrichment. Bibliographic science cannot exist and develop in isolation from its object, outside of bibliographic practice.

At the same time, once it appears, bibliographic science, like any other scientific discipline, is separated from its object and begins an independent life, maintaining relative independence. Within its boundaries, their own internal scientific laws begin to operate, their own logic of development of scientific knowledge, the connection of scientific concepts and categories, and the focus on revealing the patterns of development and functioning of the object of knowledge acquire greater power.

“Bibliography” as a science is very young. The term “bibliographic science” was proposed by I.G. Markov in 1948, but received recognition and distribution only in the 70s of the twentieth century, and was recorded in standards (GOST 16448-70 “Bibliography. Terms and Definitions” and GOST 7.0- 99 “Information and library activities, bibliography”). The latter is currently in force and it gives the following definition:

“Bibliography is a scientific discipline that studies the theory, history, methodology, technology, methodology, and organization of bibliography.”

As you can see, the definition is compiled by listing the branches of science. This is the so-called “aspect” division of bibliographic science as a science, and in this regard, several scientific disciplines are distinguished in the structure of bibliographic science: the theory of bibliography, the history of bibliography, the methodology of bibliography, the organization of bibliographic activities, and in recent decades, the methodology and technology of bibliography have also been distinguished.

All these disciplines act not only as scientific, but also academic disciplines that are taught in universities.

The central place in bibliographic studies is given to the theory and history of bibliography.

Bibliography theory is a scientific discipline that forms the “core” of bibliographic science and explores:

- problems of the essence of bibliography as a social phenomenon and field of activity;
- patterns of bibliography functioning, principles, functions, tasks;
- terminology, definitions of basic concepts;
- classification of various bibliographic phenomena;
- structuring bibliographic activities; the specifics of individual bibliographic phenomena (processes, means, products, etc.) and their relationships;
- connection with other spheres of public life, place in the system of information and socio-cultural communications.

The most famous bibliography theorists are Russian scientists A.I. Barsuk, O.P. Korshunov, Yu.S. Zubov, M.G. Vokhrysheva, A.A. Grechikhin, N.A. Slyadneva, V.A. Fokeev and others Among the Belarusian scientists, the name of Professor V.E. Leonchikov can be mentioned.

History of bibliography is one of the most developed bibliographic disciplines. She learns:

- the origin and development of bibliography from ancient times to the present day;
- the origins and reasons for the emergence of certain bibliographic phenomena, their specific historical conditionality;
- identification of leading trends in the development of bibliography at various stages;
- contribution of prominent bibliographers to the development of bibliography.

The most significant contributions to the study of the history of bibliography were made by Russian scientists N.V. Zdobnov, M.V. Mashkova, K.R. Simon, E.K. Bespalova, B.A. Semenovker.

Organization of the bibliography- a section of bibliography, which is designed to explore problems such as:

- management and planning in the field of bibliographic activities;
- development of principles for organizing activities;
- creation of rational schemes for organizing bibliographic services in various information centers and libraries;
- personnel management of bibliographic departments;
- organization of design and innovation activity in the field of bibliography.

This section is the least developed, there are no basic research, publications reflect local experience and do not rise to the level of theoretical generalizations. This circumstance is often explained by the fact that bibliography is not organizationally separated into an independent structure; it develops within the framework of other social institutions (libraries, book chambers, book trade, museums), which makes it difficult to study it from an organizational point of view.

Meanwhile, bibliographic departments often function in these structures; they are called differently, their functions vary depending on the specific tasks of the institution. With the introduction of new computer technologies, new organizational structures, whose tasks include regulating all technological processes for creating bibliographic databases and other work on automating bibliographic processes. It is all the more important to study their activities from the perspective of organization and management.

Bibliography methodology- scientific discipline about techniques, rules, methods of bibliographic activity. Its tasks are:

- development of techniques and rules for implementing various processes of bibliographic activity;
- drawing up standards for certain types of activities;
- rationalization of search, storage, distribution of bibliographic information;
- development of standards that unify bibliographic activities;
- justification of operating methods in a hybrid combination of traditional and electronic means of activity;
- development of criteria for assessing the quality and effectiveness of bibliographic activities.

There are general and specific bibliography methods.

General technique deals with methodological problems at a level related to bibliography as a whole, identifies and explores the features of commonality and similarity in methodological solutions used in various processes of bibliographic activity.

Private technique focuses on differences and develops methodological techniques and rules specific to certain types of bibliography (scientific auxiliary, recommendatory, etc.), processes of bibliographic work (methodology of bibliographic search, annotation, etc.), for the compilation of bibliographic aids of various forms, types, genres and types. A special subdivision of private methodology is formed by industry methodology, which takes into account the specific content specifics and dependence of bibliography and bibliographic services in each industry bibliography.

The most developed methods are bibliographic description (R.S. Gilyarovsky, T.A. Bakhturina, etc.), bibliography (M.A. Briskman, M.P. Bronshtein, S.S. Levina, S.A. Trubnikov, Yu M. Tugov and others), bibliographic services (I. G. Morgenstern, I. B. Teplitskaya and others).

In the 80s-90s of the twentieth century. The attention of researchers is drawn to the development of technological and methodological problems of bibliography and the need to formalize the relevant scientific and educational disciplines is stated.

Bibliography technology- a scientific discipline that develops the technological aspect of bibliographic activities. Technology involves the development of specific techniques, sequences of operations, algorithms, strategies that can optimally lead to obtaining the desired results (for example, the development of technological instructions for traditional and automated bibliographic processes).

The idea of identifying a technological section in bibliographic studies appeared in connection with the spread of the term “information technology”. In this context, it is important to clearly separate the concepts of “information technology” and “bibliographic technology”.

Information technology is a set of methods, processes and software and hardware combined into a technological chain that ensures the collection, storage, processing, output and dissemination of information.

Bibliographic technology- a set of tools that ensure storage, processing, transmission and use of bibliographic information.

It should be noted that the boundaries between the methodology and technology of bibliographic work are very conditional. The development of methodological standards and technological processes are closely interrelated. For example, the rules of bibliographic description are a methodological document and at the same time they determine the technology of the process of compiling a bibliographic record. In connection with this, M.G. Vokhrysheva proposes to develop the bibliographic scientific and educational discipline as a “methodology and technology of bibliographic activity.”

Bibliography methodology. This section of bibliographic science is becoming a leading one at the present stage. Scientists prove that bibliographic science has its own particular scientific method, which at the same time is of a general scientific nature - this is the bibliographic method. Its essence is to study the degree of knowledge of a scientific problem, reflected in various sources of information (for example, the degree of citation of sources, etc.).

There is also a second direction of differentiation of bibliographic science - “objective”, associated with the identification of individual areas, results, processes of bibliographic activity, which are studied comprehensively by bibliographic science, i.e. from theoretical, historical and organizational and methodological points of view. On this basis, the disciplines of private bibliographic studies are formed (for example, branch bibliographic studies, recommendatory bibliographic studies, bibliographic methods, bibliographic service methods, etc.).

Thus, general bibliographic science is a set of scientific disciplines, each of which in a certain aspect studies bibliography as a whole. Private bibliography consists of disciplines that examine certain fragments of the bibliographic whole in a multidimensional way. Those. bibliographic science can be represented as a multidisciplinary complex.

Interaction of bibliographic science with other scientific disciplines

Bibliography and library science

During the past discussions, the main attention of specialists was drawn to the relationship between librarianship and bibliography with scientific information activities and computer science, which was considered, as a rule, in one of three directions: library - scientific information, bibliography - scientific information, librarianship and bibliography (as a single whole ) - scientific information.

The close connection between librarianship and bibliography always seemed quite obvious and was either not considered by the participants in the discussion at all, or was touched upon incidentally and only in the most general form.

The library is the oldest and to this day the most significant institution in its social role in the system of means of storing and using documents. Almost simultaneously with librarianship, bibliography arose and developed (mainly in its depths). Later it became a necessary link in the library process. In modern conditions, we can talk about the ongoing processes of integration of library and bibliographic work, library science and bibliographic science. Hence the increasingly widespread use of such combined concepts as “library and bibliographic services”, “library and bibliographic information resources”, “library and bibliographic education”, “propaganda of library and bibliographic knowledge”, etc.

It would seem that everything is clear. However, this evidence turns out to be deceptive when asking questions such as: what part of library activity is bibliographic and, conversely, what part of bibliography is part of library work? What is the relationship between library science and bibliographic science? They usually say that these are related scientific disciplines that intersect and interact. But how and at what points? We do not yet know the exact and unambiguous answers.

Obviously, the solution to all these questions largely depends on what meaning is given to the concept of “bibliography”. Some librarians have more than once expressed the view that all bibliography is a part (section) of librarianship.

There is also no clarity on the question of which processes in the library are essentially bibliographic. Cataloging, for example, has always been viewed by librarians as library process and was not included in the scope of bibliography, which was reflected in the organization of the library’s work (cataloging and literature processing are separated from bibliographic departments and forms of library work). True, the famous librarian O. S. Chubaryan wrote that “cataloging is essentially a form of application of bibliographic methods in library practice.” But the point is not only in the methods, but in the fact that cataloging is directly a bibliographic process. And any library catalog is nothing more than a special case of a bibliographic aid.

There is also no unanimity among bibliographers, who have different interpretations of the composition and boundaries of their professional activities, as evidenced by past discussions and experience in preparing state standards for bibliographic terminology.

By what criteria should bibliographic phenomena be distinguished from non-bibliographic ones? Above in chapter five, based on the concept of “bibliographic information”, a general principle or a criterion for distinguishing what belongs to a bibliography from what does not.

This basis allows us to formulate broader and clearer (compared to traditional) ideas about the composition and content of bibliographic elements of librarianship. At the same time, it is clear that bibliographic phenomena and processes take place not only in librarianship.

In library bibliography, as in any other one distinguished on a similar basis (bookselling, archival, etc.), processes of bibliography and bibliographic services are carried out, which are essentially bibliographic and at the same time directly library processes.

If we proceed from the fact that library science in the most general sense is the science of librarianship, and bibliographic science is the science of bibliography, then the real relationship between the objects of study (library science and bibliography) also determines the relationship between the corresponding scientific disciplines. But it follows from this that library science and bibliographic science are not just adjacent or related, but also partially overlapping scientific disciplines.

In other words, the area of combining library science and bibliographic science forms a section of scientific knowledge that can be qualified as bibliographic library science (in relation to library science) or library bibliographic science (in relation to bibliographic science). This scientific discipline has library bibliography as its subject of study and is included on an equal footing in both library science and bibliographic science. The only difference is that as part of bibliographic science, library bibliography is considered, first of all, from the point of view of its specific role, tasks, organization and methodology within bibliography, and as part of library science - from the point of view of its specific role, tasks, etc. within the framework of librarianship.

This structural dualism in library-bibliographic science and practice exists objectively (although it is not recognized clearly enough by many librarians and bibliographers) and leads, in particular, in the field of higher library education, on the one hand, to significant duplication of material in library science and bibliographic training courses , on the other hand, to an unjustified gap in educational process problems of cataloging (classification, subject identification, bibliographic description) and bibliography of documents that are uniform in their functional content.

What to do with library bibliographic science (bibliographic library science)? Where is its rightful place: as part of library science or bibliographic science? At this point, library science and bibliographic science are combined, therefore, the conditions for an unambiguous answer to the question of inclusion are objectively absent, however, subjectively in each specific case, the decision obviously depends on the initial “frame of reference”, on the initial general positions from which we approach it - library or bibliographic.

Thus, a simple and clear, seemingly in its most general form, question about the relationship between librarianship and bibliography, library science and bibliography, upon closer examination turns out to be debatable and in need of further thorough development and broad discussion.

Bibliography and Information Science

Scientific information activity, being scientifically auxiliary in its main purpose, arose as an internal mechanism of science itself (as a means of its information self-sufficiency), but at the same time this activity could not successfully develop outside traditional library and bibliographic institutions, their funds and methods. However, the problem of the relationship between these types of activities was interpreted by library scientists and bibliographers, on the one hand, and computer scientists, on the other, far from the same.

The fact is that computer science as a scientific discipline at its starting point is based on a number of features characteristic of the modern stage of development of science and technology in the conditions of the so-called information crisis, the main features of which were especially clearly manifested in the 20th century. In particular, the quantitative aspects of the information crisis played an important role in the development of computer science - the sharply increased scale of scientific publications, which complicates initial orientation in huge document arrays and flows. From the point of view of computer science, this aspect was recognized, first of all, as an urgent need for mechanization and automation of processes that in their essence are library and bibliographic, but which in this aspect are neither library nor bibliographic science (due to their historically established humanitarian orientation ) never seriously studied. Representatives of computer science, having come to these problems as if from the outside, were not inclined to recognize them as library-bibliographic ones, believing that computer science was dealing with something fundamentally new, not organically characteristic of librarianship and bibliography. This is where main reason immediately emerged mutual misunderstanding, opposition between “traditional” and “non-traditional” means and methods of information services, quantitative and qualitative approaches, etc.

Now the situation has changed. Long-term theoretical discussions and a deep understanding of the practical experience of information services have led to a convergence of positions, the development of a more consistent understanding of the general and specific in the areas under consideration, although disagreements, of course, still exist today.

The main thing in this regard is the following:

Library and bibliographic studies, library science and bibliographic studies rely on ready-made, historically established documentary forms of sources of knowledge and deal with the problems of their use for a variety of public purposes (not only scientific). They do not set themselves the task of optimizing the entire system of information communications and are not interested in the problems of the movement of information that is not in documents (not recorded on tangible media).

Scientific information activities and computer science are considered only information communications science, but taken as a whole, at all levels and in all forms (including library and bibliographic). The ultimate goal here is to optimize the entire system of scientific communications as much as possible and bring it into line with the needs of modern science.

This is where a certain coincidence and at the same time difference lies in the objects and goals of library-bibliographic and scientific-information science and practice.

Formally, the relationships between bibliographic activities, librarianship and scientific information activities within the framework of the special system they form can be represented graphically:

The figure shows that the system under consideration, consisting of three main elements, has an area of complete (triple) alignment (1), an area of incomplete (double) alignment (2, 3, 4), within which each element is separately combined with two others, and, finally, independent areas (5, b, 7), i.e., what specifically distinguishes each element from the other two. Thus, the subjective relationship between the part and the whole here depends entirely on the initial “frame of reference.” From the perspective of each element, the other two are its parts.

The proposed formal interpretation of the relations between the elements of the system, although it allows us to generally correctly understand the nature of their mutual inclusion, is still insufficient, since it says nothing about the actual content of these relations.

Therefore, let us briefly reveal the real meaning of the seven zones highlighted in the figure:

- zone 1 - scientific and information bibliographic services for the professional needs and requests of scientists and specialists in the library;
- zone 2 - bibliographic support for various (non-specially scientific) needs and requests of readers in the library;
- zone 3 - direct (non-bibliographic) provision of information sources (documents) and factual services to scientists and specialists in the library;
- zone 4 - scientific and information bibliographic non-library services for the professional needs of scientists and specialists;
- zone 5 - extra-library bibliographic support for various (not specifically scientific) documentary needs and requests;
- zone 6 - library (direct) service of documents to various groups of readers not for specifically scientific purposes;
- zone 7 - non-library non-bibliographic (factual) information support for scientists and specialists.

The specificity of the relationships under consideration does not end there. A significant role here is played by the general uniqueness of the position occupied by bibliography, known to us. The independence (system integrity) of bibliography as a social phenomenon is revealed mainly at the level of its basic social functions (search, communicative and evaluative). The practical implementation of these functions occurs within those areas of activity in which the bibliography functions. In other words, from the point of view of bibliography, librarianship and scientific information activities are the channels through which bibliography practically realizes its social functions. From the standpoint of library and scientific information activities, bibliography is their own structural level (contour), at which a library or scientific information body provides its consumers with the means of bibliographic orientation in documentary sources of knowledge.

Thus, bibliographic, library and scientific information activities together form a system, the elements of which are characterized by both general (coinciding) and specific tasks and functions. These relationships are preserved (reflected) at the level of the corresponding scientific disciplines - bibliographic science, library science and information science.

To avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to emphasize that the considered relationships relate to computer science, which acts as a science of scientific and information activities, and do not relate to other currently existing ideas about computer science. For example, some experts associate its content as a science with the problems of creating and using electronic computer technology in various fields of human activity or with the study of the laws of the processes of collecting, storing, processing and disseminating any social information to any consumers.

In the recent past, the famous computer scientist and bibliographer A. V. Sokolov actively put forward the concept of the relationship between the objects under consideration, based on the desire to create a generalizing science - social informatics, or general theory social information, the object of which is social information in all its types and forms. In this case, the relationship and interaction of social informatics, on the one hand, bibliographic science, library science and scientific information science, on the other hand, act as a relationship between general and particular sciences. Social informatics is also qualified by its supporters as a metatheoretical discipline (metatheory) in relation to the sciences of the socio-communication cycle.

In recent years, this approach has led to the creation in universities of culture (on the initiative of A.V. Sokolov) of a training course “Social Communications”.

There is also a point of view (A.I. Barsuk and others) according to which the main divide between bibliographic and scientific information activities runs along the line of differences between “macro-” and “micro-approaches” to a document as an object of activity. In other words, bibliographic activity deals with documents as a literary whole. It is in this capacity that a bibliographer describes, systematizes, and promotes documents. Scientific information activities, carrying out analytical and synthetic processing of documents, dissect their content, often regardless of their document integrity. Hence such specific products of scientific information activities as analytical reviews, factual (compressed and generalized) information provided in the course of differentiated servicing of managers (DSM), etc.

Another approach to clarifying the relationships between librarianship and bibliography with scientific and information activities, close to the previous one, is set out in the textbook for universities “Informatics” (M., 1986, pp. 8-9).

Here we propose three levels of the system of documentary communications considered in the works of O. P. Korshunov (direct information, documentary, secondary documentary or bibliographic), supplemented with two more: factographic (dissemination of ideas, facts, data extracted from documents) and factual (dissemination information obtained by logical processing of the content of documents).

Library and bibliographic activities are carried out mainly at the second and third levels of the system. Within the framework of scientific and information activities, the functions of the second level are performed in terms of servicing documents that are not stocked by libraries; third - using modern technical means.

Finally, only scientific information activities are associated with the implementation of the functions of the fourth and fifth levels - providing scientists and specialists with information extracted from documents or obtained through logical inference.

In general, despite the existing disagreements, the development of views on the range of issues under consideration follows the path of an increasingly unanimous understanding of the need for all-round interaction, rational distribution of labor, interdepartmental coordination and cooperation in the field of scientific development of current problems of library, bibliographic and scientific information activities, maximum unification scientific terminology used in these areas. This fundamental unifying platform was enshrined in government documents, adopted on the development of library and bibliographic affairs and the national system of scientific and technical information.

Bibliography and book business. Bibliography and book science

The question of the relationship between bibliography and bibliology, which occupies a special place in the history of bibliographic thought, has already been touched upon in the first chapter of the textbook. Let us remember that back in the late 18th - early 19th centuries. V Western Europe and in Russia the word “bibliography” denoted broadly understood book studies. Later, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. In Russia, a new, narrower idea of bibliography is gradually being formed as a scientific discipline, constituting an independent (descriptive) part of bibliology. This idea of bibliography prevailed among bibliographers in the early years Soviet power. Then the time came when book science in our country as a scientific discipline essentially ceased to exist. The bibliological approach to the general qualification of bibliography was also forgotten.

In recent decades, domestic bibliology has actively developed on a new methodological and factual basis. And again the old question of the relationship between bibliology and bibliography was put on the agenda. Many representatives of book science believe that bibliography (practical bibliographic activity) is part of the book business, and bibliographic science is part of book science as a complex science (or complex of sciences) about book business.

In the most detailed form, this point of view is presented in the textbook by A. A. Belovitskaya “General Bibliology” (Moscow, 1987), in which paragraph 6.4 “Structure of Bibliology” characterizes the place in this structure of various sections (methodological, theoretical, historical and methodological) scientific bibliographic knowledge, and in paragraph 6.8 “The system of bibliographic knowledge (bibliographic science)” the content of bibliographic science as a bibliographic discipline is far from indisputably classified.

This approach is generally legitimate if we assume that the only object of bibliographic activity is printed works (the “book-reader” system). But it turns out to be insufficient if we bear in mind a broader understanding of the object of bibliographic activity, including not only printed works, but also other forms of documentary recording of information (the “document-consumer” system). In this case, bibliography and bibliographic studies significantly intersect with book studies and bibliology, but do not completely coincide with them; one is not just a part of the other.

So, we can state that bibliographic, library, scientific and information, book publishing and book trading activities, bibliographic science, library science, scientific information science and book science form a system of this kind, the general direction of development of which is all-round interaction, coordination and cooperation, aimed at eliminating parallelism and departmental disunity, based on the commonality of ultimate goals and an understanding of the independence, specificity of tasks and functions of each element taken separately.

Comprehensive awareness of the paramount importance of integration processes in practical library and bibliographic, scientific and information, publishing and bookselling activities and in relevant scientific disciplines underlies their further development and improvement.

Bibliography and Documentation Science

Bibliography and documentation as areas of practical activity also often coincide. Any document can be the object of bibliographic reflection; therefore, bibliographic science examines the typology of documents and their specificity.

The study of documents, the variety of their types, and work with them in various social institutions is also part of the tasks of document management. In this area, the problems of the sciences coincide. Document science is a discipline studied at the FIDK University of Culture in parallel with book studies and is associated with the document theory of library and bibliographic sciences. There are many controversial issues here that I often disagree with. There is also document science, in which the understanding of the document is somewhat different; it outlines its own area of research related to document flow within institutions and organizations (personal files, certificates, certificates, etc.).

Bibliography and theory of social communications

Social communications are defined as the transfer of information between two or more individuals and/or systems, as well as the movement of meaning in social time and space. The science that studies the processes of functioning of social communications is designated as “communications”, “theory of social communications”. Some bibliographers consider it a meta-science, including in relation to bibliographic studies, which is defined as “the science of the social-communication cycle.” Attempts are made to describe library and bibliographic activities in terms of communication. However, there are opponents of this approach who believe that the full inclusion of bibliographic science in the theory of social communications is not legitimate. Rather, as with computer science, it is necessary to build relationships with it on the principle of interaction and intersection in those areas where there is common content, but retains its own specificity. In bibliographic science, such specificity, for example, is the compilation of a bibliographic record, which contains only communicative potentials, but not their implementation.

Bibliography and Philosophy

Philosophy represents the highest level of theoretical generalization; it operates with extremely broad and universal categories necessary for understanding the essence of bibliography. Philosophy provides the basis for studying the interaction of bibliography and society, bibliography and man.

The use of such categories as the object and subject of bibliography, functions, activities and methods of activity, space and time, general and particular, classification and systematization, system and structure, contribute to a universal analysis of the role of bibliography in various spheres of public life.

Bibliography and Sociology

Sociology represents for bibliographic science a set of methods with the help of which various processes of the functioning of bibliography in society can be studied (questionnaires, the method of expert assessments, population surveys, etc.). The sociology of bibliography is capable of exploring the sociodynamics and synchronic process of the functioning of bibliography; value orientations of various groups of information consumers; the activities of social institutions and bibliographic services, their status in society, prestige and popularity; the role of bibliography in the formation of a unified information space. Sociology also provides convincing factual and statistical material for developing state and society policy in the field of bibliography. Sociology underlies the scientific basis of advertising, including advertising of a bibliographic product, which also contributes to the intersection of research issues of sociology and bibliographic science.

Bibliographical and cultural studies

Culture covers all types of both spiritual and material human activity. It preserves the values accumulated by man and ensures their transmission from generation to generation. Bibliography is essentially connected with the preservation, processing and transmission of knowledge recorded in documents, and thus enters culture as its part, a necessary link and means. Bibliography is even departmentally classified within the cultural sphere.

Bibliography and Economics

In the conditions of significant economic transformations in the country, any science cannot stand aside from economic issues. Currently, economics is included in bibliographic studies in two directions:

- marketing research related to the study of demand for a bibliographic product (resources, services) and the methods, level, quality of its satisfaction;
- study of the economic efficiency of various processes of bibliographic activity.

For example, formulas have been calculated to calculate the contribution of information sources reported to a specialist to his research and technological developments, i.e. the degree of their effectiveness. Recently, in connection with the development of computer technology, the question has arisen about the optimal relationship between various systems (traditional and electronic) in an economic context.

Bibliography and history

An independent and fairly well-developed historical section has formed in bibliographic studies. The history of bibliography is based on global and national history. The essence of history and the history of bibliography is the same; they are characterized by a chain: fact - description - its interpretation. Only in general history are these events that are socially significant for people’s activities; in the history of bibliography are they events and individuals in a narrow sphere of human activity.

Bibliography and psychology

Bibliographic science studies many issues related to subjective factors of activity, i.e. with the personality characteristics of the bibliographer and the consumer of bibliographic information. The categories “need”, “interest”, “motive”, “attitudes”, “communication”, “psychology of book perception”, “psychology of reading”, “psychology of perception of annotations”, etc. have become traditional for bibliographic studies. All these concepts are developed in psychology, and in bibliographic science they receive a specific interpretation. Bibliographers are engaged in the classification of consumers of bibliographic products, but it turns out to be incomplete without taking into account psychological characteristics certain categories of consumers. The effectiveness of bibliographic communication also depends on the two interacting subjects, the presence of likes, dislikes, empathy, goodwill and other psychological states that accompany interpersonal communication.

As you can see, the definition is compiled by listing the branches of science. This is the so called “aspect” division of bibliographic science as a science and in this regard, several scientific disciplines are distinguished in the structure of bibliographic science: the theory of bibliography, the history of bibliography, the methodology of bibliography, the organization of bibliographic activities, and in recent decades the methodology and technology of bibliography have also been distinguished.

All these disciplines act not only as scientific, but also academic disciplines that are taught in universities.

The central place in bibliographic studies is given to the theory and history of bibliography.

Bibliography theory is a scientific discipline that forms the “core” of bibliography and studies

– problems of the essence of bibliography as a social phenomenon and field of activity;

– patterns of bibliography functioning, principles, functions, tasks;

– terminology, definitions of basic concepts;

– classification of various bibliographic phenomena;

– structuring bibliographic activities; the specifics of individual bibliographic phenomena (processes, means, products, etc.) and their relationships;

– connection with other spheres of public life, place in the system of information and socio-cultural communications.

History of bibliography is one of the most developed bibliographic disciplines. She learns:

– the origin and development of bibliography from ancient times to the present day;

– the origins and reasons for the emergence of certain bibliographic phenomena, their specific historical conditionality;

– identification of leading trends in the development of bibliography at various stages;

– contribution of prominent bibliographers to the development of bibliography.

The most significant contributions to the study of the history of bibliography were made by Russian scientists N.V. Zdobnov, M.V. Mashkova, K.R. Simon, E.K. Bespalova, B.A. Semenovker. Of the Belarusian scientists - ?

Organization of the bibliography– a section of bibliographic science, which is designed to explore such problems as:

– management and planning in the field of bibliographic activities;

– development of principles for organizing activities;

– creation of rational schemes for organizing bibliographic services in various information centers and libraries;

– personnel management of bibliographic departments;

– organization of project and innovation activities in the field of bibliography.

This section is least developed; there is no fundamental research; publications reflect local experience and do not rise to the level of theoretical generalizations. This circumstance is often explained by the fact that bibliography is not organizationally separated into an independent structure; it develops within the framework of other social institutions (libraries, book chambers, book trade, museums), which makes it difficult to study it from an organizational point of view.

Meanwhile, bibliographic departments often function in these structures; they are called differently, their functions vary depending on the specific tasks of the institution. With the introduction of new computer technologies, new organizational structures arise, the tasks of which include regulating all technological processes for creating bibliographic databases and other work on automating bibliographic processes. It is all the more important to study their activities from the perspective of organization and management.

Bibliography methodology– scientific discipline about techniques, rules, methods of bibliographic activity. Its tasks are:

– development of techniques and rules for implementing various processes of bibliographic activity;

– drawing up standards for certain types of activities;

– rationalization of search, storage, distribution of bibliographic information;

– development of standards that unify bibliographic activities;

– justification of operating methods in a hybrid combination of traditional and electronic means of activity;

– development of criteria for assessing the quality and effectiveness of bibliographic activities.

There are general and specific bibliography methods.

General methodology deals with methodological problems at a level related to bibliography as a whole, identifies and explores the features of commonality and similarity in methodological solutions used in various processes of bibliographic activity.

The private methodology focuses on the differences and develops methodological techniques and rules specific to certain types of bibliography (scientific auxiliary, advisory, etc.), processes of bibliographic work (methodology of bibliographic search, annotation, etc.), for the compilation of bibliographic benefits of various forms, types, genres and types. A special subdivision of private methodology is formed by industry methodology, which takes into account the specific content specifics and dependence of bibliography and bibliographic services in each industry bibliography.

In the 80s–90s of the twentieth century. The attention of researchers is drawn to the development of technological and methodological problems of bibliography and the need to formalize the relevant scientific and educational disciplines is stated.

Bibliography technology– a scientific discipline that develops the technological aspect of bibliographic activities. Technology involves the development of specific techniques, sequences of operations, algorithms, strategies that can optimally lead to obtaining the desired results (for example, the development of technological instructions for traditional and automated bibliographic processes).

Information technology is a set of methods, processes and software and hardware combined into a technological chain that provides collection, storage, processing, output and distribution information.

Bibliographic technology is a set of tools that ensure storage, processing, transmission and use bibliographic information.

Bibliography methodology. This section of bibliographic science is becoming a leading one at the present stage. Scientists prove that bibliographic science has its own particular scientific method, which at the same time is of a general scientific nature - this is the bibliographic method. Its essence is to study the degree of knowledge of a scientific problem, reflected in various sources of information (for example, the degree of citation of sources, etc.). More details can be found in the lectures of V.E. Leonchikov.

We examined the “aspect” direction of differentiation of bibliographic studies, which studies bibliographic studies in such aspects as theory, history, methodology, organization, technology and methodology.

There is also a second direction of differentiation of bibliographic science - “objective”, associated with the identification of individual areas, results, processes of bibliographic activity, which are studied comprehensively by bibliographic science, i.e. from theoretical, historical and organizational and methodological points of view. Disciplines are formed on this basis private bibliographic studies(for example, branch bibliographic studies, recommendatory bibliographic studies, bibliographic methods, bibliographic service methods, etc.).

Thus, general bibliographic science is a set of scientific disciplines, each of which in a certain aspect studies bibliography as a whole. Particular bibliographic science consists of disciplines that examine certain fragments of the bibliographic whole in a multidimensional way. Those. bibliographic science can be represented as a multidisciplinary complex.