**2. Theoretical approach**

The need for a sociological comprehension of rationality became topical at the end of the nineteenth and in the early twentieth centuries, during the period of positivistic secularization of "reason," when the understanding of the reason in its abstract form as a transcendent subject was transformed into its interpretation as a precise characteristic of human activity and behavior. As Davydov notes, in this period there was a substitution of the "divine reason" for human reason. Now reason was not understood as transcendental will, but as an ability of simple individual to act expediently, in sound mind and memory [13]. This understanding of reasonableness as expediency formed the basis of the rationality theory by Weber, who proposed one of the first sociological theories of rationality. Further attempts at sociological comprehension of rationality have spawned its numerous interpretations, based on various characteristics, often far too much disconnected. Such characteristics were all sorts of particular content of reality, as well as different variants of their synthesis—expediency, efficiency, conformity to law, theoretical apprehension and order, normativity (standardization, conventionality), ability to set targets, truth, autonomy of the acting subject, etc. [14]. Consequently, the rationality reduction to one or another of the above-mentioned characteristics in many cases does not stand up to criticism: the choice of attributes is often arbitrary based on a priori knowledge.

expressed in the language products of the activity of society culture. During this process, the individual's consciousness forms some structures through which he/she acquires the ability

The irrational component is in the process of the individual's appropriation of special emotional states, when the initial needs for emotional satisfaction, inherent in a person as a representative of the biological species, are transformed into specific orientations toward absolutely precise values [11]. This is the process known in sociology and psychology as the needs' socialization. Even Plato once mentioned this process in his philosophical works: "Thirsting itself will never be a desire for anything other than that of which it naturally is a desire – for drink, and hunger itself is a natural desire to eat," and further: "Every desire itself is directed only at what in each individual case corresponds to its nature. Desire for such and only such quality is something adscititious" [12]. Thus, in the course of socialization, the individual becomes oriented toward certain forms and methods of satisfying needs. For example, the need for an experience of satiety with food, initially nonobjective in an infant, during the socialization process is transformed in the orientation toward the craving for certain dishes

Thus, during the socialization process, the individual irrationally develops orientations toward value experiences related to the corresponding needs, be they physiological, social, or spiritual. On one hand, they are preconditioned by the individual's inner motivations and personal characteristics, and on the other hand, by the social circumstances, the peculiarities of the culture in which the individual acts. Value orientations differ in direction and have a

Later in this chapter, we will discuss the theoretical perspective of considering socialization from the standpoint of the postnonclassical (universum) sociological theory of rationality. In the author's opinion, the conclusions drawn allow presenting the socialization process more

The need for a sociological comprehension of rationality became topical at the end of the nineteenth and in the early twentieth centuries, during the period of positivistic secularization of "reason," when the understanding of the reason in its abstract form as a transcendent subject was transformed into its interpretation as a precise characteristic of human activity and behavior. As Davydov notes, in this period there was a substitution of the "divine reason" for human reason. Now reason was not understood as transcendental will, but as an ability of simple individual to act expediently, in sound mind and memory [13]. This understanding of reasonableness as expediency formed the basis of the rationality theory by Weber, who proposed one of the first sociological theories of rationality. Further attempts at sociological comprehension of rationality have spawned its numerous interpretations, based on various characteristics, often far too much disconnected. Such characteristics were all sorts of particular content of reality, as well as different variants of their synthesis—expediency, efficiency, conformity to law, theoretical apprehension and order, normativity (standardization, conventionality), ability to set

to reflect reality cognitively.

4 Socialization - A Multidimensional Perspective

that are cooked in a particular culture.

**2. Theoretical approach**

direct impact on the individual's social behavior.

thoroughly—in the unity of rational and irrational components.

Thus, sociology formed theoretical pluralism in solving the problem of rationality, when there are simultaneous and different, often conflicting, explicit schemes that use different terminology systems to describe rationality. In the context of conflicting characteristics and explicit schemes of rationality, the scientific status of the "rationality" concept is blurred: it becomes an instrument of subjective assessments of certain phenomena and facts as positive or negative. The category "rational" then expresses positive assessments, and the category "irrational" expresses the negative ones [15–18]. It is natural that under these circumstances, rationality is declared a pseudo-conceptual notion that expresses not the object's properties but its significance in the human dimension of reality [19], while the ultimate result of the study of the rationality problem is its debatability [20, 21].

To overcome these difficulties, we should take an advantage of modern cognitive models that marked the transition of sociology to the postnonclassical stage of development. Such is the diatropic cognitive model [22], which was included in the theoretical foundation of the universum sociological paradigm [23]. This paradigm was introduced by Nemirovsky and has been developing within his scientific school. Social reality is considered here *as a garden, a fair* in which all possible objects and processes are presented in their diversity. Through the comparison of the most diverse objects of reality, the diatropic approach explores the general properties of these varieties and finds out "refrains" [24], the invariant qualities inherent in all the objects being compared. The result is knowledge about the general properties of various objects. This knowledge reveals the patterns of these objects' existence and development.

Later in this section of the chapter, I will use a more complex scientific language. It allows us to reduce the text volume and briefly describe the main theoretical positions, from the point of which the process of socialization will be examined in the next section of the chapter. For more detailed acquaintance with these theoretical provisions and their justification, the interested reader can refer to the author's previous publications, the references to which are given at the end of the chapter.

Based on the application of the diatropic cognitive model to the study of various objects, Nemirovsky formulated the diatropic principle of a minimal universum with a minimum number of characteristics necessary to describe the structure and dynamics of any developing system [25]. According to a brief summary of this principle, *any developing system* relies on two polar (complementary) elements; in the development process, it forms three hierarchical levels, each of which passes at least five stages and forms seven evolutionary strata in the process of change. Within the framework of this approach, we offer a universum sociological theory of rationality, which sets prerequisites to regard socialization as a social process further. The rationale for this theory was thoroughly analyzed in our previous papers; so here, I will give only its main points, which are crucial background for our study.

A diatropic analysis of various concepts of rationality makes it possible to distinguish the characteristic of the *cognitive shape of the reality contents* as an invariant trait that in one form or another is present in all rationality conceptions. To prove this, it is sufficient to consider all the concepts of rationality in accordance with the theoretical assumptions of the postnonclassical sociological approach, a characteristic feature of which is the use of the complementarity principle [26]. As is well known, this principle assumes the use of binary oppositions to describe the objects of reality, i.e., pairs of opposing concepts that describe an object as integrity. To consider the concepts of rationality from the point of this principle, I shall use the opposition "the cognitive subject—the object cognized." The complementarity of the object and the subject of cognition lies at the basis of the human culture existence and development. It should be accepted that "there cannot be any 'purely ontological' characteristics that would describe the real world without taking into account the degree of this world cognoscibility. It is also clear that there can be no cognition as a purely subjective activity of a person that could be understood without the objective content of cognition" [27].

This effect is close to the concept of "autopoiesis," which Luhmann used for the analysis of social systems [29]. This phenomenon is also called the effect of "world duplication," namely, the allocation of "transcendental reference points and a specific angle of view, which sets the perspective to assess and systematize reality" [30]. The recursive layer of social reality in question, on one hand, reflects the existence and development of social reality via cognitive means, and on the other hand, it is a part of this reality, which does not go beyond it (beyond the limits of social reality, as we know, human thinking does not exist).

Socialization from the Point of View of Postnonclassical (Universum) Sociological Theory…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74130

7

*Thus, rationality implies the world duplication.* Initially, such an understanding of rationality was posited in the philosophy of the Pythagoreans, where it was viewed as a measure expressing the commensurability of values and establishing the existence of two principles: a measurable quantity and a measuring person [31]. The relationship between these principles which can be expressed by a certain measure, was called rationality; and the relationship which is not expressed by measure, was called irrationality. A written fixation of this interpretation was given in Euclid's "Elements" [32]. It is of fundamental importance for the discourse on rationality, because it forms a coordinate system for all subsequent interpretations of rationality. The measurable value is objective and has the properties of commensurability and incommensurability of things as they are in reality; a measuring person is rather subjective and indicates a way of reflecting (measuring) these properties

Further, this system of coordinates was reproduced in the Weber's theory of rationality (as an intellectual understanding of reality) and in the majority of following conceptions. Later, as regards scientific understanding of the rationality, its interpretations differed mainly in the measure that determines the commensurability of things and the reality phenomena. Such a measure was designated as a verbal shape (apprehension, the ability to be expressed through words, the ability to be said and to have a name), calculability (the ability to be expressed through count), a logical shape (the ability to be expressed in terms, judgments, inferences, compliance with the laws of the right thinking), reasonableness (conformity to norms, standards, structures of mind, the latter understood in various senses as expediency, normativity, truth, utility, effectiveness, structuredness, correspondence to one or another value (value system), etc.), intelligibility (awareness of the universal: laws of the world existence and development, which are not perceived by senses). The reality contents, expressed by means of these measurements, are considered rational; the ineffable contents, beyond the limits of

The effect of "the world duplication" stipulates the reflexive character of rationality as its basic condition. A common place in the definitions of reflection is the presence of two positions, reflective one and reflected one, which has a distance between them. In this regard, *the cognitive self-reference of the society is a reflective process of the group subject of social action*, carried out through verbal communication means. The cognitive layer of social reality acts as a reflective attitude toward social life [33]. The results of this reflective process are expressed in the form of social norms, collective opinions, assessments, and behavioral rules that have received verbal shape, as well as in the form of knowledge, information, and other products

by human consciousness.

measurement, are considered irrational.

of the reflective activity of individuals and groups.

From this point of view, the concepts of rationality are *social objects*, the nature of which is conditioned by two bases. One of them is the cognizing subject (researcher), who makes up theoretical postulates and who is the product of the life and social group structures into which he/she is included. This is a well-known property of the researchers: their scientific activity is socially motivated and largely determined by the society in which they live [28]. Another foundation is the object of cognition, i.e., phenomena and connections of reality, which the research defines as rationality. Thus, the concept of rationality is not perceived as a set of theoretical postulates that reveal the meaning of the concept of "rationality," but rather as a fact of realizing reality through the prism of the ontological and gnosiological characteristics of the cognizing subject. This awareness necessarily requires the use of symbols and, above all, verbal means of the language, which serve as a tool for the cognitive shape of reality. Along with this, such awareness is *reflexive* in its nature. Many authors (Shvyrev, Demina, Korsgaard, Giddens, et al.) connect rationality, cognition, and reflexivity. It is not accidental as cognition always assumes that the cognizing subject is separated from the object, occupies an external position in relation to it. In this regard, the human culture world, the main above-mentioned characteristic of which is rationality, is a sphere of reflexive reflection of the existence and development of human society.

Thus, the trait of cognitive shape is an essential sign of rationality, which makes it possible to distinguish rationality from irrational phenomena. Rationality in this sense entails *a verbal-reflective activity and its result at the same time.* This trait acts as a general characteristic of rationality, either in an explicit or an implicit form present in all concepts of rationality, without exception. This trait acts as a universally objective referent of rationality and should be extended to any verbalized reality content (and we have all grounds for doing so). Let us highlight that rationality in the discussed sense is an essential trait separating the cultural world from the natural one, human society from other associations. Irrationality from this point of view is a set of pre-cognitive contents of social reality that go beyond the verbal-reflective level.

This understanding brings us to the following theoretical conclusions:

**I.** At the macro level, *rationality appears as the cognitive self-reference of the society and its individual components.* This is a recursive layer of social reality, reflecting its existence and development via the cognitive means. Let us emphasize that it is an issue of recursion, the effect of describing the system, its objects and processes, which occur within the system itself. This effect is close to the concept of "autopoiesis," which Luhmann used for the analysis of social systems [29]. This phenomenon is also called the effect of "world duplication," namely, the allocation of "transcendental reference points and a specific angle of view, which sets the perspective to assess and systematize reality" [30]. The recursive layer of social reality in question, on one hand, reflects the existence and development of social reality via cognitive means, and on the other hand, it is a part of this reality, which does not go beyond it (beyond the limits of social reality, as we know, human thinking does not exist).

concepts of rationality in accordance with the theoretical assumptions of the postnonclassical sociological approach, a characteristic feature of which is the use of the complementarity principle [26]. As is well known, this principle assumes the use of binary oppositions to describe the objects of reality, i.e., pairs of opposing concepts that describe an object as integrity. To consider the concepts of rationality from the point of this principle, I shall use the opposition "the cognitive subject—the object cognized." The complementarity of the object and the subject of cognition lies at the basis of the human culture existence and development. It should be accepted that "there cannot be any 'purely ontological' characteristics that would describe the real world without taking into account the degree of this world cognoscibility. It is also clear that there can be no cognition as a purely subjective activity of a person that could be

From this point of view, the concepts of rationality are *social objects*, the nature of which is conditioned by two bases. One of them is the cognizing subject (researcher), who makes up theoretical postulates and who is the product of the life and social group structures into which he/she is included. This is a well-known property of the researchers: their scientific activity is socially motivated and largely determined by the society in which they live [28]. Another foundation is the object of cognition, i.e., phenomena and connections of reality, which the research defines as rationality. Thus, the concept of rationality is not perceived as a set of theoretical postulates that reveal the meaning of the concept of "rationality," but rather as a fact of realizing reality through the prism of the ontological and gnosiological characteristics of the cognizing subject. This awareness necessarily requires the use of symbols and, above all, verbal means of the language, which serve as a tool for the cognitive shape of reality. Along with this, such awareness is *reflexive* in its nature. Many authors (Shvyrev, Demina, Korsgaard, Giddens, et al.) connect rationality, cognition, and reflexivity. It is not accidental as cognition always assumes that the cognizing subject is separated from the object, occupies an external position in relation to it. In this regard, the human culture world, the main above-mentioned characteristic of which is rationality, is a sphere of reflexive reflection of the existence and

Thus, the trait of cognitive shape is an essential sign of rationality, which makes it possible to distinguish rationality from irrational phenomena. Rationality in this sense entails *a verbal-reflective activity and its result at the same time.* This trait acts as a general characteristic of rationality, either in an explicit or an implicit form present in all concepts of rationality, without exception. This trait acts as a universally objective referent of rationality and should be extended to any verbalized reality content (and we have all grounds for doing so). Let us highlight that rationality in the discussed sense is an essential trait separating the cultural world from the natural one, human society from other associations. Irrationality from this point of view is a set of pre-cognitive contents of social reality that go beyond the verbal-reflective level.

**I.** At the macro level, *rationality appears as the cognitive self-reference of the society and its individual components.* This is a recursive layer of social reality, reflecting its existence and development via the cognitive means. Let us emphasize that it is an issue of recursion, the effect of describing the system, its objects and processes, which occur within the system itself.

This understanding brings us to the following theoretical conclusions:

understood without the objective content of cognition" [27].

development of human society.

6 Socialization - A Multidimensional Perspective

*Thus, rationality implies the world duplication.* Initially, such an understanding of rationality was posited in the philosophy of the Pythagoreans, where it was viewed as a measure expressing the commensurability of values and establishing the existence of two principles: a measurable quantity and a measuring person [31]. The relationship between these principles which can be expressed by a certain measure, was called rationality; and the relationship which is not expressed by measure, was called irrationality. A written fixation of this interpretation was given in Euclid's "Elements" [32]. It is of fundamental importance for the discourse on rationality, because it forms a coordinate system for all subsequent interpretations of rationality. The measurable value is objective and has the properties of commensurability and incommensurability of things as they are in reality; a measuring person is rather subjective and indicates a way of reflecting (measuring) these properties by human consciousness.

Further, this system of coordinates was reproduced in the Weber's theory of rationality (as an intellectual understanding of reality) and in the majority of following conceptions. Later, as regards scientific understanding of the rationality, its interpretations differed mainly in the measure that determines the commensurability of things and the reality phenomena. Such a measure was designated as a verbal shape (apprehension, the ability to be expressed through words, the ability to be said and to have a name), calculability (the ability to be expressed through count), a logical shape (the ability to be expressed in terms, judgments, inferences, compliance with the laws of the right thinking), reasonableness (conformity to norms, standards, structures of mind, the latter understood in various senses as expediency, normativity, truth, utility, effectiveness, structuredness, correspondence to one or another value (value system), etc.), intelligibility (awareness of the universal: laws of the world existence and development, which are not perceived by senses). The reality contents, expressed by means of these measurements, are considered rational; the ineffable contents, beyond the limits of measurement, are considered irrational.

The effect of "the world duplication" stipulates the reflexive character of rationality as its basic condition. A common place in the definitions of reflection is the presence of two positions, reflective one and reflected one, which has a distance between them. In this regard, *the cognitive self-reference of the society is a reflective process of the group subject of social action*, carried out through verbal communication means. The cognitive layer of social reality acts as a reflective attitude toward social life [33]. The results of this reflective process are expressed in the form of social norms, collective opinions, assessments, and behavioral rules that have received verbal shape, as well as in the form of knowledge, information, and other products of the reflective activity of individuals and groups.

**II.** At the microlevel (the level of the individual and the small group), *rationality is any reflective act (its process and result) of an individual or a group subject of social action, carried out through the verbal means of communication* [34]. A necessary condition for the realization of such reflection is a group communication and a group interaction; these are the processes which are described in detail in the theory of symbolic interactionism (Mead, Cooley, et al.).

of meta-position in relation to the content being reflected, which reflects this content by linguistic means. Such a meta-position in relation to reality is represented by conscious-

Socialization from the Point of View of Postnonclassical (Universum) Sociological Theory…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74130

9

These are the main theses of our approach to understanding rationality, as summarized briefly. This approach to the rationality definition allows us to get over the relativity of the rationality concept in its existing interpretations. The rationality characteristics (expediency, efficiency, normativity, conformity to law, etc.), on which various conceptions are built, appear here as particular aspects of reality, which have received a cognitive reference in the mass consciousness of a particular society. Being devoid of verbal-reflective shape, these aspects are not capable of characterizing specific human behavior, distinguishing it from the instinctive animals' actions. Along with this, the category of rationality in this approach becomes free of estimates. It fixes the fact of the cognitive shape of the reality contents, refusing to interpret

Next, let us consider the process of socialization from the standpoint of the postnonclassical

Socialization in human society is intended to practice rationality. This means socialization is the process of teaching an individual to reflect the world discretely, normatively, through symbols, and thus, reflexively; this is the process of mastering the basic tools of the reproduction of the society culture. The discrete reality reflection presupposes the individual mastering of various ways of its measuring, by instruments such as a word, a number, and the ability to establish logical connections. In the process of mastering them, the individual begins to apprehend the world as a structure in the totality of its parts, segments, and elements. Normativity is associated with the acquisition by an individual of the ability to apply norms and rules that establish a social order. Reflection of the world through symbols involves mastering the language, i.e., a symbolic system, being the basic condition for the development of thinking and communication. Reflexivity is the ability of an individual to distinguish oneself

As an illustration of these theses, let us think about the socialization of the child, which can be successful only if the child masters rationality is in the aggregate of all its four aspects. So, in the course of interaction with the social environment, the child learns to recognize symbols and use them to define different objects. He/she learns letters, putting them into words, learns numbers, gestures, learns to recognize various iconographic symbols. This is the first experience of the child's exit beyond the purely biological mode of existence when he/she gets acquainted with the cultural world—that recursive layer of social existence, whose essential feature is rationality. Gradual acquisition of symbols actualizes the child's ability to use languages—natural (verbal) and artificial (numerical, iconographic, etc.). This, in turn, reveals the surrounding world as a structure, as a collection of parts, where each part has a symbolic

ness comprehending reality, while consciousness remains a part of this reality.

their orientation in terms of certain value systems.

(universum) sociological theory of rationality.

**3. Socialization as acquiring rationality**

from the world, to occupy a meta-position in relation to the world.

The general properties of rationality in our understanding can be reduced to the following minimal set:


of meta-position in relation to the content being reflected, which reflects this content by linguistic means. Such a meta-position in relation to reality is represented by consciousness comprehending reality, while consciousness remains a part of this reality.

These are the main theses of our approach to understanding rationality, as summarized briefly. This approach to the rationality definition allows us to get over the relativity of the rationality concept in its existing interpretations. The rationality characteristics (expediency, efficiency, normativity, conformity to law, etc.), on which various conceptions are built, appear here as particular aspects of reality, which have received a cognitive reference in the mass consciousness of a particular society. Being devoid of verbal-reflective shape, these aspects are not capable of characterizing specific human behavior, distinguishing it from the instinctive animals' actions. Along with this, the category of rationality in this approach becomes free of estimates. It fixes the fact of the cognitive shape of the reality contents, refusing to interpret their orientation in terms of certain value systems.

Next, let us consider the process of socialization from the standpoint of the postnonclassical (universum) sociological theory of rationality.
