Modern concepts of bibliography.

In the second half of the XX century. the information situation began to change rapidly. This is due to the increasing importance of information in the modern world, comprehensive computerization, incl. library and bibliographic processes, the emergence of new types of documents (electronic), the development of forms of international scientific and information-bibliographic cooperation.

Bibliographic theorists in different countries faced two main tasks˸

- to reveal the main essential characteristics of bibliography;

– to show the correlation of the bibliography with the broader system of information support of the society, i.e. to establish the metasystem of the bibliography.

The leading position in the Western theory of bibliography was occupied by the Anglo-American school. It singled out a direction that included a number of concepts that are united by the desire to determine the place of bibliography among the information and social phenomena of our time.

The most significant influence on American library and bibliographic theory and practice in the 20th century. provided by Jesse H. Shera (1903 - 1983) - an outstanding scientist who worked in the field of library science, bibliographic theory, computer science. For many years he was dean of the Department of Library Science at the University of Cleveland, and created the Center for Documentation and Communication Research within the department. J. Shira made a significant contribution to the development of the social essence of fixed knowledge.

The ᴇᴦο works are characterized by a generalizing, high interpretation social role library and bibliographic activities. J. Shira emphasized that the library arose and developed due to the urgent needs of society. As soon as writing appeared to meet the social need to serve as a means of recording and transmitting messages, the need arose for institutions that ensure the storage of the most important records. Thus, libraries, according to J. Shira, from the very beginning have become an integral part of the mechanism that ensures the normal functioning of society, the preservation and transfer of accumulated knowledge. J. Shira used the term “graphic records” instead of “documents” and referred to them as books, sound recordings, art publications, audio documents, maps, etc.

J. Shira began to develop theoretical problems in the 50s - 60s. 20th century He introduced the concept of "bibliographic business" (bibliographic enterprise) as a whole, which is formed by its constituent parts - librarianship and documentation.

In the early 70s. J. Shira came to the understanding of bibliographic activity as the basis of librarianship. By "bibliographic activity" he meant "all those processes, functions and activities that are necessary to connect the book and the reader." The functions of the bibliography included ˸

- picking;

– organization and ordering of materials in order to provide the necessary access to their intellectual content;

– servicing (bibliographic) readers.

The presence of these functions, according to J. Shira, is a sign on the basis of which libraries, documentation centers and other institutions together form a bibliographic business.

Modern concepts of bibliography. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Modern concepts of bibliography." 2015, 2017-2018.

The Genesis of the Development of Book Science Concepts in Foreign Science

The history of book science, along with theory, methodology and methodology, is an equal structural level of scientific knowledge about the book. As the famous Russian bibliologist N.V. Zdobnov, "without rational theory there can be no rational practice, and theory is the result of historical generalizations of collective experience."

The subject of the history of bibliology is the study of the historical process and the identification of the leading patterns and trends in the formation of bibliological knowledge.

The modern theory of bibliology uses historical experience, develops on its basis, making it possible to identify the specifics of the science of the book, its role and place among other sciences, and reasonably construct an object, subject, methods, and conceptual apparatus. Without the development of historical experience, in-depth modern theoretical developments would be impossible.

A truly scientific development of the history of book science became possible only at a certain stage of social development and, consequently, at that level of development of the science of the book itself, when individual scattered observations and knowledge about the book were systematized and took the form of a more or less holistic concept of one degree or another of breadth and theoretical depth.

Foreign book science exists as a broadly interpreted library science, around which other areas of knowledge are grouped, incorporating other disciplines of book science.

The process of formation of generalized bibliological knowledge in foreign literature is expressed in works in which the question of the composition of bibliology is discussed.

The historical process of the formation of a generalized bibliology in foreign literature is expressed in works in which the question of the composition of bibliology was discussed, i.e. the question of what disciplines and areas of knowledge constitute bibliology, or bibliology.

The so-called "bibliology" is used in English-French specialized literature, in the German-language literature the so-called "library science" is used

Bibliographic concept

The first attempts to define the concept of "bibliography" were determined by the end of the 18th century, when the place of bibliography in a number of other branches of scientific activity and the requirements that persons who specialized in this field had to meet were established. Bibliography with book science arose among people involved in the bibliophilic hobbies of the era.

The author of the earliest monograph on the theory of bibliography, or rather, on book science, was the founder of Austrian bibliography, Michael Denis (1729-1800). "Essay on Bibliography". Then M. Denis revised it, combined it with his other monograph "Essay on the History of Literature" and published it under the general title "Introduction to Book Science".

The first with a theoretical work on bibliography was "Discourse on Bibliographic Science" by the French bibliographer, bibliologist and publisher, historian of typography Ne de la Rochelle (1751-1837), which he placed in De Bura's Instructive Bibliography.

1. Bibliographic comprehensive knowledge about the book.

2. The bibliography is divided into two parts.

One refers to the historical part and coincides with the history of literature; the second, relating to the "mechanism of typographical business",

C.R.Simon, calling Ne de la Rochelle the first theorist of bibliography, notes the contradictions in his views: “the significance of bibliography was extolled by him in every possible way, and the immediate tasks that he set for it were mainly to establish the rarity and value of a particular another book, one publication or another. And he emphasizes the idea of ​​Ne de la Rochelle about the need to publish an "elementary guide to the knowledge of the book", which is very remarkable for the formation of generalized bibliological knowledge.

With the Ne de la Rochelle, the theory of bibliography begins to develop

In the true meaning of the word;

The bibliography is treated broadly;

Subsequent theorists, one way or another, discuss the composition of the areas of knowledge included in bibliographic knowledge.

In the eighteenth century The expansion of bibliography occurs not only due to the addition of essentially related disciplines (paleography, diplomacy, literary history), but also due to proper bibliographic knowledge, which was not previously considered as such. Thus, the French bibliographer of the period of the Great French Bourgeois Revolution, Henri Gregoire (1750-1781), who headed the Bureau of Bibliography in the Committee of Public Education, believed that "bibliography is the science of a bookseller, consisting in knowing the titles of books and the prices that they have in the book trade" .

At the end of the eighteenth century bibliography becomes not only a sphere of practical activity and theoretical reasoning, but also a subject of teaching, which made it to be constructed as academic discipline and even more theorized bibliography. The first program of the course was sent to the President of the National Assembly of the Republic.

In 1800 Professor of the Central School in the Department of Oak Louis Coast announced the course "Bibliology", (the science of the book) and developed the course program. The name of Louis Costa is also associated with the emergence of the term "bibliology" to designate book knowledge.

Bibliology Louis Coast divided into three parts:

Bibliography in the scientific sense;

Bibliographic classification;

The most rational ways to read books and assimilate their content.

In 1799 François Xavier Lair (1738-1809) began to read his course, which consisted of four parts:

The history of writing from ancient times to the invention of printing. Essay on paleography;

The history of printing until the middle of the 12th century;

Incunabulology;

Methods for recognizing rare books and serviceable copies, as well as methods for more advanced classifications;

On the method of making the best use of the book.

So the history of the book began to gradually separate itself within the boundaries of the broad interpretation of bibliography and the term "bibliology" appeared.

The French bibliographer, librarian and theorist Gabriel Etienne Peigno (1767-1849) not only consciously uses the term "bibliology", but also reveals its content in contrast to the content of the concept "bibliography". This is done in the "Preliminary Discourse" to the " explanatory dictionary in Bibliology". Moreover, he understands both bibliography and bibliology as scientific disciplines.

A bibliography deals with the description and classification of books. Bibliology, on the other hand, is “a kind of systematic encyclopedia of writing, which briefly and descriptively interprets all the works of the spirit, indicates to each of them the place that belongs to him in the general library. Bibliology as a theory of bibliography provides an analysis of the human knowledge brought into the system, their relationships, deepens all the particulars relating to the art of the word, writing and typography, reveals the chronicle of the world of writing in order to trace the progress of the human mind step by step "In other words, E. Pegno considers the subject of bibliology not only the external description of books and other written documents, but also their content, and therefore elevates bibliology to a universal science. The universalization of bibliography will become traditional in the science of the book for a long time and will eventually make it difficult to identify the subject of book science proper, expanding it without limit, since it introduces into it the content of all the sciences reflected in these monuments through the content of all written monuments.

Chronologically sequentially, the bibliographic concept in the construction of generalized knowledge about the book was picked up by Polish bibliology, which develops in line with the trend towards generalization of bibliographic knowledge within the boundaries of a single science. The founder of this approach to the interpretation of the science of the book is the Soviet historiographer of Polish bibliology E.L. Nemirovsky names Pavel Yarkovsky (1781-1845), whose activities took place on the territory of our country.

Joachim Lelewel (1786-1861), who included bibliography in bibliology, is considered to be a true classic of the Polish science of the book in its current understanding, but under the name "bibliology" = "bibliography"; the science of manuscripts, or "graphics"; the science of the printed book, or "typography"; the science of library books.

Theoretical views and concepts of book knowledge in their successive historical change in the works of subsequent Polish book theorists V. Bogatkevich (1798-1831). K. Yu. Lysakovsky (1895-1964), M.Ya.L. Rulikovsky (1881-1925), J. Mushkovsky (1882-1953), K. Budzyk (1911-1964), K. Glombiovsky are considered with a sufficient degree of detail in the aforementioned historiographic monograph by K. Migonia and in the review by E.L. Nemirovsky. Without retelling the content of these sources, we emphasize once again that Polish bibliology is characterized by the desire to construct generalized bibliological knowledge. This is especially clearly seen in the theoretical works of Stefan Wrtel-Verchineky, who in his monograph “An Essay on the Theory of Bibliography” (1951) wrote that, apart from the theory of bibliography (bibliology), which he understood as a generalized and generalizing science of the book, other scientific disciplines, especially the history of literature, the history of art, the history of science, but the essence of bibliology is that it "combines different views on the book, clarifies, coordinates, groups them and tries to know the book in its logical and methodological integrity."

A bibliographic orientation with an emphasis on the history of the book was characteristic of the 19th century. for German book science. Among the early representatives of this trend, historiographers of book science name Friedrich Adolf Ebert (179-1834), a library scientist, bibliographic theorist, practical bibliographer, and paleographer. As the main theoretical works of F.A. Ebert, K.R. Simon names two articles: the Preface to the “General Bibliographic Dictionary” compiled by him (1821) and the article “Bibliography” in the “Encyclopedia” by Eshar and Huber (1823). In the latter, Ebert interprets the term "bibliography" as "the name of the science that studies the works of writing of all times and peoples as such, and also cognizes them in accordance with individual external circumstances." In accordance with this, he divides the bibliography into "pure" and "applied". The task of a "pure" bibliography is to show the presence of works of writing, to show what is. At the same time, Ebert distinguishes between types of "pure" bibliography, highlights what in today's terminology can be qualified as a universal, national, regional, retrospective, branch bibliography. In other words, F.A. Ebert is the first to name some criteria for the systematization of bibliography. “Applied bibliography approaches books from a certain angle ... it explains to the collector and bookseller the reasons why a particular publication has a certain value. For these purposes, the bibliographer uses many disciplines that are auxiliary to him: chronology, paleography, the history of printing, and others. Here K. R. Simon noted, though not commented on, two very important moments in the history of the development of book science, and, in particular, in the history of views on the composition of book science, its interdisciplinary organization and relationships with other sciences. Firstly, the fact that F.A. Ebert considers the history of printing to be a discipline adjacent to bibliography, and does not identify them under the name "bibliography". And secondly, the fact that he was led to the division of bibliographies into “pure” and “applied” ones by thinking that a book in a bibliography can be considered, taken into account, bibliographed as a product of material culture and as a product of spiritual, scientific, artistic value. F.A. Ebert considered both bibliographies to be a “reliable measure” of the level of a country’s culture in its historical development, i.e. first expressed the idea of ​​the social significance of bibliography.

The theoretical views of Friedrich Adolf Ebert had a huge impact on the development of bibliological thought not only in Germany, but also in Russia, where bibliographic scientific reflection on the book became the starting point for the formation and development of generalized bibliological knowledge. Nevertheless, the library science paradigm in the construction of generalized knowledge about the book has always been more characteristic of the German book science school.

The German bibliographic and book-historical interpretation of book science in general terms and trends is traced in his review by E.L. Nemirovsky - from its inception to the present day. More detailed factual material is contained in the articles of German bibliologists published in the collection “Problems of the General Theory of Bibliology”: G. Lülfing, G. Zichelshmidt, G. Grundman, P. Glotz, V.R. Langebucher. Existed and still exists in German specialized literature and bibliographic interpretation of the total knowledge about the book. In recent decades, there has been a book trade and sociological orientation of book studies with a commercial bias in connection with the interest of large publishing and bookselling associations and corporations in studying the sociology of the book market. However, in the "academic" science of the book, preference is given to the term "library science" to refer to the whole complex of book science knowledge.

The fundamentals of bibliography 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 qualification of the object and subject, the methodology and the system of basic categories of bibliography, the place of bibliography 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 formation of information activity, when the need for a purposeful 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 scribe ("bibliographer"); II period - the emergence of bibliography (XVII-XVIII centuries) as a generalizing science about the book and book business (information activity) and as a special literary genre; III period - the emergence of bibliography (the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century) as a special science of the book science (information) cycle; IV period (modern) - awareness of bibliography as a special area of ​​book (information) business with its own specific discipline - bibliography.

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 very 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 in antiquity for this - writing or correspondence" [Malein A.I. On the term "bibliography"//Bibliogr. sheets Rus. bibliologist. islands. 1922. L. 1 (Jan.). S. 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, biblionomy, bibliognomy, etc. - began to denote the science of the book (book business, information activity). According to K.R.Simon, the word "bibliography" could either be borrowed from existing experience, or invented anew on the model of similar names of sciences (for example, geography). The palm in this matter belongs to French scientists. It is in the French interpretation that bibliography as a science appeared in Russia early XIX in.

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

The special 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 a par with those of Western Europe and, therefore, of the whole world. It is enough to refer to the 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 in many respects, especially theoretical ones, were ahead of foreign researchers.

The most important of the domestic achievements of the period under review is that the specific role of bibliography as an activity in a broader system of information activity (book business, 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 outlive itself. 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 a science of human communication, i.e. about book business, information activity, communication. The second is connected with the use and concretization in relation to the problems of bibliography of such a dialectical method as the 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 ascent, as a methodological reduction from description to analysis, and from it to synthesis (recall the Hegelian formula " thesis - antithesis - synthesis"). Moreover, bibliography occupies a middle position here, since the synthesis of its results, their elevation to the general cultural level, is possible only through the methodology of a more general science - book science (or the now possible broader science of information activity). And the middle, central place of the 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. the introduction at each dialectical round of information activity of all the most valuable, 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 use its innovations enough. Meanwhile, the ideas of A.M. Lovyagin and N.A. Rubakin received their further development in the works of M.N. Kufaev, but his creative heritage has not been adequately studied and is not used.

The modern, fourth in a row, period we are experiencing in the development of bibliography dates back to about the 60s, when the next scientific and technological revolution began, associated with the introduction of new information technology (computerization), and such new scientific areas as cybernetics were rapidly emerging. , information theory, computer science, semiotics, etc. New scientific principles, for example, activities and consistency, were also substantiated more deeply. It was in accordance with the principle of activity that a new interpretation began to be given to the typical structure of both human activity in general and book publishing (information activity) in particular, where the 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 designate 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. / Mosk. state bibl. in-t. 1948. Issue. 4. S. 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 "bibliographic science" was repeated in the new edition of the specified normative document - GOST 7.0-77. But, unfortunately, the new name of bibliographic science was absent in the new edition - GOST 7.0-84. But, as we know, the first university textbook was published under the following title: "Bibliographic Studies. General Course".

New discussions and approaches are possible. It is important to emphasize that giving the bibliography a managerial function as a specific for its public role in information activity 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 about it now proposed. But there is no other alternative. Moreover, it is the function of information management that distinguishes both past and present bibliographic practice. For example, the task of "guiding reading" is inscribed on the banner of one of the functional areas of bibliography - recommendatory. The bibliographic subsystem with a defining control function is characteristic, as we have already noted, for the apparatus of a traditional book; moreover, it becomes a specific part of modern automated information systems (AIS) - all kinds of IS, DB, KB, ES, AI, etc.

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

1.2. MAIN FUNCTIONS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY

This is one of the most complex and defining problems in modern bibliography. There are still disputes around it, since the qualification of the social essence of bibliographic activity depends on its scientifically substantiated decision.

Defining the social essence of bibliography is connected 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 as an abstract idealized model, "anticipating" the concrete, practical implementation 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 the bibliography", others are often used: purpose, function, social purpose, functional purpose, purpose, public function, etc. The use of the word "function" can be considered the most unfortunate due to its special ambiguity. This is the accomplishment, execution, external manifestation of something, and the relationship, the dependence of any elements, parts, including parts and the whole, and the role, and the methodological principle ("functionalism"), and a special method of systematic 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 carries out in the system of information activity. Moreover, this goal appears in a certain dependence on the goals of other parts of the book business (information activity) as a whole. Therefore, the goal of the bibliography is really implemented as a specific function or role in the system of all goals of information activity. In a philosophical sense, a function (from the Latin functio - accomplishment, performance, activity) is qualified as a relationship between two (group) 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, a worldview, as revealing the dependence of this part and 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 already 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 (“to know books”), or too one-sidedly (“book description”), or also insufficiently when a number of individual goals are listed (book description). , criticism, recommendation, classification, orientation, assistance, etc.). In all cases, they do not reflect the social specifics of the bibliography as a whole. It is necessary to find a single generalizing function of the bibliography, which would reflect, embody all the real and possible diversity of the goals of its social manifestation.

This defining public function of the bibliography is management. And from these positions, one can now evaluate the insight of VG Anastasevich, who considered the bibliography a guide and mentor in the choice of books. In the middle of the XIX century. he was echoed by the then well-known democrat poet M. L. Mikhailov, emphasizing that "the science that guides" the choice of books is the bibliography. At the end of the XIX century. A.N. Soloviev, in a peculiarly corrected form, almost repeats the words of V.G. Anastasevich that the bibliography is "a guide in choosing books to read." It is no accident, apparently, that modern theoreticians of recommendatory bibliography still express its main function in the formula "reading guidance". Of the modern interpretations of bibliography, the definition given in GOST 7.0-77 is close to the proposed understanding: "Bibliography is the field of scientific and practical activities for the preparation and communication of bibliographic information to consumers in order to influence the use of printed works in society." In other words, the bibliography is a control subsystem of information activity, which can be expressed by the elementary formula: production - bibliography (management) - consumption (Pr-B-Ft). It shows that the bibliography is included in information activity in a certain way, as if it dissolves in it. But in reality, in order to effectively implement the control action on the entire information process, the bibliography must rise above it, be singled out 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, which is shown in Fig. one.

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 control" has become general scientific, general cultural. It was also expressed by bibliographers, including O.P. Korshunov. It is embedded in the "organizational-channel structure of the Soviet bibliography" proposed by him [see. in his work: Bibliography: Theory, methodology, technique. M., 1986. S. 91; cf. textbook: Bibliography: General course / Ed. O.P. Korshunova. S. 113]. But he did not take one more step towards realizing the bibliography as a special controlling and integral "circuit", stopping at understanding it only as an auxiliary, secondary-documentary and dispersed contour. Therefore, in his scientific constructions, the bibliography organizationally does not stand next to other institutions of information support for society, but is located within them, each performing its own specific functions. The same approach ("documentographic", as opposed to "book studies") O.P. Korshunov develops in a recently published textbook, based, as he believes, "on the immutable and quite objective fact of the organizational fragmentation of bibliographic activity (highlighted by us. - A.A. .G.), its organic involvement in various organizationally formalized public institutions in the system of documentary communications, i.e. in library, editorial and publishing, archive business, in the book trade, in scientific and information activities. each of them forms and bibliographic activity is carried out" [Bibliographic Studies: General Course. S. 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 typical 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 the bibliography does not replace all the components of information activity, but implements in it and in human activity in general its special function (goal, social purpose, etc.) - information control.

In the course of 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 another - "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. bibliography 1988. No. 3. S. 22].

And yet, albeit intuitively, O.P. Korshunov is on the way to the correct solution of the issue of the main public function of bibliography. Indeed, it is the managerial meaning that he introduced the concept of the bibliographic implementation of correspondence (highlighted by us. - A.A.G.) in the document-consumer (D-P) system, which in this case should be interpreted not formally - as a mathematical function, but according to in essence, sociologically - as the main social function of the control influence on the D-P system. Then the bibliographic information will take its proper place in this system, performing its specific function: to be the content (subject) of the bibliography and, therefore, a means of information management. There is no need to double the functions of the bibliography, and other overexposures in O.P. Korshunov's concept are easily eliminated. It is noteworthy that another modern theorist of bibliography, V.A. bibliography 1983. No. 6. S. 58].

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

Thus, based on the main public function of bibliography, the following definition can be proposed: bibliography is an area of ​​information activity, the main public 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, documentary management (Fig. 2). The essence of the main public function of the bibliography will not change from this.

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 public function of bibliography. In this regard, as noted above, the search for the optimal system of its specialization has been going on for a long time. The latest version of such a system, which includes three functions - search, communication, evaluation, was proposed by O.P. Korshunov. The necessary analysis of them in detail is possible when considering the complex problem of specialization of bibliography (see Chapter 2), but here we only note that their selection is quite arbitrary. Therefore, it is necessary to 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 recommendations. This system needs to be supplemented with another function that reflects the self-management of bibliography - information management of the second degree. Without taking into account the latter, the 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 carried out not simultaneously and not mechanically, but as a complexly differentiated spiritual process of reflection and development in the public consciousness and practice of social information materialized in various kinds of documents. And, like any process of spiritual activity, it has an axiological (value) character. In accordance with the principles of dialectical knowledge, three points, or three stages, are essential here: 1) contemplation, i.e. the stage of fixation and empirical knowledge of social information as a direct result of social activity; 2) abstract thinking, i.e. theoretical, conceptual knowledge of social information, its transformation into knowledge; 3) practical development of knowledge, i.e. verification of its truth or value, and on this basis, its further use for the development, improvement, optimization of human activity.

With these main stages in the dialectics of knowledge, the results of differentiation of the main public function of bibliography can and should be correlated, in connection with which we singled out 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). Estimated information management is the moment of checking the existing and newly created social information introduced into the communication system for social significance (including, and above all, scientific). Advisory information management - 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 a 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 provide a correct assessment of the available social information, and without an assessment, its recommendation will be illegal, accidental. Moreover, information management can be effective only if the bibliography performs it in the optimal unity of three specialized social functions: signaling (accounting), evaluative (criticism), and recommending. Finally, only with the introduction of the function of bibliographic self-government (information management of the second degree) does this differentiation of the public functions of bibliography as a whole acquire the necessary systemic character. At the same time, the self-management of bibliography as a whole, in general, can be specialized, in turn, according to 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 she who determines the relatively independent role of bibliography in the system of information communication. At present, this main public function of the bibliography is differentiated (and specified), firstly, at least into two levels - primary and secondary information management, and secondly, into three private functions - signaling, evaluation and recommendation 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 public function of bibliography makes it possible to build a universal model of information activity, which clearly reproduces the place of bibliography and bibliography, their relationship and interaction with other functional parts of this process and their corresponding scientific disciplines. In its most general form, this model is shown in Fig. 3. It becomes an important methodological tool for researching and explaining all the most complex and topical issues of bibliography and book publishing.

1.3. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLIOGRAPHY

Along with the public functions of bibliography, which can be considered "eternal", permanent, therefore, any scientific innovations in relation to them should be taken cautiously, the basic principles of bibliography also have a similar normative character. According to modern logical and philosophical ideas, a principle is understood as the fundamental principle (basic position, starting point, premise) of any theory, concept. Principles are an integral part of the methodology scientific knowledge. Moreover, it is believed that the most important structural element of a scientific theory is precisely the principle that links 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 a lesser degree of generality specifies the principle of a greater degree of generality. This is important to take into account, since the theory is usually built on the basis of several principles of varying or the same degree 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. Reflection Theory. M., 1949. 522 p.; Ursul A.D. Reflection and information. M., 1973. 231 p.].

An idea, the highest conceptual form of cognition of reality, can also act as a principle as a basis, a prerequisite for any theory or concept. The concepts of "principle" and "idea" are of the same order. But if there can be several principles in a theory, 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]. Law can also act as a principle - an internal and necessary, universal and essential connection of objects and phenomena of objective reality. This is largely due to the fact that the concept of law is adjacent to the concept of essence: law and essence are homogeneous (single-order) or, rather, single-degree concepts, expressing the deepening of human knowledge of the phenomena of the world [for more details, see: Druyanov L.A. The place of law in the system of categories of materialistic dialectics. M., 1981. 144 p.].

Finally, the method can also act as a principle. They have a certain standardity, unambiguity in common. In the works of P.V. Kopnin mentioned above, 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, there is no logic. Of course, the rules change, none of them is unique and absolute, but since it is the rule for the action of the subject, it must be certain and standard. It should only be borne in mind that, unlike a method, a principle is also a norm, a normative action that indicates the obligation to implement it. In particular, the term "norm" itself comes from the Latin language and is translated into Russian as "guiding principle", "rule", "sample", "exact prescription", "measurement".

In the specialized literature there is no more clear interpretation of the principle. 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, the bibliography focused on three principles: partisanship, scientific character, and national character. At the present stage of development of the science of bibliography (bibliography), this is no longer enough. In our opinion, a few more principles should be added to them: activity, communication, systemic.

The principle of partisanship in bibliography is already conditioned by 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, party membership is understood as the principle of people's behavior, the activities of organizations and institutions, an instrument of political and ideological struggle. In a class society, the highest organizational form of such struggle is the political party. It is she who, expressing the interests of any social class or stratum, unites their most active representatives and guides them in achieving certain goals and ideals, primarily in the struggle for political power.

In the words of V.I. coll. op. T. 12. S. 137]. It is V.I. Lenin who has the priority in developing the principle of party membership in the national bibliography. A decisive role in this regard is played by his review of the second volume of N.A. Rubakin's work "Among the Books" and such works as "On Bolshevism", "Bibliography of Marxism", etc. [Ibid. T. 22. S. 279-280; T. 25. S. 111-114; T. 26. S. 43-93]. Many prominent Soviet bibliographers have devoted their studies to the analysis of Lenin's bibliographic works, including the principle of partisanship. The significance of Lenin's works on party membership does not lose its relevance in the modern conditions of the restructuring of a socialist society on the basis of market relations.

True, now some experts, taking into account the fact that V.I. Lenin pursued the principle of Bolshevik (communist) party spirit in his works, generally deny the effectiveness of the principle of party membership. But the historical experience of bibliography confirms that the results of its activities, especially in the implementation of evaluation and recommendation functions, have always been in the nature of a "struggle of ideas." Let us recall in this connection 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 followed without fail; otherwise - auto-da-fe, burning along with books read. But religion in any of its forms is the very first ideology, a way of worldview in the history of mankind.

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

For greater clarity and persuasiveness, one can turn to the history of Russian bibliography. For example, the most resolute and universally recognized reformer, Peter I, it seemed, what could he have to do with bibliography? It turned out - straight! In 1723-1724. with the direct participation of the tsar (the manuscript edited by him has been preserved), the political pamphlet "Political books that are sold in the Gaga" was twice published in Moscow and St. Petersburg, in which the genre of bibliography was used in the form of a register, a list books: "... 15. A plucked rooster and a pacified leopard, ironic fables and advice to the defenders of political power through an overzealous republican ... 21. On the education of the Tsar of Russia, the book of Carolus XII of the King of Sweden, after his death, was published and composed in the name of England and Holland his breadwinner." The pamphlet was made so professionally to match the bibliography of the time that some experts considered it a valid bibliographic aid for a long time.

One of the founders of Russian bibliography, VG Anastasevich, considered the appearance of time-based publications (magazines and newspapers) in Europe to be the beginning of its emergence. In the conditions of an ever-increasing abundance of books, it is they ("industrious bees") who solve the problem, "extracting the content, or the essence of them, by their judgment to protect others from deception (highlighted by us. - A.A.G.) only by magnificent titles of books." According to VG Anastasevich, the bibliographer is worthy of our gratitude for the opportunity to go through the vast field of information collected by him under one point of view. And again: "The courage to say one's judgment before the learned world should serve as a guarantee of impartiality" [On Bibliography//Hive. 1811. Ch. 1, No. 1. S. 14-28].

The great reformers of Russian fiction A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol led the bibliographic department "New Books" in the journal Sovremennik. Moreover, they published not just a quarterly account of newly published books, but in a certain way commented on the results of book publishing in those years. Appropriate assessments and conclusions were given on the basis of the “general total of books”: “From this register of books, the predominance of the novel and the story, these masters of modern literature, is noticeably noticeable. There are almost twice as many of them compared to the number of other books. ", testify to the general need. History looks in snatches into Russian literature. There are no capital and large historical works either in translations or in the originals. There are only hints of statistics and economy. Even in practical knowledge that does not invade literary life, the same shallowness is noticeable" [Sovremennik, 1836. Vol. 1. S. 318-319]. We have cited this essentially bibliographic review because it seems to have been written not in 1836, but in our day, only the “masters of modern literature” are now not novels and short 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 especially actively and purposefully used the possibilities of bibliography in the struggle of ideas, in shaping the worldview in the right direction, various 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 power - the press (book business, information activities, spiritual communication).

Of particular interest to us is the experience of implementing the partisan principle 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, VG Belinsky nevertheless gave the palm to book printing: "literature without printing is a body without a soul." He assigned an important place to "criticism and bibliography, scientific and literary." In particular, the bibliographic review cited above from the "New Books" section of Pushkin's "Contemporary" was qualified by V. G. Belinsky 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, a bibliography is a small criticism, or a review, in another definition - "lower, practical criticism, so necessary, so important, so useful both for the public and for the journal ... For the journal, there is just as much bibliography soul and life, as much as criticism" [Full. coll. op. M., 1956. T. 5. S. 637; T. 2. 1953. S. 184; There. S. 48].

The populist movement also contributed to the development and effective use of the principle of party membership 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 form 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 the “systematic reading catalogue”, “exemplary library catalogue”, “home reading programs”, etc.

The main originality 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 to the famous work "What should the people read?" [In 3 vols. St. Petersburg; M., 1884-1906], compiled by a circle of Kharkov teachers under the leadership of H.D. Alchevskaya. It is characteristic that extracurricular reading of the students themselves was used for its preparation, for which special questionnaires were developed, reading diaries were kept, regular discussions of what was read with the preparation of detailed reports, recording of observations and conclusions of the teachers themselves.

But the Social Democrats used the principle of party membership in the bibliography especially actively, and representatives of all the main currents of this political movement - the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries. True, the Bolsheviks were especially active, as evidenced by the bibliographic works of the Bolshevik leader himself - V.I. Lenin. In this regard, the controversy around the well-known 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 avoid the question of partisanship. All the more so now, under the conditions of the capitalist reform of socialism previously built in Russia, the principle of party membership has become a byword both in ideology in general and in bibliography in particular. Some theorists reject it, but this contradicts the experience of world history and our own (see the above examples from history). Others consider him a product of Bolshevism and its uncompromising ideologist - V.I. Lenin, i.е. reduce the principle of party membership to a special case. But any principle, if it is a principle, including partisanship, is universal. And who prevented or prevents other parties from using it, filling it with concrete content in the light of their ideology? Yes, under the conditions of totalitarian socialism, it was absolutized to the policy of one party, the communist one. But now, in the conditions of a multi-party system, one can be visually and practically convinced of the viability of the principle of party membership.

The principle of party membership is an objective necessity in the spiritual and, therefore, informational life of society. With its concrete implementation, three main options are possible: first, direct adherence in the struggle to the ideas of the ideology of a particular 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 in ideological hypocrisy; thirdly, ideological objectivism, i.e. the desire for an independent, non- or non-partisan point of view, which most often leads to eclecticism - a mechanical shift of various points of view.

In any case, the principle of party membership is not an idle conjecture 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 to ignore the principle of partisanship is still impossible. 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 principle of scientificity, 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 partisanship. 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 relevant science - in our case, bibliography. 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 I - 1724, in fact - at the end of 1725 under Catherine I). It is noteworthy that one of the duties of Russian academicians was the preparation of abstracts, primarily on foreign publications, with a view to the subsequent publication of these, as they were then called, "extracts" in academic works. And from then until our time, the Russian Academy of Sciences has paid much attention to bibliographic activities. In particular, M.V. Lomonosov in the middle of the XVIII century. wrote (1754), later published (1755) in French translation abroad, a special article "Discourse on the duties of journalists when presenting their essays ...", devoted to the scientific method of compiling abstracts and reviews: "... To give clear and correct brief summaries of the contents of emerging works, sometimes with the addition of a fair judgment either on the merits of the case or on some details of execution.The purpose and usefulness of extracts is to more quickly disseminate information about books in the republic of sciences ... Journals could also have a very beneficial effect on increment of human knowledge...") [see: Poln. coll. op. M.; L., 1952. T. 3. S. 217-232]. This work does not lose its scientific and bibliographic significance in our time.

Russian bibliography itself (then bibliography as a science) originates 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 XX century. bibliography became the subject of university teaching for the first time. This was done by the prominent Russian bibliographer 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 areas. Therefore, the principle of scientific character requires the involvement in the preparation of bibliographic works, as far as possible, of a wide range of relevant specialists. In this regard, we 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, barely begun to be applied) appeal to specialists on certain issues. N.A. Rubakin, being an encyclopedist in his knowledge, perhaps, in the author's vehemence, somewhat ignored the principle of scientific character, which is unacceptable when compiling such a universal bibliographic manual of a recommendatory type, which was "Among Books". He himself admitted this [for example, in a letter to G.V. Plekhanov, see: Mashkova M.V. History of Russian bibliography at the beginning of the 20th century. (until October 1917). M., 1969. S. 196-197] and in some cases really attracted such fairly authoritative scientists of their 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 book business, in information and, more broadly, in social activities, the principle of scientific character in bibliography suggests that: 1) bibliographic activity 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 working people. This is explained by the decisive role of the people in socio-economic development, in the creation of a 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 for human existence. Hence the ever-increasing role of the principle of nationality in information activity, in bibliography.

The principle of nationality, first of all, assumes 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 (accounting 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 National Education, and then (since 1839) as special Bibliographic Supplements to it. Registration was carried out on the basis of a legal deposit, which then entered the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg (now the National Library of Russia). After 1855, as a result of all kinds 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 up to the present day.

During the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, another important project was implemented: the Book Chamber was created, which was entrusted with the registration of all printed works published in the country, the publication of the Book Chronicle, and the supply of large book depositories with an obligatory copy. 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 the bibliographic business in the RSFSR to the People's Commissariat of Education" was adopted. Thus, the Soviet bibliography was given a state character. In Moscow, a new Russian central book board was created (then the All-Union Book Chamber, and now the Russian Book Chamber). Similar institutions were organized later in all the union and some autonomous republics of 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 such bibliographic journals in the corresponding national languages.

Both then and now, the right of every citizen to have access to state and public book depositories and reference and information funds is constitutionally enshrined. Naturally, the principle of nationality is not limited to the results of exercising the signal function of bibliography. In particular, this branch of bibliography, according to GOST 16448-70, began to be called "state", instead of the previously used terms "accounting and registration", "information", etc. The principle of nationality requires even greater diversity in bibliographic products that implement the other two of the 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" (previously - "critical"). The results of the implementation of this function are primarily used by specialists in the relevant branches of knowledge and practice. Auxiliary scientific bibliography has become an integral part of the State System of Scientific and Technical Information (SSTI) purposefully created since 1966 in our country. In modern conditions of transition to 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 the bibliography. This specialized branch of bibliography has retained its former name - "recommendatory" - in GOST 16448-70. Its importance is determined by the fact that it is primarily focused on the widest range of consumers of information. It is here that the principle of nationality is most clearly manifested. Their leading state centers were formed, first of all, the Russian State Library (the former State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin) and the Russian National Library (the former 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 manuals 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 already due to the fact that bibliography is one of the branches of social (human) activity [see: Vokhrysheva M.G. Bibliographic activity: Structure and efficiency. M., 1989. 199 p.]. In modern philosophy, activity is understood as a specifically human form of an active relationship to the surrounding world, the content of which is its expedient change and transformation. In other words, human activity involves a certain opposition of the subject and object of activity, i.e. a person (society) as a subject of activity opposes to himself the object of activity as a material that must receive a new form and properties, turn from a material into a product of activity.

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

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

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

In modern philosophy and social sciences, other typological models of activity are also proposed, which, on the one hand, place more and more emphasis on deepening ideas about the human personality, and on the other hand, on isolating a number of components and factors that lie outside the actual activity, 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 come to the fore. In the second case, the decisive emphasis is placed on the interpersonal (general human) 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, technization, there is a growing tendency to refuse to consider activity as the essence of man and the only foundation 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 puts labor as an important form of activity at the forefront. In particular, labor is understood as a synonym or a certain kind of activity, labor is a purposeful human activity, in the process of which, with the help of tools, he influences nature and uses it in order to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs. In our case, it should only be taken into account that we are talking about information activities (labor), the satisfaction of information needs, which is also implemented by appropriate means of an informational nature.

In the history of cognition, 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 book science as the science of the book and book business, and bibliography as the science of bibliographic information and bibliographic activity. Unfortunately, the principle of activity is still insufficiently used in modern bibliography. Only the very first steps have been taken here. But there are also opponents of it, and relapses of inconsistent application.

This is exactly what is typical, for example, of the bibliographic concept of O.P. Korshunov, who unjustifiably opposes the well-known bibliographic formula of the activity "author - book - reader", justified by N.A. Rubakin [most thoroughly in the monograph: Psychology of the reader and the book: Brief introduction . to the bibliologist. psychology. M., 1977. 264 p. First ed. - 1928] and then supported by A.M. Lovyagin [Fundamentals of book science. L., 1926. S. 152-154]. Having slightly 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 really original" [Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, methodology. S. 40]. But in the light of the principle of activity, it turns out just the opposite: the relation M-P 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 instead of a holistic understanding of activity, it is the relation D-P 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 conditioned complexity [Ibid. S. 39].

This one-sided or inconsistent use of the activity principle has become a stable trend in modern book and bibliographic studies. For example, the most authoritative concept of I.E. Barenbaum, which interprets the system of book sciences as a whole, is based on the contradictory formula of book business: book - book business - reader [for more details, see his works: Book science in the system of sciences / / Book. Research and materials. 1985. Sat. 50. S. 72-83; Functional approach and its application in book science//Book and social progress. M., 1986. S. 122-131]. As a result, it turns out that book business is possible without production ("author") and consumer ("reader"), and even without the book itself. Another well-known Soviet bibliologist and bibliographer A.I. disciplines. M., 1975. S. 27-31].

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

The classical scheme of the principle of activity is defined by the following provision: "There is no consumption without production, but without consumption there is no production, since production would be pointless in this case" [Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. T. 12. p. 717. A more detailed definition is given below - on p. 726]. Taking into account the modern division of labor, Russian scientists have proposed a typical 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 function of management in the book business is carried out by the bibliography.

The principle of activity was used by us to determine the relationship between book science and the theory of book trade (bibliopolistics) and their place in the system of book science disciplines and book business, to build book business as a system, for the typology of educational and pedagogical books, to develop bibliographic heuristics and other book science tasks, including for the formation of bibliography as a science. The principle of activity is fundamental for the development of the scientific foundations of bibliography. This is due to the fact that the book appears as a mediating link in the redistribution of the informational result of human activity into the total social activity (social consciousness) and, conversely, acts as a kind of feedback regarding other components - management, knowledge, practice. In this regard, communication itself as a type of activity (and its main component - book publishing) appears as a type of activity that mediates the other three, but is also generated and stimulated by them. This means that the four main types of human activity singled out 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. S. 104-105].

The effectiveness of using the principle of activity lies in the fact that we can present information communication (book publishing) in the form of the same four components, but already conditioned by the functionally communicative task. Moreover, the control function in the system (more precisely, in relation to all social activities - the subsystem) of information communication will be carried out precisely by the bibliography. In turn, the bibliography can be reproduced in the aggregate of the same four components, but already functionally conditioned 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 peculiar system of coordinates of bibliographic activity can be formed, which is based on the "principle of activity".

The theoretical and methodological foundations of the principle of communicativeness are associated with such categories as communication, social relations, communication, information, sign system, etc. In our case, the importance of the principle of communicativeness 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 is made up of various forms of reflection of reality in the human brain, consciousness: sensual and mental images, concepts and representations, 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 a person, society, capable of reproducing and transforming these phenomena in the course of their theoretical and practical activities. Being derived from the material, the ideal acquires relative independence, becoming an active beginning of social activity.

It is important to emphasize that the ideal, arising and developing in the depths of social practice, is not only generated by the material, but is also able to actively transform it. In modern science, the spiritual, ideal side of social activity, communication has received an even deeper understanding, especially in such categories as communication and information. True, in their scientific interpretation there is still no necessary unambiguity.

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

In this regard, the situation is more complicated with the definition of information (from Latin informatio - familiarization, explanation, presentation, concept). Currently, there are many different definitions, none of which is universally accepted. The most common are the following: 1) message, awareness of 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) transfer, reflection of diversity in any objects and processes (inanimate and living nature).

There are also three main directions 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, Shannonian, 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 already 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: information source, 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 communication and control is being developed in the so-called "information theory of control", developed by the school of B.N. Petrov [see: Petrov B.N. Beginnings of information management theory//Itogi nauki i tekhniki. Automation and radio electronics. 1968. Issue. "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 activity, book business). Communication, understood as the interdependence of the existence of phenomena separated in space and (or) in 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 universal interconnection 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 particular sciences, and the informational approach has become a general scientific means of research. But for us, actively developing theories are not of information in general, but of social information, closely related to general scientific - semantic and pragmatic - theories [see, for example: F.N. Social Information: Philos. 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 still lacking. This, in our opinion, is the important role of the principle of communication, that its use allows us to move forward in this direction as well.

For the first time, the principle of communicativeness was concretized by us in relation to the typological model of the Russian book at the initial stage of 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 book. M., 1976. S. 25-38; as well as the works mentioned above: Information publications; bibliography; General bibliography: Theoretical and methodological foundations]. The methodological basis of this principle is the well-known proposition that "on the spirit" from the very beginning lies a curse - to be "burdened" 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 practical, existing for other people and only thereby for myself, real consciousness, and, like consciousness, language arises only from a need, from an urgent need to communicate with other people ... "[Marx K., Engels F Vol. 3, p. 29].

The principle of communicativeness requires, on the one hand, to take into account the dialectical unity of the content and sign form of the book, since "ideas do not exist apart from language", on the other hand, not to allow 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 a relative independence.

Language also 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 social, socially organized activity. With the complication in the process of socio-economic development of production methods, new, more complex ways 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, singled out three main historical types in its development - literature, writing, printing. Moreover, typography corresponds highest form 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 communication, culturally and historically arise and develop in the form of an organic trinity (we call it a communicative trinity): content (social information), sign (language ) and material-constructive form. Only in this trinity can a book (and other means of information activity) fulfill its communicative (information) function, it becomes the goal and result of a specific social activity - book business, an object of study by a special science - book science.

Separately, each of these three components is the goal, result and object of study of other branches of social activity, other sciences. So, social information is the spiritual content and the result of all social activity and its branches, therefore, it is studied by the entire system of sciences; sign form is an object mainly of semiotics and philological sciences; a material-constructive form is an object of technology, first of all, of its branches such as printing, electronics, etc. Consequently, the indicated triunity of the book is of a fundamental nature. Outside of him, the book as an integral social phenomenon, as a system, does not exist. 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 can neither arise nor exist outside the activity of society and independently of it, outside of its "burdening" with matter (sign). This position underlies the principle of communication.

The indicated communicative triunity can be correlated with the "sign triangle" known in semiotics by G. Frege, Ch.S. Semiotics. M., 1971. 167 p.; Damn L.F. Significance. SPb., 1993. 379 p.], which is a kind of model of any sign systems used in the process of social activity for information communication. Moreover, this model clearly demonstrates the special specifics of spiritual activity. The sign component here acts as an objective, necessary conditionality.

Taking into account the information and management specifics of bibliography, the principle of communicativeness makes it possible to more clearly qualify its main components: content - bibliographic information; sign ways of its reproduction - bibliographic genres as special sign-literary forms that ensure the expression and existence of content; ways of material and constructive reproduction of content - various kinds 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 very process of bibliographic activity be carried out.

The principle of consistency was formed on the basis of a systematic approach (method, system methodology), which has become decisive in modern science. Under the system approach in the broadest, philosophical sense is understood the direction of the methodology of special scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. In turn, the system (from the Greek systema - a whole made up of parts; 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 orderliness and integrity of being, the surrounding reality. Although ancient Greek philosophy still had the character of so-called syncretism, i.e. indivisibility, underdevelopment, a kind of eclecticism, but in its diverse forms there are in the embryo, in the process of emergence, almost all the later types of worldviews, including the systematic approach. In ancient Greece, as we know, the bibliography itself arose.

An important role in the development of the principle of consistency belongs to the representatives of German classical philosophy, primarily to Hegel, who interpreted the systemic nature of knowledge as the greatest requirement of dialectical thinking. But for us, the dialectical-materialist interpretation of the systemic principle 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 activity of living and social systems. etc. More details on the main provisions and characteristics of the principle of consistency in modern science can be found in the relevant publications.

It is important to note that the principle of consistency is both universal, which is developed by a special scientific discipline - "general systems theory", and private, 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 consistency has led to special attention to the traditional problems of classification in science. Suffice it to say that interesting publications on general problems of classification have recently appeared only in our country, not to mention numerous works on classification as applied to particular sciences. Increasingly, the emerging theory of classification (systematization) is called typology, instead of traditional and originating from biology "taxonomy", "systematics". 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 science classification, etc., it is difficult to obtain the final version of the system. On this account, 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 the knowledge of this system implies the knowledge of all nature and history, which people never achieve. whoever builds systems is forced to fill in countless gaps with his own fabrications, that is, fantasize irrationally, engage in ideologization" [Marx K., Engels F. Decree. op. T. 20. S. 630]. This provision also applies to any specific science, in our case - to book science, integral part which is bibliography.

The development of the principle of consistency in relation to Russian 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. The newest stage Soviet bibliology is not accidentally defined as a system-typological one [Belovitskaya A.A. The main stages in the development of bibliology in the USSR: Proc. allowance. M., 1983. 89 p.], although it would be more accurate to call it system-book science, i.e. bibliology is developed and appears as a complex structured whole, as a system. A special role in the development of this approach to bibliology was played by the now actively developed book typology, which is conventionally called "typology of the book" or "bibliotypology". Bibliotipology is a kind of systems theory in book science. It develops in the unity of several scientific directions: general, special, branch typology and typology of a separate book [for more details, see our works: Modern problems of book typology. Voronezh, 1989. 247 p.; Bibliotypology, or the general theory of systems in book business//Kn. a business. 1995. No. 6/7. S. 75-80].

Bibliographic typology is the most important and rather fruitful direction among private typologies. True, its integral theory has not yet been created, but such problems as the classification of bibliography, bibliographic manuals (publications), the streamlining of the conceptual apparatus, which is facilitated by a number of existing GOSTs, etc. are being actively solved. 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 achievements of modern science, including general systems theory.

Finally, it should be emphasized that one of key features The principle of consistency lies in the fact that it is closely connected with all other principles of scientific knowledge, including those described above. Moreover, the principle of consistency is considered to be 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 BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDIES

Determination of the specifics of the object and subject of any branch of social activity, along with methodology and terminology, is necessary condition her scientific qualifications. Unfortunately, the problem of the object and the subject, even in the general scientific sense, does not yet have a sufficiently clear solution. The situation is even more aggravated when, as in our case, we are talking 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, it is the result of the activity of human, more broadly - social consciousness. The peculiarity of this activity lies in the fact that the reflection of reality in the form of sensual 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 also enrich the content of consciousness itself (representations, thoughts, ideas, etc.), which are imprinted in various cultural products, but primarily in language and other sign systems, acquiring a form of socially significant ideal and acting as information, knowledge and other spiritual values.

The object in a broad philosophical sense is understood as something that opposes the subject in its subject-practical and cognitive activity. In other words, the object is not simply identical to the 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 very word "object" comes from the late Latin word "subject", its Latin definition as "I throw forward, oppose". In this case, we are talking about an object or an object that exists outside of us and independently of our consciousness (the external world, material reality) [for more details, see: Lektorsky V.A. Subject, object, cognition. M., 1980. 359 p.]. As we can see, the object is defined dually: as a movement from an immediate object in real 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 the initial sensory data to the ideal reproduction of the object in the form of a system of concepts, from the empirical level of knowledge to the theoretical level, that makes it possible to cognize the corresponding object not externally, superficially, but deeper and deeper. Therefore, the concept of dialectical materialism opposes both those philosophical theories that assert that the cognizable object is directly given to the subject and that the activity of the latter 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, the object in the most general definition should be understood not as an objective reality opposed to the subject of activity (man, society), but as a reality that is 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 cognition.

The originality of the object of bibliography lies in the fact that it already acts in a certain way of idealization - sign systems for reproducing social information. His qualification is therefore complicated, since it requires a kind of secondary idealization.

In philosophy, a graphic form is also 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, infinitely 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 excerpts from Hegel's "Science of Logic", which, according to V.I. coll. op. T. 29. P. 322]: “Knowledge moves from content to content. First of all, this progressive 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 a certain new definiteness.The universal is the basis, therefore the progressive movement must not be taken as a 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 definition, the universal raises above the entire mass of its previous content and not only loses nothing as a result of its dialectical progressive movement and leaves nothing behind, but carries with it everything acquired, and is enriched and condensed within itself ...

In the light of all that has been said above, we can now in the most general form define the object and subject of human (social) activity. An object is a real or ideal formation included in the process of activity, to which this activity is directed with certain goals. An object is the result of an activity, material or ideal, which allows one to qualify the level (degree, depth) of material transformation and scientific knowledge of an object. Naturally, such opposition arises only in the process of activity. Moreover, both the object and the object evolve historically, and in such a way that at each subsequent stage of activity, the object, as it were, joins the object and the latter each time appears in a new quality - enriched, modified by activity. The subject is also enriched, but this enrichment is of a slightly different kind - by expanding and deepening ("compacting") 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: "... Excellent, objectively, clearly, materialistically (mathematics and other sciences abstract one of the sides of the body, phenomenon, life). But the author does not consistently maintain this point of view" [Lenin V.I. Decree. op. T. 29. S. 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 processes of differentiation and integration increases, although the latter always retains its defining role. Accordingly, the system of sciences itself becomes more complicated, 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) the sciences of the largest specialized areas of human activity - social science, natural science, technology, art history, etc. (including the science of science - science of science); 3) separate (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 integral, 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 borne in mind that the problem under consideration is not limited to the object and subject of science, but must be qualified at the level of the corresponding human activity. In this regard, it is necessary not only to single out, but also to show in dynamics the relationship between objects and objects 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 (real), 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 the subject is the result of spiritual activity directly directed at the object and based on the data of observation, experiment and experience. The theoretical component of the subject is an indirect result of spiritual activity, reflecting a comprehensive knowledge of the object in its essential connections and patterns. “In order to really know the subject,” V.I. Lenin pointed out, “it is necessary to cover, study all its aspects, all connections and“ mediations ”.We will never achieve this completely, but the requirement of comprehensiveness will warn us from mistakes and -1-x, secondly, dialectical logic requires to take the subject in its development, "self-movement" (as Hegel sometimes says), change... Thirdly, all human practice must enter into a complete " 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. V. 42 S. 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 the logical means of both systematizing knowledge about the object and verifying (for example, experimental) their truth.

In a real activity process, the indicated clarity in the hierarchy of the formation of various levels of the subject is not always observed. This is due to the specifics of the original object, and the level of historical development, and specific tasks, and other conditions. But it is important both not to be limited by the levels of material and empirical formation of the subject, rising to the 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 by practice. Moreover, each object of activity (science) seems to generate its own integral version of the subject in the unity of these three main levels - material, empirical and theoretical.

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

To solve this problem, one should proceed from the fact that the main social function, the goal 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 the activity effectively and efficiently implemented. The bibliography does not have such a defining completeness of activity and, together with other elements, is included in a system of activity of a higher order. It is this feature that determines the functional nature of the bibliography.

The bibliography is included in the system of information activity, or - in the traditional sense - the system of book business. Therefore, on the basis of the above definitions, we can assert that the object of bibliography is the book business, since it is precisely on it that its controlling influence is directed. Unfortunately, as already noted, modern book science does not yet have a satisfactory definition of book business; there is a constant discussion around it among specialists [see. our work "Book Publishing as a System" cited above].

It is enough to turn to the latest definitions of a book as a scientific category to make sure 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", "means of semantic information" and others. But book business is primarily a process, and a book is a way (form, means) of spiritual, or informational, communication, information exchange in society. We offer a simpler, if not indisputable, definition: book business is a sphere of spiritual social activity (culture), the main purpose, the 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 implemented in the organic (dialectical) unity of content (social information), symbolic (language, literature, art, etc.). ) form and material (paper code, screen, etc.) construction.

In the light of the foregoing, we can argue that the object of bibliography is book publishing as a process of information communication, including both the ideal content of this process - social information, and the book as an objective way of objectifying and, therefore, existence, use of information in society. Now let's try to solve an even more difficult question - about the subject of the 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) specifics of this activity, the subject of bibliography can also be qualified both 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 kind of book - "bibliographic book ". Unfortunately, in modern bibliography there is no necessary clarity on this issue. It is enough to refer to the current GOST 7.0-84 to be convinced of 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, determining 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 is not taken 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 resorting 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 indirect (output) information, the unity of contemplative, empirical and abstract, theoretical aspects of cognition. Taking into account the specifics of bibliography as a sphere of spiritual activity, we can interpret bibliographic information as a kind of 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 production process, 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 - the 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 indirect bibliographic knowledge - the result of subsequent theoretical understanding, explanation, proof, 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 result, direct and indirect, empirical and theoretical, secondary and primary and similar bibliographic information (knowledge). In any case, the reduction of the ideal subject of bibliography - bibliographic information - to secondary bibliographic information is both insufficient and wrong. Characteristically, another one of the founders of bibliographic science in our country, VG Anastasevich, considered the content of bibliography in at least two main respects: practical and theoretical, i.e. both as a means of realizing the direct function of bibliography, and as a result of bibliographic knowledge, more broadly - activity. In this regard, the approaches of modern researchers of bibliography, which cast doubt on the currently dominant interpretation of bibliographic information as secondary, are quite legitimate.

The subject of the bibliography includes, along with the 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 to promote and popularize 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 studies as a science of bibliographic activity.

From the foregoing, one can already in the most general form conclude that the object of bibliographic science is the bibliographic activity itself, but not in the narrow (secondary-information), 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, bibliographic information becomes the object of science about it, and scientific bibliographic information, or bibliographic knowledge, becomes the subject.

Therefore, it is important to realize, firstly, the relationship and specifics of the two main levels in the interpretation of the relationship between the object and the subject: the object and subject of bibliographic activity (bibliography) and the object and subject of the science about it - bibliography studies. Moreover, if the entire bibliographic production becomes the subject of bibliography, then the subject of bibliographic science is only its part: 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 features of their division into the 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, qualification of backbone links.

1.5. METHODOLOGY OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDIES

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 efficiency of the relevant 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, judging by the available literature, this problem is not being actively developed purposefully [the following works are of the greatest interest: Ivanov D.D. On scientific methods of bibliography//Scientific bibliography: From the experience of the FBON of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M., 1967. S. 7-54; Barenbaum I.E., Barsuk A.I. To the question of the methods of bibliological disciplines//Book. Research and materials. 1974. Sat. 29. S. 20-45; Barsuk A.I. Bibliography in the system of bibliological disciplines. Ch. 5. S. 93-113; Yanonis O.V. Problems and tasks of developing the methodology of bibliography // Sov. bibliography 1984. No. 1. S. 12-18; Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, methodology. Sec. 2. S. 165-236; Belovitskaya A.A. General bibliography. Ch. 8. S. 215-238]. Unfortunately, philosophy and logic do not yet have a well-established system of methods.

The word method is of Greek origin and in specialized literature it is translated as a way, a way of research, knowledge, teaching, presentation, theory, teaching. The essence of the method is defined in the same way. For example, in the "Logical Dictionary-Reference" by N.I. Kondakov, the method is defined as "a system of rules and techniques of approach to the study of phenomena and patterns of nature, society and thinking; a way, a way to achieve certain results in knowledge and practice; a method of theoretical research or practical the implementation of something, proceeding from the 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 substantiating 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 the method can be accepted as a working one: a method of achieving the set goal, performing the function of information management.

The word methodology, also of Greek origin, literally translates as the doctrine (word, concept) of the method. In modern philosophy, "methodology" is defined as "a system of principles and methods for organizing and constructing theoretical and practical activities, as well as the doctrine of this system" [Ibid. S. 159-163]. Otherwise, methodology is the doctrine 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. With this in mind, they usually distinguish between universal, general scientific (or special), and the methodology of particular sciences. Universal methodology underlies social cognition, its theory. For us, the universal method is dialectics. In general, dialectics (a word of Greek origin, denoting the art of arguing, conversation) is "the science of the most general laws of the development of nature, society and thinking, a philosophical theory and method of cognition and transformation of objects, phenomena of reality in their contradictory self-movement" [Kondakov N.I. . S. 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 the mutually interested discussion of the problem and in order to achieve the truth by confronting opinions. His student Plato understood such a dialogue precisely as the logical operations of dismembering and linking concepts, carried out through questions and answers and leading to a true definition of concepts. Plato is the founder of the idealistic direction in dialectics, which was developed in medieval philosophy, and in modern times - in the philosophy of Hegel. In particular, formal logic was also called dialectics in the Middle Ages. K. Marx and F. Engels, having critically mastered and creatively developed the Hegelian dialectic, developed the materialist dialectic. 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. S. 205]. V.I.Lenin believed that "dialectics can be briefly defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites" [Decree. op. T. 29. S. 203].

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

A necessary theoretical prerequisite for this process (ascension) is the construction of an initial theoretical construction that would express a certain synthesis, an idealization of 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 p.; The concept of real and ideal types//Vopr. philosophy 1986. No. 10. S. 25-34]. Real concreteness is for theoretical thought in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete the premise that must constantly hover before our representation. In particular, K. Marx, in contrast to the Hegelian interpretation of ascent, emphasized that mental concreteness "is by no means the 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 the constant interaction of theory and practice [Marx K., Engels F. Decree. op. T. 46, part 1. S. 37-38].

With regard to bibliography, this method was updated by O.P. Korshunov [Korshunov O.P. Bibliography: Theory, methodology, methodology. pp. 185-215, 221-230] and in our works [Bibliographic heuristics: History, theory and methods of information retrieval. M., 1984. 48 p.; Information publications. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1988. 272 ​​p.; Modern problems of book typology. Voronezh, 1989. 247 p.]. Only one should consider the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete (and vice versa!) not one-sidedly - only in the unity of the universal, particular and individual, i.e. according to the hierarchy of ascent, but also in its dynamics as an activity (value) process - according to the well-known formula of V.I. function).

General scientific methods, or the special methodology of bibliography, are due to the peculiarities of its application to other areas of public activity, including book business(information activity). 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 derivation. This should also include the methodology of historical, quantitative (mathematical), various modern approaches - systemic, modeling, functional, structural, activity, typological, etc. In particular, it is important to take into account the general scientific nature of book science methods in relation to bibliography. The necessary clarity here also does not exist.

Among other general scientific methods in bibliographic science, the following are predominantly used: quantitative (statistical) - the statistical-bibliographic method, bibliometrics; value - bibliographic criticism, compilation of bibliographic descriptions, annotation, summarizing, 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. Koeppen, L.N. [for their description, 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 "Periodical press in Russia, 1703-1903: Statistical and bibliographic review" [Lit. lead. 1902. Vol. 4, book. 8. S. 281-306]. At present, a special yearbook is being published - "The Stamp of the Russian Federation in ... a year." A specific development of the value methodology is the socio-bibliological method of A.M. Lovyagin [see. his work: Fundamentals of bibliology. L., 1926. 166 p.; What is bibliology//Bibliogr. Izv. 1923. No. 1/4. pp. 3-12; Bibliological science: (Introductory article)//Bibliology courses: Prospect. L., 1924-1925. S. 16-17]; bibliopsychological method of N.A. Rubakin [see. his works: Book wealth, their study and distribution: Scientific and bibliological essay//Among the books. 2nd ed. M., 1911. T. 1. S. 1-191; Selected works: In 2 vols. M., 1975; Psychology of the reader and books: A brief introduction. in the library. psychology. M., 1977. 264 p.]; bibliotypology methods, which are based on various kinds of private and general modeling methods [see. our works already named: Modern problems of book typology; Bibliotypology, or the general theory of systems in book business], etc.

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

In other words, the methodology of bibliographic studies is a certain unity of the universal method, general scientific (special) and particular scientific (actually bibliographic) methods. It should be emphasized that at the present stage the methodology of bibliography is developing in the unity of general and particular bibliographic methods. It is also noteworthy that some proper bibliographic methods have their own theories and scientific disciplines. These include "bibliographic heuristics", "bibliometry", "bibliotypology" (in terms of bibliographic systematization). Quite a lot of theoretical and practical experience has been accumulated in the use of such methods as compiling bibliographic descriptions, annotating, summarizing, reviewing (compiling bibliographic reviews), etc., which makes it possible to formulate private disciplines of bibliographic studies. A theory of bibliographic criticism (peer review) should also be developed. When developing a private methodology for bibliographic studies, it should be taken into account that, both in general and in each of its components (a separate method), it acts in the unity of the general, particular and singular. For example, there should be a general bibliographic heuristic, which is what our textbook "Bibliographic Heuristics" is devoted to, special bibliographic heuristics, which are now given special attention in computer science, bibliographic heuristics for certain types, methods, tasks, topics of information retrieval.

To understand and further develop the methodology of bibliography, it is important to resolve issues of the relationship between logic, theory and methodology, methods and principles, the methodology of scientific knowledge and the methodology of practice [for more details, see our textbook: General Bibliography. S. 67-71].

For bibliography as a branch of information activity, it is essential 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 a result is included in the theory, and therefore, the logic and methodology of knowledge. Therefore, practice is "higher than (theoretical) knowledge, because it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate reality" [Lenin V.I. Decree. op. T. 29. S. 195].

The relationship between theory and practice in bibliography has its own specifics. Traditionally, this problem was solved only in the aspect of the relationship between bibliography, which was one-sidedly interpreted as a bibliographic practice, and bibliographic science - bibliography studies. However, 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 activity as a whole has not been taken into account so far. It is on this basis that we speak of 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 bibliography. To some extent, this is understandable: the bibliography must constantly realize its main social function, which is impossible without an appropriate methodology. At the same time, it should be emphasized that without such an 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 indicated in Table. 1. These groups of methods are the result of the analysis, evaluation and generalization of the existing experience both in the history of bibliography and modern. In general, it should be noted that the applied methodology has not yet been developed sufficiently deeply and substantiated; there are a number of unresolved issues in it.

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

In any case, it is the managerial specificity of bibliography that requires a special system of methods and forms of mental processing of documentary information. We are talking about a kind of convolution of information, "the synthesis of book thought" (B.S. Bodnarsky). In other words, along with biophysical, epistemological (logical), technical (computerization) possibilities for improving the very process of assimilation of information accumulated in society, bibliography offers us its own way of consolidating 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 hand (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 particular member of society.

As we can see, the bibliographic reduction is dialectical, has a spiral character in its formation and development. Therefore, in the end, we can say that the bibliography offers us a kind of information model of the world. Consequently, we are talking not only about the scientific, but also about the bibliographic picture of the world (BCM) as one of the most important forms of knowledge and worldview. Moreover, bibliographic formalization is no less effective than, say, mathematical formalization, but more accessible to any person, at the same time it can be easily both mathematized and computerized. The originality of BKM should be seen in the following two main features. The first of them in the middle of the XVIII century. qualified in the article cited above M.V. Lomonosov as an "increment of human knowledge" through "clear and correct summaries the content of emerging essays, sometimes with the addition of a fair judgment either on the merits of the case or on some details of the execution, "i.e., by summarizing and reviewing (according to the academic charter - by composing "extracts"). The second feature is correlated with the so-called derivational 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 is distinguished by both the necessary capacity and the axiological nature of information. It can be both universal (general), and professional (scientific), and individual. We should especially emphasize the axiological character, which is clearly manifested in the system of the main types of bibliography, which is formed not by the arbitrariness 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 CCM can be created in a rather wide variety of content: on the basis of documents, facts, ideas. In particular, one can confine oneself to documentary (documentographic, or source study) material, but even this already plays an important role in shaping the worldview in modern society. So, a whole scientific direction has developed - bibliometrics, which only on the basis of statistics, for example, various kinds of publications, but processed by a fairly large arsenal of formalized (logical, mathematical, etc.) methods, allows making 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 a qualification necessarily requires the purposeful formation of BKM of a qualitatively different nature - evaluative (critical). Usually it is interpreted very narrowly - as a result of scientific auxiliary bibliography (scientific information activity). In fact, the estimated BKM 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 seen in the bibliographic classification that is the basis of N.A. Rubakin's "Among the Books" (according to "areas of life"). True, the estimated BKM is no longer documentary, but to a greater extent factographic. 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 - peer review.

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

So, at the present stage of development of bibliographic studies, 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 epoch it changes, the concepts are refined, deepened, improved. This was shown above (§ 1) by the example of the emergence and use of the terms "bibliography" and "bibliographic studies".

Unfortunately, in philosophy, logic, and even more so in the specific sciences, there is still much that is unclear in the definition of the concept, 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", which we have already quoted more than once (pp. 456-460). The author himself gives the following definition of the concept: an integral set of judgments, i.e. thoughts, in which something is asserted about the distinctive features of the object under study, the core of which is 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 relationship between them. Moreover, the object is characterized in the concept in a generalized way, which is achieved by using such mental actions as abstraction, idealization, generalization, comparison, definition in the process of cognition. Through a separate concept and systems of concepts, fragments of reality are displayed, studied by various sciences and scientific theories.

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

Any science is a coherent system of concepts in which all of them are interconnected, pass into each other. Therefore, any science always requires the study of concepts in motion, interconnection. True, even in logic itself, a unified system of concepts has not yet been created. There are several classification schemes of concepts, for example: 1) depending on the level of generalization of objects - specific and generic concepts; 2) depending on the number of objects displayed - single and general concepts; 3) depending on the display of the 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, sign). With regard to bibliography, we speak of categories, calling them basic concepts. In our case, these are the already considered concepts of "bibliography" and "bibliography".

Finally, one more important provision: all concepts are directly fixed and expressed in linguistic form - in the form of separate words or phrases. In scientific practice, such linguistic forms, expressing the exact designation of one specific concept, are called terms (from Latin terminus - limit, end, border). As you can see, one of the main qualities of a scientific term is its stable unambiguity, of course, in certain specific historical conditions. The bibliographic system of basic categories and concepts, or the term system, should strive for such unambiguity. But due to the historical mobility, development and bibliography itself, and hence the concepts (terms) used in this branch of activity, the scientific development of such a system has always been and is a difficult 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 (officially the date of introduction was set from 1.07.71). This was followed by a new (second) version of it - GOST 7.0-77. So far, the third edition has been in force - GOST 7.0-84 "Bibliographic activity" (the introduction date is set from 01.01.86). , 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 pp.], "Book Studies: Encyclopedic Dictionary" [M., 1981. 664 pp.], "Book: Encyclopedia" [ M., 1999. 800 p.]. But due to their general character of bibliographical studies, bibliographic terms are presented selectively in them. Therefore, bibliographic dictionaries proper are of greater interest. In our case, the terminological dictionary of KR Simon "Bibliography: Basic concepts and terms" [M., 1968. 159 p.] is especially noteworthy. In these dictionaries, terms and definitions are placed in alphabetical order, or definitions are expanded to 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, the existing points of view on its interpretation, but also gave his own definition. Unfortunately, due to the death of the author, the dictionary was left unfinished.

In the terminological GOSTs for bibliography, not a dictionary (alphabetic) 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 structured integrity in a certain way. True, so far logical rigor in such a systematization has not been achieved. But it should be considered justified that a special section "General concepts" is highlighted, some of which 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 GOSTs 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 general concepts presented. 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 terminological 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 define in our own way the composition of the main basic concepts of bibliography, which is presented in Table. 3. They include ten bibliographic categories.

They 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 ratio of these main categories of bibliography to each other will comply with 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 mobile that there is no special need for its rigid fixation. Apparently, it is necessary to return to the publication of the corresponding terminological dictionaries of a recommendatory nature.

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: Bibliography Studies. S. 24-30]. But the still prevailing identification of bibliographic science and bibliology did not allow at that time to more or less clearly solve the problem of the relationship between bibliographic science and related sciences. More fruitful in this regard should be considered the work of N.M. Lisovsky and A.M. Lovyagin [for more details, see: Ibid. S. 52-72]. As we have already noted, their main achievement is the realization of the relative independence of bibliography in the system of book science as a generalizing science about the book and book business. In the Soviet period of bibliography development, 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. Morgenshtern, E.L. Nemirovsky, O.P. Korshunov, A.A. Belovitskaya, E.A. Dinershtein [for details, see our work: Book business as a system; and also - Fomin A.G. Book science as a science//Favorites. M., 1975. S. 51-111].

Their main feature is the desire for maximum, and not for 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 because of 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 obligatory presence in the system of book business of such a specialized component of it, which is designed to carry out the function of management. As a result, the latter (or, in our opinion, bibliography) usually refers to the end of the book business process, as it was in the well-known formula of N.M. Lisovsky "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, which 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 description of the book according to previously developed and established methods" [Bibliology, its subject and tasks / / Sertumbibliologicum in honor of ... prof. A.I.Maleina. Pg., 1922. S. 5].

But, oddly enough, it is the linear formula of N.M. Lisovsky that has been developed in modern bibliology, 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" - at E.L. Nemirovsky. However, taking into account the special complexity of the book business, the implementation of the principle of consistency in its linear descriptive form is insufficient here. The accumulated experience of the scientific development of the problem under consideration is already enough to form a system of book science disciplines hierarchically and integrally. The experience of hierarchical construction is given in the models of A.I. Barsuk and E.A. Dinershtein.

Of particular interest to us is the approach of O.P. Korshunov, which can be called hierarchical-cyclical [see: Bibliography: General course. S. 73-74]. In the proposed scheme "The structure and inclusion of bibliography in various spheres of human activity", based on the principle of activity, two main levels are distinguished - 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 fully accepted, for at least three reasons. Firstly, in the composition of the main elements of activity, the most defining in this case is missing - information activity (information communication, communication). Secondly, bibliographic activity is correlated only with practical activity, i.e. narrowly, since the activity as a whole, which we already know, includes, in addition to practice, other components (shown in the O.P. Korshunov model plus information activity). Finally, thirdly, management is also interpreted too narrowly - as "organizational and methodological guidance", and 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 bibliography 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 activity, social activity. Further, linearity is seen in the use of the well-known formula of N.A. Rubakin "author - book - reader": in this case - "author (book production) - book - reader (book use)". Cyclicity is indicated by the boundary levels of differentiation of the book business: on the one hand, science - activity, or "book science - book business", on the other hand, production - consumption, or in our case "book production (authorship) - book use (reader science)".

But the main thing is that our scheme shows the place of bibliography in the system of book science disciplines, its relationship with book science and the now possible generalizing science of information activity. As you can see, the book business is represented by three blocks (groups) of relatively independent scientific disciplines. The first (central) block represents bibliography. The second (book production, or publishing) includes three scientific disciplines: author's studies, theory and practice of editing, artistic design of the book ("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 - bibliopoly, library science and reader science. And here the question arises of the formation of a unified scientific discipline that studies book consumption. In general, judging by our model, bibliography at the present stage consists of seven scientific disciplines, among which the central place is occupied by bibliography.

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

The main thing that should be specifically noted is that bibliography is now so specialized that it has an independent, and not auxiliary, value, like its object - bibliography in the book business system. Only after this statement can we talk about the close relationship of bibliography with other disciplines of bibliography and, accordingly, branches of book business. Each science and the sphere of activity correlated with it is auxiliary in relation to others, functioning in an integral system of social activity. The question then is why it is precisely in relation to bibliography and bibliography that one so often speaks of ancillary?

The considered scheme reflects, one might say, the traditional ideas about bibliography 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 arose. Consequently, in this sphere of social activity, the very object of scientific knowledge is modified. But this only implies the need for a concrete-historical approach to changes in the very system of sciences that study information activity in all the variety of methods and means of its implementation used here. In other words, does book science still retain the role of a generalizing science not only about traditional book business, but also about information activities carried out on the basis of new electronic technology?

The answer to this question should also be sought concretely and 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 - to modify, bring the former science, bibliology (in foreign designation - 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 demanded by the modern conditions of information activity. They are closely connected with the next scientific and technological revolution, which determines the introduction of computer technology. In time, this coincided with the 60s of the last century, when the effectiveness and prospects of the development of modern society depended on the information support of science. The name informatics to designate 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. FROM. Fundamentals of informatics. M., 1968. S. 42-61]. True, even then there appeared various interpretations of the object and subject of the new science. First of all, it was taken 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 Bibliographic Institute and theorists of modern information activity. In particular, he first used this concept to introduce into scientific circulation all documentary sources of information and show the insufficiency of the object of book science, library science and bibliography (bibliography science), limited only to printed works.

In 1934, the term was included in the name of the International Documentation Institute, into which the International Bibliographic Institute was transformed, and in 1937 - in the name of the International Documentation Federation (IFD) organized on its basis and still existing. It is noteworthy that in the long-term program of the IJF documentation is defined "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, not its object (document, book, etc.), but the subject, content - information was taken as the basis for the terminology of a possible science of information activity. In this regard, in our country and abroad, in addition to "computer science", new terms were proposed: "information science", "informatology", "informology", "informatiology", etc. In our country, the term "informatics" has gained predominant importance 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 informatics is to develop optimal ways and means of representation (recording), collection, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, search and dissemination of scientific information" [Ibid. S. 57].

As you can see, the object of informatics is not all social information, as in bibliology, documentation, but only such a part of it, albeit the most important, 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, 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 involves some reflection and reasoning, organizing data by comparing and classifying them" [Ibid. S. 55].

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

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

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

Of the foreign ones, the approaches of French bibliologists are especially noteworthy. Thus, R. Escarpi, famous in our country for his work "Revolution in the World of Books" translated into Russian [M., 1972. 127 p.], published a new work "The General Theory of Information and Communication" [Paris, 1976. 218 p. Rus. per. 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 bibliological activity of another French scientist, R. Estival, deserves even more attention. He is known not only as a theorist of bibliology (bibliology in our broad sense), but also as an organizer of the International Bibliological Association. In one of his works "Bibliology" [Paris, 1987. 128 p. Rus. per. not yet] he expands the traditional object of book science to a generalizing "science of written communication", regardless of the ways and means of its implementation.

Russian bibliologists have not yet developed the problem as broadly as their French counterparts, although there is no doubt about its relevance. Another noteworthy thing is that domestic computer scientists have fully realized the insufficiency of the previous interpretation of scientific information activity, limited to the purposes of collecting, analytical and synthetic processing, storage, search and dissemination of scientific information, and information support for specialists. So, A.V. Sokolov in his works develops the idea of ​​social informatics, expanding its object to all social information and including all the main scientific disciplines of traditional book science [see: Main problems of informatics and library and bibliographic work: Proc. allowance. L., 1976. 319 p.; "It seems to me that I will pick up the words ..." / / Owls. bibliography 1989. No. 1. S. 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]: "Computer science as a science studies the patterns of information processes in social communications. and transfer, accumulation, storage, search, issuance and communication of information to the consumer.

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

Thus, on the one hand, the subject of informatics 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 informatics is the study of common 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 book science and other sciences of the information and communication cycle. Moreover, bibliology has always considered communicative processes in society in the broadest, generalizing sense. And such a broad approach is typical not only for Russian bibliology, but also spreads abroad. In our works, we carry out 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: Proceedings. report M., 1996. S. 12-15].

Regardless of what the generalizing 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.

A characteristic feature of modern domestic bibliography is its unusual conceptual diversity. In it, far from always peacefully, different theoretical ideas about the essence (nature) of bibliography as a social phenomenon coexist, that is, different general bibliographic concepts and approaches.

Let us consider only some of the most significant concepts of this kind, which have received the greatest fame and recognition among specialists. These are, first of all, three interrelated concepts, based on the same (but differently understood) feature: the object of bibliography and the metasystem corresponding to this object, in which bibliography is directly included as a subsystem.

First, the historically original book science concept, according to which bibliography has long been considered as the science of the book, which is a descriptive part of book science.

The view of bibliography as an extensive bibliographic scientific discipline historically arose in the works of the first Western European bibliographic theorists of the late 18th and early 20th centuries: M. Denis, Zh.F. Ne de la Rochelle, G. Gregoire, A.G. Camus, G. Peño, F.A. Ebert and others.

In Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century, thanks to the works of prominent representatives of Russian bibliographic thought V.G. Anastasevich and V.S. Sopikov, a point of view was formed according to which bibliography as the science of the book was also identified with the broadly understood book science.

Throughout the 19th century theoretical ideas of Western European and Russian bibliographers, experiencing mutual influence and gradually differentiating, developed in a single bibliographic channel.

At the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. in Russia, mainly in the works of a prominent bibliologist and bibliographer, the first teacher of bibliology at St. Lisovsky (1845 - 1920), a new idea of ​​bibliography is gradually being formed as a scientific discipline that is not identical to book science, but constitutes only its independent (descriptive) part.

The academic position of the exhaustively descriptive book science of bibliography occupied pre-revolutionary Russia dominant position, but has never been universally recognized. She experienced especially serious opposition in connection with the emergence of a democratic recommendatory and pedagogical direction in bibliographic activity, oriented towards the popular reader. The bibliography was steadily involved in the complex sphere of social struggle, which, in particular, was expressed in the appearance of the first shoots of the Social Democratic, and then the Bolshevik trend in the bibliography.

Disagreements between representatives of various ideological currents within the framework of the bibliographic concept of bibliography became especially aggravated in the early years of Soviet power, which was explained by the resistance that representatives of the traditional descriptive school put up to tendencies associated with the involvement of bibliography in solving practical educational, upbringing, economic and other tasks, with the formulation the question of the class, party approach to the content and tasks of bibliographic activity.

In the general theoretical, conceptual aspect considered here, the bibliographic concept of bibliography in the Soviet Union evolved in two main directions. Firstly, this is a gradual expansion of the range of “book” objects of bibliographic activity and, secondly, an increasingly resolute rejection of the unambiguous qualification of bibliography as a scientific discipline in favor of combined representations that reflect both the scientific and practical components of bibliography. Let's confirm what has been said with examples.

In the first direction. In the 1920s, the well-known theorist of librarianship and bibliography K.N. Derunov (1866 - 1929). He sharply condemned "the categorical mixing of bibliography with a landfill, where, along with books, old manuscripts and printed reprints of newspaper articles, trade price lists and musical notes, coins and medals are thrown into one heap ...".

The excessive rigidity of these restrictions, excluding from the sphere of bibliography even reprints of newspaper articles and musical editions, is quite obvious from a modern point of view.

Somewhat later, one of the most prominent representatives of Russian bibliographic science and practice, N.N. Zdobnov (1888 - 1942) defended the exclusion of manuscripts from the object of bibliography, believing that the time had come "to separate the description of printed works from the description of manuscripts, because there is too little in common between both descriptions" . Bibliography deals with the description of printed works (a handwritten book was an object of bibliography only before the invention of printing), and archeography deals with the description of manuscripts.

In the future, the bibliographic object of the bibliography of K.R. Simon (1887 - 1966) and other prominent representatives of Russian bibliography.

In the second direction. In 1936, in a report at the All-Russian Conference on Theoretical Issues of Library Science and Bibliography, one of the most prominent representatives of the Russian bibliographic school, L.N. Tropovsky (1885 - 1944), having defined bibliography as "a field of knowledge and scientific and propaganda activity", for the first time reflected in one definition the features of bibliography as a science and as a practical activity.

A characteristic feature of the views of L.N. Tropovsky is that, traditionally recognizing bibliography as a science, he shifted the center of gravity to its practical propaganda aspects. He very insistently emphasized the purely practical, applied, service character of bibliographic activity. This led to a certain underestimation of L.N. Tropovsky of the theory of bibliography, which he identified with a specific methodology, and everything that went beyond the latter, he called "rubbish of scholasticism."

It is also interesting that, while actually remaining on the positions of the bibliological approach, L.N. Tropovsky did not associate his general idea of ​​bibliography with book science, since he was generally opposed to book science as a science in principle.

The book science concept of bibliography received the most complete modern form in the works of the famous bibliographer A.I. Badger (1918 - 1984). It is he who deserves the merit of developing a modern “non-bibliographic” version of the concept, in which a clear distinction is made between bibliography as a field of scientific and practical activities for the preparation and communication of bibliographic information to consumers and bibliographic science as a science of bibliography that develops issues of theory, history, organization and methodology of bibliographic activities. At the same time, the bibliography was considered by A.I. Barsuk as part of the book business, the “book in society” system, and bibliography as a part of book science, which is not part of the bibliography. This point of view is still held by many representatives of domestic bibliology today.

In addition, A.I. Barsuk made an attempt to substantiate the broadest conception of the book object of bibliography within the framework of the book science approach. He believed that “book”, “literature” is “any collection of works of writing (regardless of the nature, form, method of fixation), reproduced (or intended for reproduction) in any way suitable for perception” . Such an approach makes the concept of “book” rather vague, but noticeably brings together the bibliographic and documentographic concepts of bibliography.

So, all the theoretical concepts of bibliography that have arisen on the basis of the bibliographic approach, despite their very significant internal differences, are united by one common feature - the limitation of the composition of documentary objects of bibliography based on such concepts as “book”, “printed work”, “publication” , “work of writing”, “literature”. This is what makes it possible to qualify all these concepts as bibliological ones.

Secondly, documentographic concept, which historically is a direct continuation and development of book science. On a new conceptual and methodological basis, it was put forward and substantiated in domestic bibliography in the 70s. Its main distinguishing feature is the fundamental rejection of any restrictions on documentary objects of bibliographic activity in terms of their form, content or purpose. That is why the proponents of the documentographic approach operate with the broader concepts of “document” and “system of documentary communications” compared to “book” and “book business”, denoting, respectively, the object of bibliography and the metasystem of bibliography (these concepts are considered in more detail in the second chapter).

It should be noted that any restrictions on the object of bibliographic activity within the framework of the bibliographic approach are usually accompanied by specific historical arguments and therefore look very convincing (see, for example, N.V. Zdobnov's considerations above). However, this is a false impression. In fact, it is precisely the concrete historical approach that clearly demonstrates that the bibliography, in essence, has always been indifferent to changes in the forms of fixing and disseminating knowledge. Of course, at any given historical moment it can recognize the main, most important for itself this or that form of fixing information, but it cannot once and for all limit its object to one specific form. So, for example, if we assert that the main object of bibliographic activity is a printed book, then it should be clearly understood that this is not because the book is a printed work, but because it is precisely printed works that have historically become the main means of recording, disseminating and use of social information.

Bibliography has always dealt primarily with those forms that were becoming dominant in a given historical epoch, and paid much less attention to those forms that were dying out or just emerging (but never completely excluded them from its object). And so it will always be. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong to generally limit the object of bibliographic activity to any one historically transient form, for example, printed works or even written works. The rules of bibliographic description, methods of bibliographic characterization may change along with the change in the form of objects of bibliographic activity, but the social essence of bibliography as an intermediary, a link between a document and a person, in principle, will remain unchanged.

Supporters of the bibliographic concept of bibliography are usually confused by the too broad meaning of the term “document”, due to which, for example, postage stamps, banknotes, official forms, tram tickets, inscriptions on gravestones, etc., fall into the composition of the object of bibliographic activity. sometimes as a manifestation of formalism on the part of representatives of the documentographic concept, their underestimation of the ideological, scientific, artistic value of the “book” as the main object of bibliographic activity.

As already noted, no one denies that the book in the broadest sense, that is, the printed work, is today the predominant, the main object of bibliographic activity. Moreover, from a strictly scientific point of view, there is nothing dangerous in the broad semantics of the term “document” for bibliographic science and practice.

It should be emphasized that within the framework of the documentographic approach, only one limitation of the composition of documentary objects of bibliographic activity is recognized - the social significance of the information contained in them. The social significance of a document is a concrete historical concept. There can be no recipes suitable for all times and circumstances. People themselves create documented information and in each case decide for themselves whether it is of sufficient public interest to be the object of bibliography or not. In particular, the inscriptions on gravestones have been bibliographed for a long time (not all, of course, but those that belong to outstanding personalities and therefore acquire undoubted social significance). Postage stamps and banknotes, if we consider them not from the point of view of their immediate purpose and functioning, but as monuments of material and spiritual culture, as objects of study, collectibles, etc., also fall into the category of socially significant documents and become the object of bibliography. A similar situation is not ruled out in principle with regard to forms and tram tickets.

The term “bibliography” within the framework of the documentographic concept covers bibliographic science and practice, i.e. it combines practical bibliographic activity and bibliographic science, the science of this activity, into a single system.

It is clear that different ideas about the boundaries, composition and tasks of bibliographic activity, about the general structure of bibliography as a social phenomenon follow from the bibliographic and documentographic approaches. However, it must be firmly understood that the considered approaches correlate with each other as narrower and broader. There are no other fundamental differences between them. In other words, the documentographic approach (as a broader one) does not oppose the bibliographic approach, as some representatives of the latter sometimes believe, but includes it as a special case with all the richness of its specific content, without denying its achievements, significance and possibilities.

The documentographic approach is based on the indisputable and quite objective fact of the organizational fragmentation of bibliographic activity, its organic involvement in various institutionalized public institutions in the system of documentary communications, i.e., in library, editorial, publishing, archiving, in book trade, in scientific and information activity. In these public institutions, bibliographic activity is carried out in specific forms for each of them.

The documentographic concept covers, theoretically combines into a single system all the modes of existence of bibliography, including those that are found outside the named public institutions. This alone shows that the documentographic approach does not contradict the bibliographic approach, does not deny the existence of bibliography as a part of the book business, but includes it as its important and necessary component. On the other hand, only within the framework of the documentographic approach can the limitations of the bibliography concept of bibliography be correctly understood, the limits of its explanatory (theoretical) and transformative (practical) possibilities can be correctly assessed.

Finishing the characterization of the documentographic concept, it is necessary to single out and emphasize the main thing: the name “documentographic” does not quite adequately reflect its actual content. It is "documentographic" only in a certain narrow sense, associated with the document as a direct object of bibliography. With a broader and therefore more correct general qualification, this is system-activity, documentary-information concept of the beginning of the general theory of bibliography. It is desirable that it be considered and evaluated by respected critics in this capacity.

Historically, the latest ideographic or infographic concept bibliography, proposed and very thoroughly developed and argued by N.A. Slyadneva.

Undoubtedly, this is the most exotic, most radical concept, according to which the object of bibliography is any information objects (“informoquants”), both fixed in the form of documents (texts, works, publications, etc.) and unfixed (facts, ideas , fragments of knowledge as such, as well as thoughts, feelings, even premonitions). The metasystem of bibliography is the entire Universe of Human Activity (UCH), and the bibliography itself qualifies as a universal, all-penetrating methodological branch (science) such as statistics, mathematics, logic, etc.

It is easy to see that the relationship between these three concepts resembles a nesting doll: each subsequent one includes the previous one as a special case. In this regard, a complex terminological problem arises: is it right to assume that all three concepts are about bibliography?

If we proceed from the exact meaning of the term “bibliography”, then its use is absolutely legitimate only within the framework of the book science concept. It is here that "bibliography" appears in its own, historically original sense.

In the second concept, speech is actually goes already not about bibliography, but about documentography. However, one cannot but take into account that in both cases bibliographers deal with fundamentally homogeneous objects of bibliography, since books (written and printed works) are also documents. Therefore, in both concepts, the object of bibliography is a document. The only difference is that in the first case it is a certain kind of documents, and in the second - any documents.

On this basis, it can be argued that, within the framework of the documentographic concept, it is quite legitimate to use traditional bibliographic terminology, i.e., the familiar term “bibliography” and all its derivatives. Especially when you consider that the transition of an entire industry to a new terminology (even if such a transition is desirable in principle) is a complex, expensive undertaking, associated with a long break and overcoming of historically established terminological traditions, and therefore difficult to implement. Is the game worth the candle? The question in this case is very pertinent.

The relationship between the first two and the third, the ideographic concept, looks completely different. Here bibliography is taken far beyond the system of documentary communications and ideographic attributes are attributed to it that have never been and never will be objects of bibliographic description. In other words, here we are not talking about bibliography, more precisely, not only about bibliography.

Sometimes an ideographic concept is called ideodocumentographic. A very significant wording, which clearly reveals that everything that is hidden behind the “documentographic” term element refers to the documentographic concept, and what is behind the “ideo” term element has nothing to do with the bibliography.

There are two main reasons that prompted N.A. Slyadnev to create this concept.

Firstly, the desire to promote an increase in the social status, the value of bibliography as a field of professional activity in the context of global informatization of the surrounding reality.

Secondly, N.A. Slyadneva, as a representative of the sectoral bibliography of fiction, is concerned about “the phenomenon of synthetic, borderline forms of information that have arisen at the intersection of sectoral knowledge and bibliography” .

But these properties of bibliographic information have been known for a long time, since it has always existed both in independent forms (bibliographic aids) and in the form of bibliographic support, i.e., bibliographic elements in sources of information that are generally not bibliographic. The simplest example is book bibliographic information, from which the more complex concept of affine bibliography later grew. The same applies to encyclopedias, reference books, abstract journals, etc., as well as to modern complex forms of recommendatory bibliographic products.

The whole difficulty lies in the fact that the degree and forms of localization of bibliographic information in such sources are different. In some cases they are obvious (for example, in book bibliography). In others, the bibliographic information is not so clearly localized and it is not easy to determine where bibliographic information ends and non-bibliographic information begins. This is especially noticeable in relation to large and super-large computer information systems such as nationwide (for example, the all-Russian information and library computer network LIBNET) or global (for example, the Internet). But that's what the theory of bibliography is for, to find out and explain what exactly in these systems is bibliographic, and not to try to enumerate them entirely according to the department of bibliography. Such an approach in society (outside the bibliography) will cause nothing but bewilderment.

In domestic bibliography science, fundamental, supercomplex in content categories have long been used as the basis for the formation of general bibliographic concepts as conceived by the authors culture and knowledge.

In its most general form, the inclusion of bibliography (as well as other areas of social practice) in the composition of human culture is obvious. It is more difficult to find a social object that does not have this quality. Therefore, the temptation to which many domestic bibliographers have been subjected is quite understandable, to see the original essence of bibliography in this inclusion of it.

Nowadays cultural concept bibliography in the most developed and complete form is presented in the works of M.G. Vokhrysheva.

The main provisions of the concept in the most general form are as follows: the object of bibliography is the values ​​of culture, the metasystem of bibliography is culture. Accordingly, the bibliography, taken as a whole, is defined as a part of the culture that provides, by means of bibliographic means, the preservation and transmission of the documented values ​​of the culture from generation to generation.

The direct connection of bibliography with the category of knowledge is as obvious as the connection with culture. Therefore, there is nothing strange in the desire of bibliographers to comprehend the essence of bibliography as a social phenomenon, relying on this side of it. The general "knowledge" qualification of bibliography has its roots in domestic bibliography in the distant pre-revolutionary past.

Yu.S. Teeth. The essence of his approach to the problem of the relationship between knowledge and bibliography is clearly expressed in the very title of the article “Bibliography as a system of folded knowledge” . The article is rich in fresh ideas for its time, but the main thesis is not sufficiently substantiated. In particular, it remains not entirely clear what “folded knowledge” is and what kind of knowledge is rolled up in the bibliographic description. Bibliographic information simply transferred from a document to its description (author, title, imprint, etc.) cannot be considered curtailed knowledge.

Today, the main representative of the so-called cognitive (“knowledge”) concept Bibliography is V.A. Fokeev. Of course, in terms of the breadth of coverage of the material, the thoroughness and depth of the development of the topic, and the variety of arguments, his works cannot be compared with a small article by Yu.S. Zubov.

However, despite the impressive scale of theoretical research by V.A. Fokeev, one can not agree with everything in his writings. There are enough obscure, contradictory, controversial points in them.

The above can be illustrated by quoting a few small but very significant fragments from one of the last articles by V.A. Fokeev “Noospheric-culturological (cognitographic) concept of bibliography” .

Here are the snippets:

1. “The fundamental idea of ​​the concept: bibliography is a socio-cultural complex, including bibliographic knowledge (information), bibliographic social institution and bibliographic activity…” (p. 218);

2. “Metasystem of bibliography – noosphere…” (ibid.);

3. “The direct object of bibliography is an information object (source of knowledge) of any nature, a quantum (and in general, the world) of knowledge, fixed in a text, or a text and various forms of its existence: a document, a book, a publication, a work, etc.” (ibid.);

4. “The essence of bibliography lies in bibliographic knowledge (KB), which identifies the elements of the noosphere and provides access to the documented part of the noosphere…

The genesis of the bibliography lies primarily in biosocial factors. BZ is an artificial sign system - an “amplifier” of such a natural reflection organ as the brain” (pp. 218 – 219).

5. “Basic relationships in the field of bibliography… In the system “fixed text – human” needs-related relations to the text as such at the level of its existence legitimately arise.

Bibliographic relations are predominantly subject-subject correspondences, interactions of the dialogue of cultures” (p. 219).

It's enough. Now a short comment.

On the first point. The “fundamental idea of ​​the concept” does not stand up to scrutiny. First, a bibliographic social institution does not really exist, since bibliography as a social phenomenon does not have its own organizationally formalized integrity, and any social institution is only an “institution” when it is institutionally, i.e., first of all, organizationally formalized. The peculiarity of the position of bibliography in the system of documentary communications lies in the fact that bibliography (according to its secondary documentary nature) is characterized not by its own organizational structure, but by inclusion in other organizationally independent social institutions - in librarianship, book trade, archiving, etc. ( see § 2 of chapter 9 on this).

Secondly, even if we admit the existence of a bibliographic social institution, the proposed list of the three components of the bibliography is logically unacceptable. In fact, these parts do not form a “three-cornered formula” (p. 219), but a structural nesting doll, in which bibliographic knowledge as a result is an integral internal component of bibliographic activity, which in turn (together with bibliographic knowledge) is certainly part of the bibliography recognized as a social institution. As a result, nothing remains of the “Fundamental Idea of ​​the Concept”, except for a social institution, the real existence of which is doubtful.

Finally, thirdly, there is one more logical flaw: the proposed structure is incomplete. For example, where is the place for bibliography in it? Probably all in the same social institution.

For the second point. Involving the noosphere in the role of a metasystem of bibliography (that is, a system related in content and the nearest larger system) is so artificial that it does not require detailed objections. Suffice it to recall what “noosphere” is.

As an objective reality, the noosphere is “a new evolutionary state of the biosphere, in which the rational activity of a person becomes a decisive factor in its development” . “As scientific progress progresses, mankind creates the noosphere as a special environment, which includes other organisms and a significant part of the inorganic world” .

As a scientific concept (moreover, as a philosophical category), the noosphere “is used in some evolutionary concepts to describe the mind as a special natural phenomenon. On the one hand, it (to the concept of the noosphere) is addressed by some theologians who seek ... to find an evolutionary interpretation of the dogmas of the church. On the other hand, this concept is very popular among scientists dealing with the problems of human interaction with the environment, in particular, environmental problems.

Everything seems to be clear. The inclusion of bibliography in the noosphere is obvious insofar as everything that is somehow, directly or indirectly connected with the activity of the human mind on planet Earth, is included in its noosphere. But from this it is unattainably far from qualifying the noosphere as a “metasystem” of bibliography in the sense in which this concept is used within the framework of the systems approach.

For the third point. This fragment, containing the definition of the object of the bibliography, is filled with logical errors and substitutions of concepts. First, the "information object" is introduced as the object of the bibliography. In parentheses, it is specified that this is a “source of knowledge”. This source immediately turns into a “quantum”, and in general terms into the “world” of knowledge itself. Meanwhile, elementary logic suggests: if you believe V.A. Fokeev and the object of the bibliography is really informational, then “quanta” and “worlds” of information follow from this, and not knowledge.

Then from the world of knowledge V.A. Fokeev returns to the concept of “text” and various forms of its existence. Here are the next factual and logical errors, since the actual “forms of existence” of the text are oral, handwritten, typewritten, printed, machine-readable, etc., and those listed by V.A. Fokeev “document, book, publication, work, etc.” these are the “forms of existence” of the document. Moreover, contrary to the requirements of logic, the general concept of “document” and its own “forms of being” are listed in one row.

As a result, if this confusion is eliminated, then on the basis of the above fragment it is not difficult to formulate a simple and clear definition: the direct object of bibliography is a document (as a source of information) with all the variety of forms of its existence: book, publication, work, etc.

Of course, it should be borne in mind that this definition lacks the consumer of information and the relationship "D - P" as a real direct object of bibliographic activity.

By the way, any text fixed on any material carrier is also one of the “forms of being” of a document.

On the fourth point. This fragment touches on two very important questions - about the essence of bibliography and about its genesis. “The essence of bibliography lies in bibliographic knowledge” – this is quite natural (since the very concept of “knowledge”) and at the same time one of the most controversial points of this concept.

Knowledge development needs in ancient world led to the invention of writing, which, in turn, became the cause and condition for the emergence of a system of documentary communications on the historical stage. The bibliography is the inevitable product of this and only this system and essence of bibliographic phenomena always in this system. was and still is to the present day secondary documentary.

In general, it seems that V.A. Fokeev has a thinking prone to metaphorization of the reality he studies. “Quantum of knowledge”, “world of knowledge”, “world of texts”, “world of needs in texts”, “world of text communications”, etc. Concepts-metaphors, beautiful, but having no real scientific meaning. “Noosphere” in relation to bibliography is actually also a metaphor. What is worth, for example, the statement that the text is the content of the noosphere. Or what about bibliographic knowledge, “identifying the elements of the noosphere”? And what is the “documented part of the noosphere”? In terms of meaning, this is such a part that is documented, that is, based on documents, confirmed by documents, but this meaning does not correspond to the context in which it is placed in this case. In this context, the wording “documentary part (probably, more precisely, aspect) of the noosphere” would be more correct. But then it is logical to assume that the “documentary aspect of the noosphere” is the “system of documentary communications”, which acts as a “metasystem” of bibliography in the documentographic concept.

As for the “genesis” of bibliography, the statement that it “consists primarily in biosocial factors” contradicts the first fragment, which says that bibliography is a sociocultural, but not a biosocial complex. True, already in the next sentence it turns out what a “biosocial factor” is. It turns out that bibliographic knowledge is a “brain enhancer”! This is really something new in theoretical bibliography.

On the fifth point. Here we are talking about the main relations in the field of bibliography. In this regard, let us return briefly to the past. In 1996 V.A. Fokeev stated: “As an object of bibliography, I describe the system “the world of texts - the world of needs in texts”, and not “document - consumer”, as in the documentographic concept” . However, the fragment of the text in the fifth paragraph clearly indicates that, in fact, V.A. Fokeev himself is not averse to dealing with the “D-P” relationship, slightly disguising it terminologically: instead of a document, there is a “fixed text”, and instead of a consumer of information, simply “a person”.

Otherwise, this fragment is an illustration of obscurity. What does it mean “requirement relations to the text as such at the level of its existence”? Or how to understand that bibliographic relations are “subject-subject correspondences” and, at the same time, “interactions of the dialogue of cultures”?

Finishing acquaintance with the “cognitographic” concept of bibliography, we should dwell on one more important and controversial problem. We are talking about the proposal of V.A. Fokeev to swap the concepts of “bibliographic information” and “bibliographic knowledge” in theory, i.e. transfer from the first concept to the second the functions of the original concept of the general theory of bibliography and the principle of distinguishing bibliographic phenomena from non-bibliographic ones (for this principle, see pp. 77 - 78)

This proposal quite logically follows from the cognitographic concept of bibliography, since in it “knowledge” is consistently and quite consciously given essential priority over "information".

Undoubtedly, the solution of the question of the relationship between the concepts of “bibliographic information” and “bibliographic knowledge” directly depends on the solution of a more general problem of the relationship of categories “ information" and " knowledge". Of course, the solution of this essentially philosophical problem is not within the competence of bibliography. The task of the bibliographer is to correctly choose from the existing points of view (and there are more than enough of them in the special literature on philosophy and computer science) the one that is most adequate to the bibliographic realities and therefore will be especially productive to “work” in bibliographic science.

Such a point of view exists. In principle, it is very simple and convincing. Its essence is that information is defined as the only form (method, means) of transmission and/or perception of knowledge in society that is possible and accessible to a person. A shorter form of the definition is extremely simple: information is transmitted and/or perceived knowledge.

It is easy to see that such an interpretation is very directly and productively transferred to bibliographic science: if information in general is transmitted and / or perceived knowledge, then bibliographic information is transmitted and/or perceived bibliographic knowledge.

From what has been said, it follows that in the broadest (philosophical) sense of the concept, information and knowledge are related as form and content.

Knowledge (including bibliographic) as such (intransmissible and incomprehensible) exists either in the human brain or is conserved in documentary funds in a state of storage. As soon as this knowledge begins to be transmitted and/or perceived in one way or another, it becomes information (including bibliographic information). Thus, knowledge has two main states: rest or storage (knowledge in itself, incommunicable, conserved) and movements or functioning, i.e. transmission and perception (information form of knowledge).

In principle, both states are equally important, since one is impossible without the other. But in this case, mainly due to the cognitographic concept, the problem of choice arose: which state of knowledge - the first or the second - is practically more important, more scientifically significant, initially more original for bibliographic science and practice? This is a fundamental question, on the answer to which the future of theoretical bibliography actually depends.

The concepts proposed by the prominent St. Petersburg scientist A.V. Sokolov and subsequently almost forgotten. This is a factual concept of bibliographic information and an interpretation of the nature of bibliography as a field of spiritual production.

It is hardly possible to agree with the third in a row and the last in time communication concept A.V. Sokolov, which is based on a complete rejection of the concept of information (including bibliographic information), as meaning nothing in the reality around us. It is proposed on a global scale (in particular in bibliography) to replace the concept of “information” with the concept of “communication”, although it is quite obvious that these concepts are not identical in content and therefore one does not replace the other [for more details about this concept, see 37, 60] . To paraphrase a well-known aphorism, we can say that all information is communication, but not all communication is information.

Finishing the characterization of his condition, it is appropriate to emphasize an idea that usually escapes the attention of many bibliographers. All the mentioned and other concepts, according to the laws of logic, do not contradict each other, since they are based on different sides (signs) of bibliographic reality. They are quite compatible within the framework of the bibliography as a whole.

Meanwhile, it has become almost a sign of good taste, when creating another concept, to criticize the documentary one. Although in reality there is usually no sufficient reason for this. If, say, we look closely at a culturological or cognitographic concept, we will find that in the first the object of bibliography is the documentary values ​​of culture, and in the second - documentary knowledge, i.e. in both cases - documents. But this means that both culturological bibliography and cognitographic bibliography, simultaneously and together with their cultural and knowledge involvement, function in the system of documentary communications. It follows that in this respect, representatives of almost all concepts, at the same time, are full-fledged representatives of the documentographic concept. Perhaps only the concept of N.A. Slyadneva is only half documentary.

Thus, the main thing is not that a documentographic or any other concept is better or worse than others, but what is their actual ratio, how and in what way they complement each other, and what whole they form together.

3. Information barriers arising due to the creators of documents and intermediaries (third party) in the system of documentary communications:

§ 2. The emergence and main directions of development of bibliographic information

Chapter 4. Forms of existence of bibliographic information. § 1. Bibliographic message

§ 2. Bibliographic guide

Chapter 5. Basic public functions of bibliographic information. § 1. Duality of bibliographic information

§ 2. Documentary and bibliographic needs

§ 3. What is the “function” of bibliographic information

§ 4. Genesis of the concepts of the main social functions of bibliographic information

Chapter 6. Structure, qualities, definition of bibliographic information. § 1. Essential-functional structure of bibliographic information

§ 2. Qualities of bibliographic information

§ 3. Bibliographic information as a scientific concept

Questions for self-examination to section I

Section II.

Bibliographic activity is the central category of the theory of bibliography.

Chapter 7. General idea of ​​bibliography as a field of activity.

§ 1. The emergence and development of bibliography as a field of activity. Her definition.

Feedback

Schematic diagram of the functioning of the bibliography as a system

§ 2. Concrete historical conditioning of bibliography as a social phenomenon.

§ 3. Principles of bibliographic activity

Chapter 8. Main components of bibliographic activity. § 1. Bibliography as an object of differentiation

§ 2. Subjects and goals of bibliographic activity

§ 3. Objects of bibliographic activity

Facet classification of motion pictures

§ 4. Processes of bibliographic activity

§ 5. Means of bibliographic activity

§ 6. Modern technologies of bibliographic activity.

§ 7. Results of bibliographic activities

Species classification of bibliographic aids

I. Depending on the purpose of benefits

II. Depending on the objects of bibliography

III. Depending on the methods of bibliography

IV. Depending on the form of support

Chapter 9. Species classification of bibliography as a field of activity. § 1. Species classification of bibliography as a scientific problem

Various options for species classification of bibliography (mainly on the basis of public purpose)

§ 2. Organizational-designed subdivisions (types) of bibliography

§ 3. Species classification of bibliography on the basis of public purpose

Species classification of bibliography on the basis of public purpose

§ 4. Species classifications of bibliography on other grounds

§ 5. The future of bibliographic activity in Russia.

Questions for self-examination to section II.

Section III.

Bibliography is the science of bibliography.

Chapter 10. Structure and content of bibliography.

§ 1. General characteristics.

§ 2. Relationship between bibliographic science and practice.

§ 3. The structure of bibliography.

§ 4. Content and tasks of bibliography.

Chapter 11

§ 1. Bibliographic activity and librarianship. Bibliography and library science

§ 2. Bibliography and scientific information activities. Bibliography and informatics

§ 3 Bibliography and book business. Bibliography and book science.

§ 4. Bibliography as a subject of teaching

Chapter 12

§one. Synergetic foundations of modern methodology of bibliography

§2. Synergetic concept of bibliography as a metatheory of bibliographic concepts.

§3. Synergetics as a methodology for the formation of a general theory of bibliography.

Chapter 13. Development of questions of the theory of bibliography abroad.

§ 1. The empirical period of the formation of the theory of bibliography abroad.

The stage of accumulation of empirical bibliographic knowledge.

Stage of the first theoretical generalizations of bibliographic activity.

§ 2. Analytical period of development of the theory of bibliography abroad.

The stage of rethinking bibliographic activities in connection with the expansion of the tasks of information services for society

§ 3. Modern concepts of bibliography.

Questions for self-examination to section III

Literature Main

Additional

§ 3. Modern concepts of bibliography.

In the second half of the XX century. the information situation began to change rapidly. This is due to the increasing importance of information in the modern world, comprehensive computerization, including library and bibliographic processes, the emergence of new types of documents (electronic), the development of forms of international scientific and information and bibliographic cooperation.

Bibliographic theorists in different countries faced two main tasks:

- to reveal the main essential characteristics of bibliography;

– to show the correlation of the bibliography with the broader system of information support of the society, i.e. to establish the metasystem of the bibliography.

The leading position in the Western theory of bibliography was occupied by the Anglo-American school. It singled out a direction that included a number of concepts that are united by the desire to determine the place of bibliography among the information and social phenomena of our time.

The most significant influence on American library and bibliographic theory and practice in the 20th century. provided by Jesse H. Shera (1903 - 1983) - an outstanding scientist who worked in the field of library science, bibliographic theory, computer science. For many years he was dean of the Department of Library Science at the University of Cleveland, and created the Center for Documentation and Communication Research within the department. J. Shira made a significant contribution to the development of the social essence of fixed knowledge.

His works are characterized by a generalizing, high interpretation of the social role of library and bibliographic activity. J. Shira emphasized that the library arose and developed due to the urgent needs of society. As soon as writing appeared to meet the social need to serve as a means of recording and transmitting messages, the need arose for institutions that ensure the storage of the most important records. Thus, libraries, according to J. Shira, from the very beginning have become an integral part of the mechanism that ensures the normal functioning of society, the preservation and transfer of accumulated knowledge. J. Shira used the term “graphic records” instead of “documents” and referred to them as books, sound recordings, art publications, audio documents, maps, etc.

J. Shira began to develop theoretical problems in the 50s - 60s. 20th century He introduced the concept of "bibliographic business" (bibliographic enterprise) as a whole, which is formed by its constituent parts - librarianship and documentation.

In the early 70s. J. Shira came to the understanding of bibliographic activity as the basis of librarianship. By "bibliographic activity" he meant "all those processes, functions and activities that are necessary to connect the book and the reader." The functions of the bibliography included:

- picking;

– organization and ordering of materials in order to provide the necessary access to their intellectual content;

– servicing (bibliographic) readers.

The presence of these functions, according to J. Shira, is a sign on the basis of which libraries, documentation centers and other institutions together form a bibliographic business.

Bibliography should be considered from two angles:

- in its relationship with society: in this case, it acts as an intermediary in the communication system "knowledge - society";

- in its relationship with the individual: in this case, it acts as an intermediary in the communication system "book - reader".

The librarian must be aware of both the properties of fixed information and the properties of readers, methods of "connecting graphic records and readers". According to J. Shira, a person is attracted to the library by “innate curiosity”, which, according to Western sociology and psychology, is the basis of knowledge. Therefore, there are no regularities in the “book-reader” system.

The bibliography is one of the "organs" of communication, which is the "transmission of knowledge". Communication is divided into mass, determined by the communicant, and graphic, determined by the recipient, his need for knowledge. This second type of communication is the responsibility of libraries and bibliographic services.

J. Shira separated the concept of “bibliographic business” from the concept of “bibliography”. He wrote: “We consider bibliography as an independent field of science, with its own structure, its own theory and a specific place in the system of social communication. … Its theory is the theory of librarianship, and information science researches and develops its methods” . From the point of view of J. Shira, library science and information science are bibliographic disciplines and can be classified as one bibliographic science (bibliographic scholarship).

Thus, J. Shira in his works emphasized the role of library and bibliographic institutions in the communication system, the interconnection of such related areas of activity as librarianship, bibliography and scientific information activity, separated the concepts of bibliographic science and bibliographic practice. But the qualitative specifics of bibliographic activity (which in Russian bibliography is expressed by the concept of “bibliographic information”) J. Shire failed to single out.

In the 1970s J. Shira tried to reach broader philosophical generalizations, clarify the role of library and bibliographic processes in the functioning of knowledge in society. He created a scientific concept that he called "Social Epistemology" (Social Science of Cognition) and defined it as a theory of communication and a metatheory of the theory of bibliography.

The “book-reader” relationship, J. Shira believed, is an element of a broader “knowledge-society” relationship. Related concepts are “culture” and “society”. J. Shira understood culture as “a set of social institutions filled with intellectual content”, and under society – “a set of individuals united by a complex of cultural and institutional ties”. Communication, including its integral part - bibliography, is a connecting element of the social structure.

Social epistemology should be concerned with “the study of the processes by which society as a whole attempts to achieve a perceptual and coherent relation to environment– physical, psychological, intellectual”. The new discipline covers the problems of cognition (how a person cognizes), social cognition (how society cognizes), the history of cognition, existing bibliographic mechanisms and the degree to which they correspond to the realities of the communication process. Consequently, social epistemology must develop, and bibliographic work must convey, knowledge that is called upon to play a decisive role in the adaptation of the individual and society to the environment.

According to J. Shire, bibliography is a form of social control that plays a decisive role in the adaptation of the individual to his intellectual environment, in stabilizing and maintaining social balance in society.

Despite a broad approach to the assessment of bibliographic phenomena, the desire to determine their place in the social structure of society, the theory of J. Shira, as shown by the study of the Russian bibliographer V.A. Yatsko, was based on idealistic philosophical and sociological theories, which consider as the foundations of the social system not socio-economic structures, but intellectual values ​​and norms. J. Shira focused not on identifying the specific features and functions of bibliography, but on the social role of library and bibliographic activity, giving it almost a leading role in regulating the social life of society.

The concept of J. Shira was supported by B. Brooks, R. Benj, D. Foskett - in the UK, M. Kerezhtezi, K. Wright, K. Rousky - in the USA.

The well-known modern American theorist Michael K. Buckland (born 1941) is also working in the same direction. M. Buckland was born in Oxford, having received a professional education, in the 60s. worked in university libraries of Great Britain, since 1972 lives in the USA, in 1976-1984. – Dean, currently Professor at the School of Library and Information at the University of California at Berkeley. His main work in the field of the theory of bibliography “ External environment and Theory of Library Activities” was published in 1983. M. Buckland develops the concept of library and bibliographic activity as a type of information activity.

M. Buckland used the term “library activity” mainly to designate bibliographic processes, primarily bibliographic search.

M. Buckland tried to solve two problems:

- the ratio of library and information activities;

- Establishing the reasons for the emergence of library activities.

M. Buckland suggested abandoning the traditional ideas that limit library and bibliographic activities within the framework of the library, emphasizing its dependence on the social environment. The theorist noted that “upon careful consideration entities library processes, it becomes clear that library science (or at least part of it) is not specific to libraries, but manifests itself in various forms in other institutions." These institutions include archives, documentation centers, management information systems, etc. They perform the functions of identifying, describing, organizing, storing, searching and using information and constitute “a broader class of information activities based on information retrieval”. General (generic) features of all types of information activity are studied by “theoretical information science”.

When determining the reasons for the emergence of library activities, M. Buckland, like J. Shira, proceeds from the concept of “needs for library activities”, which are based on “the desires of individuals - the satisfaction of curiosity, the desire for success or peace, the satisfaction of personal interests”. The totality of these desires constitute the needs of the “cybernetic (information) personality” and are the determinant of library activity.

M. Buckland does not connect the activities of library and bibliographic institutions with documentary needs. He is not embarrassed by the fact that people experienced “innate curiosity” even before the appearance of documents and libraries, so it can hardly be the basis of library and bibliographic activities.

Thus, the main provisions of the theory of M. Buckland are as follows:

- the types of activities carried out in libraries, archives, documentation centers and other related public institutions relate to information activities, which is generic in relation to them;

- information activity performs the functions of identifying, describing, organizing, storing, searching and ensuring the use of information;

– all types of information activity should be studied by a single “information science”;

- the reasons for the emergence of library and information activities lie in the needs of the “cybernetic personality”, the main of these needs is “innate curiosity”.

Despite the fact that the concept of M. Buckland has many features that bring it closer to the ideas of Russian bibliographers, in particular O.P. Korshunova, V.A. Yatsko showed that, in their philosophical foundations, these are opposite concepts. M. Buckland proceeded from the idealistic ideas of the Western science of knowledge, which contrasts the natural sciences, which recognize patterns in nature, and the social sciences, which deny patterns in the development of society. He failed to identify the essential characteristics of bibliographic activity, its specificity and distinctive features.

Modern ideas of Western theorists about the types of bibliography are presented in the article by the famous bibliographer, who taught for many years at Canadian and British universities, Roy Stokes (Roy Bishop Stokes, 1915 - ?), published in two editions of the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science.

The main, basic type of bibliography R. Stokes considers inumerative bibliography (enumerative bibliography, from the English enumerate - to list, accurately count), for the reason that “before studying books, you need to know about their existence” . It was this species that was historically the first. It can be attributed, in particular, the work of Konrad Gesner. The main goal of an inumerative bibliography is to take into account all existing books (documents), and a characteristic feature is completeness, the absence of critical selection. Most often, inumerative bibliography is systematic (systematic bibliography), i.e., one in which bibliographic records are presented in accordance with some classification scheme, system. But for the purpose of an inumerative bibliography, a chronological arrangement of records is preferable. Since completeness is recognized as the main quality of an inumerative bibliography, then, according to R. Stokes, a library catalog, even in printed form, cannot be considered a bibliography, because. reflects only a specific fund. Inumerative bibliography has received significant development in the second half of the 20th century, but, like library catalogs, it is experiencing increasing difficulties due to the increasing flow of documents and their diversity.

The most important types of bibliography, according to R. Stokes, also include:

- analytical (or critical) bibliography (analytical or critical bibliography), which arose in the 19th century. and is engaged in the study of the physical nature of the book, the circumstances of its production, a critical analysis of surviving copies;

- descriptive bibliography - a subspecies of analytical bibliography, reflecting all the physical characteristics and features of a given copy of the book;

- textual bibliography - a subspecies of analytical bibliography that studies the text of a work;

– historical bibliography, which merges with book science and studies the “wide environment of the book”: the history of the book, its role in the social and cultural life of society, the position of the author and publisher, etc. .

The selection of types of bibliography by R. Stokes does not have any theoretical grounds or explanations. In fact, this is a statement of the historically established trends in the study of bibliographic activity and books, and a clear separation between bibliographic science and practice is not given. The existence of such sections of the bibliography as national, regional, linguistic, universal, branch, etc. is not stipulated in any way.

It should also be noted that inumerative bibliography (obviously, one can indicate Russian terms that are close in meaning - “registration”, “general”, “universal”) became in the 20th century. the basis for a significant improvement in the methodology of bibliography and international cooperation. In the last third of the twentieth century. a largely successful attempt was made to implement the ideas of P. Otlet and A. Lafontaine on the universal accounting of printed documents existing in the world on the basis of decentralization, i.e. by developing a national bibliography in each country. The Universal Bibliographic Control project implemented by UNESCO, IFLA and National Bibliographic Centers in 1971-2004. was accompanied by a series of serious international applied research and significant unification of the bibliographic methodology.

A review of the development of theoretical ideas of Western scholars about bibliography allows us to draw some conclusions.

The main trend characteristic of modern bibliography, both Russian and Western, is the desire to study bibliography in the broad context of information and social processes. The importance of studying theoretical issues related to the functioning of information, including bibliographic information, is determined by the requirement of the time - comprehensive informatization, increasing the importance of information services for all aspects of society. In this regard, a number of scientific disciplines are being formed - bibliography (Russian scientists), library and information science (Western scientists), information science (M. Buckland), computer science (N. Wiener, F. Dreyfus, R.S. Gilyarevsky), social epistemology (J. Shira), social communication theory (M. McLuhan, A.V. Sokolov), documentology (P. Otlet, Yu.N. Stolyarov).

The fundamental difference between the Russian scientific school and the Western one is that domestic science, including bibliography, is based on a materialistic philosophical approach. In particular, the system-activity, documentary-information concept of bibliography set out in this textbook uses the dialectical method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete to establish the essence, internal structure, and qualitative originality of bibliographic phenomena, which is a fundamental achievement of Russian bibliography.

Western theories of bibliography (and library activity) use idealistic philosophical and sociological ideas that postulate the absence of regularities in public life, determined by the free will and needs of the individual. Therefore, theorists refuse to establish the essence of bibliographic activity and the laws of its development, which significantly reduces the level of their theoretical achievements.

At the same time, Western theories of bibliography have a centuries-old tradition and are divided into two main areas:

– a broad bibliography that puts forward as the main task the accounting of all existing documents (inumerative bibliography) and servicing the documentary and bibliographic needs of society;

- narrow, considering the task of bibliography a deep and comprehensive study of the book and some other types of printed works (analytical and historical bibliography).

Characteristic features of both directions are the disorder of terminology; lack of a clear separation between the concepts of “theory of bibliography” and “practice of bibliography”; fragmentation of theoretical developments; the predominance of research in the field of technological aspects of bibliographic activity.

Elena Macoviciute and Oswald Janonis, Western scholars with “Eastern” roots, having made a comparative analysis of Russian and Western theories of bibliography, state: “Few people in the West will talk about bibliography as a modern developed discipline, ... with a high theoretical level, which will bring revolutionary changes (paradigmatic shift) into a whole system of information disciplines.... The Russian theory of bibliography is based on strong humanistic traditions and has proved a high intellectual potential... Russian theories as a whole meet the requirement of creating a macrocosmic approach to bibliography, which should be a system for the transmission of ideas and information” .

All theoretical disputes return us to the formulation of the “eternal” question that has been worrying thinkers for more than one century: “What is a bibliography”?

We hope that this tutorial will help you answer this question!