by Oleg YANITSKY, Dr. Sc. (Philos.), RAS Institute of Sociology (Moscow)

The 150th birth anniversary of our great countryman Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945), member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, will be marked in March of 2013 both in Russia and in the world. Besides, UNESCO called 2013 the "Year of Vernadsky". By now dozens of books and hundreds of papers are written, in which specialists review contribution of the scientist to geochemistry, crystallography, soil science, geography and other Earth sciences. But the surprising thing is that his activities in the field of social science, history and methodology of science and finally his thoughts as politician and public figure are not at all out of date. On the contrary, today they are more topical.

VERNADSKY-FOUNDER OF CONTEMPORARY GLOBALISM

Quite explainable interest of national scientists in Ver-nadsky's ideas in the field of biosphere and noosphere pressed somewhat back studies of his works in social science in the 1960s-1990s. However, significance of the latter is enormous and not only of those, which are well known to the Russian reader (I mean, first of all, his publicistic articles printed by Nauka Publishers in 1995), but also a great number of thoughts, which become available to us with each new volume of his "Diaries".

Today that part of Vernadsky's heritage is especially topical, which can be called "Vernadsky's ethos" or, speaking in modern phraseology, "dominant world view". It is just worldview as a whole because, according to our deep conviction, Vernadsky was the founder of globalism as a theory and method of human history cognition long before the appearance of its contemporary theorists. Vernadsky called science as a whole "a planetary phenomenon", which is indissolubly connected with the life of the whole mankind and biosphere, its environment. He wrote: "For the first time man has actually realized

that he is a resident of the planet and can-must-think and act in a new perspective, not only in terms of an individual, family or human race, a state or unions of states, but also in the terms of the planet." And further: "The status of science in the social structure of mankind puts... scientific thought and work in an absolutely special position and determines its singular value in the sphere of manifestation of reason-in noosphere... The idea that scientific truths are obligatory is a new achievement in the history of culture, which is just paving the way in human consciousness."

Vernadsky asserted that thoughts of great scientists had direct or indirect effect on "the thick of life" (it is not only his most favorite phrase but also a methodological principle of development of scientific knowledge.-Auth.), on the life environment as an organized cover of the planet. Already in early 20th century he noted: "Intensification of scientific work connected with local or national life allows using of moral forces of people so much as it is never possible in a unitary centralist organization. A local center uses and brings to life moral forces otherwise inaccessible to excitement."

"SCIENTIFIC ETHOS" OF ACADEMICIAN VERNADSKY

The first thing Vernadsky was not tired of repeating was the fact that "scientific knowledge and human thought are self-valued and do not tolerate any intervention from outside. Therefore, freedom of thought, scientific search, professional and human relations is absolutely necessary, while any external limitations or party guidance are inadmissible". "Absolute freedom of studies" (scientific, philosophical and religious) and accessibility of their results for everybody are necessary. Scientific knowledge is the common weal. The personality of the scientist and organization of his work are interconnected, but the personality is primary. The scientist has an indisputable right to speak out and discuss any scientific thought.

Vernadsky stressed that in case of correct course of public work, the scientific thought should not conflict with the state power as "it is the main source of national wealth, a base of the state power". And he further developed this idea: "Scientific creative work is one of the main forms of public activities ever-growing in their significance. It depends not only on the fact that science in its developing process is a social phenomenon but also on the fact that real significance of scientific thought grows steadily. Already the 19th century was an epoch of knowledge, accurate knowledge, which laid the foundation for material culture of a new mankind. I say 'new' as it is just science that through technology welded the entire human population of the planet and towards our century raised the questions of life, as it is said, in the planetary or world aspect. Actually it is just thanks to science that we can contemplate world economy, world science, world politics... The future of scientific work as public work will be revealed on yet unheard-of scale to the next generation".

Anticipating works and thoughts of our contemporaries about inevitable democratization of the research process Vernadsky wrote already at that time: "The 20th

century is an epoch of enhanced role of the masses... Of great significance are democratic and socialist organizations of working people and international associations and their striving for getting of maximum scientific knowledge. Up to date this side of organization of the working people in its rate and depth was not in keeping with the spirit of the time and did not attract sufficient attention. This work proceeds on the planet beyond the limits of states and nationalities. It is necessary prerequisite <for the formation> of noosphere as creative scientific work."

Having in mind his idea about the role of science in the development of society, Vernadsky stressed that scientific production was a part of the indissoluble triad "research-training-education". According to him, "higher school is not only an educational institution; and what is more, it can be considered a higher school only when it exceeds the bounds of a school and becomes a scientific institution, when it is an independent center of a scientific thought of the nation".

It is true that in the period from late 19th to early 20th century (just the time we are dealing with), the scientific traditions penetrated deeply into the life of Russian universities, and it was already impossible to bend the professorship to the will of bureaucracy, although such attempts were made from time to time. In this respect Vernadsky noted: "...it is safe to say that as long as Russian professors strive for scientific work and work with a scientific approach, all intentions of the Ministry <of Education> to turn them into humbled and humiliated servants will be fruitless." "The higher school has three absolutely different missions. It must teach the rising generation, ...teach it to think and work using scientific principles. It must be a center of scientific quest and of independent scientific work. And finally, it must be a carrier of education in the society and people...".

For the outstanding researcher a true scholar was only a person, who was in the vanguard of contemporary knowledge. Therefore, all knowledge accumulated in the scientific world should be accessible to any scientist for study and comprehension. Hence follows no censorship, special storage rooms, special lists, bureaucratic barriers between the scientist and a depository of knowledge, be it a library, scientific journal or any person at any point of the earth. The structure of any scientific institution, including the Academy of Sciences, is a function of the cognitive process and not of political doctrines and ideas. But this process is socialized, i.e. it depends on the political climate and cultural level of the scientific environment. The latter forms slowly; it is very sensitive and there is nothing worse than its continuous changeover and endless reorganizations from outside. Only development of the world knowledge and needs of the country can adjust its organizational structure. Vernadsky always considered Russian science to be an integral part of world culture.

"Positive science" ranks above philosophy as Vernadsky used to say. Therefore he used to say: "I am a philo-

sophical skeptic. It means that, in my opinion, not a single philosophical system (including our official philosophy) can reach that general obligatoriness which is reached by science (only in some specific parts)" (1932)... The results of works should be available to everybody, checked and repeated. "Scientific facts and scientific empirical generalizations are compulsory both to any scientist and any philosopher, and they and only they are a basis of science... Scientific theories and scientific hypotheses, which are of special interest to philosophical thought, are essentially transient forms of scientific work. They not only change radically and are disputed continuously... It is not hypotheses and theories but scientific facts and empirical generalizations that make a single generally compulsory basis of science," wrote the scientist in 1928. Research methods are of prime importance and should not depend on non-scientific circumstances (religious, philosophical or ethnical nature).

But in Vernadsky's conceptual structure "positive science" did not at all signify monodisciplinarity, isolation of the scientist in an "ivory tower". On the contrary, he was a fervent advocate of interdisciplinarity and even more-a systemic, holistic approach*, which is confirmed by his concept of biosphere and its gradual transi-

* Holism (from Ancient Greek "whole, integral")-in a broad sense, a position in philosophy and science concerning the problem of the part-whole correlation, arising from qualitative singularity and priority of the whole in relation to its parts.-Ed.

tion to noosphere. Though contribution of outstanding personalities is enormous and irreplaceable, science is a whole entity, as it is not a result of reflections of different scientists but a total product of the work of many generations. Therefore, knowledge of the history of science by each researcher is a fundamentally important element of an individual scientific process. Even if any theories and paradigms become obsolete and discarded, they are nevertheless included in the base of the developing cognitive process. The history of science and technology is a necessary form of self-reflection of an individual scientist and science as a whole.

To remain among the world's leading scientists the maximum concentration of the scientist is required, i.e. "life dedicated to science". Valid criticism in evaluation of one's own works and achievements of colleagues according to their contribution to world science (a single "body") is also necessary. And at the same time his constant personal reflections with regard to what he had read, done or comprehended. "As for me, my life credo is to organize my life so as to be able to devote most of the time to scientific work. It is true as Vernadsky worked everywhere: in his study or a hotel room, in the train or aboard a ship, during expeditions and even-in prison.

Therefore, he attached priority importance to personal contacts. Although all elements of a scientific production structure are equally important, such as individual researchers, their small groups, temporary commissions, scientific institutes and also depositories of former knowledge, still no library can replace personal cooperation of scientists, when interchange of unique ideas and samples of culture takes place. Endless reorganizations of the "body of science", destroying the scientific environment, inevitably disorganize individual creative activity. In this respect, Vernadsky was, as they say now, an innovator. Being in the forefront of science, he himself created at times small teams for development of new promising issues. Normally all began with a seminar, then gradually an organizing body was formed, next was a small laboratory, followed by an academic council and, finally, a new research institute. But a future academician rarely became a bureaucrat. Most likely, having considered his mission performed, he started developing a new scientific direction.

HAS VERNADSKY CREATED HIS "SCHOOL"?

It is doubtful to state today that Vernadsky created his own "school". It is quite obvious that there were groups of both his followers and critics at that time. But it is more important that he insisted on the assessment of scientist's work results on the basis of "transpersonal" criteria, i.e. it should not depend on his belonging to any research team or scientific school. Discipline and self-

control in research work and everyday life are a basis of scientific work. Decency, personal responsibility and humanism of the scientist are adherence to the principle "do not harm", but also mean non-involvement in the sense of "peer review". The scientist has to be worthy of his disciples, and a dialog and discussion should be a base of their relationships. But this is possible only when his post-graduate students "possess deep knowledge". What we call a scientific "school" can be formed only in case of observance of these conditions.

Ethics and ethical principles of scientific and public activities were not mere verbiage for Vernadsky. Belonging to the "caste" of researchers imposes considerable obligations and requirements on the scientist, including moral ones. For example, in October of 1920 when Vernadsky and his family were ready to leave the Crimea for Great Britain, he was offered the position of rector at the Tavrichesky University*, and he considered it impossible to decline the offer. The scientist showed absolute respect for the individual, for people, who established themselves in science. However, neither the worldwide fame nor extensive knowledge justifies amateurishness in science. Belonging to the "caste" of scientists in no way means keeping the researcher aloof from temporal affairs and contempt for ordinary people. On the contrary, support of the destitute is his moral obligation. Vernadsky wrote in his diary: "I find myself in happy circumstances to be able to support many people...". And he really supported them, even those who were in exile. The case in point is his correspondence with Boris Lichkov**.

Vernadsky stressed that will, intellect and ambition do not make up for lack of education (or, according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner in literature, "pseudo-education"). Petty ambition, vanity and servility to the establishment lead always to active degra-

* The first higher education institution in the Crimea, set up on October 14, 1918, on the initiative of the then Prime Minister of the Crimean Government Solomon Krym (1867-1938). The present-day Tavrichesky National University named after V. Vernadsky is its successor.-Ed. ** Boris Lichkov (1888-1966)-Dr. Sc. (Geol. & Mineral.) from 1943, first director of the Ukrainian Geological Committee from 1918, university professor (from 1948) in Kiev, Tashkent, Samarkand and Leningrad. He has works on theoretical problems of geology, interaction of lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere (general theory of the Earth) and astrology. He is the author of the concept of a decisive role of hydrosphere in the history of Earth and its substantial role in interrelations of the Earth with other cosmic bodies of the Solar system.-Ed.

dation of the personality of the scientist and his scientific and managerial work both at the university and the Academy of Sciences. It is not justified by anything, even if this person once created a rather large group of disciples, the chair or institute.

According to Vernadsky, the true scientist lives in three dimensions: in the past (history of science, country, world, family and friends), in the present (reading, communication with the "frontline" of science, professionals and ordinary people, experiment, reflection, assessment) and in the future (testing of his hypotheses and concepts by "the future"). If persons of the same age with the scientist pass away, the link with the past should be maintained through their books, diaries and memoirs, the past should be reappraised all the time (according to Vernadsky, time is a main valuer). When a famous scientist died, Vernadsky almost always wrote not merely an obituary, but gave a detailed description of the deceased both as a specialist and personality. In his opinion, it was of vital importance for advance or, on the contrary, slowdown of a certain trend in science. He stressed that in all circumstances the family and family traditions were of enormous significance for scientific work.

Finally, already in late 19th century Vernadsky came out as a theorist of social dynamics. Back in 1892 he wrote the following: "Society is stronger when it is more conscious... When there is a number of human societies, and in some of these societies and states there is an ample opportunity for thinking individuals to express, discuss and formulate their opinion, while in other societies such opportunity is minimized, the first societies are stronger and happier than the latter. Moreover, if in the first <societies> necessary collective actions are carried out in line with a correct opinion formed by "best people", while in the latter <societies> they are based on a casual opinion of chance people, the power of the first societies increases even more. Thus, the latter societies will inevitably face the problem of their existence, and their life becomes more arduous and disgusting. Meanwhile, perfection of the first societies is possible only by involvement of all people living in the conditions of necessity for foreign relations and appropriate complication of all aspects of everyday life. Consequently, correctness of actions of the second societies decreases, and, hence, living conditions of their members become less favorable year after year. The life of mankind becomes more and more complicated, relations between human communities more extensive, collective actions of other communities become more correct, therefore, incorrectness of communities of the second type increases, and abnormality of their structure becomes more evident and serious.

In such case it is necessary to find a way out of <such> abnormal situation. Three options can be considered here. First, such community or state is quite strong physically and can act badly, i.e. against human welfare and interests of progress; or, it cannot defeat other states and has to be ruined slowly or quickly; or, the community has enough people with strong will and clear consciousness, and these people can change abnormal living conditions.

Existence of such people is necessary in all cases. Their number and quality decide the fate of a state. However, all conditions of life in such societies hinder actually their formation, and therefore those, which could somehow form in such a state, have to strain every nerve and lead an intense and thoughtful life. Russia is in a typically similar situation...".

We cannot disregard the fact that Vernadsky emphasized all the time stability and continuity of everyday human life for success in democratic transformations and the role of independent actions of ordinary citizens. Discussing the political situation in Russia in late 19th century, Vernadsky noted that in the absence of gifted personalities or great publicists, who could become leaders-fighters, "the obligation and cause of ordinary Russian people <is> to try publicly and independently to understand the intricate phenomena of life and explain them, discuss together and engage in their propaganda among the Russian people".

If we translate the aforesaid into the language of modern social science, we shall draw a conclusion that the following conditions are necessary for forward movement of the society: 1-dialog and discussion; 2-collective actions should be based on the opinion of "best people"; 3-quantity and quality of thinking and socially active people "decide the fate of a state"; 4-if there is a small number of such people, then ordinary citizens

should "strain every nerve and lead an especially thoughtful life", i.e. mobilize and be able to give a critical assessment of the existing situation; 5-general condition of success of democratic transformations is based on continuity of daily occurrence, i.e. ordinary, everyday life, continuity of social context in its social and spiritual aspects.

VERNADSKYAS HISTORIAN

I would like to finish this brief review with the words on the importance of Vernadsky as a historian of the Soviet state. His works on the history of natural science and its significance, are well known and were published repeatedly. Another thing is of more interest here. Vernadsky's diaries and voluminous comments prepared for publication and compiled by Vladislav Vol-kov (1934-2012), a noted specialist in studies of the great scientist's heritage, consist actually of three layers: diary notes with exact reference to his circle of contacts and some notes on the current political events; insertions into the diary text of a different material, namely, facts and reflections on Russian and Soviet history. And, finally, Volkov's comments, which enable the reader to understand that giant layer of Russian science and culture as well as that "thick of life", in which our great compatriot lived and worked.

Vernadsky is a globalist, "planetary thinker", he knew the worth of a daily record of the historical process. He wrote in his diary: "I know that absence of notes for the next few days is equivalent to disappearance of important, and unique features." When going to evacuation in 1941, Vernadsky took along not only his diary notes and letters but also thousands of newspaper cuttings, which he was collecting almost all his conscious life. In other words, Vernadsky not only made a general outline of the Soviet period Russian history but also provided keys for its detailed studies by descendents. Moreover, studies not as a chain of events, but from the position of an insider, i.e. a person who is "inside" of a historical process. It is difficult to imagine that today anyone from among our outstanding scientists, like Vernadsky resting in the academic sanatorium Uzkoye near Moscow, first of all would make a list of the scientists having a rest there and then start speaking methodically with each of them. But he, aware of the "closed" world he lived, acted just so to get acquainted with it from inside, through fates of people from different areas of the country, through talks and correspondence with them. Not discarding the officially recorded history of the Soviet Russia (in newspapers, journals, radio), the scientist sought information primarily at first hand. Therefore, he considered equally important his contacts with a dairy woman from the nearest village, his numerous respondents-scientists and field researchers scattered all over the country or his correspondence (and even polemics) with public figures. Only the documented materials of his contacts includes more than one and a half thousand people. It should be noted that in the present-day sociology, and not only in Russia, the interest in understanding of social dynamics "through man", his microhistory, through studies of his national and cultural roots, increases every day. There are two reasons. First, we need "witnesses of routineness", understanding of thoughts and feelings of small but effective agents of the historical process. Secondly, we need not commentators of "the moment", but in-depth analysts and also "acuteness of mind", according to a descriptive expression of the Russian philosopher and publicist Pyotr Chaadayev (1794-1856).

Thus, today we mark the 150th birth anniversary and 68 years from the death of Vladimir Vernadsky, this great personality not only continues to open up new sides of his work but also due to his scientific heritage he gives food for thought and work to natural scientists, researchers, historians and sociologists of the early 21st century.