Conclusions
We can, in view of what we have said, ask if Tugarinov is doing a sort of structuralism; and, however we answer that question, one will want to know if he is doing something that can succeed, at least better than other moderns who have attempted a similar enterprise.
The answer is that Tugarinov is doing a sort of (quasi-Aristotelian) structuralism — at least in the sense of refusing any absolute fixity to history, and of asserting a multi-level poly-directionality to the historical flow — an approach that suffers from most of the weaknesses of other such structuralisms.
If Tugarinov succeeds better than other moderns — and we think that he does — this is because he refuses to make of historicism a relativism, maintaining a certain “categorial integrity” that is within history but not historical. In this he identifies with the best in the philosophic tradition; but it is not at all clear how he remains “Marxist”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blakeley, T.J. Person and society: A view of V. P. Tugarinov. Studies in Soviet Thought 28, 101–105 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044115
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044115