Let's talk about an ambiguous phenomenon and the word behind it. "Popularization" is our object of study. On the one hand, when ideas come out of their habitat, this is good, but when the place changes, various distortions occur. Let's analyze not only the meaning of the word, but also the subtleties associated with it.
Popular science literature and the meaning of the word
A person who loves non-fiction literature can easily say that the main thing in popularizing ideas is that they are shifted into a simpler and more accessible language. Academic science does not have steel doors with heavy bolts, but scientists have their own dialect, which few people who are not included in the circle of initiates understand. We'll talk about this later, but the beginning requires that we turn to the explanatory dictionary. As always, this is inevitable. So, to popularize is:
- Make it understandable, accessible, popular.
- Make it popular, that is, distribute it in wide circles.
If you glance at the meaning of the word"popularization" (from "popularize"), it may seem that they are similar or even the same. Therefore, explanations are required. Recall that there is popular science literature that does not sin with excessive simplification, but at the same time conveys complex things to the reader in an accessible form. Of course, the subtleties of knowledge elude, but they are of no use to a neophyte or amateur.
Comprehension of subtleties is the business of the future. Another thing is the attitude of professionals to this genre. In the West, such a way to make money is perceived as normal. Our scientific environment is full of snobbery. For example, both professional historians and readers of historical literature treat Edvard Radzinsky with disdain. Like, he thinks a lot, invents. Even so, it at least gives some idea of Russian history to those who can't read boring textbooks.
Sometimes promotion is a thankless task. Anyone who engages in it risks falling out of favor with colleagues or earning a corresponding reputation. But, as a rule, a person formulates his life task, relying on interests and internal needs, and not on the opinions of other people, and this is good. If everyone was engaged only in what is prestigious, but not very profitable, or, conversely, not prestigious, but terribly profitable, then the world would be more boring. In his defense, the same Edvard Radzinsky can tell about his circulations, but who reads and knows academic historians?
Literary environment and the second meaning of the word
Second value"popularization" already implies that some ideas have become widespread. It is difficult to give such an example in science, but the literary environment literally knows no other popularity. In Soviet times, the work was passed from hand to hand, and then it was either published, if it was trustworthy, or went to samizdat. It is difficult to say how the same process is going on now, but, probably, new names are being opened by literary magazines.
Yes, there is one more subtlety: in fact, there is no way to disassemble understandable language and spread ideas. The one who writes clearly is more likely to be understood by people than the one who writes obscurely and unintelligibly. It's worth remembering.
Does popularization hurt ideas?
It all depends on the degree of simplification. But all the same, over time, the idea may remain a skeleton or even disunited bones, that is, some basic provisions that have been distorted to the point of impossibility. For example, take the fate of psychoanalysis in the 1920s. The doctrine in the USSR was terribly popular, because it was completely consistent with the materialistic picture of the world, then Freud as a thinker was not very favored.
But if you now look at the image of the father of psychoanalysis in the mass consciousness, then the portrait in terms of attractiveness can compete with the picture depicting Dorian Gray at the moment when the hero of Oscar Wilde already got a taste and gained mastery in terms of self-destruction. From psychoanalysis there were some ideological "chunks":
- Freud had sexual problems, so he created thistheory.
- Freud reduced everything to sex.
- Childhood experiences and falling in love with your mother or father are at the forefront.
By the way, the last thesis is played out in the film "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947).
From all this, a complete image does not turn out in any way - only a ghost. Maybe we forgot something else, but the reader will surely remember. Such is the ambiguity of popularization. This thesis does not need proof, it is obvious.
Why is bad advertising better than none?
But do not despair, any idea finds both good and mediocre interpreters and is inevitably distorted, but this gives rise to a surge of intellectual life. And if any doctrine remained in the dusty offices of scientists, then there would be no revival, and each of us would be less educated.
How many formations can a person get in his life? At best, we will not count three full-fledged, different courses. It turns out that there are three areas of knowledge where a person feels like a fish in water and understands texts of any level, and everything is not so good with other areas.
The question arises: what does "popularization" mean in this case? This is a way to increase your stock of knowledge without having professional training in this area. And books are always of two kinds - good and different.
After all, if people scold a thinker or writer, it means that he catches the nerves, irritates, and therefore, it is necessary toread it to form your own opinion. Henry Miller also shocked everyone in his time, and now he is being taught at philological faculties, he is a classic. In other words, popularization roads are a closed book, and which of the ideas will remain for centuries can never be predicted. The life of ideas and people is united by unpredictability.
