Instrumental Reason as a Third Subjectivity in the Self–Other System

The article examines the challenge of achieving sustainable mediational equilibrium within the Self–Other relationship. It argues that the mere pursuit of mutual understanding among dialogue participants is insufficient to guarantee productive communication, particularly in contexts where interactions are driven by competition for scarce resources and opportunities. Under such conditions, subjects risk becoming dependent on instrumental reason – the logic of control and suppression – which transforms both the Self and the Other from fully-fledged personalities into functions of reified rationality. The analysis introduces a distinction between two roles of the individual: the person as a bearer of unique values and meanings, and the individual as a subject of social relations, an actor immersed in practical interactions. It is demonstrated that the capacity of the former to exert control over the latter is limited, and that interactions are shaped not only by the personal qualities of the participants but also by the impersonal logic of instrumental reason. This logic is conceptualized as a kind of third subjectivity that mediates the dialogue between the Self and the Other. Achieving mediational equilibrium becomes possible through the development of autonomy among the parties, through their transformation, mutual recognition, and the search for a measure of compatibility. This approach is traced through examples from A.S. Akhiezer’s theory of sociocultural mediation, A.P. Davydov’s concept of inter-subjective dialogue, and R. Bush and J. Folger’s theory of transformative mediation. Key concepts in the latter include empowerment (strengthening participants’ ability to clearly recognize their goals and make responsible decisions) and recognition (willingness to hear and understand the Other’s perspective). The essence of transformative mediation lies in the transition from imposing one party’s position to a collaborative search for new possibilities, allowing the realization of both Self and Other’s interests through dialogue. In conclusion, the article asserts the importance of overcoming the logic of mutual accusations by shifting the focus from the opponent’s personality to the impersonal structures limiting the self-determination of all parties.

1. Akhiezer A.S. (1997) Russia: Critique of Historical Experience: Sociocultural Dynamics of Russia. Vol. 1: From the Past to the Future (2nd ed.). Novosibirsk: Sibirskiy khronograf (in Russian).

2. Bakhtin M.M. (2003) Toward a Philosophy of the Act. In: Bakhtin M.M. Collected Works. Vol. 1: Philosophical Aesthetics of the 1920s (pp. 7–68). Moscow: Russkie slovari (in Russian).

3. Bourdieu P. (2001) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action (N.A. Shmatko, Ed., Trans. & Afterword). Saint Petersburg: Aletheia; Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology (Russian translation).

4. Bush R.A.B. & Folger J.P. (2004) The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

5. Davydov A.P. (2019) V.A. Lektorsky’s “Non-Classics” and A.S. Akhiezer’s “Mediation” in the Science of Society. In: A.P. Davydov (Ed.) The Theory of Mediation by Alexander Akhiezer. Memories. Bibliography (pp. 58–82). Moscow: Novyy khronograf (in Russian).

6. Davydov A.P. (2020) Methodological “Middle” as a Tool for Studying Social Reality. In: Gorshkov M.K. (Ed.) Reforming Russia: Yearbook (Vol. 18, pp. 529–564). Moscow: Novyy khronograf (in Russian).

7. Davydov A.P. (2023) Individualism and Collectivism as a Subject of Social-Philosophical Analysis (Reflections on the Eve of the Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society”). Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 140–159.

8. Folger J.P. & Bush R.A.B. (Eds.) (2001) Designing Mediation Approaches to Training and Practice within a Transformative Framework. New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation.

9. Folger J.P., Poole M.S., & Stutman R.K. (Eds.) (2021) Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations (9th ed.). New York: Routledge.

10. Hampton J. (1995) Does Hume Have an Instrumental Conception of Practical Reason? Hume Studies. Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 57–74.

11. Heider F. (2013) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Saint Petersburg: Piter (Russian translation).

12. Horkheimer M. (2011) Eclipse of Reason. Moscow: Kanon+ (Russian translation).

13. Horkheimer M. & Adorno T. (1997) Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Moscow: Medium; Saint Petersburg: Yuventa (Russian translation).

14. Hume D. (1996) A Treatise of Human Nature (S.I. Tsereteli, Trans.). In: Hume D. (1996) Works in 2 Vols. (Vol. 1, pp. 53–656). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).

15. Laing R.D. (1995) The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Moscow: Akademiya; Saint Petersburg: Belyy krolik (Russian translation).

16. Lektorsky V.A. (2004) Is the Integration of Natural Sciences and Human Sciences Possible? Voprosy filosofii. No. 3, pp. 44–49 (in Russian).

17. Moiseev N.N. (1995) Modern Rationalism. Moscow: MGVP KOKS (in Russian).

18. Sartre J.-P. (1968) Critique de la raison dialectique (Vol. 1). Paris: Gallimard (in French).

19. Sartre J.-P. (2009) Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (V.I. Kolyadko, Trans.). Moscow: AST (Russian translation).

20. Setiya K. (2004) Hume on Practical Reason. Philosophical Perspectives. Vol. 18, pp. 365–389.

21. Touraine A. (1998) Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society (E.A. Samarskaya, Trans.). Moscow: Nauchnyy mir (Russian translation).

22. Weber M. (1990) Basic Sociological Terms. In: Weber M. Selected Works (pp. 602–643). Moscow: Progress (Russian translation).