social institutions, discourse, society, norms, normativity, structure of life activity


The article considers the leading and indisputable role of discursive practices in the existence of social institutions, especially in democratic governance. The necessity of searching for heuristi- cally effective approaches in the analysis of social reality in general, and especially modern soci- ality, is substantiated. In this context, the theoretical modernization of the institutional approach in the analysis of social phenomena by involving the concept of discourse in the structure of this approach is proposed. Emphasis is placed on the dual meaning of social institutions — as ways of organizing the life of society and as instances (mediums) of normative, through which the order of social life is constituted, reproduced, and changed. This solves the “rule-organization” dilem- ma in neo-institutionalism. It is transferred to the mode of two inseparable and complementary functions of the institute — normative and regulative. The analysis of those semantic, organiza- tional, and procedural loadings which carry out discursive practices inactivity of institutes of society is given. In particular, emphasis is placed on the complex structure of normativity em- bodied by the public institution. It should at least highlight the explicit normativity of the system of rules and regulations on the one hand, and the order of discourse created and maintained by this institution, on the other. Discourse corresponds to the normativity in its usability — as a real process of normalization of life. Normativity exists only by generating certain practices of speech, communication, and argumentation (conclusion). This becomes the basis for distin- guishing the concept of an institution as a discursive mode of existence of a social institution on the one hand, and as a way of organizing discourse in society (order of discourse) — on the other. Among the main social effects of institutions are the generation of trust as the basis of social relations and the longevity of cultural experience. Emphasis is placed on the complexity of the existence and activities of institutions: each institution is involved in the general discursive-com- municative field of society, and in turn, influences it.

Author Biography

Viktoria SHAMRAI

PhD, Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Social Philosophy, H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 4, Triokhsviatytelska St., Kyiv, 01001.


Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2016). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Nash Format.

Merton, R. (2006). Social Theory and Social Structure. [In Russian]. Moscow: AST, Hranitel.

Miller, S. (2019). Social Institutions. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/

Nort, D. (1997). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. [In Russian]. Mos- cow: Fond ekonomicheskoj knigi «Nachala».

Rawls, J. (2001). A Theory of Justice. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Osnovy.

Rosanvallón, P. (2009). Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: KM Akademia.

Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: a sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. (1997). The Institutional Order: Economy, Kinship, Religion, Polity, Law, and Education in Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective. New York: Longman.

Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Penguin books.

Vico, G. (2018). New science: principles of the new science concerning the common nature of nations. [In Russian]. Moscow: RIPOL klassik.

Abstract views: 28



How to Cite

SHAMRAI, V. . (2022). DISCURSIVE DIMENSION OF INSTITUTIONS : DISCOURSE IN SOCIETY AND IN CULTURE. Filosofska Dumka, (2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2022.02.083






Download data is not yet available.