Markarian’s traditionlogy: unlike foreign theories about tradition

The article considers the traditionlogy by E.S. Markarian on the background of foreign theories about tradition by R. Redfield, A. Rouce, E. Shils, Sh. Eisenstadt. All Western writers about tradition, anyway think taking into account the dichotomy of “tradition-modernization” that is absolutely not typical for Russian scientists. Tradition for them is itself a development mechanism of any society. Eisenstadt’s theory about tradition as well as traditionlogy by E.S. Markarian implies changeability of tradition, presence of creative component. The difference is that Markarian’s tradition in itself has a mechanism of self-development, and development is a naturally occurring property of tradition and serves in its turn the mechanism of the development of society. Markarian’s traditionlogy describes the world as inherently volatile and a conservative part of tradition is devoted to much less attention in his works. Markarian closely links Traditionlogy with his theory of adaptation and activity approach in cultural studies. Markarian’s traditionlogy is useful as theoretical justification of toolkit in the ethnology, which allows to observe in culture what is unchanged and what is changing and how. The article also considers the origin history of Soviet and Russian traditionlogy.