The meaning of personalistic, understanding school in political science

The aim of the article is to show the importance of the personalistic, understanding direction in political science, in comparison with the systemic-explanatory direction. The problem of the predominance of “holism” in political science is investigated. It is shown that the personalistic, understanding direction is less common, despite the representativeness by Shestopal, Malinova and others in Russia. First, the essence of methods of explanation and understanding and their relationship with the “system” and the “personality” are shown. Then the relationship of the two directions to a personality as a complete individual personality or as a biosocial organism-individual is compared, as well as to consciousness, subjectivity, and experienced meanings. It is substantiated that since consciousness and the meanings of personality are subjective, they are not taken into account by mathematically objective explanatory approaches, and the significance of an individual personality is denied by the predominance of general structures over it, a person is defined as a dependent social individual, a part of the whole. Then two cases are analyzed, revealing the limitations of the systemic-explanatory direction. A case of the mechanical transfer of a democratic or socialist system from one country to another and their failure, which cannot be explained by a systemic-explanatory approach. And the case of the systems approach, that norms and values are simply programmed by the system into people as individuals who do not have their own personal, subjective, independent views. The advantages of a personalistic, understanding direction that can fill scientific gaps not covered by holistic approaches are revealed.