Abstract

Actual contemporary problem of the «crisis of the European subject» is largely caused by several terminological inaccuracies which require a number of clarifications. In particular, a term «subjectivity» should be added to the philosophic vocabulary and vocabularies of other humanities and social sciences and a clear distinction between the concepts of «subjectivity» and «subjectity» should be determined. These two terms should characterize the two qualities, two abilities of a subject – cognitive capacity and agency. It’s also seems useful to transfer the research interest from the static category «subject», fixing a particular historical type of «subject» – European subject of the age of Modernity, to the dynamic category that points to the very quality of being a subject and can vary from age to age. The term «subjectity» seems to be the most suitable term for this. There is also a need to overcome the dissociation of the field of values of the «subject» term by combining its epistemological, anthropological and sociological aspects in a general structure of subjectity which thus determines his ability to be the subject of cognition, action and interaction and can be considered as a system specifications of the person and society. The structure of subjectity includes three elements : subjective, intrasubjective and intersubjective. Taken together these three modes of subjectity form the fourth mode of subjectity, which also determines the three relevant areas of the reflection about the subject and transfuses all levels of individual and social life. The type of subjectity differs from age to age and from culture to culture, so it can serve as a criterion of periodization of historical ages and be the basis for typology of cultural systems, reducing them to a «common denominator». The synthesis of epistemological, anthropological and sociological aspects of the interpretation of subjectity allows considering it as the system characteristics of the man and the society.