Comparative research method. Method of comparative analysis. Comparative method

Comparative methods in political research.

The comparison applies to general scientific methods and is used in most social sciences, being an alternative and replacement for experiment in natural sciences. . It is impossible to think without comparing. Without comparison, neither scientific thought nor scientific research is possible. Comparison as a method of cognition is a way of identifying the general and special in the phenomena being studied.

In political science, the comparative method is considered through a comparison of its cognitive capabilities with other methods, experimental, case studies, statistical and others.

J. St. Mill wrote that when comparing historical facts the researcher is trying to find some generalizing empirical laws relating to either the coexistence or the sequence of conditions and phenomena, that is, to put it differently, correlation and causal dependencies. Comparative method in political science has become one of the central ones. Mackie and Marsh write " main reason comparative research reflects the basic nature of social scientific research, due to the inability to use the experimental method. Thus, we could not ask Mrs Thatcher to resign in 1983 to see whether another Conservative Party leader would pursue equally radical policies.

Comparison allows you to get rid of ethnocentrism in the analysis.

Only in comparison with other cultures can one realize the possible danger of cultural isolation.
logics comparative analysis comparable to the logic of experimental science. Comparison is an attempt to find an answer to the question why; it helps to trace cause-and-effect relationships.

A comparative researcher is able to select those conditions of the phenomenon under study in which the relationship under study can be traced in its purest form, although this leads to a number of methodological problems. the manipulation of conditions here is relative; it is carried out by the researcher rather conceptually. comparison also allows for control of study conditions.

Comparison always involves abstraction. All phenomena are unique; to compare them means to distort them.

Comparative politics is named after its method. It connects two types scientific disciplines political science: development-oriented general laws political theory and descriptive disciplines that accumulate data in the course of studying aspects of politics; political sociology, psychology, anthropology.

Almond and Powell identified 3 main goals of comparative politics: 1. Expanding the range of political alternatives. This goal is achieved through understanding the advantages, disadvantages and development opportunities political life. 2. Explanation and testing of theories. Explanation of various combinations of events in different countries. 3. Stimulating and shaping everything general theory political relations.

Charles Regin says “there is no comparison,” but there is a divide between qualitative and quantitative research. Comparative studies are dominated by qualitative methods analysis.

The subject area of ​​comparative political science gives rise to discussions among political scientists. Some researchers consider the subject of comparative political science to be the study of what is common and different within and between political systems.

An object - political systems. Comparison is to search for similarities and differences, to explain changes in systems in the process of development and transformation. The easiest comparison involves analyzing identical or similar institutions, policies or political process at the same time in two or more countries. More difficult option refers to an attempt to predict the future of one group of countries based on the earlier experiences of another group of countries.

The subject coincides with the subject of political science, as it studies everything that is included in the sphere of politics - from entire polities to specific roles.

Comparison is a general attitude of cognition. By comparing some (at least two) processes, facts, structural elements, qualities of phenomena, concepts, a person tries to discover something common or different between them. If you don’t think further about the essence of how a person compares, then suffice it to say that comparison as a method of cognition is a way of identifying the general and special in the phenomena being studied. If we raise the question of how a person makes comparisons, then many problems and topics arise here. Comparison as a person’s ability to navigate in the world of things and words can be described through a priori forms of sensibility, ideas about values, constructed ideal types, the production of concepts, etc. In political science, the comparative method is considered by comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the methods of experiment, statistics and case-study. At the same time, problems arise with quantitative and qualitative comparisons, static and dynamic aspects of comparison.

The comparative method in political science has become one of the central ones, because many researchers considered and consider it the most suitable substitute for the experimental method widely used in the natural sciences. In highlighting the reasons for the use of comparison in political science, Tom Mackie and David Marsh write: “The main reason for comparative research reflects the basic nature of social scientific research; it is almost always unable to use the experimental method. Unlike physicists, we cannot design precise experiments to determine the extent to which policy outcomes depend on leaders. Thus, we could not ask Mrs Thatcher to resign in 1983 so that we could determine whether another Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, faced with the same political and economic circumstances, would pursue less radical policies. However, ...we can use other comparisons to approach the same question. More specifically, we can identify two main reasons why comparative analysis is essential: firstly, to avoid ethnocentrism in the analysis, and secondly, to generalize, test and accordingly reformulate theories and related concepts and hypotheses about the relationships between political phenomena." . The desire of political scientists to use the comparative method means an intention to obtain scientific results, i.e. on the formation of scientific political knowledge. But does this mean that the comparative method fully replaces experiment?

Comparison is not identical to experiment and its weaker analogue -- statistical method, but the logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable to the logic of experimental science. Firstly, a comparative researcher is able to select those conditions of the phenomenon under study in which the relationship being studied is manifested in its purest form. True, this raises a number of methodological and methodological problems (comparability, equivalence, etc.), but in general, comparison allows us to create something like an experimental situation that the researcher can control, moving from one country to another, from one region to another etc. Secondly, the manipulation of conditions here is relative; it is carried out by the researcher more conceptually than in reality, but this is often sufficient for a comprehensive verification of the relationship being studied. In this regard, the technique of quantitative or qualitative comparison is not used mechanically, but always together with the theoretical work of the researcher. Third, a comparison resembles an experiment in that it allows one to control the conditions involved in the research process. Note that this control, of course, is not absolute (it is not so in the experiment either), but still, if the group of countries is similar in a number of conditions, they can be accepted as unchanged. Fourthly, the experimental researcher seeks to obtain a certain result in the presence of certain conditions that he can introduce artificially. Here the logic of research is associated with the search for a consequence. The comparative researcher often has a consequence that has already been observed repeatedly, and his task is to search for conditions rather than results. Although these strategies appear to be different, in essence they are comparable to the general logic of searching for dependencies when the starting points of analysis differ. Fifthly, comparative and experimental sciences are based on general idea about the possibility of quantitative measurement of the qualities of the phenomena being studied. Although measurement is a problem in relation to social knowledge, nevertheless, this attitude led to the formation in comparative political science of a broad movement for the use of statistical techniques for analyzing empirical material obtained as a result of the use of metric scales. At present, the limitations of this approach seem obvious, but this does not mean that it turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the advantage of the comparative method of policy research turned out to be that it allows you to combine quantitative and qualitative methodology while maintaining the focus on obtaining scientific results.

Charles Ragin also draws an analogy with the experimental method, pointing out two types of comparative studies: (1) quantitative, focused on studying the variances of characteristics of phenomena, (2) qualitative, focused on comparing categorical variables. In both cases, there is an experimental logic of limiting conditions and searching for causal dependencies between variables (in quantitative analysis, also correlation ones).

It should be emphasized that comparison rarely acts as an end in itself in scientific political science research. Rather, it acts as a certain approach of the researcher to the subject he is studying, i.e. his predisposition to accept a certain special view of a political phenomenon, which is taken in advance along with diverse national and regional political conditions and with its possible modifications. The task, therefore, is not to compare the forms of political phenomena and their conditions, but to search for dependencies, concepts and models. Comparison in in this case acts not just as a method, but as a research methodological strategy that affects the image of the subject of study, the initial conceptual structure, formulated research hypotheses, the instruments collected for measuring and analyzing empirical material, the resulting scientific result - synthesized concepts and classifications, models and theories. In this regard, comparison is not so much a technique of comparison, differentiation or unification, but rather a research worldview.

Comparison is one of the ways in which man began to recognize environment. In modern reality, we use this method at every step, sometimes automatically, unconsciously. Emphasizing its importance, we can refer to the saying: “Everything is known by comparison.” It has also become widespread in the study of economic phenomena.

The purpose of the work is to define the concept of comparison, identify types and types of comparison, analyze the role of comparison in economic activity enterprises.

Great scientists in the social, humanitarian, technical and natural sciences used the comparison method in their works. Among the economists one can name such outstanding personalities: A. Smith, J. Schumpeter, R. Cantillon, K. Marx and F. Engels, etc. Among the Ukrainians: V. Timoshenko, V. Antonovich, M. Dragomanov, M. Staritsky and etc.

Comparison is a scientific method of cognition, in the process of which the studied phenomena and objects are compared with already known, previously studied ones, in order to determine common features or differences between them.

Comparison is not identical to experiment and its weaker analogue - the statistical method, but the logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable to the logic of experimental science.

An analogy with the experimental method is drawn by Charles Ragin, pointing to two types of comparative studies: quantitative, focused on studying the variances of characteristics of phenomena, qualitative, focused on comparing categorical variables. In both cases, there is an experimental logic of limiting conditions and searching for causal dependencies between variables (in quantitative analysis, also correlation ones).

The comparative analysis methodology includes the entire arsenal of methods and techniques economic analysis, but of particular importance is the scientifically based grouping of enterprises, organizations, firms, countries and the choice of a comparison base for them.

A mandatory requirement for comparison is the comparability of indicators in terms of structure and conditions of their formation. Basic conditions for comparability: compliance with the qualitative homogeneity of the compared indicators, the unity of the methodology for their calculation; the use of uniform product meters, the same geographical conditions and location in relation to suppliers of materials and equipment and consumers finished products; the same number of working days in the compared periods, etc.

In economic analysis, comparison is used to solve all its problems as a main or auxiliary method. On practice this method used in such cases: comparison of planned and actual indicators to assess the degree of plan implementation; comparison of actual indicators with standard ones allows for cost control and promotes the introduction of resource-saving technologies; comparison of actual indicators with indicators of previous years - to determine trends in the development of economic processes; comparison of the indicators of the analyzed enterprise with the achievements of science and best practices of other enterprises or divisions is necessary to find reserves; comparison various options management decisions in order to select the most optimal one; comparison of performance results before and after a change in any factor is used when calculating the influence of factors and calculating reserves, etc.

The comparison procedure in the analysis of the financial and economic activities of an enterprise includes several stages:

1. selection of objects to be compared;

2. selection of the type of comparison (dynamic, spatial, in relation to planned values);

3. selection of comparison scales and degree of significance of differences;

4. selection of the number of characteristics by which comparison should be made;

5. choosing the type of characteristics, as well as determining the criteria for their significance and insignificance;

6. choice of comparison base.

In economic analysis, the following types of comparative analysis are distinguished: horizontal (temporal), vertical (structural), trend, one-dimensional and multidimensional comparative analyses.

To summarize the above, we can say that simply counting the results does not give full characteristics indicator or object of study, the most important characteristic is the comparison of indicators with each other. Therefore, further research into the topics of this work is important and applicable in all areas of economic and other areas of human activity.

Literature:

1. Savitskaya G.V. Analysis of the economic activity of the enterprise. 4th edition, revised and expanded Minsk New Knowledge LLC, 2000 -498 p.

2. Bolyukh M. A. Economic analysis: Navch. Pos_bnik / Bolyukh M. A., Burchevsky V. Z., Gorbatok M. I. ta in.; Per ed. acad. NASU, prof. M. G. Chumachenka. - View. 2-ge, revised and additional - K.: KNEU, 2003. - 556 p.

3. Muravyov A.I. Theory of economic analysis: problems and solutions. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 2001. – 144 p.

ABSTRACT

Comparison as a method of analysis. Types and levels of comparative research

Comparison is a general attitude of cognition. By comparing some (at least two) processes, facts, structural elements, qualities of phenomena, concepts, a person tries to discover something common or different between them. Without thinking further about the essence of how a person compares, then suffice it to say that compared nie as a method of cognition represents a way to identify the general and special in the phenomena being studied. If we raise the question of how a person makes comparisons, then many problems and topics arise here. Comparison as a person’s ability to navigate in the world of things and words can be described through a priori forms of sensibility, ideas about values, constructed ideal types, the production of concepts, etc. In political science, the comparative method is considered by comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the methods of experiment, statistics and case-study. At the same time, problems arise with quantitative and qualitative comparisons, static and dynamic aspects of comparison.

The comparative method in political science has become one of the central ones, because many researchers considered and consider it the most suitable substitute for the experimental method widely used in the natural sciences. In highlighting the reasons for the use of comparison in political science, Tom Mackie and David Marsh write: “The main reason for comparative research reflects the basic nature of social scientific research; it is almost always unable to use the experimental method. Unlike physicists, we cannot design precise experiments to determine the extent to which policy outcomes depend on leaders. Thus, we could not ask Mrs Thatcher to resign in 1983 so that we could determine whether another Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, faced with the same political and economic circumstances, would pursue less radical policies. However, ...we can use other comparisons to approach the same question. More specifically, we can identify two main reasons why comparative analysis is essential: firstly, to avoid ethnocentrism in the analysis, and secondly, to generalize, test and accordingly reformulate theories and related concepts and hypotheses about the relationships between political phenomena." . The desire of political scientists to use the comparative method means an intention to obtain scientific results, i.e. on the formation of scientific political knowledge. But does this mean that the comparative method fully replaces experiment?

Comparison is not identical to experiment and its weaker analogue - the statistical method, but the logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable to the logic of experimental science. Firstly, a comparative researcher is able to select those conditions of the phenomenon under study in which the relationship being studied is manifested in its purest form. True, this raises a number of methodological and methodological problems (comparability, equivalence, etc.), but in general, comparison allows us to create something like an experimental situation that the researcher can control, moving from one country to another, from one region to another etc. Secondly, the manipulation of conditions here is relative; it is carried out by the researcher more conceptually than in reality, but this is often sufficient for a comprehensive verification of the relationship being studied. In this regard, the technique of quantitative or qualitative comparison is not used mechanically, but always together with the theoretical work of the researcher. Third, a comparison resembles an experiment in that it allows one to control the conditions involved in the research process. Note that this control, of course, is not absolute (it is not so in the experiment either), but still, if the group of countries is similar in a number of conditions, they can be accepted as unchanged. Fourthly, the experimental researcher seeks to obtain a certain result in the presence of certain conditions that he can introduce artificially. Here the logic of research is associated with the search for a consequence. The comparative researcher often has a consequence that has already been observed repeatedly, and his task is to search for conditions rather than results. Although these strategies appear to be different, in essence they are comparable to the general logic of searching for dependencies when the starting points of analysis differ. Fifthly, comparative and experimental sciences are based on the general idea of ​​​​the possibility of quantitative measurement of the qualities of the phenomena being studied. Although measurement is a problem in relation to social knowledge, nevertheless, this attitude led to the formation in comparative political science of a broad movement for the use of statistical techniques for analyzing empirical material obtained as a result of the use of metric scales. At present, the limitations of this approach seem obvious, but this does not mean that it turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Moreover, the advantage of the comparative method of policy research turned out to be that it allows you to combine quantitative and qualitative methodology while maintaining the focus on obtaining scientific results.

Charles Ragin also draws an analogy with the experimental method, pointing out two types of comparative studies: (1) quantitative, focused on studying the variances of characteristics of phenomena, (2) qualitative, focused on comparing categorical variables. In both cases, there is an experimental logic of limiting conditions and searching for causal dependencies between variables (in quantitative analysis, also correlation ones).

It should be emphasized that comparison rarely acts as an end in itself in scientific political science research. Rather, it acts as a certain approach of the researcher to the subject he is studying, i.e. his predisposition to accept a certain special view of a political phenomenon, which is taken in advance along with diverse national and regional political conditions and with its possible modifications. The task, therefore, is not to compare the forms of political phenomena and their conditions, but to search for dependencies, concepts and models. Comparison in this case is not just a method, but a research methodological strategy that affects the image of the subject of study, the initial conceptual structure, formulated research hypotheses, the instruments collected for measuring and analyzing empirical material, the resulting scientific result - synthesized concepts and classifications, models and theories. In this regard, comparison is not so much a technique of comparison, differentiation or unification, but rather a research worldview.

Types of comparative studies

The description of the comparative method in political science should be supplemented by an indication of the variety of types of comparisons that are practiced in it today. The types of comparisons are established using various criteria (method, number of countries studied, orientation), but in reality it is difficult to establish any single measure of differentiation. In this case, let us pay attention to those types of comparisons that are most often mentioned and discussed in the literature: “case-study”, binary, regional, global, cross-temporal comparisons.

« Case - study » comparison. This type of comparison is used when one country is analyzed (any political phenomenon in a separate country) against the background of comparing it with other countries. Not everyone considers such research to be comparative, but most believe that a comparative emphasis can be found among case studies. For confirmation, the typology of case study research proposed in 1971 by Arend Lijphart is taken as a basis. He highlighted following types: (1) interpretive “single case” research that uses existing theory to describe the case; (2) case studies to test and confirm the theory; (3) studying individual cases to produce hypotheses; (4) studies of deviant individual cases. With the exception of the first type, all the others are, in one way or another, related to comparative studies and can be interpreted as some of their modifications.

In general, the “case-study” research strategy is defined as follows: A case study is an empirical study in which, firstly, an existing phenomenon is analyzed within its real-life context, and secondly, when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clear, in Third, multiple sources of evidence are used. In general, a “case-study” comparison (or a study of many individual cases, as well as a single case in a comparative context) for a project does not differ from a regular single case study. It has its advantages and disadvantages. But it differs from other types of comparisons in that each case is considered separately and should serve as a special research purpose in the general range of cases. This type comparison is guided not by the logic of “sampling”, but by the logic of “replication”, i.e. logic of multiple experiments.

Case-study comparison is one of the most common types of comparative strategies. Thus, of the 565 articles published in the two main journals of comparative politics - Comparative Politics and Comparative Political Studies - between 1968 and 1981, 62% were publications on individual countries.

Binary comparison. A description of binary comparison can be found in the book “Comparative Political Sociology” by M. Dogan and D. Pelassi, published in Russian. Binary comparison is a strategy for studying two countries, allowing one to identify the common and special in their political development. In this case, two types of binary comparisons are distinguished: indirect and direct. A binary comparison, as the authors write, is indirect in the sense that any other, considered dissimilar, object of comparison is considered depending on the researcher’s own vision. As an example, Tocqueville's study of democracy in America is given, which allowed him to form a different idea of political institutions France. Direct binary comparison is immediate and allows the researcher, using the historical method, to include two countries in the orbit of study at once.

sociology, research focused on drawing conclusions based on the data of a certain number of empirics, studies, on the analysis of patterns, causes and factors that determine changes in social. processes over time, for the systematic study of the influence of various social.. cultural, political and ideological macro-conditions on the structure of behavior, attitudes, values ​​and opinions of classes, social. layers. groups. More and more orientation modern sociology comparative research is primarily related to the needs of practice, social forecasting. development, increasing economic interdependence. and political development of various countries, expanding interaction between various. crops The internal needs of science itself (the creation and testing of generalized theories covering an ever wider class of social objects and processes) are another motivating factor for this orientation. There are two main types of I.S. The first is aimed at studying cross-country, cross-cultural, etc. differences and similarities, and the second is aimed at analyzing differences and similarities over time. The first type distinguishes primarily interregional, intercultural and international. (cross-country) sociological research. Temporary studies are divided into: synchronous - studies conducted at one point in time; diachronic (repeated, interval) - carried out at two or more points in time. Diachronic studies, depending on the nature of the sample population, are divided into panel studies - at two points in time, the same object, for example, the same respondent, acts as a unit of information collection; trendy - if in different different moments in time serve as units of information collection. objects, but belong to the same general population, for example: they are surveyed at two different points in time. respondents belonging to the general population of “single mothers living in the Moscow region.” TO mixed type These include so-called cohort studies. In this case population is defined as a certain group of people associated with a certain period of time. A typical cohort is a collection of people born in the same period of time (for example, the generation born before the war, in the 30s - 40s, etc.). In addition to the above various types Temporary studies in the literature can also be found the terms: “longitudinal” and less often “genetic study”. Although there is no established terminology, in sociology, longitudinal research most often refers to fairly large-scale multi-purpose projects that offer the collection of information (survey) from the same objects at more than two time points. Under genetic research, although the term is rarely used, refers to a cohort study conducted at more than two points in time. In sociology, pseudo-temporal (retrospective) analysis of social life has also become widespread. processes. Questioning the respondent about his or her past allows you to obtain information over long periods of time. The most intensively developed branch of retrospective analysis is the biographical method (see). Often in the sociology of strategy I.s. are designated by the term "comparative analysis". In this case, it is advisable to include secondary analysis as a specific type of research strategy. In I.s. the central prerequisite for the possibility of comparison is the comparability of methodological and measurement procedures. The most commonly used technique in I.S. - use of identical tools (questionnaire questions). However, even within the same language (for example, in English-speaking countries such as England and the United States), cultural differences can have a significant impact on the comparability of data. The semantic content of terms also changes over time, even for not very large intervals. Significant cultural differences, which, as a rule, are associated with differences in languages, introduce a number of fundamental problems into the possibility of comparative analysis. The most important element of the research strategy in this case is the search and justification of functionally equivalent social indicators. phenomena and processes in two compared cultures or points in time. Lit.: Methodological and methodological problems of comparative analysis in sociological research. 1st books. M., 1982; Methodological and methodological aspects of comparative sociological research. M., 1984; Comparative analysis and quality of empirical sociological data. M., 1984; Comparative Sociology. Selected translations. M., 1995. Andreenkov V.G., Kabyshcha A.V. Structure and process of sociological research//Sociology. Fundamentals of general theory (edited by Osipov G.V., Moskvichev L.N.) M., 1996. V.G. Andreenkov.

Discipline: Scientific Research Methods

ABSTRACT

TOPIC: Comparison as a Method of Scientific Research

Performer: Elena Safonova, R-531
Teacher: Ph.D. Phil. Sciences, Associate Professor

Khan T.V.

Content:
Introduction

General concept of comparison
Types and techniques of comparison
Comparison like….??
Comparison in political science

Introduction

General concept of comparison

One of the most common methods of cognition is comparison, as a result of which the commonality that is inherent in two or more objects is established, and the identification of commonality that is repeated in phenomena, as is known, is a step towards the knowledge of patterns and laws. Thus, comparison is a comparison of features inherent in two or more objects, establishing differences between them or finding something common in them.
For a comparison to be fruitful, it must satisfy two basic requirements:
1) only such phenomena should be compared between which there can be a certain objective commonality
2) for cognition of objects, their comparison must be carried out according to the most important, essential (in terms of a specific cognitive task) characteristics.
Comparison is one of the ways in which man began to recognize the environment. Comparison is a scientific method of cognition, in the process of which an unknown (studied) phenomenon, objects are compared with already known, previously studied, in order to determine the common features or differences between them.
Comparison and measurement are special cases of the observation method. This method is an active cognitive process, based primarily on the work of human senses and his objective material activity. This is the most elementary method, which, as a rule, acts as one of the elements in other empirical methods.
Comparison and measurement play an important role in cognition. Comparison is a method of comparing objects in order to identify similarities or differences between them. If objects are compared with an object that acts as a standard, then such a comparison is called measurement. In addition to the subject (measurer) and object, measurement includes a unit of measurement (standard, or reference object), a measuring device, and a measurement method. So, when comparing two objects by weight, it can be established that one of them is heavier than the other. In this case, the standard, measuring device, and measurement method are not used. When measuring these objects to establish that one object weighs 3 kg, another - 4, these measurement elements are necessary.
With the help of measurement, the numerical characteristics of objects are established, and this has important for many areas scientific knowledge, where precise quantitative characteristics of the objects being studied are needed, primarily in the natural and technical sciences. As for comparison, sciences such as comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative historical linguistics and some others. Comparative analysis is one of the main methods used in scientific research in economics. Almost always, the formulation or clarification of economic concepts is carried out using comparative analysis.

Types and methods of comparison

Methods of comparison in scientific knowledge

Comparative Description - establishing similarities and differences, changes in the development of phenomena according to the same essential characteristics; determination of significant features of objects.
Comparative explanation - establishing causal, causal and genetic relationships.
Comparative characteristics - establishing patterns in complex comparisons, developing mental operations (analysis, synthesis, abstraction...)

Comparison as the most important method of cognition

Although observation is the initial means in the process of human cognition of reality, it is often necessary to know how to organize observation in order to make it effective.
Let's imagine the following elementary problem. Given are two similar figures, slightly different in size. It is required to determine the largest of them. To avoid mistakes, we superimpose the figures on top of each other and compare them with each other using observation. This procedure ensures that the answer is obtained with the required accuracy. Comparison in this case acts as a special way of organizing observation.
When we compare two objects A and B, then we have two logical possibilities: 1) A and B are identical, 2) A and B are different.
The identity relation can appear in the form of equality, similarity, isomorphism, etc. The difference relation can, in particular, be detailed, keeping in mind the following two possibilities: 1) A is greater than B, 2) A is less than B.
In the real world, relationships and connections between objects are extremely diverse. In fact, two objects can be equal in weight, but different in volume, or have the same length, but be dissimilar in size. physical properties. That is why, when we say “A is identical to B” or “A and B are different”, but do not specify in what sense this is true, then our statements are vague and, therefore, devoid of cognitive value.
From here it is clear that objects can be compared only according to any precise characteristic, property or relationship identified in them, i.e., within a given interval of abstraction. Only that which is homogeneous can be compared, identified or distinguished. Reduction to a certain unity is a necessary condition for the comparison procedure. Comparison makes sense only within the boundaries of a certain quality, and the latter is always actualized only in one context or another.
But achieving unity as a condition of comparison is not at all some purely subjective device. We are faced with a situation that is, in principle, similar to the one that, in particular, was considered by K. Marx using the example of determining the weight of one object using the weight of another object. Marx reasoned as follows: a sugar loaf as a physical body has a certain heaviness, weight, but not a single sugar loaf makes it possible to directly observe its weight. If we take a piece of iron, then its corporeal form in itself is just as little a form of manifestation of gravity as the corporeal form of a sugar head. “However, in order to express the head of sugar as a heaviness, we give it a weight ratio to iron. In this relationship, iron appears as a body that represents nothing but gravity... Iron plays this role only within the limits of the relationship in which sugar or any other body enters into it when the weight of the latter is found. If both bodies did not possess gravity, they could not enter into this relationship, and one of them could not become an expression of the gravity of the other. Having thrown them onto the scales, we will be convinced that, as weights, both of them are really identical and therefore, taken in a certain proportion, have the same weight.”
So, the comparison procedure presupposes the existence of a relationship in which the objects being compared objectively appear as qualitatively homogeneous, and no other properties of these objects play any role for this relationship. In the above example, properties of the objects being weighed, such as volume, color, hardness, etc., did not in any way affect the possibility and accuracy of weighing. All objects appear here as embodied heaviness. This is an example of a concrete identity.
It should be emphasized that relations in which objects appear as identical, homogeneous, comparable, etc., exist objectively, regardless of the comparison procedure. By comparing, a person only uses similar relationships, selecting or reproducing them. The use of comparison as a cognitive procedure assumes that we have somehow clarified the objective situation within which the comparison is made.
etc.................