"Diversity" at a scientific conference on style

From the time of Tacitus, when the metonymization of the concept of style began, to the present day, things have happened and continue to happen with it that have hardly happened with other concepts: "style" has expanded and continues to expand its scope in a threatening manner... Modern literary critics rightly complain that in their field style is still an unscientific term, that it still lacks any definite and generally binding content. However, if we take a look at the work of their colleagues - theorists of music, painting, architecture - we come across the same terminological uncertainty, which manifests itself even more sharply in the attempt to elevate the term style from the level of the theory of a type of art to the level of aesthetics. Meanwhile, "style" is also entering the terminology of anthropologists, ethnographers, psychologists (behaviorists, for example), cyberneticists... There is hardly any point in talking about its use in everyday speech and journalism ("colloquial" and "journalistic" style), since the title of this note has also fallen victim to this terminological "miscellany".