Organic Modernization versus Informational Archaization

The article is aimed at the analysis of the controversies emerged in Russian humanities during first decade of the 2000s. The matter is the controversy between an idea of ‘organic modernization’ and ‘informational archaisation’ of Russian society because an unlimited informatisation has its own risks. The ‘organic modernization’ is understood here as dialectical balance between two world trends: a trans-nationalization (unification) and protection of a diversity of territorially-based nation-states. It will be a new transition period of human history burdened with social conflicts, hybrid wars, and mutual penetration of unifying and localizing trends. These shifts put a set of theoretical questions, namely: Is a point of irrevocability not already passed? What are the driving forces of the above transition and which resources are needed for it? How to overcome a resistance of adherents of resource-oriented and politically conservative part of the Russian population? The ‘organic modernization’ creators have to realize that our planet as a whole is turned into a sociobiotechnical system (the SBT-system), i.e. into a mighty social actor with its own regularities and risks; and for the modelling of an ‘organic modernization’ theory of Russia a problem-oriented and interdisciplinary turn of scientific institution is needed. And first of all, Russian social sciences have to overcome the ‘methodological hegemony’ of western-oriented models of human evolution. The article is concluded with the statement that the abovementioned transition is a highly risky enterprise.

Keywords

archaization, conservatism, diversity, globalization, nation-state, organic modernization, scientific institutions, theory, the SBT-system, trans-nationalization, unification

Received

13.09.2020

Publication date

17.08.2017

Number of characters

1437

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Yanitsky O. Organic Modernization versus Informational Archaization // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost – 2017. – Issue 4 C. 153-164 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ons-journal.ru/S086904990011513-6-1 (circulation date: 22.07.2024).
MLA	Yanitsky, Oleg N "Organic Modernization versus Informational Archaization." Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost 4 (2017):153-164.
APA	Yanitsky O. (2017). Organic Modernization versus Informational Archaization. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost (4), pp.153-164

Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Abdrachmanov D.M., Burchanin A.M., Demichev I.V. (2016) Arkchaization rossiyskhich regionov kak sotsialnaya problema [Archaization of Russian regions as a social problem]. Ufa: Mir pechati.

2. Bauman Z. (2004) Wasted Lives. Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

3. Furman D.E. (2003) Politicheskaya systema sovremennoi Rossii. Kuda prishla Rossiya? [Where Has Russian Come to?]. Moscow: MVSSEM, pp. 2435.

4. Irwin A. (2001) Sociology and Environment. A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Malden, MA: Polity.

5. Irwin A., Wynne B. (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

6. Lapin N.I. (2001) Inversiya dominantnych protsessov sotsiokulturnoi transformatsii i ee aktory [Inversion of dominant processes sociocultural transformation and its actors]. Kto i kuda stremitsa vesti Rossiyu? [Who tends to lead Russia, and where to?]. Moscow: MVSSEM, pp. 107115.

7. Levada Yu.A. (2003) Ramki i varianty istoricheskogo vybora [Frames and variants of historical choice]. Kuda prishla Rossiya? [Where has Russian come to?]. Moscow: MVSSEM, pp. 162170.

8. Mosbah-Natanson S., Gingras Y. (2014) The Globalization of Social Sciences? Evidence from a Quantitative Analysis of 30 years of Production, Collaboration and Citations in the Social Sciences (19802009). Current Sociology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 626646.

9. Offe C. (1996) Varieties of Transition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10. Pokrovskyi N.E. (1995) Vifliemskiye zvezdy globalizatsii [Bethlehem Stars of Globalization]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, no. 2, pp. 8897.

11. Prigozhin I., Stengers I. (1984) Poryadok iz chaosa. Novyi dialog cheliveka s prirodoi [Order from chaos. New dialogue of man with nature]. Moscow: Mysl.

12. Sundar N. (2014) In the Times of Civic War: On Being a Schizophrenic (public) Sociologist. Current Sociology, vol. 62, no. 2, Monograph 1, pp. 168180.

13. Van Holdt K. (2014) Critical Engagement in Fields of Power: Cycles of Sociological Activism in Post-apartheid South Africa. Current Sociology, vol. 62, no. 2, Monograph 1, pp. 181196.

14. Yanitsky O.N. (2016) Sotsiobiotechnicheskie sistemy: novyi vzglyad na vzaimodeistvie cheloveka s prirodoi [New view on man-nature interactions]. Sotciologicheskaya nauka i sotsyalnaya praktika, no. 3, pp. 522.

15. Zaslavskaya T.I. (2001) O subektno-deyatelnostnon aspekte transformatsyonnogo protsessa. [On subject-active aspect of transformation process]. Kto i kuda stremitsa vesti Rossiyu? [Who tends to Lead Russia, and Where to?]. Moscow: MVSHSEM, pp. 315.

16. Zdravomyslov A.G. (2001) Interesy, deistviya, prepyatstviya. [The Interests, Actions, Obstacles]. Kto i kuda stremitsa vesti Rossiyu? [Who tends to lead Russia, and where to?]. Moscow: MVSSEM, pp. 98107.