Technoscience: Natural, Social, and Technological Consequences

Drawing on the theoretical and empirical data gained by the author a historical dynamics of a techno-science (hereafter the TS) is analyzed as a mean of a protection and survival; of a spatial mobility and mastering of new spaces; for a struggle with and a mean for another societies; as a geopolitical instrument, etc. Recently the TS serves as a branch subjected to current geopolitical aims. Nowadays, the TS have a global scale, but it doesn’t change its applied character. That’s why I consider the TS concept as one of the current ways of the scientific evolution which is permanently developing under pressure of new discoveries. Recently, the TS subjects severe critics from those scientists who see modern globalization as ill-investigated and very complex sociobiotechnical system (hereafter the SBT-system) inherently interconnected by a multitude of biochemical and social metabolic processes. It means that every TS-concept I shaped by natural and social forces. Every version of the TS is in essence an interdisciplinary mode of representation of a systemic and permanently changing our universe that disproves the one-dimension (technologically-created) of the TS. There are no confirmations that the TS had become the philosophy of our information age. There are a lot of sociological and humanitarian researches which are very distant from the one-dimension idea of a ‘capitalization’ of scientific knowledge. These researches are, first of all, are dependent on the changes in human perception of permanently changing world.

Keywords

civil society, empirical knowledge globalization, history, hybrid knowledge, quantitative paradigm, science, techno-science, Russia

Received

22.04.2020

Publication date

25.06.2020

Number of characters

32711

Cite

GOST	Yanitsky O. Technoscience: Natural, Social, and Technological Consequences // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – 2020. – Issue 6 C. 145-154 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/socis/s013216250009382-3-1-en (circulation date: 19.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009382-3
MLA	Yanitsky, Oleg N "Technoscience: Natural, Social, and Technological Consequences." Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 6 (2020):145-154. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009382-3
APA	Yanitsky O. (2020). Technoscience: Natural, Social, and Technological Consequences. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (6), pp.145-154 DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009382-3

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1149

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bogdanov A. (1925) Information component of modern world politics. Informacionnoje obshchestwo [Information society]. No. 2: 16–18. (In Russ.)
2. Bogdanov A. (1925) General Organizational Science (tectology). Moscow–Leningrad: Kniga. (In Russ.)
3. Burawoy M. (2008) What is to be Done? Theses on the Degradation of Social Existence in a Globalizing World. Current Sociology. No. 56 (3): 351–359.
4. Irwin A., Wynne B. (eds.) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Irwin A. (2001) Sociology and Environment. A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Malden, MA: Polity.
6. Kijashhenko L.P., Mirskaja E.Z. (ed) (2008) Ethos of Science. Moscow: Academia. (In Russ.)
7. Kokoshin A.A. (2013) Political-military and Military-strategic Problems of Russia's National Security and International Security. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola jekonomiki. (In Russ.)
8. Kokoshin A.A. (2011) Problems of Ensuring Strategic Stability. Theoretical and Applied Aspects. Moscow: Ekonomika. (In Russ.)
9. Kravchenko S.A. (ed.) (2018) Humanistic Turn: the Imperative of Human Civilization. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet. (In Russ.)
10. Merton R.K. (1942) Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology. Vol. 1: 115–126.
11. Merton R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
12. Merton R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. New York: Free Press.
13. Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
14. Pliskevich N.M. (2006) "Power-property" in modern Russia: the origin and prospects of mutation. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. No. 15 (3): 62–73. (In Russ.)
15. Schwab K. (2017) Fourth industrial revolution. Moscow: Izd-vo "E". (In Russ.)
16. Sorokin P.А. (1992) My Philosophy is an Integralism. Sotsiologicheskye issledovniya [Sociological studies]. No. 10: 134–139. (In Russ.)
17. Vernadskij V.I. (1995) Publicist articles. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
18. Yanitsky O. 2005. Dialogue between Science and Society. Social Sciences. A Quarterly Journal of the Russian Acad. of Sciences. Vol. 36. No. 2: 78–90.
19. Yanitsky O. N. (2004) Dialogue of science and society. Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social Sciences and contemporary World]. No. 6: 86–96. (In Russ.)
20. Yanitsky O. 2009. The Shift of Environmental Debates in Russia. Current Sociology. No. 57 (6): 747–766.