Influence of the Digital Environment on the Contemporary Worldview: Pro et Contra

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Global technological transformations of key areas of life of contemporary society, the formation and active functioning of global and national digital institutions that influence current socio-political processes, and the digitalization of social relations form a demand for comprehensive scientific research on the processes of digital influence on the development and functioning of modern social systems. This article is aimed at considering the problem of the relationship between digital and worldview aspects of the functioning of modern societies. In connection with this, the research issue was to determine the degree and nature of the influence of digitalization processes, as well as directly the digital environment and institutions on the content aspects of the individual’s worldview. This research question is directly related to the study of the phenomenon of public consent in the context of the formation of digital polymentality. To answer the research question posed in the paper, the authors conducted a discourse analysis of the existing scientific literature on the relationship between digitalization and worldview in the pro et contra logic. An international expert study was also conducted, which made it possible to identify the main expert positions on the study, as well as the key risks, threats, and challenges in the field of preserving the traditional worldview and achieving public consent based on the unity of value-semantic and worldview ideas of individuals. The main conclusion of the paper is the fundamental ambiguity of the positions of scientists and experts, justified by the results of the study, in assessing the degree and nature of the influence of digitalization, the digital environment and institutions on the content parameters of the worldview of a modern person, as well as the ambiguity of the value-semantic attitudes formed and maintained in the digital environment.

About the authors

Sergey V. Volodenkov

State Academic University for the Humanities; Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: s.v.cyber@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2928-6068

Doctor of Political Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Research and Design Department of the Scientific and Innovation Department of the State Academic University for the Humanities; Professor of the Department of Public Policy, Faculty of Political Science, Lomonosov Moscow State University

Moscow, Russian Federation

Sergey N. Fedorchenko

State Academic University for the Humanities; Lomonosov Moscow State University; National Research Nuclear University MEPhi

Email: s.n.fedorchenko@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6563-044X

Doctor of Political Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Research and Design Department of the Scientific and Innovation Department of the State Academic University for the Humanities; Professor, Leading Expert, Senior Researcher of the Department of Management of Science-Intensive Industry and Regional Projects of the National Research Nuclear University

Moscow, Russian Federation

Nikolai M. Pechenkin

State Academic University for the Humanities; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Email: nick_pechyonkin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7846-4847

Laboratory Assistant at the State Academic University of Humanities; Researcher and Lecturer at the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Brockman, J. (Ed.). Artificial intelligence — hopes and fears. (2020). Moscow: AST. (In Russian). [Brockman, J. (Ed.). (2019). Possible Minds: Twenty-five Ways of Looking at AI. London: Penguin Press].
  2. Baryshnikov, P.N. (2015). Morphology of a technological fairy tale: Internet of things and social distances. Sociology of power, 27(1), 37–54. (In Russian).
  3. Berdyaev, N.A. (1933). Man and machine (a problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology). Way, 38, 3–37. (In Russian).
  4. Bernays, E. (2013). Consent Engineering. Polis. Political studies, 4, 122–131. (In Russian).
  5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2013.04.00 [Bernays, E. (1947). The Engineering of Consent. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 250, 1].
  6. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011). A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411424. (In Russian).
  7. Debray, R. (2010). Introduction to medialogy. [Introduccion a la mediologie]. Moscow: Praxis. (In Russian). [Debray, R. (2010). Introduccion a la mediologie. Barcelona: Paidós. 288 p.].
  8. Denikin, A.A. (2019). Digital media and pro-airetic interfaces: about some features of participatory communications. Media Design: Trends of the 21st century, 4, 189–196. (In Russian).
  9. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books.
  10. French, R.P. (2016). Deconstructing The End of Leadership: Postmodernity, Epistemology, and Worldviews. SAGE Open. Vol. 6. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016628588. Retrieved November 07, 2022 from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ full/10.1177/2158244016628588
  11. Goryunov, A.V. (2011). Information technology and society, or is technological determinism consistent? Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice, 8(14). Part 1, 54–58. (In Russian).
  12. Harman, G. (2021). Object-Oriented Ontology: A New “Theory of Everything”. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (In Russian). [Harman, G. (2018). Object-Oriented Ontology: A New “Theory of Everything”. New Orlean: Pelican. 336 p.].
  13. Haven, D. (Ed.). (2019). Artificial intelligence. What you should know about the coming era of intelligent machines. Moscow: AST. (In Russian). [Haven, D. (Ed.). (2017). Machines that think. Everything You Need to Know about the Coming Age of Artificial Intelligence. Kiddle ed. Retrieved November, 11, 2022, from https:// www.amazon.com/Machines-that-Think-Everything-intelligence-ebook/dp/ B01M4N4B8P#detailBullets_feature_div].
  14. Karpenko, V.E. (2016). Internet of “smart” things as an attractor of culture. Topical issues of social sciences: sociology, political science, philosophy, history, (11–12), 103–118. (In Russian).
  15. Leksin, V.N. (2021). Artificial intelligence in economics, politics and private life: An experience of system diagnostics. Moscow: LENAND. (In Russian).
  16. Lovink, G. (2019). Critical Theory of the Internet. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, Museum of modern. claim. “Garage”. (In Russian).
  17. Manovich, L. (2017). Theories of soft culture. Nizhny Novgorod: Krasnaya Swallow. (In Russian).
  18. Manovich, L. (2018). The language of new media. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (In Russian). [Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge: MIT Press].
  19. Morozov, E.M. (2014). The Net Delusion. The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Moscow: Corpus. (In Russian)
  20. Shamayu, G. (2020). Drone Theory. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, Garage Museum of Contemporary Art. (In Russian). [Shamayu, G. (2015). Drone Theory. London: Pinguin. 304 p.].
  21. Semenov, V.E. (2015). Sociocultural polarization and public consent in the context of the concept of Russian polymentality. Proceedings of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture, 206, 92–100. (In Russian).
  22. Viner, N. (2019). Cybernetics and society: [collection]. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).

Copyright (c) 2023 Volodenkov S.V., Fedorchenko S.N., Pechenkin N.M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies