Article name Social Transparency and Personal Boundaries: Global Culture Paradoxes
Authors Silant’eva M.V. Doctor of Philosophy,
Bibliographic description Silantieva M. V. Social Transparency and Personal Boundaries: Global Culture Paradoxes // Humanitarian Vector. 2019. Vol. 14, No. 4. PP. 24–31. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-4-24-31
UDK 130.2
DOI 10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-4-24-31
Article type
Annotation Relevance of social transparency research is determined by the fact, that openness (or “transparency”) is one of the key formulas of global culture based on high technologies and “information society” achievements. Among promising directions of its deliberation is “network identity” concept consideration through a prism of D. Brin’s “transparent society” theory and “actor- network theory” by B. Latour. Their comparison purpose is clarification of value basics and prospects of “network identity” establishment in the context of modern anthropological shifts. Methodology chosen for a philosophic and culturological analysis is a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach, combining categorical analysis, philosophical hermeneutics techniques and content analysis of communication media messages, reflecting details of latest information technologies introduction (by the example of China). Novelty of results obtained consists in revelation of mentioned above theories connection with a fundamental reconsideration of “freedom” concept content by “information society” and establishment of its secondary role to “public security” category. Thereby freedom interpretation as a value is being leveled. One more result of global identity understanding as network identity for the most part is ascertainment of its rigid connection with recognition technologies. Thus an individual conception as a “person” responsible for “primordial freedom gift” is being reconsidered. A “person” now is a concentrated bundle of social interactions, framework realization of “open privacy”. Thereby a “person” is deprived of room for mistake and his interpretations wander from an ethical understanding common for pre-information age and approach particularly legal understanding.
Key words philosophy of culture, social transparency, “transparent society”, actor-network theory, information technologies, global identity, network identity
Article information
References 1. Belova, I. S. Person’s possibilities in “transparent society”: a view of a witness (Gianni Vattimo). Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, no. 1, pp. 234–238, 2014. (In Rus.) 2. Belova, I. S. “Weakened thinking” ‒ a metaphysical trauma of modern culture: based on Gianni Vattimo. Proceedings of St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, v. 206, pp. 244–253, 2015. (In Rus.) 3. Vasina, E. Self-presentations of individual in the network: features of language games. Scientific Gazette of Belgorod State University. Series: Humanities, no. 14, pp. 61–66, 2016. (In Rus.) 4. Vakhshtain, V. S. The return of the material. “Spaces”, “networks”, “streams” in actor-network theory. Sociological Review, no. 1, pp. 94–115, 2005. (In Rus.) 5. Vattimo, Dzh. Transparent society. M: Logos, 2003. (In Rus.) 6. Voiskunskiy, A. E., Evdokimenko, A. S., Fedunina, N. Yu. Alternative identity in social networks. Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series 14: Psychology, no. 1, pp. 66–83, 2013. (In Rus.) 7. Voiskunskiy, A. E., Evdokimenko, A. S., Fedunina, N. Yu. Network and real identity: a comparative study. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, no. 2, pp. 98–121, 2013. (In Rus.) 8. Galeon, D., Bergan, B. The Chinese “social rating system” will determine the value of people. InoSMI. 20.02.2018. Web: 12.02.2019. (In Rus.) 9. Glagolev, V. S. Religious and ethnic filling of images of “one’s own” and “someone else’s” in the dynamics of political opportunism. Dialogue of cultures and partnership of civilizations. XIV International Likhachev Scientific Readings. SPb: SPGUP, 2014: 362–365. (In Rus.) 10. Glagolev, V. S. Realism of analysis – the initial condition of scientific perspective (co-report). Law and Administration. XXI Century, no. 4, pp. 12–18, 2011. (In Rus.) 11. Gordeev, A. Digital dictatorship: how China introduces a social rating. RBC. 11.12.2016. Web. 12.02.2019. (In Rus.) 12. Grimov, O. A. Self-presentation and self-identification of a person in social networks. Psychology and Sociology, vol. 12, pp. 34–39, 2013. (In Rus.) 13. Dal’, R. Democracy and its critics. M: ROSSPEHN, 2003. (In Rus.) 14. Dushina, M. O. Methods of network communication in the digital society: benchmarking, crowdsourcing, crowdfunding. Sociology of science and technology, no. 1, pp. 105–114, 2014. (In Rus.) 15. Koroleva, A. A. Transformation of sociocultural identity in the transition to a networked society (comparative analysis of the experience of Russia and Spain). Cand. cult. sci. diss. abstr. M: 2015. (In Rus.) 16. Latur, B. Hopes of constructivism. Sociology of things: collection of articles. Ed. Vakhshtayn, V. S. M: Territoriya budushchego, 2006: 365–390. (In Rus.) 17. Latur, B. On Interobjectivity. Sociological Review, no. 2, pp. 79–98, 2007. (In Rus.) 18. Liotar, Zh.-F. The state of the postmodern. Translation from French Shmatko, N. A. M: «Institut ehksperimental’noi sotsiologii»; SPB: Aleteiya, 1998. (In Rus.) 19. Lyapin, A., Pugacheva, A. China takes citizens under total control? Kommersant. 09.03.2018. Web. 12.02.2019. (In Rus.) 20. Megatrends: The main trajectories of the evolution of the world order in the XXI century. Ed. Shakleina, T. A. and BaIikov, A. A. M: Aspekt press, 2013. (In Rus.) 21. Myshkina, M. S. Virtual self-presentation as a space of personal identity and motivational-semantic intention of the personality. Bulletin of Samara State University, no. 7, pp. 212–221, 2015. (In Rus.) 22. Smirnova, P. V., Tsyplakov, A. A. Self-presentation and formation of social capital in business social networks. Internet-journal Naukovedenie, t. 8, no. 6, 2016. Web. 12.02.2019. (In Rus.) 23. Sukhomlinova, V. V. Alternative collectivism: deep characteristics of traditional Chinese society. Manuscript, no. 9, pp. 93–99, 2018. (In Rus.) 24. Fuko, M. Intellectuals and power. Part 1. Selected political articles, speeches and interviews. M: Praksis, 2002. (In Rus.) 25. Shilova, E. S. Social network as a special type of Internet communication. Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice, no. 5, p. 1, pp. 191–194, 2018. (In Rus.) 26. Ehlazar, D. Dzh. The European Community: Between State Sovereignty and Subsidiarity or Hierarchy Against Collegiality in Managing the European Community. Kazan Federalist, no. 4, pp. 57–78, 2002. (In Engl.) 27. Alruwaili, T. O. Self-Identity and Community Through Social Media: the Experience of Saudi Female International College Students in the United States. Dissertation. USA. 2017. 169 p. Web. 12.02.2019. (In Engl.) 28. Back, M. D. and all. Facebook profiles reflect actual personality not self-idealization. Psychological Science, no. 21, pp. 372–374, 2010. (In Engl.) 29. Brin, D. The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom? Paperback. N.-Y: Perseus Books, 1996. (In Engl.) 30. Callon, M. Actor-network theory – the market test. The Sociological Review, no. 1_suppl., pp. 181–195, 1999. (In Engl.) 31. Callon, M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The sociological review, no. 1_suppl., pp. 196–233, 1984. (In Engl.) 32. Etzioni, A. Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, no. 4, pp. 389–404, 2010. (In Engl.) 33. Exnerova, V. Introducing transnationalism studies to the field of public diplomacy. The Journal of International Communication , no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2017. Published online: 19 Sep 2017. Web. 12.02.2019. (In Engl.) 34. Gündüz, U. The Effect of Social Media on Identity Construction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, no. 5, pp. 85–92, 2017. (In Engl.) 35. Hajnal, Z. The Impossible Trinity of Security, Freedom and Privacy. Securitologia, no. 2, pp. 131–145, 2016. (In Engl.) 36. Law J. After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. The Sociological Review, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1999. (In Engl.) 37. Meijer, A. Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, no. 2, pp. 255–269, 2009. (In Engl.) 38. Meijer, A. Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, no. 3, pp. 429–439, 2013. (In Engl.)
Full articleSocial Transparency and Personal Boundaries: Global Culture Paradoxes