From formal rationality to the digital one: Sideeffects, ambivalences, and vulnerabilities
- Authors: Kravchenko S.A.1,2
-
Affiliations:
- Moscow State University of International Relations
- Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
- Issue: Vol 21, No 1 (2021)
- Pages: 7-17
- Section: Theory, Methodology and History of Sociological Research
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2313-2272/article/view/322734
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2021-21-1-7-17
- ID: 322734
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The article considers challenges for man, society and nature, which appeared under the new types of rationality and bring not only the desired achievements but also unintended consequences in the form of side-effects, ambivalences, and vulnerabilities that become more complex. Thus, formal rationality became a factor of transition from traditional societies to industrial ones, which facilitated the establishment of high standards of living, but at the same time had side-effects such as the ‘iron cage’ of bureaucratization that made social relationships impersonal and without binding values. The growing formal rationality produced more complex side-effects such as ‘legitimation crisis’, ‘colonization’ of the essential functions of people’s life-worlds, and dependence on legal and administrative bureaucracies. Formal rationality led to ambivalences: rationalization helped people to adapt to the dynamics of social life but also had irrational consequences - achievements in scientific knowledge and technologies advanced beyond moral limits. Formal rationality gave birth to ‘society of normalization’ and biopower which generated the system of total control in the form of the Panapticon spreading its influence throughout the whole society. McDonaldization as a form of modern formal rationality worsened the situation by producing globally dehumanized nothings. Digital rationality creates objective conditions for complex vulnerabilities to society and nature in the form of ‘normal accidents’ and ‘collateral damage’. The author argues that digital rationality acquires two basic types that are culturally determined: pragmatic type - hybrid rationality rooted in the principles of practical, formal, instrumental rationality and McDonaldization; substantive digital type with an emphasis on human needs and ontological safety. To minimize the vulnerabilities of the pragmatic digital rationality and to avoid the digital ‘iron cage’, the author suggests: rejection of radicalism and pragmatism in relation to digital technologies and artificial intelligence; humanistic modernization; eco-digital policy; interdisciplinary research of complex nonlinear vulnerabilities.
About the authors
S. A. Kravchenko
Moscow State University of International Relations; Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Author for correspondence.
Email: sociol7@yandex.ru
доктор философских наук, заведующий кафедрой социологии Московского государственного института международных отношений (университета) Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации; главный научный сотрудник Института социологии Федерального научно-исследовательского социологического центра Российской академии наук
Vernadskpgo Prosp., 76, Moscow, 119454, Russia; Krzhizahanovskogo St., 24/35-5, Moscow, 117218, RussiaReferences
- Bauman Z. Collateral Damage. Social Inequalities in a Global Age. Cambridge; 2011.
- Bauman Z. Liquid Fear. Cambridge; 2006.
- Bauman Z. Liquid Times. Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge; 2009.
- Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford; 2010.
- Foucault M. On governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness. 1979; 6.
- Foucault M. Governmentality. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago; 1991.
- Foucault М. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York; 1979.
- Foucault М. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Brighton; 1980.
- Greenfield S. Computers may be altering our brains - we must ask how. Independent. August 12, 2011.
- Habermas J. Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge; 1996.
- Habermas J. The Legitimation Crisis. Boston; 1975.
- Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Reason and Rationalization of Society. Boston; 1984.
- Kantorowicz E. Les Deux Corps du Roi. Essai sur la théologie politique du Moyen Age. Paris; 1989.
- Kravchenko S.A. Dynamics of contemporary realities: Innovative approaches. Sociological Studies. 2015; 10. (In Russ.).
- Kravchenko S.A. Sociology on the move: The demand for humanistic digital turn. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2019; 19 (3).
- Kravchenko S.A. The birth of ‘normal trauma’: The effect of non-linear development. Economics and Sociology. 2020; 2.
- Kravchenko S.A. The game-ization of society: Its nature, paradoxes and influence on rationality. Russian Sociology: Changes and Issues. Moscow; 2005. (In Russ.).
- Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford; 2005.
- Loon J.V. Governmentality and the subpolitics of teenage sexual risk behavior. Health, Risk and Vulnerability. London-New York; 2008.
- Lyng S. (Ed.). Edgework: The Sociology of Risk Taking. New York; 2005.
- Mannheim K. Man and Society: In an Age of Reconstruction: Studies in Modern Social Structure. London; 1980.
- Mosco V. Becoming Digital. Toward a Post-Internet Society. Bingley; 2017.
- Perrow Ch. The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters. Princeton University Press; 2011.
- Ritzer G. The Globalization of Nothing. Pine Forge Press Publication; 2004.
- Ritzer G. The McDonaldization of Society. London; 2013.
- Weber M. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York; 1949.
- Weber M. The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York; 1958.
Supplementary files
