.jpg)
print“New barbarism” in a civilizational perspective:
impact on human capital
Zarubina N.N.,
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Moscow, Russia, n.zarubina@inno.mgimo.ru
elibrary_id: 649039 |
Kravchenko S.A.,
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Moscow, Russia; Institute of Sociology of the Federal Canter of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, sociol7@yandex.ru
elibrary_id: 77019 | RESEARCHER_ID: H-5769-2016
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.01.04
For citation:
Zarubina N.N., Kravchenko S.A. “New barbarism” in a civilizational perspective: impact on human capital. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 1. P. 31-44. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.01.04
The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2020-930).
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to update the civilizational analytical literature and to reveal heuristic possibilities for researching “new barbarism” as a sociocultural and political phenomenon that depletes human capital. The methodological basis of the work is the “civilizational turn” in social knowledge. Based on the works of P.A. Sorokin, S. Eisenstadt, J. Arnason, the authors consider “new barbarism” as a product of the increasingly complex nonlinear development of modern civilization, brought about by the emergence of the newest “axial contradictions”. The ambivalence resulting from the complication of social realities has a number of positive aspects, including intercultural and intercivilizational interactions, but also a negative side, leading to archaization, social and political destructiveness, which are at the origins of the “new barbarism”. The spread of “new barbarism” is associated with the destruction of the cultural and civilizational heritage of mankind. A special focus is put on the analysis of the phenomenon of “digital barbarism” developing in the context of “secondary axial breakthroughs” of the fourth technological modernization. The basic contradictions of modern development, leading to the spread of “digital barbarism”, are highlighted, including the gaps between the growth of freedom due to the development of digital communications and new forms of social control and surveillance; between the need for new knowledge, creativity, and the devaluation of education and science; between the availability of information, an increase in the production of meanings and the alienation from cultural values, the real life of people. It is concluded that the humanistic approach to technological development is in demand as it can contribute to minimizing various manifestations of the “new barbarism”.
Keywords
new barbarism, digital barbarism, civilization, civilizational analysis, human capital, nonlinear development, digitalization, humanism.
References
Bauman, Z., & Donskis, L. (2016). Liquid evil. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. Vol. I. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514
Eisenstadt, S.N. (2003). Introduction: comparative studies and sociological theory – from comparative studies to civilizational analysis: autobiographical notes. In S.N. Eisenstadt. Comparative civilizations and multiple modernities. a collection of essays (pp. 1-10). Leiden; Boston: Brill Academic Pub.
Kravchenko, S.A. (2019). Sociology on the move: The demand for humanistic digital turn. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 19(3), 397-405. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2019-19-3-397-405
O’Brein, R. (1992). Global financial integration: the end of geography. London: Pinter Publishers, The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Arnason, J. (2011). Communism and modernity. Sociological Journal, 1, 10-35.
Assmann, J. (2004). Kul’turnaya pamyat’: Pis’mo, pamyat’ o proshlom i politicheskaya identichnost’ v vysokikh kul’turakh drevnosti [Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury (LRC Publishing House). (In Russ.)
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1999). Revolyutsii i preobrazovanie obshchestva. Sravnitel’noe izuchenie tsivilizatsii [Revolution and the transformation of societies: a comparative study of civilizations]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)
Erasov, B.S. (2002). Tsivilizatsii. Universalii i samobytnost’ [Civilizations. Universals and identity]. Moscow: Nauka Publishers.
Kravchenko, S.A. (2020). Development of the subject of sociology: from monodisciplinarity to inter-and post-disciplinarity. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 3, 16-26. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250008794-6
Lotman, Yu.M. (1992). O semiosfere [About the Semiosphere]. In Lotman, M.Yu. Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh [Selected articles in three volumes] (pp. 11-24). Vol. 1. Tallinn: Alexandra. (In Russ.)
Ortega y Gasset, J. (2020). Vosstanie mass [The revolt of the masses]. Moscow: AST Publishers. (In Russ.)
Malashenko, A.V., Nisnevich, Yu.A. & Ryabov, A.V. (2018). Modern barbarism: reasons and consequences. Politeia, 2, 6-22. https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2018-89-2-6-22 (In Russ.)
Sorokin, P.A. (1992). Chelovek. Tsivilizatsiya. Obshchestvo [Man. Civilization. Society]. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russ.)
Sorokin, P.A. (2009). Krizis nashego vremeni: sotsial’nyi i kul’turnyi obzor [The crisis of our age: a social and cultural overview]. Moscow: ISPI RAN. (In Russ.)
Weber, M. (1990). Protestantskaya ehtika i dukh kapitalizma [The protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism]. In: Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected works] (pp. 61-272). Moscow: Progress Publishers. (In Russ.)
Zarubina, N.N. (2014). Simplified social practices as a way to adapt to a complex society. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 5, 37-46. (In Russ.)
Zarubina, N.N. (2017). Respect for the scientific community as a prerequisite to confidence in institute of science in modern Russia. Sociologicheskaja Nauka i Social’naia Praktika, 5(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2017.5.1.4994 (In Russ.)
Content No. 1, 2022
See also:
Selezneva A.V., Rogozar-Kolpakova I.I., Filistovich Ye.S., Trofimova V.V., Dobrynina Ye.P., Streletz I.E.,
Russian political elite: analysis from the perspective of the human capital concept. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No4
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Shestopal Ye.B., Winter D., Irkhin Yu.V., Chirikova A.Ye., , , , Kuznetzov I.I., Rogozar-Kolpakova I.I., Streletz I.E., Dobrynina Ye.P., , Trofimova V.V., Pishcheva T.N.,
Political leadership and personality problems. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No2
Karelova L.B., Chugrov S.V.,
Tu Weiming and the «New Confucianism». – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No1
Kravchenko S.A.,
The emergence of the synergistically complex power in digital era: challenges to human capital. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No2
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Galkin A.A., Nikovskaya L.I., Krasin Yu.A., Pantin V.I., Veber A.B., Danilevich I.V., Podyachev K.V., Patrushev S.V., Fadeyeva L.A., Kuryukin A.N., Glukhova A.V., Lapkin V.V.,
Theory and politics of innovative development and the innovations in politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No2
.jpg)
.jpg)