.jpg)
printThe formation of the cognitive code of modernity
Koktysh K.E.,
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, kirill.koktysh@gmail.com
elibrary_id: 250721 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6555-0391 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5548-2021
Article received: 2022.02.26. Accepted: 2022.07.13
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.06.08
For citation:
Koktysh K.E. The formation of the cognitive code of modernity. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 6. P. 94-113. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.06.08
Abstract
The article focuses on the ‘cognitive revolution’ of the New Age, when the Catholic ontology was replaced by the completely opposite Protestant one. Among other changes, the concept of rationality changed, and along with it the semantic and pragmatic content of culture and economics. The author analyzes a number of historical turning points, revealing the occurred transformations of the institutional architecture, as well as the new role of economic institutions represented primarily by financiers. In particular, the author reveals the close dependence between the process of delegitimization of the Catholic Church and the inflation processes that came to Europe with the American gold, and analyses the connection between the struggle of the owners of ‘new money’ for the legitimization of their new social quality and the emergence of Protestantism. The ontological metaphors of Catholicism and Protestantism are also presented: they set the goals and imperatives of the development of political systems, and along with them – the criteria of social mobility and increase in social status. Thus, in the Catholic ontology, the main social subject that determines how an excess resource is invested is de facto society, while in the Protestant one it is the individual. Among other things, it sets the limits of economic expansion, as well as the meanings of cultural and cognitive production: in the second case, the latter concentrates on the task of acquiring individual material well-being, which, in accordance with the Protestant paradigm, is a pass to the Heavenly City. The transition to a new paradigm turned out to be critical for the natural sciences, it allowed them to emerge, but for the social sciences, it was not so fruitful. The problem is that at a certain stage the ‘natural’ metaphor, successful for natural sciences, was extrapolated to social reality, turning the latter to an object of regulation rather than the object of cognition. Relying on the theory of cycles of capitalism by Giovanni Arrighi, the author also highlights an actor that had an interest in the changes that occured – a class of Genoese bankers. As a result of the Columbian discoveries, they acquired a powerful financial resource, and turned it into a powerful tool for transforming the political design of Western political systems.
Keywords
cognitive code, discourse of madness, new discourse, social customer, battle for minds.
References
Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(August), 488-500.
Axelrod, R. (Ed.). (1976). Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Bonham, G.M., & Shapiro, M.J. (Ed.). (1977). Thought and action in foreign policy. Basel: Birkhauser.
Bruder, J. (2019). Cognitive code: post-anthropocentric intelligence and the infrastructural brain. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw1d7fz
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language; its nature; origin, and use. Churchland, N.Y.: Praeger.
Cohn, N. (1957). The pursuit of the millennium. Revolutionary millenarians and mystical anarchists of the Middle Ages. New Jersey: Essential Books.
Krois, J.M., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D. (Ed.). (2007). Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Lawson, E.Th., & McCauley, R.N. (1990). Rethinking religion: connecting cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leites, N. (1951). Operational code of the politburo. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, ii: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. (2019). Brain–mind. From neurons to consciousness and creativity. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Westerkamp, D. (2007). Laughter, catharsis, and the patristic conception of embodied logos. In J.M. Krois, M. Rosengren, A. Steidele, & D. Westerkamp (Eds), Embodiment in Cognition and Culture (pp. 221-242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Abelson, R. (1987). Structures of beliefs. In Yazyk i modelirovanie social`nogo vzaimodejstviya [Language and Modeling of Social Interaction] (pp. 317-380). Moscow: Progress Publishers. (In Russ.)
Arrighi, G. (2006). The long twentieth century: money, power, and the origins of our times. (Russ. ed.: Arrighi, G. Dolgij dvadczaty`j vek: Den`gi, vlast` i istoki nashego vremeni. Moscow: Territoriya budushhego).
Baudrillard, J. (2019). Le Crime parfait; Le complot de l’art. (Russ. ed.: Baudrillard, J. Sovershennoe prestuplenie. Zagovor iskusstva. Moscow: Pangloss Publishers).
Bainton, R.H. (1996). A Life of Martin Luther. Here I Stand. (Russ. ed.: Bainton, R.H. “Na sem stoYU”: Zhizn’ Martina Lyutera. Poselok Zaokskii (Tul’skaya oblast’): “Istochnik zhizni”).
Comte, A. (2003). The spirit of positive philosophy. A word about positive thinking. (Russ. ed.: Comte, A. Duh pozitivnoj filosofii. Slovo o polozhitel`nom my`shlenii. Rostov/Don: Fenix).
Dumézil, G. (ed.) (1986). Les dieux des Indo-Europennes. (Russ. ed.: Dumézil, G. Verxovny`e bogi indoevropejcev. Moscow: Nauka, Oriental Literature).
Foucault, P.-M. (1994). Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, P.-M. Slova i veshhi. Arxeologiya gumanitarny`x nauk. St. Petersburg: A-cad).
Foucault, P.-M. (1997). Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, P.-M. Istoriya bezumiya v klassicheskuyu e`poxu. St. Petersburg: University Book).
Heidegger, M. (1961). Nietzsche und die Leere (Russ. ed.: Heidegger, M. Niczshe i pustota. Moscow: Algoritm.
Hobbs, T. (1991). Leviathan, or the matter, form, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiastical and civil. (Russ. ed.: Hobbs, T. Leviathan, ili materiya, forma i vlast` gosudarstva cerkovnogo i grazhdanskogo, 2. Moscow: Mysl’).
Horkheimer, M. (2011). Eclipse of reason. (Russ. ed.: Horkheimer, M. Zatmenie razuma. K kritike instrumental`nogo razuma. Moscow: Kanon+).
Huntington, S.P. (2003). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. (Russ. ed.: Huntington, S.P. Stolknovenie civilizacij. Moscow: AST).
Koktysh, K.E. (2016). Ontology of rationality (II). Politeia, 3, 6-30. (In Russ.) http://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2016-82-3-6-30
Koktysh, K.E. (2021). Diskurs racionalizma, svobody` i demokratii [The discourse of rationalism, freedom and democracy]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)
Koktysh, K.E., & Renard-Koktysh, A.V. (2021). Algocognitive culture and cognitive security. International Trends, 19(4), 26-46. (In Russ.) http://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2021.19.4.67.3
McLuhan, H.M. (2003). Understanding media: the extensions of man. (Russ. ed.: McLuhan, H.M. Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole Publishers).
Metaxas, E. (2019). Martin Luther. The man who rediscovered God and changed the world. (Russ. ed.: Metaxas, E. Martin Lyuter. Chelovek, kotory`j zanovo otkry`l Boga i izmenil mir. Moscow: Eksmo).
Proudhon, P.-J. (1998). Qu’est ce que la propriété? (Russ. ed.: Proudhon, P.-J. Chto takoe sobstvennost`? Issledovanie o principe prava i vlasti. Moscow: Respublika).
Sergeev, V.M., Alekseenkova, E.S., Koktysh, K.E., Orlova, A.S., & Petrov, K.E. (2011). Novoe prostranstvo mirovoj politiki: vzglyad iz SShA [The new dimension of the world politics: view from the USA]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)
Toynbee, A.J. (2010). A study of history. (Russ. ed.: Toynbee, A.J. Postizhenie istorii. Moscow: Airis-Press).
Voltaire. (1947). Selected works. (Russ. ed.: Voltaire. Izbranny`e proizvedeniya. Moscow: Goslitizdat).
Weber, M. (2020). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (Russ. ed.: Weber, M. Protestantskaya etika i duh kapitalizma. Moscow: AST).
Content No. 6, 2022
See also:
Kostyushev V.V.,
Social protest within the politics field. Potential, repertoire, discourse (experience of theoretical interpretation and of empirical verification). – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No4
Kubyshkina Ye.V.,
US political discourse under the presidency of G. Bush Jr.: evolution of metaphors. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No1
Pecherskaya N.V.,
To Know or to Call: Metaphor as Cognitive Resource of Social Knowledge. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No2
Teterin A.Ye.,
Application of qualitative methods in political-science research (with N.Fairclough’s critical discourse-analysis as example). – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No5
Sergeyev K.V.,
«What is impossible to speak about...» phenomenon of «unutterable demands» and social risks in modern society. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4
.jpg)
.jpg)