scholarly journals HOW THE VALUE IS BORN: CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY

2018 ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
Dmitriy K. Stozhko
Keyword(s):  
Social Space ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Individual Values ◽  
Social Constructs ◽  
Functional Program ◽  
Social Construction Of Reality ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Individual

Introduction. The article is devoted to the study of the problem of the formation of social reality on the basis of the value self-determination of anindividual. The issue of transforming values into social institutions has been examined in detail. The mechanism of this transformation is revealed through the formation of the intention of consciousness, which is characterized by the freedom of choice of an individual, his meaningful desire to integrate into the society and the discovery of the individual space (inner world) – the external (social space). Materials and methods. The article uses dialectical, structural-functional, program-purpose, historical-retrospective, hermeneutic and axiological methods of studying and theoretical-methodological reconstruction of social reality. On their basis, questions of the genesis of values and their transformation into social institutions that constitute the emergence of a new social reality are examined. Results. The article gives the author’s interpretation of the process of the individual’s discovery of the social, which is presented as a process of transition of the reflexive and instinctive characteristics of human life into the social and moral modes of his being. The author justifies the provision on the formation of the primary social reality on the basis of individual values as prerequisites for its further reconstruction as an actual social reality that involves the coordination of individual and public interests. Polymorphism has been revealed in the notion of the transformation of individual space and individual orientations into personal and, especially, social constructs. Discussion and Conclusions. The article gives estimates of papers in which various aspects of the investigated problem are considered. Contains a comparative analysis of modern theories of constructing social reality (E. Kleinenberg, J. Searle, K. Levi-Strauss, etc.). The conclusion about the necessity of philosophical elaboration of the concept of such a new social reality that would “remove” the main threats (instability, risks and uncertainty) in the life of an individual and society, which is possible on the basis of a value-based rethinking of modern politics, culture and morality, is argued. In this connection, a new worldview paradigm of transition from “constructing social reality” to “social construction of reality” is designated.

Augmented Reality: Breaking into What World?

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4-2) ◽  
pp. 351-371
Author(s):  
Vladimir Ignatyev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Relational Theory ◽  
Direct Perception ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Biological Substrate ◽  
The Individual

The article considers the phenomenon of augmented reality as a special hybrid reality and a part of social space. The author compares the differences in approaches to the interpretation of reality in philosophy, social theory and natural science. The provisions of phenomenological sociology are used as a methodological basis for the study. The author substantiates the necessity of conjugation of ontological and epistemological perspectives of interpretation of the “multilayer” social reality. The lack of concentration of attention in most studies on distinguishing these angles leaves the category of social reality on the periphery of the construction of social ontologies. And this is not a paradox, but a desire to avoid difficulties in choosing a research position when solving a problem of a certain class each time that arises: either to build ontological models of each layer of the social, or to re-enter into polemics about the permissible limits of avoiding solipsism. The article shows one of the possible ways out of the vicious circle of polemics about the demarcation of ontology and epistemology by presenting the concepts of ‘social reality’ and ‘social actuality’ as a means of separating research angles. Their application makes it possible to establish that the environment formed by augmented reality is much more complex than it seems to the individual in his direct perception. It includes four spaces: 1) the objective world; 2) the mental world; 3) a hybrid world as a symbiosis of real and imaginary worlds; 4) symbiosis of fragments of the real world - torn apart in space and time and combined with the help of technologies in devices, which make it possible for an individual to be present while observing their combined existence and to operate with them. The author comes to the conclusion that this feature of the organization of space with the help of augmented reality implies the specificity of the changed social space in which individuals have to interact. There is a transformation of the basic ‘cell’ of society - the system of social interaction. It has been established that augmented reality technologies provide additional, qualitatively new opportunities for influencing individual pictures of the world. Augmented reality also complicates virtual reality, introducing, in addition to fictional characteristics, the content of practical actions. Augmented reality not only ‘comprehends’ the world, but is in direct practical contact with it, turning into a special side of constant reality. It was found that the interaction of augmented reality with social reality is reversible. Thanks to this process, social reality from ‘augmented’ reality is transformed into a ‘complex’ one, the qualitative determination of which can be designated as ‘hybrid social reality’. Its mode of existence is more complex than that of the human community, and is inaccessible to them as long as they retain the biological substrate of their corporeity. But no less significant consequence for social and anthropogenic transformation is the emergence in society of its new structural unit - a techno-subject, as an actor of a new species and a new agent that forms a hybrid society. It has been established that the user of augmented reality transforms the provided visual effects in his imagination into really (beyond imagination) existing things and phenomena (ontologization). A reverse movement also takes place - from illusions fixed in the imagination as objects (created by augmented reality), back to pure illusions (reverse hypostatization). The distinction between the observed and the hidden through the introduction of the concepts of social reality and social actuality makes it possible to discover a more complex structure of the social - its multi-layered nature, supplementing the ontology of social reality and, in particular, P. Donati’s relational theory of society, with ideas about such layers as actual and potential, virtual and valid. The article considers the possibility of extending the idea of the heterarchical principle of the structure of society (developed in the works of I.V. Krasavin on the basis of the model of W. McCulloch) to the further development of the augmented reality ontology. The formation of space connections using AR technology is a continuation of the embodiment of the heterarchy principle, which brings the social structure beyond the structures of a constant society.

scholarly journals SOCIOCULTURAL DETERMINANT OF THE SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE PHENOMENON

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Yuriі Boreiko
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Symbolic Violence ◽  
Collective Consciousness ◽  
Historical Discourse ◽  
Symbolic Space ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual

The article analyzes the sociocultural basis of constituting the symbolic space, the content of the symbolic violence phenomenon, the cultural and symbolic potential of the toponymics objects. It is established that practices of symbolic violence consist in constructing a system of subjective coordinates by imposing rules, senses, meanings, values that become self-evident. Symbolic space encompasses the collective consciousness of the socio-cultural community and has the ability to form a system of subjective coordinates where the individual's life activity unfolds. The intelligibility of symbolic space is conventionally established, which is provided by the process of socialization. Pursuing the goal of domination, hegemony, coercion, symbolic violence moves the real confrontation into a symbolic environment, directing the influence on the mental structures of the social subject. Giving to senses and meanings a legitimate character is a way to explain and substantiate social relations, their cognitive and normative interpretation. Accumulating the experience of community coexistence throughout its history, habitus is a set of dispositions that motivate an individual to a certain reaction or behavior. Habitus, which generates and structures practices, combines the individual tendency of the actor to act adequately to the situation, the interaction of actors in the community, and the interaction of the community and each of its members with reality. As a historically changing phenomenon, habitus determines the nature of interactions between individuals whose communication skills are consistent with the functioning of social institutions. An important component of the symbolic space and part of the cultural and historical discourse are the objects of toponymics, which explains the constant ideological and political interest in this segment of socio-cultural life. Objects of toponymics act as a marker of ordering social space, a tool for including the subject in socio-spatial landscapes. The renaming of toponyms demonstrates the connection between the social conditions in which it takes place and the reaction of the social relations entity to changes in the toponymic space.

scholarly journals Socialization of an individual: individualism and collectivism as reference points of the transformed society

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-47
Author(s):  
Ivan A. Kokh ◽  
Rustam S. Devityarov
Keyword(s):  
Social Space ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Value Orientations ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
The Social ◽  
Individualism And Collectivism ◽  
The Individual ◽  
New System

The problems of an individual’s socialization have always been relevant, but in the conditions of deep transformation of social institutions of the Russian society, they have become particularly acute and important. The radical nature of the reforms have determined the features of the social state, which consist in the formation of a fundamentally new social reality. The transition to a market economy and consumer society has led to a radical change in the world outlook, values, and value orientations of the population. In these conditions, new approaches to the socialization of the individual, the formation of qualities, and value orientations corresponding to the market society are necessary. The purpose of the article lies in determining the initial principles of human socialization in the changed Russian society based on the analysis of existing approaches in scientific knowledge. For this purpose, the authors have employed the methods of analysis and comparison of existing concepts of socialization. This article presents an analysis of socialization theories of domestic and foreign researchers, analysis of economic and socio-cultural factors in the formation of a new system of values and value orientations in Russian society. The scientific novelty of the article consists in the proposal to consider a balanced combination of individualism and collectivism as the initial principles of personal socialization in the process of forming new values and value orientations of individuals, as well as to consider the socialization of the individual in relation to the socialization of economic relations. The choice of a balanced and harmonious combination of individualism and collectivism as a guideline for the socialization of the individual in the transformed Russian society allows us to build a new system of socialization. This requires new methods of socialization of the individual, new ideological and value content of the social space.

scholarly journals Research of social expectations’ properties of future specialists of socionomic profile

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (39) ◽  
pp. 40-49
Author(s):  
Ihor Popovych ◽  
Vitalii Shcherbyna ◽  
Leila Sultanova ◽  
Inesa Hulias ◽  
Iryna Mamchur
Keyword(s):  
Social Space ◽  
Empirical Distribution ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Social Expectations ◽  
Natural Object ◽  
The Social ◽  
Objective Fact ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Subjective Meanings

The article researches of social expectations’ properties of future specialists of socionomic profile. Psycholinguistic determinants of personality construction of social reality are established. It is emphasized that the variability of the requirements of the social space necessitates constant prognostic activity of the life’s subject. This practice is demonstrated in relation to natural object connections, in the sphere of processes of social interaction, social communication and speech construction in the form of peculiar social expectations. Relevant psychodiagnostic research tools were used: clear quantification of texts, created a coding matrix, carried out quantitative and qualitative content analysis, empirical distribution of all levels’ scales of the studied parameters, Spearman correlation was determined. The predominant properties of the respondents were established: internality (n=18; 51.43%); activity (n=20; 57.13%), moderate openness results (n=16; 45.71%). It is proved that the respondents, interpreting the social field, pay considerable attention to the reflexive aspects, take the position of “participant in the process”. It is shown how sign-semantic formations, acquiring subjective meanings, become an objective fact that affects the construction of social reality by the individual. An example of content-analytical measurement of human behavior is demonstrated.

SOCIAL CONFLICT: ARCHETYPAL NATURE AND RESOLUTION MECHANISM

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 294-305
Author(s):  
Ruslan Rafisovich Hasanov
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Interpersonal Relations ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Constructive Development ◽  
The Social ◽  
Interdisciplinary Knowledge

On the basis of the archetypic analysis of development trends of a conflictological paradigm the author’s model of minimization of conflict potential in modern society is offered. Institutional construction is the basis for model that is harmonized with a factor of societal identity.It is noted that the problems of social conflicts, according to data from monitor- ing studies of the Ukrainian school of archetype, are increasingly shifted into the sphere of interpersonal relations. It is stimulated by the progression in society of so-called self-sufficient personalities, the “subjectification” of the social space, and at the same time narrowing down to the solution of entirely specific situations in which there is a collision of the interests of two or more parties.Instead, in order to find the optimal solution for resolving the conflict, it is necessary to have interdisciplinary knowledge, in particular understanding of the deep nature of such conflicts. Collision of points of view, thoughts, positions — a very frequent phenomenon of modern social life. In order to develop the correct line of behavior in various conflict situations, it is important to adequately under- stand the nature of the emergence of the modern conflict and the mechanisms for resolving them in substance. Knowledge of conflict nature enriches the culture of communication and makes human life and social groups not only more calm, but also creates conditions for constructive development. It is proved that in modern life one can not but agree with the statement that an individual carries first re- sponsibility for his own life and only then for the life of the social groups to which he belongs. And while making decisions within the framework of modern mecha- nisms (consensus), the properties of human psychology such as extroversion, emo- tionality, irrationality, intuition, externality, and executive ability will not at least contribute to such a task.That is why in the author’s research attracted attention to the archetypal na- ture of the conflict — the primitive images, ideas, feelings inherent in man as a bearer of the collective unconscious.

SOCIAL CONFLICT: ARCHETYPAL NATURE AND RESOLUTION MECHANISM

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 294-305
Author(s):  
Ruslan Rafisovich Hasanov
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Interpersonal Relations ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Constructive Development ◽  
The Social ◽  
Interdisciplinary Knowledge

On the basis of the archetypic analysis of development trends of a conflictological paradigm the author’s model of minimization of conflict potential in modern society is offered. Institutional construction is the basis for model that is harmonized with a factor of societal identity. It is noted that the problems of social conflicts, according to data from monitoring studies of the Ukrainian school of archetype, are increasingly shifted into the sphere of interpersonal relations. It is stimulated by the progression in society of so-called self-sufficient personalities, the “subjectification” of the social space, and at the same time narrowing down to the solution of entirely specific situations in which there is a collision of the interests of two or more parties. Instead, in order to find the optimal solution for resolving the conflict, it is necessary to have interdisciplinary knowledge, in particular understanding of the deep nature of such conflicts. Collision of points of view, thoughts, positions — a very frequent phenomenon of modern social life. In order to develop the correct line of behavior in various conflict situations, it is important to adequately understand the nature of the emergence of the modern conflict and the mechanisms for resolving them in substance. Knowledge of conflict nature enriches the culture of communication and makes human life and social groups not only more calm, but also creates conditions for constructive development. It is proved that in modern life one can not but agree with the statement that an individual carries first responsibility for his own life and only then for the life of the social groups to which he belongs. And while making decisions within the framework of modern mechanisms (consensus), the properties of human psychology such as extroversion, emotionality, irrationality, intuition, externality, and executive ability will not at least contribute to such a task. That is why in the author’s research attracted attention to the archetypal nature of the conflict — the primitive images, ideas, feelings inherent in man as a bearer of the collective unconscious.

The Second Royal Society Nuffield Lecture Anthropological models and social reality

1966 ◽  
Vol 165 (998) ◽  
pp. 20-34 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Social Anthropology ◽  
Know How ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Social Life

In trying to show you the character of social anthropology as an academic discipline, I might try to sketch some substantive and perhaps intriguing findings in the field, or the history of its development, or some of its major intellectual problems today. I have chosen the last of these alternatives, because by showing the general problems we are grappling with I hope to reveal to you, in part no doubt inadvertently, the ways that anthropologists think, and also how our difficulties in part arise from the character of the social reality itself, which we confront and try to understand. The fundamental questions which social anthropology asks are about the forms, the nature, and the extent of order in human social life, as it can be observed in the different parts of the world. There is no need to prejudge the extent of this order; as members of one society we know how unpredictable social life can be. But concretely, human life varies greatly around the world, and it seems possible to characterize its forms to some extent. We seek means systematically to discover, record and understand these forms.

Mitigation for minors: Exploring the nuances of social constructs and legal status in structuring sentences for youthful offenders

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-522
Author(s):  
Megan C Kurlychek
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
New York State ◽  
Social Constructs ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Individual ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Youthful Offender

New York State is one of only two states in the nation that processes all 16- and 17-year-old defendants as adults. Contrary to this seemingly punitive stance, the state also maintains a Youthful Offender Statute that requires mitigated punishments for youths up to their 19th birthday upon court designation of youthful offender status. This study empirically examines the individual and combined impact of the social status of being a “minor” and the legally awarded status of being designated a youthful offender, upon adult court sentencing decisions framing the discussion within broader conceptualizations of youthfulness, culpability, and punishment. Utilizing a population of all youths ages 16–21 whose cases were disposed in New York between 2000 and 2006, this study finds the legally defined status of youthful offender to provide much greater mitigation at sentencing than the more general social status of being a minor. Findings are discussed as they relate to categorical and individualized assessments of culpability. In addition, as the study finds individualized assessments of culpability to be related to factors such as gender and race, broader implications for the role of court assigned statuses and mitigation of punishment are offered.

Carl Menger's theory of invisible-hand explanations

2000 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Haller
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Invisible Hand ◽  
The Social ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Individual

Carl Menger's theory of invisible-hand explanations is rooted in his methodology of the social sciences. Contrary to his 18th-century Scottish forerunners he explains both the emergence and the persistence of unplanned social institutions exclusively by the individual pursuit of perceived self-interest. Contrary to Hayek's evolutionary functionalism, Menger's theory is not confined to the explanation of efficient or beneficial institutions. And contrary to Buchanan and Vanberg's constitutional contractualism, it does not require that people form stable preferences over rules.

The Not-so-trivial Truth of Methodological Individualism

1998 ◽  
pp. 69-76
Author(s):  
Maarten Franssen
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Methodological Individualism ◽  
Intentional Stance ◽  
Theoretical Terms ◽  
The Social ◽  
Intentional Psychology ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Social Entities

I defend the truth of the principle of methodological individualism in the social sciences. I do so by criticizing mistaken ideas about the relation between individual people and social entities held by earlier defenders of the principle. I argue, first, that social science is committed to the intentional stance; the domain of social science, therefore, coincides with the domain of intentionally described human action. Second, I argue that social entitites are theoretical terms, but quite different from the entities used in the natural sciences to explain our empirical evidence. Social entities (such as institutions) are conventional and open-ended constructions, the applications of which is a matter of judgment, not of discovery. The terms in which these social entities are constructed are the beliefs, expectations and desires, and the corresponding actions of individual people. The relation between the social and the individual 'levels' differs fundamentally from that between, say, the cellular and the molecular in biology. Third, I claim that methodological individualism does not amount to a reduction of social science to psychology; rather, the science of psychology should be divided. Intentional psychology forms in tandom with the analysis of social institutions, unitary psycho-social science; cognitive psychology tries to explain how the brain works and especially how the intentional stance is applicable to human behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document