printTechnoscience:
Natural, Social, and Technological Effects
Yanitzky O.N.
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Prof., Chief Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia oleg.yanitsky@yandex.ru
Yanitzky O.N. Technoscience: Natural, Social, and Technological Effects. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2020. No 6. P. 145-154
Drawing on the theoretical and empirical data gained by the author a historical dynamics of a techno-science (hereafter the TS) is analyzed as a mean of protection and survival; of spatial mobility and mastering of new spaces; for a struggle with and a mean for another societies; as a geopolitical instrument, etc. Recently the TS serves as a branch subjected to current geopolitical aims. Nowadays, the TS have a global scale, but it doesn’t change its applied character. That’s why I consider the TS concept as one of the current ways of the scientific evolution which is permanently developing under impact of new discoveries. Recently, the TS is subjected to severe critics from those scientists who see modern globalization as ill-investigated and very complex sociobiotechnical system (hereafter the SBT-system) inherently interconnected by a multitude of biochemical and social metabolic processes. It means that every TS-concept is shaped by natural and social forces. Every version of the TS is in essence an interdisciplinary mode of representation of a systemic and permanently changing our universe that disproves the one-dimension (technologically-created) of the TS. There are no confirmations that the TS had become the philosophy of our information age. There are a lot of sociological and humanitarian research which are very distant from the one-dimensional idea of a ‘capitalization’ of scientific knowledge. These researches are, first of all, dependent on the changes in human perception of permanently changing world.
Bogdanov A. (1925) General Organizational Science (Tectology). Moscow-Leningrad: Kniga. (In Russ.)
Burawoy M. (2008) What is to be Done? Theses on the Degradation of Social Existence in a Globalizing World. Current Sociology. Vol. 56. No. 3: 351–359.
Irwin A. (2001) Sociology and Environment. A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Malden, MA: Polity.
Irwin A., Wynne B. (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kijashchenko L.P., Mirskaja E.Z. (eds) (2008) Ethos of Science. Moscow: Academia. (In Russ.)
Kokoshin A.A. (2011) Problems of Ensuring Strategic Stability. Theoretical and Applied Aspects. Moscow: Ekonomika. (In Russ.)
Kravchenko S.A. (ed.) (2018) Humanistic Turn: the Imperative of Human Civilization. Moscow: MGIMOUniversitet. (In Russ.)
Merton R.K. (2006) Social Theory and Social Structure. Moscow: AST: AST MOSKVA: KhRANITEL’.
Merton R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. New York: Free Press.
Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Pliskevich N.M. (2006) “Power-Property” in Modern Russia: the Origin and Prospects of Mutation. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. Vol. 15. No. 3: 62–73. (In Russ.)
Schwab K. (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Moscow: Izd-vo “E”. (In Russ.)
Sorokin P.А. (1992) My Philosophy is an Integralism. Sotsiologicheskye issledovniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 10: 134–139. (In Russ.)
Vernadskij V.I. (1995) Publicist Articles. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
Yanitsky O. (2005) Dialogue between Science and Society. Social Sciences. A Quarterly Journal of the Russian Acad. of Sciences. Vol. 36. No. 2: 78–90.
Yanitsky O.N. (2004) Dialogue of Science and Society. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social Sciences and Contemporary World]. No. 6: 86–96. (In Russ.)
Yanitsky O. (2009) The Shift of Environmental Debates in Russia. Current Sociology. Vol. 57. No. 6: 747–766.