HUMAN IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSVERSALITY OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY
Abstract
The article is dedicated to the phenomenon of network society transversality which leads to new conceptualization of human in the context of new values formation and new opportunities. The multidimensionality of the current situation is outlined which needs new optics to comprehend the existing interactions that can serve as response to challenges of the postmodern era. It is emphasized that a person is left on his/her own in the situation of sociocultural paradoxes caused by modern global processes that put pressure on person’s existence.
The aim is to analyze situation of human in the context of network society in the optics of transversality as a paradigm of modernity. This actualizes the issues of group solidarity in the context of the network society, possible homogeneity / heterogeneity. We are talking, firstly, about semantics of a person in the planes of network society / network reality, and secondly, about semantics of transversality which resonate with the destruction and formation of the new configuration of interactions. The purpose of the article is to analyze human in the context of network society in the optics of transversality as the paradigm of flowing modernity.
A new fusion / heterogeneous entanglement arises, which within the framework of the concept of “transversality” becomes an optic and articulates the problem of both social space of network society and the problem of essence / existence of a person among which the leading place is taken by person’s concern for him/herself in information modernity.
Problematic field of transversality creates new intentions and interpretations of transformational processes of our time. It is noted that definition of transversality is the condition for overcoming intention of dispersion of human existence. The use of the marker “transversality” allows us to conclude that network society should be conceptualized as the phenomenon that involves both virtual and physical aspects of interaction which finally overcomes the linear approach to understanding of a person, social community and humanity as a whole.
Downloads
References
Gulevsky, S. V. (2021). Transformation of the Socio-Cultural Discourse of Television Series in the Modern Media Space: author. dis. for the academic degree PhD in Phil. Sciences. Speciality 09.00.04 “Philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture”. Kharkiv. 16 p. (In Ukrainian).
Mamardashvili, M. K. (1992). As I Understand Philosophy. Moscow: Progress. 416 p. (In Russian).
Petrenko, D. V. (2016). Reproducing and Transversing. Philosophical Anthropology of Media: monograph. Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin KhNU. 372 p. (In Russian).
Petrenko, D. V. (2020). Transversal Cinematography by Philippe Grandrieux: Affect, Gesture, Touch. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Theory of Culture and Philosophy of Science”. № 61. Pp. 7–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2306-6687-2020-61-01. (In Ukrainian).
Rushkoff, D. (2003). Media Virus! How Pop Culture Secretly Influences your Mind. Transl. from English. D. Borisov. Moscow: Ultra-culture. 363 p. (In Russian).
Sennet, R. (2002). The Fall of a Public Person. Transl. from English O. Isaeva, E. Rudnitskaya, V. Sofronova, K. Chukhrukidze. Moscow: Logos. 423 p. (In Russian).
Heidegger, M. (1991). On the Essence of Truth. Conversation on a Country Road: compilation. A. L. Dobrokhotov (Ed). Moscow: Higher School. Pp. 8–27. (In Russian).
Harari, Y. N. (2018). HomoDeus. The Man is Divine. Behind the Scenes of the Future. Transl. from English A. Demyanchuk. Kyiv. 512 p. (In Ukrainian).
Yatsenko, E. D. (2020). Transversal Subjectivity in the Dimensions of Virtual Reality. Educational discourse: a collection of scientific papers. Iss. 28(11). Pp. 7–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33930/ed.2019.5007.28(11)-1. (In Ukrainian).
Castells, M., Cardoso, G. (2005).The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations. URL: https://communication.biu.ac.il/sites/communication/files/shared/qstl__castell_d1_3-21.1-80.pdf.
Chmil, H., Korabliova, N., Zubavina, I., Kupriichuk, V. & Kuznietsova, I. (2020). Cultural Form of Manifestation of Value Models in the Interaction of Personal Values and Social Structures. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. Vol. 9. Pp. 1451–1460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.165.
Dackevičiūtė, S. (2021). Deleuze and Guattari’s Logic of Sensation in the Context of Contemporary Art. Problemos. Vol. 100. Pp. 180–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.100.14. (In Lithuanian).
Featherstone, M. (2020). Problematizing the Global: An Introduction to Global Culture Revisited. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 37 (7–8). Pp. 157–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420957715.
Feuerstein, Th. (2018). Prometheus Delivered. Prometeo liberado. Ecozon: European Journal of Literature Culture and Environment. Vol. 9. Pp. 195–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37536/ECOZONA.2018.9.2.2396.
Guattari, F. (2016). Integrated World Capitalism and Molecular Revolution.Transl. A. T. Kingsmith. 10 p. URL: https://adamkingsmith.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/integrated worldcapitalism-and-molecular-revolution.pdf.
Guattari, F. (1984). Molecular Revolution : Psychiatry and Politics. Transl. R. Sheed. Harmondsworth; New York : Penguin Books. 308 р. URL: https://monoskop.org/images/1/1b/Guattari_Felix_1984_Molecular_Revolution_Psychiatry_and_Politics.pdf
Guattari, F. (2000). The three Ecologies. Transl. I. Pindar and P. Sutton. London and New Brunswick, Nj : The Athlone Press. 174 p. URL: https://monoskop.org/images/4/44/Guattari_Felix_The_Three_Ecologies.pdf
Horodyska, O. M. (2021). Care of the Self as Limit-Experience. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Theory of Culture and Philosophy of Science”. № 63. Pp. 15–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2306-6687-2021-63-02.
Kaziliūnaitė, A. (2020). Foucault Panopticism and Self-Surveillance: from Individuals to Dividuals. Problemos. Vol. 97. Pp. 36–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.97.3. (In Lithuanian).
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 301 р.
Marin, A., Wellman, B. (2011.). Social Network Analysis: An Introduction.
URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253324312_Social_Network_Analysis_An_Introduction_1.
Yuliarti, M. Sr., Siagian, M., Kusuma, A. & Wardaningtyas, A. K. (2020). Network Society аnd Social Movement: Message Reception Among Instagram Users. Jurnal Komunikasi. Ikatan Sarjana
Komunikasi Indonesia. Vol. 5, no 2. Pp. 179–188. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25008/jkiski.v5i2.382.
Therborn, G. (2003). Entangled Modernities. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 6, no 3. Рp. 293–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310030063002.
