Интеграция экономики в культурное пространство современного информационного общества
Цехмистренко Александр Владимирович,
аспирант кафедры прикладной философии и теологии института философии и психологии Восточно-украинского национального университета им. Владимира Даля, г. Луганск, Украина.
Integration of economy into cultural environment of modern information society
Tsehmistrenko Alexander Vladimirovich,
post-graduate of the chair of applied philosophy and theology, institute of philosophy and psychology, V. Dahl East-Ukrainian National University (Ukraine, city of Lugansk).
Рассматривается проблема взаимодействия, взаимовлияния культуры и экономики, рассмотрены основные принципы современной экономической культуры, проанализированы особенности интеграции экономики в современную культуру постиндустриального информационного общества.
Ключевые слова: культура, экономическая культура постмодерна, экокультурация.
The problem of interaction, inter-influence of culture and economy are considered. The main principles of modern economic culture have been examined. The peculiarities of economy integration into modern culture of post-industrial information society have been analyzed.
Keywords: culture, economic culture of post-modern, eco-culture.
Nowadays the researches of economic culture which more and more depends on virtual-information technologies of modern information society are of greater importance because modern information economic culture is more and more being transformed into different spheres of personal activity as a subject of economic activity. Now it is impossible to imagine a personality beyond economic field of culture. All activity of subjects being busy in economic activity, all interpersonal communication is determined by his/her eco-culture.
To reveal the tendencies of eco-cultural personality under modern conditions of information society it is necessary to consider subjective and objective factors influencing the relations formation in subjects’ economic activity. In our point of view economic culture which is forming subjects’ economic behavior is needed to be considered as a system of knowledge, values, and norms of behavior in economy and as a motivation for man’s economic activity. Only then we can find out the factors causing the functioning of an integration economy mechanism into culture under modern cultural conditions of information society that for its part allows investigating the tendencies of personality’s eco-culture and showing those problems which can arise both to face the personality as a subject and as culture on the whole.
The problem of integration processes of inter-influencing, interaction and inter-determination of culture and economy has been researched by foreign and native philosophers and science of culture. One of the first scientists who began to investigate the problem of correlation of different cultural forms and the forms of economic activity in primitive societies in their works were M. Moss, B.Malinovskiy, and R. Firs. They have analyzed economic culture at the stages of their development. Economic culture for authors is a system of production, division and consumption of material and spiritual benefits in society in different forms which exists at all stages of its development.
Ethical questions are the primary ones in the works of M. Veber, V. Zombart, and S. Bulgakov which are devoted to revealing of interconnections between spiritual sphere of culture and economic activity. The analysis of this problem and study of main tendencies of the development of post-culture in modern information society have been done in the researches of V. Inozemtsev, D. Carnegie, M. Mesconi. Attitude to modern post-industrial society has been analyzed in the works of G. Bodriyar, G. Batajya, and K. Yaspers. Doubts concerning the possible crisis- free functioning of modern economic culture have been stated. Lately a methodological precondition for the research of modern economic culture in information society has appeared in the woks of V. D. Isaev, T. V. Lugutsenko and some others.
The aim of the research is to reveal the peculiarities of economy and culture integration in a modern field of economic culture in post-industrial society. To realize a set aim it is necessary to solve some following tasks: to consider the main principles of modern economic culture, to analyze the peculiarities of economy integration into modern culture of information society. Economic culture is a main component of a mechanism integrating economy into culture, so economy can be taken in and built in culture only in that case if this process is accompanied by the transformation processes of economic culture, culture and economy on the whole but this is practically impossible under the conditions of dynamically developing information technologies in modern society. Economy influences the economic culture with the help of formation of economic activity forms that is economic institutes. However, economic culture influences the economy causing the people’s behavior, their ability to accept, learn and master existing economic institutes. Culture influences the formation of economic culture through the development and formation of mentality but economic culture influences culture and transforms mentality. Thus, economic culture is a linking unit, a part of mechanism integrating economy and culture which involves mentality and economic institutes too.
Modern economic culture due to the lack of cultural core in it possesses all characteristic features of post-modern and it can be determined as economic culture of post-modern because the principles themselves of post-modern such as irrationalism, subjectivism and so on are the basic and fundamental ones in culture and moreover they are necessary for modern information post-industrial culture. They allow reacting to the alterations of economic situation to the maximum promptly and generate new more competitive solutions; particularly that’s why modern economic culture must be to the maximum flexible, to generate solutions not aiming at a firmly established cultural anchor of economic activity subjects. In our opinion post-modern economic culture is a result of long natural development of the whole mechanism integrating economy into culture; it meets the requirements the most adequately both of modern information culture and modern post- industrial economy. In cultural sphere the formation of post-modern economic culture occurs by means of the process from the Catholic religion and its system of values through Protestantism and rationalism of industrial epoch to post-modern irrationalism. In the past the movement process from traditional national economy management and control through classical private ownership of property capitalism to post-industrial economy and modern information society took place in economic sphere. The main paradigm of economic culture of post-modern is the idea, understanding of consumption priorities in comparison with any other kinds of activity.
As A. I. Levin states “…the growth of information economy leads to the growth of material values consumption because this growth is connected with the population’s enrichment” [8, 10 – 11]. To reveal the specifics of mechanism integrating modern information economy into post-industrial culture we can consider the system “culture – economic culture – economy”. Economic culture being the most important part of mechanism integrating economy into culture simultaneously with this presents some kind of “buffer” which connects two spheres of culture playing the role of channels interacting economic culture with culture and economy (economic institutes from the side of economy; and national mentality from the side of culture).
However, mentality contributes into the formation of the system of values and notions of economic culture most of all but economic institutes predominate in processing norms and traditions in it. Feedback exists in which mentality and economic institutes influence the formation of world picture within the framework of economic culture. Thus the process of economic culture functioning is the most important constituent mechanism integrating economy into culture in modern society. But integration processes in modern information society occurring due to intensive computerization and economic interrelations informing don’t reflect mental peculiarities of a certain part of subjects in economic activity. In our opinion it is impossible not agree with V. I. Antonyuk who states “…informing and computerization need not to correspond to mentality of a certain people and that’s why they will posses and bear a forced nature. The lack of information component of due level in a public system can threaten to turn a country into a state of the third rank” [1, 3 -17]. In our view it is possible to highlight economic culture of society and economic culture of a single subject in the structure of economic culture. As V. K. Korolyov says “Economic culture of society is a combined indicator of economic experience, the level of economic knowledge, samples and traditions of behavior in a particular society. Economic culture of a personality constitutes some kind of axiological basis what determines the individual’s behavior and his/her activity as an economic subject” [7, 100].
Thus, three functions each of which is provided with a certain combination of structural elements must be constantly performed during the interaction of these two structural levels of economic culture. This is an axiological, regulating and communicative- cognitive function which allows us to single out structure – functional sections of economic culture:
– semantic section of economic culture includes spiritual values, senses, notions and cultural symbols, main signs and meanings. They allow it performing an axiological function;
– regulative function of economic culture is performed due to a compatible action of such elements of a normative-standard section as norms and traditions;
– communicative-cognitive function of economic culture is realized with the help of elements of a communicative-information section of economic culture: knowledge and the picture of the world.
Thus, the structure of economic culture includes the elements of religious, ethical, legal, scientific-educational spheres of culture, consists of economic culture of society and a personality, contains internal interconnections and performs axiological, regulative and communicative-cognitive functions. All these parameters are necessary to be used in the researches of modern economic culture in information society. The ideas expressed and metioned by L. P. Yevstigneyev are distinctive for modern economic culture of information society which can be determined as economic culture of post-modern. “Subjectivism and individualism, the postulate about the uncertainty of the development, a synergetic approach to the construction and formation of all public relations including economic ones, the freedom of choice (goods and services), depersonalization of public consciousness, status changing of a mass man and all these things are now considered as spiritual substance of globalization” [4, 9]. At the same time it is also necessary to belong to the manifestations of post-modern culture such things as subject’s behavior peculiarities in economic activity which have been mentioned and highlighted by V. Yu. Pashkus: “contradiction, emotional perception, orientation towards the individual requirements, pragmatic independence” [9, 29 – 32]. In our opinion it is possible to single out criticism and irony as essential characteristic features of post-modern culture which are simply necessary properties of a modern subject of economic activity. They permit the subject to react adequately to the changes of economic situation and to generate the most adequate competitive reactions under the conditions of maximum plasticity and changeability of modern economic culture relying on information technologies. Profound, essential nature of all these post-modern manifestations in modern economic culture is needed to be stressed particularly. Retrospective view shows that the cycles of qualitative changes in economy don’t coincide with the qualitative changes in man’s consciousness and mentality. In XX century economic institutes (the model of property, market, and law) don’t feel and have qualitative fundamental changes. Only quantity parameters are being changed.
Thus, post-modern is the crisis indicator of economic sphere of post-modern culture, shows the necessity of its qualitative but not quantity transformation. It is proved by the principle inability of post-modern statements of modern economic culture which needs not only to constitute the future development but to provide long reconstruction of an existing model of economy. We can speak about the formation of economic post-modern culture in the second part of XX century which supports economy and exists by using the industrial system which has been formed during the period of modern. At the same time it is broken down giving the priority to the development of consuming technologies, information technologies causing to produce exclusively new information, and the priority is given to the development of virtual-information sector of economy but not the real sectors. However, due to its flexibility and variability the post-modern economic culture causes its temporary keeping and restoration. We must agree with V. A. Kistanov who noted that virtual-information economy is an irreplaceable instrument in the solution of global problems in society connected with humanity’s survival, so it is impossible to create ecologically-safe productions, it is impossible to develop consumption rationalization without a global information economic system. “These technologies are impossible without the means of information interaction what provide not only promptness and fullness of ecological and economical information but global ecological strategy is developed and carried out by means of computer modeling of global ecological processes’ [6, 721]. Thus, we understand and realize the successive and ongoing alterations in economic culture as a dialectic development of the system with growing internal contradictions which turned out to be removed due to the entering a new qualitative level. Crisis economy has found its ideological foundation in new principles offered by post-modern. It can be stated that the modern has corresponded to the epoch of industrialization and the post-modern has answered the purpose of the formation of post-industrial information society. It is necessary to mention that post-modern economic culture in its essence is a crisis one. Moreover, orientation at post-modern values in economic culture makes it be inclined towards crisis phenomena. The reason of crises is the continuation of economic system functioning supported rather not by objective factors but as much as by constant economic culture.
Modern information society considers such a system as normal one, the only possible, the most efficient and correct. Multi-profile nature of a modern crisis testifies that it is a systemic one. G. Bodriyar compares such a process with “spreading of cancer tumor metastasis” [11, 266].This is explained by inertia of post-modern economic culture which is closely connected with a certain level of comfort and a level and standard of life which is perceived as natural one and it seems to be a greater catastrophe to lose it than the crisis of global economy. To our mind market and its public– political basis, that is democracy have found given sacral status in culture, that’s why the thought to change the principle of economic activity formation is seemed to be criminal and seditious. Even though the losses are obvious which are destructively acting the economic system, the statements of economic culture which have already been formed don’t permit to go out beyond the limits of habitual, usual realization of the situation and find out a new solution; it forces us to continue the movement headed for a habitual direction, increasing the discrepancy which have been formed. But it is important to stress that religious basis of economic activity in modern economic culture is practically completely absent which is connected with the decreasing of religious consciousness significance and importance.
Ethical norms of economic activity are not relevant under conditions of market, and legal ones are not enough developed and are not understood due to mental incompatibility of peoples. The system of education gives a subject of economic activity at their disposal incomplete knowledge which hasn’t any practical value. For its turn it is caused by the stagnation in economic sciences which don’t produce necessary fundamental knowledge about the regularities of economic development. Thus, the motives and reasons of economic activity are caused only by instant requirements and the programs of economic behavior and they don’t lead to the success or sometimes they are very harmful for other subjects of economic activity. In our opinion the statements which constitute the contents of mentality for our society as a rule are in contradiction with modern information economy. It is connected with the reception, acquiring and mastering of innovations by a contemporary economic man. We have to agree with G.A.Golts who wrote”… traditionally oriented majority as a “protected screen” against destructive innovation actions forms mobile pseudo-culture” [3, 24]. But some changes in mentality are occurring: the understanding of justice is being changed, the concept of time is perceived differently. “Transformations of mentality must be synchronized with the development of culture and its different spheres; and it is inertia that obstacles it” [10,186]. Thus, the contents which are included into economic culture of modern post-industrial information society through two channels (mentality and economic institutes) are seemed to be internally contradictory. So, the main peculiarities integrating economy and culture into modern economic culture of post-industrial society are transformations of post-modern values both into culture and into economy and as a result into economic culture. This leads to mentality changes and corresponding social institutes to keep and realize the values of modern economic post-modern culture are created. As for our point of view such a tendency can lead civilization only to catastrophe.
To avoid it, it is only possible if we change ethical foundations of economic culture. Economic thinking could play such a role and it has expressive ethical underlying cause and simultaneously it deals directly with the sphere of economy. Economic thinking as an essential part of mentality must be added by the orientation at innovations, knowledge development, its mastering; all these would permit to reform economy and economic institutes not only according to time demands but according to a harmonic combination with traditions, mentality and objective conditions for culture existence of particular people.
References
1. Антонюк В.И. Информатизация общества: ожидания возможных воздействий и структурные подвижки / В.И. Антонюк, Э.Л. Напельбаум // Информатизация общества: анализ проблем и поиски решений. – М.: ВНИИ системных исследований. – № 12. – 1989. – С. 3 – 17.
2. Богатырева Е.А. Завершен ли «проект» постмодерна? / Е.А. Богатырева // Вопросы философии. – М. – 2009. – № 8. – С. 56 – 65.
3. Гольц Г.А. Культура и экономика: поиски взаимосвязей / Г.А. Гольц // Общественные науки и современность. – М. – 2000. – № 1. – С. 23 – 35.
4. Евстигнеева Л.П., Евстигнеев Р.Н. Экономическая глобализация и постмодерн / Л.П. Евстигнеева, Р.Н. Евстигнеев // Общественные науки и современность. – М. – 2000. – № 1. – С. 5 – 14.
5. Зуев А.Г., Мясникова Л.А. Впереди цифровая революция / А.Г.Зуев, Л.А.Мясникова // Свободная мысль – XXI. – 2003. – №5. – С. 56.
6. Кистанов В.А., Нгуен Шон Ча, Фам Ба Линь, Фунт Данг Тхам. Методологические аспекты построения интеллектуальных роботизированных комплексов авиационного мониторинга окружающей среды / В.А.Кистанов, Нгуен Шон Ча, Фам Ба Линь, Фунт Данг Тхам // Философия и будущее цивилизации: Тезисы докладов и выступлений IV Российского философского конгресса (Москва, 24-28 мая 2005 г.): В 5 т. Т.1. – М.: Современные тетради, 2005. – 768 с. – C.721
7. Королев В.К. Экономика как феномен культуры / В.К. Королев. – Ростов н/Д.: РГПУ, 1999. – 256 с.
8. Левин А.И. Устойчивое развитие и информационное общество: тенденции, проблемы, противоречия / А.И. Левин // Философские науки. – 2004. – N 9. – С. 10 – 11.
9. Пашкус В.Ю. Новая экономика и культура постмодерна: проблемы влияния /В.Ю. Пашкус // Технологии информационного общества – интернет и современное общество: труды VII Всероссийской объединенной конференции. – СПб. – 2004. – С. 29 – 32. – Режим доступа: http://www.ippnou.ru/article.php?idarticle=000756.
10. Пороховская Т.И. Идеи социальной справедливости и политическая практика России / Т.И. Пороховская // Философия хозяйства. – 2007. – № 5. –С. 185 – 197.
11. Ясперс К. Призрак толпы / К. Ясперс, Ж. Бодрийяр. – М.: Алгоритм, –2007. – 272 с.
12. Antonjuk V.I. Informatizacija obshhestva: ozhidanija vozmozhnyh vozdejstvij i strukturnye podvizhki / V.I. Antonjuk, Je.L. Napel'baum // Informatizacija obshhestva: analiz problem i poiski reshenij. – M.: VNII sistemnyh issledovanij. – № 12. – 1989. – S. 3 – 17.
13. Bogatyreva E.A. Zavershen li «proekt» postmoderna? /E.A. Bogatyreva // Voprosy filosofii. – M. – 2009. – № 8. – S. 56 – 65.
14. Gol'c G.A. Kul'tura i jekonomika: poiski vzaimosvjazej / G.A. Gol'c // Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. – M. – 2000. – № 1. – S. 23 – 35.
15. Evstigneeva L.P., Evstigneev R.N. Jekonomicheskaja globalizacija i postmodern /L.P. Evstigneeva, R.N. Evstigneev // Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. – M. – 2000. – № 1. –S. 5– 14.
16. Zuev A.G., Mjasnikova L.A. Vperedi cifrovaja revoljucija / A.G.Zuev, L.A.Mjasnikova // Svobodnaja mysl' – XXI. – 2003. – №5. – S. 56. Jetot istochnik ubrat'
17. Kistanov V.A., Nguen Shon Cha, Fam Ba Lin', Funt Dang Tham. Metodologicheskie aspekty postroenija intellektual'nyh robotizirovannyh kompleksov aviacionnogo monitoringa okruzhajushhej sredy / V.A.Kistanov, Nguen Shon Cha, Fam Ba Lin', Funt Dang Tham // Filosofija i budushhee civilizacii: Tezisy dokladov i vystuplenij IV Rossijskogo filosofskogo kongressa (Moskva, 24-28 maja 2005 g.): V 5 t. T.1. – M.: Sovremennye tetradi, 2005. – 768 s. – C.721 Jetot istochnik ubrat'
18. Korolev, V.K. Jekonomika kak fenomen kul'tury / V.K. Korolev. –Rostov n/D.: RGPU, 1999. – 256 s.
19. Levin, A.I. Ustojchivoe razvitie i informacionnoe obshhestvo: tendencii, problemy, protivorechija / A.I. Levin // Filosofskie nauki. – 2004. – N 9. – S. 10 – 11.
20. Pashkus V.Ju. Novaja jekonomika i kul'tura postmoderna: problemy vlijanija /V.Ju. Pashkus // Tehnologii informacionnogo obshhestva – internet i sovremennoe obshhestvo: trudy VII Vserossijskoj obedinennoj konferencii. – SPb. – 2004. – S. 29 – 32. – Rezhim dostupa: http://www.ippnou.ru/article.php?idarticle=000756.
21. Porohovskaja T.I. Idei social'noj spravedlivosti i politicheskaja praktika Rossii / T.I. Porohovskaja // Filosofija hozjajstva. – 2007. – № 5. – S. 185 – 197. Jetot istochnik ubrat.
22. Jaspers K. Prizrak tolpy / K. Jaspers, Zh. Bodrijjar. – M.: Algoritm, –2007. – 272 s.
Поступила в редакцию 29.04.2014 г.