Ideas and Ideals

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

The article examines the phenomenon of social practices and their signifi cance in the context of modern social development and substantiates the importance of their research at different levels of scientifi c knowledge. Through a theoretical and methodological analysis of the concept of ‘social practices’ and the mechanism of their formation and impact on social development in the concepts of social constructivism and structuralist constructivism, as well as in the theory of structuration, their importance in maintaining the structure of society, historical continuity and the formation of habitus is revealed. The dual nature of social practices is revealed, which consists in the fact that, on the one hand, they underlie the emergence of social processes, and on the other, individual social processes determine new social practices. Through the theoretical refl ection of the most important social processes of our time – globalization, migration, urbanization, and rurbanization (rural area), their interdependence with social practices is revealed.

The mechanism of determination of new social practices in the translocal living space is considered and their infl uence on the formation of trends in the development of social interaction and lifestyle is revealed. The pendulum migration has led to the emergence of both translocal living space and corresponding social practices. The localization of pendulum migration in the agglomeration determined the emergence of the process of urbanization based on translocal practices, which results in the transformation of both the lifestyle of the villagers and the habitus.

The interregional pendulum migration that has gone beyond the region has identifi ed new social challenges that have led to the formation of appropriate social practices in the context of the deterritorialization of family groups. Social practices are historically determined, refl ect the accumulated generational experience in each culture, and are a tool for maintaining intergenerational communication. The high rates of social dynamics have objectively led to the transformation of social practices and the formation of new ones in modern society. This process has manifestations at the level of their reproduction and at the same time affects the deep mechanisms of functioning of society, of which habitus and its transformation are a part.

The article examines the phenomenon of social practices and their signifi cance in the context of modern social development and substantiates the importance of their research at different levels of scientifi c knowledge. Through a theoretical and methodological analysis of the concept of ‘social practices’ and the mechanism of their formation and impact on social development in the concepts of social constructivism and structuralist constructivism, as well as in the theory of structuration, their importance in maintaining the structure of society, historical continuity and the formation of habitus is revealed. The dual nature of social practices is revealed, which consists in the fact that, on the one hand, they underlie the emergence of social processes, and on the other, individual social processes determine new social practices. Through the theoretical refl ection of the most important social processes of our time – globalization, migration, urbanization, and rurbanization (rural area), their interdependence with social practices is revealed.

The mechanism of determination of new social practices in the translocal living space is considered and their infl uence on the formation of trends in the development of social interaction and lifestyle is revealed. The pendulum migration has led to the emergence of both translocal living space and corresponding social practices. The localization of pendulum migration in the agglomeration determined the emergence of the process of urbanization based on translocal practices, which results in the transformation of both the lifestyle of the villagers and the habitus.

The interregional pendulum migration that has gone beyond the region has identifi ed new social challenges that have led to the formation of appropriate social practices in the context of the deterritorialization of family groups. Social practices are historically determined, refl ect the accumulated generational experience in each culture, and are a tool for maintaining intergenerational communication. The high rates of social dynamics have objectively led to the transformation of social practices and the formation of new ones in modern society. This process has manifestations at the level of their reproduction and at the same time affects the deep mechanisms of functioning of society, of which habitus and its transformation are a part.

The article is devoted to an attempt at a philosophical analysis of the genesis of the transhumanist worldview in the context of the explosive development of science and technology and the active use of convergent technologies that change the nature of interaction not only between humans and the environment, but also humans and the environment themselves.  The purpose of the article is to explicate the ontological risks of digitalization, which at the same time are harbingers of the strengthening of the transhumanist paradigm. The author distinguishes between the concepts of digitization and digitalization, further considering the latter as a factor in the transformation of a person’s way of thinking and life. The thesis is put forward that digitalization is the main tool for the initial stage of society’s transition to transhumanistic rails, being one of the anthropotechnics designed to infi nitely improve a person. The research focuses on the formation of a transhumanist worldview and the role digitalization plays in this process. The author of the article has established the cyclical nature of the digitalization process. The following stages of digitalization are distinguished as the ‘turns’ of the cycle: the emergence and spread of the Internet (the World Wide Web provided the necessary breeding ground for further processes); the spread of social networks and online services; the development and spread of neural networks. The author notes that digitalization was consolidated in public practice mainly through the dissemination of social networks and online services. It is determined that it is at this stage that there is a risk of cutting off human contact with reality. The author suggests considering the explosive development and proliferation of neural networks as the next phase of the digitalization cycle. It is clarifi ed that in the phase of dissemination and improvement of training programs, due to the peculiarities of their functioning, there are risks associated with neglecting reality by belittling the importance of data sources. In addition, there are risks to common sense and deductive thinking throughout the life cycle of digitalization. It is also possible to observe varying degrees of truncation of access to reality, threatening to ‘uproot’ a person from his life world. Based on this, the author explicated the ontological traps of digitalization, in fact, pushing people to practice transhumanist ideology. Proceeding from the thesis that the source of data, common sense and the ability to form general concepts are the ‘three pillars’ of the connection of human consciousness with reality and self– identifi cation, the author comes to the conclusion that it is precisely in these sensitive aspects that the ontological traps of digitalization are hidden – factors that imperceptibly ‘disconnect’ a person from his life world. The researcher cites the uncertainty of data sources, the discreteness of common sense, and a violation of the ability to form general concepts as such factors. The methods of ontological and structural analysis were used in the study.The article is devoted to an attempt at a philosophical analysis of the genesis of the transhumanist worldview in the context of the explosive development of science and technology and the active use of convergent technologies that change the nature of interaction not only between humans and the environment, but also humans and the environment themselves.  The purpose of the article is to explicate the ontological risks of digitalization, which at the same time are harbingers of the strengthening of the transhumanist paradigm. The author distinguishes between the concepts of digitization and digitalization, further considering the latter as a factor in the transformation of a person’s way of thinking and life. The thesis is put forward that digitalization is the main tool for the initial stage of society’s transition to transhumanistic rails, being one of the anthropotechnics designed to infi nitely improve a person. The research focuses on the formation of a transhumanist worldview and the role digitalization plays in this process. The author of the article has established the cyclical nature of the digitalization process. The following stages of digitalization are distinguished as the ‘turns’ of the cycle: the emergence and spread of the Internet (the World Wide Web provided the necessary breeding ground for further processes); the spread of social networks and online services; the development and spread of neural networks. The author notes that digitalization was consolidated in public practice mainly through the dissemination of social networks and online services. It is determined that it is at this stage that there is a risk of cutting off human contact with reality. The author suggests considering the explosive development and proliferation of neural networks as the next phase of the digitalization cycle. It is clarifi ed that in the phase of dissemination and improvement of training programs, due to the peculiarities of their functioning, there are risks associated with neglecting reality by belittling the importance of data sources. In addition, there are risks to common sense and deductive thinking throughout the life cycle of digitalization. It is also possible to observe varying degrees of truncation of access to reality, threatening to ‘uproot’ a person from his life world. Based on this, the author explicated the ontological traps of digitalization, in fact, pushing people to practice transhumanist ideology. Proceeding from the thesis that the source of data, common sense and the ability to form general concepts are the ‘three pillars’ of the connection of human consciousness with reality and self– identifi cation, the author comes to the conclusion that it is precisely in these sensitive aspects that the ontological traps of digitalization are hidden – factors that imperceptibly ‘disconnect’ a person from his life world. The researcher cites the uncertainty of data sources, the discreteness of common sense, and a violation of the ability to form general concepts as such factors. The methods of ontological and structural analysis were used in the study.

Debates on the use and regulation of artifi cial intelligence tend to highlight the ambiguity of its impact on the democratic political process in terms of risks and opportunities. The spread of artifi cial intelligence technologies may affect individual and collective autonomy, either by changing the social and political practices that shape individual choices in different ways or by directly affecting fundamental rights. The danger lies not in short-term manipulations but in the long-term erosion of the infrastructural conditions of the public sphere. A detailed study of the interplay of artifi cial intelligence technologies and democratic development, taking into account specifi c aspects of the political life of society, is necessary to better understand the reconfi guration of the changing options for individuals, corporations and states. This article analyzes the terminological ambiguity of the concept of artifi cial intelligence in the context of its impact on politics and the democratic process and notes that artifi cial intelligence research addresses this issue through various forms of discursive critique, where attention is focused not on defi nitions but on modes of interpretation and their consequences. In analyzing the relationship between artifi cial intelligence and politics and democracy, the article pays special attention to such aspects as political self-determination, political participation and democratic governance. It emphasizes the importance of effective oversight by government and civil society over companies developing and using artifi cial intelligence technologies, which implies, in particular, the creation of effective institutions capable of defending public interests and civil and democratic rights, including in spite of technical capabilities and economic incentives. It is concluded that the infl uence of artifi cial intelligence on the political process and democracy will increase, which leads to the need to professionalize and develop its systematic interdisciplinary research.

The problem of rationality at the border of expressiveness and possibilities of human thinking is discussed when comparing natural and artifi cial intelligence (AI). A distinction is made between the concepts of intelligence and thinking. At the same time, intelligence is defi ned as rationality, always working within the limits of expressibility, and thinking includes inexpressibility in its structure. It is possible to better differentiate intelligence and thinking through an appeal to AI by formulating groups of restrictions for it, which together with this are the limits of expressiveness.

Four groups of AI limitations are considered: 1) the material support of big data storage, where we come to the resource limitation of AI; 2) the computational capabilities of the program code, where we come to the fundamental incalculability of the human brain; 3) a group of spatio-temporal conditions of the computational procedure, which is decompressed by 6 types of restrictions of this type. 3.1) AI as a time-closed system with a degraded future. 3.2) AI as a time-closed system with a degraded not only future, but also past. 3.3) Heterogeneity of G. B. Minkovsky’s space-time. 3.4) Biological space-time of V. I. Vernadsky. 3.5) Kairos. 3.6) Real time. 4) Civilizational conditions for the development of society, where the limit of AI is determined by the Noosphere according to V. I. Vernadsky.

When transferring this scheme of limitations for artifi cial intelligence to human consciousness, it is possible to more accurately defi ne the ‘boundary’ between natural intelligence and thinking. Thinking is defi ned as a part of consciousness that is outside the intellect and determines the development of both the person himself and artifi cial intelligence. From this defi nition, a natural scheme of human interaction with artifi cial intelligence is derived.

Since the invention of printing, mankind has not experienced such a revolutionary situation in relation to the preservation and reproduction of information as it is experiencing now. We live in an environment where new technologies and social media have become an integral part of everyday life. The application and use of such technologies have made a person addicted to them. A distinctive feature of this environment is the visualization of space saturated with visual images and signs. What had previously been presented as a full-fl edged text was transformed, the visual component began to prevail over the verbal one. In connection with this phenomenon, communication is changing qualitatively: if previously written speech consisted mainly of verbal text, now it is increasingly presented in the form of a creolized text, the texture of which consists of two inhomogeneous parts: verbal and non-verbal, and sometimes it is completely replaced by the language of ideograms and emojis. This phenomenon transforms our perception, speech, and language in general, as well as forms new habits and ways of communication in the modern world. In the long term, given the current rate of text replacement by visualization, this may lead to degradation of language communication and the mental level of the future person as a whole. After all, if in the 20th century scientists recorded the so-called Flynn effect. An article was published in 1984 which stated that the average IQ of US residents increased by 15 points in 1932-1978 – by about 3 points for each decade. Studies conducted after 2000 have shown what is now called the “reverse Flynn effect”: IQ growth slows down, stops, or even gives way to a recession. So, the accelerated overlay of visualization which replaces the dominance of verbality, negatively affects the intellectual level of new generations. Therefore, there are serious reasons to believe that among other things this is due to the growth of visualization of communication tools.

The article discusses the views of the ‘Tsargrad’ website participants and some methodologists on the revival of Russia and the salvation of the world. The peculiarities of their thinking and discourses are noted: a refl ection of the aspirations and values of these participants themselves, utopianism and lack of evidence. A history of ideological infl uences on these views is outlined, which stretches from the works of P. Ya. Chaadaev, F. M. Dostoevsky, Konstantin Leontiev. V. Zenkovsky shows that, for example, Chaadaev’s thoughts on world history went through two stages. At the fi rst, he comes to the idea that it was in Europe that the ideas and plans of Christianity were embodied, and Russia remained on the sidelines, dropped out of the world historical process. But such a conclusion about Russia contradicted the very idea of the providence of the Creator. Therefore, at the second stage, Chaadaev comes up with ideas that form the essence of the tradition under consideration. Namely, Russia has its own purpose, it will come into play later, Russia will determine the historical development of Europe and the whole world, the main content of this future stage of history will be the revelation in the form of the ideas and practice of Orthodoxy. The central methodological fi gures of the reconstruction are Georgy Shchedrovitsky and Yuri Gromyko. It is suggested that the infl uence of methodologists is partly explained by the peculiarities of the consciousness of their followers. Here is a simplifi ed understanding of reality, a circumstance that still appeals to many today, because it becomes clear what is happening and where to go. This understanding was inspired by the Marxist worldview (partly scientifi c, partly utopian, extremely social engineering), as well as a simplifi ed understanding of history and sociality. If models and ideal constructions of methodology (activity and mental activity) are understood as heuristics and schemes that guide the methodologists’ own work of thinking, then everything is fi ne, there are no objections, but if – as an adequate description of the world and reality, then these models and ideal constructions are currently can be assessed either as a very poor and simplifi ed representation of a complex reality, or as generally incorrect knowledge. The last part of the article discusses the civilizational transition from modernity to “future culture”, showing the impossibility of simple solutions and a simplifi ed understanding of reality.

Public intellectuals, using their position in the media, social networks, universities, expert groups and think tanks, are an infl uential force for social change. The article analyzes the experience of American conservative intellectuals and their think tanks, which have played an important role in the public consciousness of the American nation and in politics over the past half century. The article discusses four interrelated topics. The fi rst is the role of intellectuals in modern politics, using the conservative movement and its relationship with the Republican Party and elected authorities as an example. The second topic is the reasons for the protest of a number of conservative public intellectuals against Trump (Never Trump, Resist Trump), its ideological, stylistic, personal and material motives. The article analyzes the crisis and the following splitting of the conservative movement into several directions, including the emergence of a new direction – populist conservatism. The top-down, elitist brand of politics that dominated the United States for many years – both under Republican and Democratic administrations - has led to a decrease in public trust in social institutions controlled by the elites. There is a need for leaders who could fi nd a common language and understanding with society and voters. As a result, populism is on the rise in the United States, i.e., politicians directly addressing the people, their needs and interests, over the heads of the elites and their institutions. The third topic is the forms and practices of infl uence of the populist wing of the conservative movement on the ideology and program of the Republican Party, its attempts to cooperate with the Trump administration, other government bodies, the MAGA movement and its social base. The new direction of conservatism has multiplied its experience of “soft” infl uence on the presidential administration and Congress by developing its proposals, in particular, “Project 2025” as a mandate from voters to change the course of the country and rebuild political structures. “Project 2025” also addresses the social base of conservative movement and the independent voter. The fourth topic is the change in positions of “never-Trumpists” in Trump’s second term and the lessons of their resistance. The author draws conclusions from the case of “non-Trumpism” and points out the innovations of conservative intellectuals in their interaction with the authorities.

The author proposes a hypothesis of two types of mechanisms of social self-organization: its launch and maintenance of structural integrity. These are two fundamentally different mechanisms. Social self-organization requires four mandatory conditions: (1) a set of interacting elements (individuals), homogeneous in origin and creating, due to their common habitat, a behavioral population system; (2) the obligatory identification of a pacemaker in the population, which “captures” the activity rhythms of other individuals, which is a condition for the emergence of heterogeneities in behavioral activity; (3) the lifetime of a population system must be significantly longer than the lifetime of an individual element; (4) the homogeneity of individuals and the complexity of their behavior in a long-existing population create conditions for functional subordination (heterarchy, in general sense).

The behavioral mechanism of self-organization in populations with complex behavior of individuals is reciprocal altruism. Altruism presupposes a hereditarily determined ability for sacrifi cial behavior. Its natural basis is the universal phenomenon of individual recognition and preference. The author examines four sociological concepts of self-organization, in which altruism is presented as a mechanism of self-organization: Ibn Khaldun, E. Durkheim, P.A. Kropotkin and P.A. Sorokin.

The mechanism for maintaining an already formed structure is different in nature; it is aimed at continuously ensuring solidarity. This is a “Game” that is implemented in two forms – competition (game) and performance (play). Game is not a specifically human attribute of social life. The content of the “game” satisfies the basic conditions of self-organization. The “game” has three important attributes: (1) isolation of the playing space and temporary organization; (2) the immutability and binding nature of the rules that set the order of actions and form a special ethos and ritual; (3) the game determines the emergence of associations that strive to survive and spread. The associations are based on altruistic behavior. The expansion of the game leads to the creation of male “alliances”; their forms are the basis of solidarity.

Digital transformations of the social system, observed by researchers in its various fi elds, make it relevant to study network phenomena that are related to the problems of modern Russian society. “Iamamother” is a vivid example of those; we view it as a symptom of devaluation of motherhood. The latter takes different forms, including virtual ones, and passes from different actors. For a more detailed analysis we identify the levels at which the importance of the very fact of giving birth and raising children is questioned and a specifi c woman in the role of a mother is downgraded; we also consider the relationship of this process with network mechanisms. Devaluation at the personal level is analyzed from the perspective of Jungian research: a number of scenarios for diminishing the maternal principle are presented. To identify the characteristic features of devaluation of motherhood at the interpersonal level, we examine the situation from the standpoint of social constructionist theory and of the concept of epistemic injustice. The emergence of “Iamamother” phenomenon is analyzed as a case of inverted hermeneutic injustice which requires identifi cation, acting at present as a simulacrum having no valid grounds for conceptualization. As a result of the study of the network level that embraces judgmental statements of Internet users, in particular members of thematic virtual communities, we present the main types of content devoted to the issue of “Iamamother”. Several types of actors come out as a result of the qualitative content analysis of the commentary background from a relevant source. Summing up the outcomes of the study, we state a lack of tolerance in the discursive space of “Iamamother” phenomenon and put forward an alternative defi nition of the concept: this is an attributed deictic statement about oneself by a female individual who has a child / children, which determines her actions; it is an interpellated identity that differs from the traditional, normative image of motherhood in Russia. As an element of the dominant discourse this sign reinforces and spreads negative ideas of society about certain models of maternal behavior, which leads to devaluation of motherhood in general.