Cite this article as:
Orlov M. O. The Diversity of the Digital Environment in a Risk Society. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2019, vol. 19, iss. 2, pp. 155-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7671-2019-19-2-155-161
The Diversity of the Digital Environment in a Risk Society
In the article presented, it is established that the basis for a digital society is the digital environment. The study of technologies outside the context of anthropological and social experience is insufficient, therefore, for the consideration of a digital society, the hybridization of Software studies and digital humanities is a productive one. It is established that the digital society is not only the result of technological progress, but also the result of the changing experience of mankind. The subject of social and philosophical analysis is online communication, which serves as the basis for the formation of complex structures of the digital society. The article considers the environmental issue, which is related to the quality of life of the subject in the information society. Mastering computer technologies and communication opportunities, a person becomes a full member of the digital society, forges a balance between work and leisure, professional activity and personal life. The digital environment is characterized by multidimensional relations and the ambivalence of relations: on the one hand, communicative freedoms are revealed to the person, on the other hand, new forms of dependence and risks of alienation arise. It is revealed that due to the virtual reality a person acquires new identities, characteristics and parameters of personal being. Analyzing the Big Data technologies that allow us to re-structure the social reality in a new way, the example of China considers an individual rating system based on the assessment of personal behavior of citizens. It is revealed that social networks generate new forms of communicative practices, such as trolling, post-truth and post-breeding. The study identifies prospects for philosophical reflection in the context of the new technological capabilities of mankind, it states that the philosophical analysis of virtual reality helps minimize digital inequality and the development of digital literacy.
1. Orlov M. O. Ethics of discourse as the basis of socialization strategies in the globalizing world. Izv. Saratov Univ. (N. S.), Ser. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2012, vol. 12, iss. 2, pp. 55–59 (in Russian).
2. Zorich D. M. M. Digital Humanities Centers: Loci for Digital Scholarship. In: Working Together or Apart: Promoting the Next Generation of Digital Scholarship. Washington, 2009, pp. 70–78.
3. Hine C. Databases as Scientifi c Instruments and Their Role in the Ordering of Scientifi c Work. Social Studies of Science, 2006, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 269–298.
4. Davidson C. Humanities 2.0: Promise, Perils, Predictions. In: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (PMLA), 2008, pp. 707–717.
5. Carroll E., Romano C. Your Digital Afterlife: When Facebook, Flickr and Twitter Are Your Estate, What’s Your Legacy? Berkeley, 2011. 216 p.
6. Lane J., Stodden V., Bender S., Nissenbaum H. Privacy, Big Data and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement. Cambridge University Press. 2014. 344 p.
7. Kovachich L. A. Bolshoy brat 2.0. Kak Kitay stroit cifrovuyu diktaturu (Big Brother 2.0. As China builds digital dictatorship). Available at: http://carnegie.ru/commentary/71546 (accessed 21 January 2018) (in Russian).
8. Keyes R. The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. New York, 2004. 325 p.
9. McDonald K. From Indymedia to Anonymous: Rethinking Action and Identity in Digital Cultures. Information, Communication & Society, 2015, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 968–982.
Generator XML for DOAJ
Не определено в Выпуске поле Опубликована онлайн:publicationDate