Social origins of risk semiotics

Authors

  • Vyacheslav K. Shcherbin Center for System Analysis and Strategic Research, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 1 Akademičnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

Keywords:

structure of inter-relationship between society and its inherent risks, natural hazards, social risks, system of risk sciences, signs and systems of signs, system of artificial semiotics, social semiotics, risk semiotics

Abstract

The article examines the structure of the inter-relationship between society and its inherent risks, the main components of which are society’s accumulated experience in predicting and mitigating risks, the continuous complication of modern society and the new social risks it generates. The reasons for the formation of these components, the positive and negative results of their use by society are analyzed. The reactions of managers and scientists to existing social risks are described. The main difference between these reactions is the diametrically opposite attitude of managers and scientists to the phenomenon of reductionism in solving complex social problems. The article defines the role of interdisciplinary research areas (synergetics, systemology, the combined social analysis, science of science, etc.) in solving problems related to social risks. The proposed by A. G. Teslinov’s classification of existing worlds (the material world, the world of ideas, the social world and the world of signs) correlates with traditional disciplinary classifications. The place of a new scientific direction (risk semiotics) in the system of existing risk sciences, as well as among other artificial semiotics is established. The conclusion about the need for interrelated development of social semiotics and risk semiotics is substantiated.

Author Biography

  • Vyacheslav K. Shcherbin, Center for System Analysis and Strategic Research, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 1 Akademičnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

    PhD (philology); head of the sector of macroeconomic risks research.

References

  1. Shcherbin VK. Creation of marginal problems in various knowledge branches as an indicator of growing austerity of lifeworld of personality and society. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2017;1:19–35. Russian.
  2. Beck U. Was ist globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus – Antworten auf Globalisierung. Berlin: Suhrkamp; 1997. 269 S. Russian edition: Beck U. Chto takoe globalizatsiya? Oshibki globalizma – otvety na globalizatsiyu. Grigoryev A, Sedelnik V, translators. Мoscow: Progress-Traditsiya; 2001. 301 p.
  3. Janitskii ON. The fourth technological revolution and deep shifts in globalization processes. Vestnik Instituta sotsiologii. 2017;8(2):12–34. Russian. DOI: 10.19181/vis.2017.21.2.452.
  4. Gigerenzer G. Risk Savvy. How to make good decisions. New York: Penguin Books; 2014. 336 p. Russian edition: Gigerenzer G. Ponimat’ riski. Kak vybirat’ pravil’nyi put’. К uzin A, translator. Мoscow: КоLibri; 2015. 352 p. Co-published by the «Аzbuka-Аttikus».
  5. Harari YuN. Sapiens. A brief history of mankind. [S. l.]: Harper; 2015. 464 p. Russian edition: Harari YuN. Sapiens. Кratkaya istoriya chelovechestva. Summ L, translator. Moscow: Sindbad; 2018. 512 p.
  6. Оnoprienko VI. Aspirantura. Ternii i riski stanovleniya issledovatelya [The postgraduate study. Thorns and risks of researcher’s formation]. Saarbruken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing; 2016. 121 p. Russian.
  7. Rullani, E. [The Cognitive Capitalism: déjà vu?]. Logos. 2007;4:64–69. Russian.
  8. Epstein M. Znak probela. O budushchem gumanitarnykh nauk [Space character: on the future of humanities]. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozrenie; 2004. 864 p. Russian.
  9. Stepin VS. [The Transhumanism and Problem of Social Risks]. In: Belkina GL, Frolova MI, editors. Problema sotsial’nykh riskov. Redultsionism kak soblazn nauk o cheloveke. Ob idolakh I idealakh biotekhnologicheskogo samoizobreteniya cheloveka. Kak vozmozhen sovershennyj chelovek? [The Problem of Social Risks. Reductionalism As the Temptation of Sciences on Man. About Idols and Ideals of the Biotechnological Self-Invention of Man. How should Be Possible a Perfect Man?]. Мoscow: URSS; 2016. p. 26–41. Co-published by the «Lenand». Russian.
  10. Lovejoy A. The great chain of being. A study of the history of an idea. [S. l.]: Harvard University Press; 1976. 400 p. Russian edition: Lovejoy A. Velikaya tsep’ bytiya: istoriya idei. Sofronova-Antomoni V, translator. Мoscow: Dom intellektual’noi knigi; 2001. 376 p.
  11. Каrabutenko I, translator [«I am a part of humankind as an artist» (from the Diary of А. Dovzhenko)]. Pravda. 1989 September 11. p. 4. Russian.
  12. Dobrolubov АI. Gosudarstvennaya vlast’ kak tekhnicheskaya sistema: o trekh velikikh sotsial’nykh izobreteniyakh chelovechestva [The state power as a technical system: on the three great social inventions of mankind]. Мinsk: Nauka i tekhnika; 1995. 240 p. Russian.
  13. Bеchmann G, Gorohov VG. [The social-philosophical and methodological problems of treatment to technological risks in the modern society]. Voprosy filosofii. 2012;8:127–136. Russian.
  14. Тоlpygina, ОА. Interpretation of the risks and threats in the party ideology. (The example of Russian parliamentary parties). Politichesskaya nauka: 2016;3:118–136. Russian.
  15. Perkins J. [New about world of an economic hit men]. In: Hiatt S, editor. Igry ekonomicheskikh ubiits [A game as old as empire]. Мoscow: Pretekst; 2007. p. 13–32. Russian.
  16. Кurginyan SЕ. Slabost’ sily. Analitika zakrytykh elitnykh igr i ee conceptual’nye osnovaniya [The Weakness of Force. The analytics of closed elite games and its conceptual foundations]. 2nd edition. Мoscow: Mezhdunarodnyi obshchestvennyi fond «Eksperimental’nyi tvorcheskii tsentr»; 2007. 392 p. Russian.
  17. Halipov VF. Кratologiya как sistema nauk o vlasti [The cratology as a system of sciences about power]. Мoscow: Respublika; 1999. 303 p. Russian.
  18. Petrov MK. Samosoznanie i nauchnoye tvorchestvo [Self-consciousness and scientific creation]. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Rostov University; 1992. 272 p. Russian.
  19. Toffler A. Future shok. New York: Random House; 1970. 505 p. Russian edition: Toffler A. Futuroshok. Saint Petersburg: Lan’; 1997. 464 p.
  20. Teslinov АG. Kontseptualnoye proektirovaniye slozhnych reshenij [The conceptual projecting of complicated decisions]. Saint Petersburg: Piter; 2009. 288 p. Russian.
  21. Меchkovskaya NB. Semiotika. Yazyk. Priroda. Kul’tura [The semiotics. Language. Nature. Cultura]. Мoscow: Акаdemiya; 2004. 428 p. Russian.
  22. Sztompka P. [The social change as trauma]. Sotsial’nye issledovanija. 2001;1:6–16. Russian.
  23. Skurliagin АА. [The Аpocalypse in philosophical and natural-scientific context]. In: Gusakov VG, editor. Natsional’naya filosofiya v global’nom mire. Tezisy Pervogo belorusskogo filosofskogo kongressa; 18–20 oktyabrya 2017 g.; Minsk, Belarus’ [The national philosophy in a global world. The abstracts of the First Belarusian Philosophical Congress]. Мinsk: Belaruskaja navuka; 2017. p. 130–131. Russian.
  24. Isakov VB. Slovar’ pravovoi analitichesskoi grafiki [The dictionary of law analytical graphics]. Мoscow: Norma; 2019. Co-published by the INFRA-М. 272 p. Russian.
  25. Кim VV. Semiotika i nauchnoe poznanie: filosofsko-metodologichesskii analiz [The semiotics and the scientific cognition: the philosophical-methodological analysis]. Екаterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural University; 2008. 416 p. Russian.
  26. Latour B. Visualization and cognition: drawing things together. Logos. 2017;27(2):95–156. Russian.
  27. Solomonik A. Pozitivnaya semiotika (o znakax, znakovykh sistemakh i semioticheskoi deyatel’nosti) [The pozitive semiotics (about signs, systems of signs and semiotic activity)]. Krejdlin G, editor. Minsk: MET; 2004. 191 p. Russian.
  28. Gavrilova MV. Social semiotics: the experience of the systematization of the terminological system. МЕТОD: Moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin. 2018;8:404–417. Russian.
  29. Shcherbin VK. Who studies crises and risks? Scientific resources of the world risk analytics. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2018;2:35–47. Russian.
  30. Itskov DI. [The Public Movement «Russia 2045» and the Global Future]. In: Dubrovskii DI, Klimova SM, editors. Global’noe budushchee – 2045. Antropologicheskii krizis. Konvergentnye tekhnologii. Transgumanisticheskie proekty. Materialy Pervoi Vserossiiskoi konferentsii; 11–12 aprelya 2013 g.; Belgorod, Rossiya [The global future 2045: the anthropological crysis. Convergence technologies. Transhumanistical projects. Proceedings of the First All-Russian Conference; 2013 April 11–12; Belgorod, Russia]. Мoscow: Каnon+ RООI «Reabilitatsiya»; 2014. p. 8–14. Russian.
  31. Tulchinskii GL. Extensions of the semiotic analysis capabilities: the sources and content of the «deep semiotics» concept. Voprosy filosofii. 2019;11:115–125. Russian.
  32. Sacks J. The dignity of difference. How to avoid the clash of civilizations. [S. l.]: Continuum; 2003. 224 p. Russian edition: Sacks J. Dostoinstvo razlichiya. Kak izbezhat’ stolknoveniya tsivilizatsii Dynin B, translator. Мoscow: Моsty kul’tury; 2008. 329 p. Co-published by the «Gesharim» (Jerusalem).
  33. Кrеss G. Social semiotics and the challenge of multimodality. Politicheskaya nauka. 2016;3:77–100. Russian.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-28

Issue

No. 4 (2020): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology

Section

Articles and Reports

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Shcherbin, V.K. 2020. Social origins of risk semiotics. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 4 (Dec. 2020), 29–38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33581/2521-6821-2020-4-29-38.