Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socio-Humanistic Support for Technological Development: What Should It Be Like?

  • Point of View
  • Published:
Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

In memory of Vitalii Georgievich Gorokhov, a brilliant scientist, educator, and man

Abstract

Prospects for the humanities and social sciences under the conditions of the so-called technoscientific stage of the development of science, characterized by closely entwined scientific research and scientific design and highlighting the objectives of creating new equipment and technologies and not obtaining basic knowledge, are discussed. The author analyzes the historical peculiarities of technoscience as a specific form, on the one hand, of organization of scientific cognition and, on the other, of interaction between science and society, separating processes that increase the social responsibility of science and the effects of orientation toward solving pragmatic problems on scientific process, in particular, the transformation of methodological norms. The concepts of social and humanistic technologies are considered critically; several problems that arise owing to the technologization of socio-humanistic knowledge are investigated. It is justified that technological development requires not only a complex approach, implying the use of socio-humanistic technologies, but also socio-humanistic support, which cannot be understood technologically. The disciplinary status of such support is discussed; in particular, the recent widely used concept of transdisciplinarity is analyzed, and the conclusion is made that socio-humanistic support goes beyond professional scientific activity into the sphere of broad social practice. Foresight is considered as an example of such a transformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. “Convergence of biological, informational, nano-, and cognitive technologies: A challenge to philosophy. Proceedings of a roundtable,” Vopr. Philos., No. 12, 3–23 (2012).

  2. A. L. Andreev and P. A. Butyrin, “Technoscience as an innovative social project,” Herald Russ. Acad. Sci. 81 (2), 75–80 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B. I. Pruzhinin and T. G. Shchedrina, “Cultural and historical consciousness in the perspective of interdisciplinary studies: The reconstruction method,” in Cognition and Consciousness in the Interdisciplinary Perspective, Part 2 (IF RAN, Moscow, 2014), pp. 68–95 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. I. Pruzhinin, “The applied and the basic in the ethos of modern science,” in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 11: Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Centuries (IF RAN, Moscow, 2005), pp. 109–120 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Grunwald, Technology and Society: West-European Experience of Technology Assessment (Logos, Moscow, 2011) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. L. Nikiforov, “The role of science in modern society,” in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 19: Epistemology in Interdisciplinary Research (IF RAN, Moscow, 2014), pp. 38–63 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. P. Gaidenko, Scientific Rationality and Philosophical Reason (Progress-Traditsiya, Moscow, 2003) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. G. Gorokhov, “Galileo Galilei’s technoscience: Reflections on Mateo Valeriani’s Galileo the Engineer,” Vopr. Filos., No. 1, 105–116 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  9. V. S. Stepin, Theoretical Knowledge, 2nd ed. (Progress-Traditsiya, Moscow, 2003) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  10. F. S. Collins and L. A. Tabak, “Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility,” Nature 505, 612–613 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. K. Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., Vol. 3 (Gos. Izd. Polit. Lit., Moscow, 1955) [in Russian].

  12. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. NSF/DOC-Sponsored Report, Ed. by M. C. Roco and W. S. Bainbridge (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht 2003). http://www.wtec.org/convergingtechnologies/report/nbic_report.pdf. Cited March 29, 2017.

  13. Science and Social Technologies, Ed. by I. T. Kasavin (IF RAN, Moscow, 2011) [in Russian].

  14. B. G. Yudin, “Social technologies, their production and consumption,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk 31 (1), 55–64 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. V. G. Gorokhov, “The concept of technology in the philosophy of technology and peculiarities of sociohumanistic technologies,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk 27 (2), 110–123 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  16. V. G. Gorokhov, Philosophy and History of Science: A Textbook (OIYaI, Dubna, 2012) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  17. V. G. Gorokhov, “Technique, technology, design— socio-technique, socio-humanistic technologies, social design,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk 31 (1), 80–89 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. S. Ignatenko, “Technologism, technocratism, totalitarianism: Criticism of the mechanistic ST paradigm,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk 31 (1), 73–80 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. N. Knyazeva and S. P. Kurdyumov, “Principles of the coevolution of complex systems and social management,” in Synergetics and Social Management (Izd. RAGS, Moscow, 1998), pp. 8–18 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  20. V. G. Gorokhov, “Problems of interdisciplinary evaluation of scientific and technical development,” Vopr. Gos. Munitsip. Upr. 2 (2–3), 191–214 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. A. Lektorskii, Philosophy, Cognition, Culture (Kanon+, ROOI Reabilitatsiya, Moscow, 2012) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  22. Philosophy of Technology: History and Modernity (IF RAN, Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].

  23. I. T. Kasavin, “STS: Advance naturalization or catching-up modernization,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk 39 (1), 5–17 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  24. V. G. Gorokhov and A. Grunwald, “Every innovation has a social character (social assessment of technology as applied philosophy of technology),” Vyssh. Obr. Ross., No. 5, 135–145 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  25. F. Rapp, “Philosophy of technology: A review,” in Philosophy of Technology in the FRG: A Collection of Articles, Compiled by Ts. G. Arzakanyan and V. G. Gorokhov (Progress, Moscow, 1989), pp. 24–53 [in Russian]. http://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/expertize/3132/3133. Cited August 18, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  26. S. V. Pirozhkova, “Prediction, forecast, scenarios: On the diversity of future research results,” Filos. Nauk. Tekh. 21 (2), 111–129 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. Rip and H. Kulve, “Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios,” in The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. 1: Presenting Futures, Ed. by E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. M. Wetmore (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  28. V. G. Gorokhov, “Interdisciplinary studies on scientific and technical development and innovation policy,” Vopr. Filos., No. 4, 80–86 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  29. V. A. Bazhanov, “The phenomenon of transdisciplinary scientific revolution,” in Transdisciplinarity in Philosophy and Science: Approaches, Problems, Prospects, Ed. by V. A. Bazhanov and R. V. Shol’ts (Izd. Dom Navigator, Moscow, 2015), pp. 136–144 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  30. L. P. Kiyashchenko, “Philosophy of transdisciplinarity: Approaches to the definition,” in Transdisciplinarity in Philosophy and Science: Approaches, Problems, Prospects, Ed. by V. A. Bazhanov and R. V. Shol’ts (Izd. Dom Navigator, Moscow, 2015), pp. 109–135 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  31. H. M. Collins and R. Evans, “The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience,” Soc. Stud. Sci., No. 2, 235–296 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. S. V. Pirozhkova, “The participation principle and modern mechanisms of knowledge production in science,” Epistemol. Filos. Nauk, No. 1 (2018) (in press).

  33. S. V. Pirozhkova, “Foresight: Actual practice and normative methodological perspective,” in Contours of the Future: Technologies and Innovations in the Cultural Context: A Collective Monograph (Asterion, St. Petersburg, 2017), pp. 93–96 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  34. R. Popper, Mapping Foresight. Revealing How Europe and Other World Regions Navigate into the Future (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  35. R. von Schomberg, P. Â. Guimarães, and S. Funtowicz, Deliberating Foresight Knowledge for Policy and Foresight Knowledge Assessment. A Working Document from the European Commission Services (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2005). http://cordis.europa.eu/pub/foresight/docs/deliberating_foresight2.pdf. Cited November 6, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

    S. V. Pirozhkova

Authors
  1. S. V. Pirozhkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. V. Pirozhkova.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © S.V. Pirozhkova, 2018, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2018, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 444–454.

Sof’ya Vladislavovna Pirozhkova, Cand. Sci. (Philos.), is a Research Fellow of the RAS Institute of Philosophy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pirozhkova, S.V. Socio-Humanistic Support for Technological Development: What Should It Be Like?. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 88, 210–219 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030073

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030073

Keywords

Search

Navigation