Advertisement

The Normative Texture of Morphogenic Society: Tensions, Challenges, and Strategies

  • Andrea M. Maccarini
Chapter
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Abstract

The fundamental research question examined in the present chapter concerns what norms and values are being destroyed, preserved, or generated anew in the emerging morphogenic society (MS). What normative processes are at work in the context of the structural and cultural landscape of the new world? In other words, how ‘unbound’ is morphogenesis going to be from normativity itself, from its prompts and restraints?

More precisely, the essay examines both the implications of intensified social morphogenesis for social normativity and, conversely, the role played by normativity in social morphogenesis. The former means how morphogenesis is affecting normativity, causing both its disruption (de-normativization, anomie) and its regeneration. The latter means that, depending on what normative processes and contents prevail, the MS will take on different forms and even diverging civilizational paths.

The first part of the essay identifies the principal challenges and foci of tension in the normative texture of society, while the second section develops an argument about the specific case of personal ontology and the related normative challenges.

Keywords

Normative tensions De-normativization Normative closure Relational ontology Morphological freedom Network normativity 

References

  1. Albers, M., Hoffmann, T., & Reinhardt, J. (Eds.). (2014). Human rights and human nature. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. C. (2012). Trauma. A social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human. The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency, and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (2014). Introduction: ‘Stability’ or ‘Stabilization’ – On which would morphogenic society depend? In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity. Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Archer, M. S. (2015). How agency is transformed in the course of social transformation: don’t forget the double morphogenesis. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social mechanisms transforming late modernity (pp. 129–150). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bartoli, R. (2014). La sospensione del processo con messa alla prova: una goccia deflattiva nel mare del sovraffollamento? Diritto penale e processo, 20(6), 661–674.Google Scholar
  10. Bellah, R. N., & Joas, H. (Eds.). (2012). The axial age and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ben-Rafael, E. (2003). The de-civilizing process. In G. Skąpska, & A. Orla-Bukowska (Eds.), with the collaboration of K. Kowalski, The moral fabric of contemporary societies (pp. 283–289). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  12. Bostrom, N. (2005). In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke-White, W. W. (2002). A community of courts: Toward a system of international criminal law enforcement. Michigan Journal of International Law, 24, 1–101.Google Scholar
  14. Donati, P. (1997). La relazione libertà/controllo sociale nella società globalizzante. Studi di Sociologia, XXXV(4), 285–315.Google Scholar
  15. Donati, P. (2009). La società dell’umano. Genova: Marietti.Google Scholar
  16. Donati, P. (2010). La matrice teologica della società. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
  17. Donati, P., & Solci, R. (2011). I beni relazionali. Che cosa sono e quali effetti producono. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  18. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2003). The moral dimensions and tensions of modernity. In G. Skąpska, & A. Orla-Bukowska (Eds.), with the collaboration of K. Kowalski, The moral fabric of contemporary societies (pp. 203–217). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  19. European Court of Human Rights (2013). Chamber judgment 08/01/2013, applications nr. 43517/09, 46882/09, 55400/09, 57875/09, 35315/10 and 37818/10 – Torreggiani et al. vs. Italy.Google Scholar
  20. European Court of Justice (2014). Judgment in case C-364/13, International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs, P., & Göbel, A. (Hg.). (1994). Der Mensch – das Medium der Gesellschaft? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (2001). The post-national constellation. Political essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, J. (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Cambridge: Westview.Google Scholar
  24. Joas, H. (2008). Do we need religion? On the experience of self-transcendence. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Joas, H. (2013). The sacredness of the person: A new genealogy of human rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lohmann, G. (2014). How to protect “Human Nature” – By human dignity, human rights or by “Species-Ethics” argumentations? In M. Albers, T. Hoffmann, & J. Reinhardt (Eds.), Human rights and human nature (pp. 161–172). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N. (1993). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  28. Luhmann, N. (1996). Jenseits von Barbarei. In M. Miller, & H. G. Soeffner (Hg.), Modernität und Barbarei (pp. 219–230). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  29. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Maccarini, A. (2013). A morphogenetic-relational account of social emergence: Processes and forms. In M. S. Archer & A. Maccarini (Eds.), Engaging with the world etc (pp. 22–49). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Maccarini, A. (2015). Turbulence and relational conjunctures: The emergence of morphogenic environments. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social mechanisms transforming late modernity (pp. 151–170). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Maine, H. S. (1972) [1861]. Ancient law. Its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  33. Marandola, A. (2014). La messa alla prova dell’imputato adulto: ombre e luci di un nuovo rito speciale per una diversa politica criminale. Diritto penale e processo, 20(6), 674–685.Google Scholar
  34. Porpora, D. V., Nikolaev, A. G., Hagemann May, J., & Jenkins, A. (2013). Post-ethical society. The Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, and the moral failure of the secular. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prandini, R. (2012). Complessità sociale e diritto riflessivo. Dall’auto-regolazione “regolata” fino alle costituzioni societarie. In R. Prandini (Ed.), Culture e processi “costituenti” della società riflessiva. Globalizzazione, accelerazione e auto-regolazione sociale (pp. 33–68). Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rodotà, S. (2012). Il diritto di avere diritti. Laterza: Roma-Bari.Google Scholar
  37. Shulman, C., & Bostrom, N. (2014). Embryo selection for cognitive enhancement: Curiosity or game-changer? Global Policy, 5(1), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmel, G. (1890). Über sociale Differenzierung. Sociologische und psychologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  39. Slaugther, A. M. (2003). A global community of courts. Harvard International Law Journal, 44, 191–219.Google Scholar
  40. Sloterdijk, P. (2013). You must change your life. On anthropotechnics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stichweh, R. (2000). Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen.. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  42. Teubner, G. (2000). Globale Privatregimes: Neo-spontanes Recht und duale Sozialverfassungen in der Weltgesellschaft. In G. Teubner (Hg.), Zur Autonomie des Individuums. Liber Amicorum Spiros Simitis (pp. 437–453). Baden Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  43. Teubner, G. (2002). Hybrid laws: Constitutionalizing private governance networks. In R. Kagan & K. Winston (Eds.), Legality and community: On the intellectual legacy of Philip Selznick (pp. 311–331). Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations