Creating Common Good: The Global Sustainable Information Society as the Good Society

Chapter
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Abstract

The “good”, eudaimonic society is characterised here as a society that cultivates the commune bonum, the common good, the commons. The topicality of the issue of the commons does not come as a surprise, because the dangers of an anthropogenic breakdown of our societal life originate from rising dysfunctions regarding the commons. The commons, are according to a social systems view, defined as any emerging synergetic relations, one which converges with defining it as a relational good as relational sociology does. In order to remove frictions in the functioning of the commons, a transformation is needed. Social morphogenesis can transform the current societal conditions into those of a true “morphogenic” society in which a ratchet is set up: the flourishing of the actors conditions the flourishing of the society and vice versa. This transformation has to take into consideration a global, a sustainable and an informational imperative. The global sustainable information society is the concrete utopia of today.

Keywords

Commons Morality Eudaimonia Systems functions Values Globality Sustainability Meta-reflexivity All-inclusiveness Commonism 

References

  1. Archer, M. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S., & Donati, P. (Eds.). (2008). Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together. Vatican City: Vatican Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bertalanffy, L. V. (2015). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  4. Bornemann, E. (1975). Das Patriarchat. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.Google Scholar
  5. Bruns, A. (2006). Towards produsage: Futures for user-led content production. In: F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec, and C. Ess (Eds.), Proceedings cultural attitudes towards communication and technology 2006, Tartu, 275–284.Google Scholar
  6. Curtis, N. (2013). Idiotism: Capitalism and the privatisation of life. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The relational subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Eller, C. (2000). The myth of matriarchal prehistory. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs (Ed.). (1997). Building the European information society for us all, final policy report of the high-level expert group. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Gintis, H., & Helbing, D. (2015). Homo socialis: An analytical core for sociological theory. Review of Behavioral Economics, 2, 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofkirchner, W. (2012). Sustainability and self-organisation: Sustainability in the perspective of complexity and systems science and ethical considerations. In T. Nishigaki & T. Takenouchi (Eds.), Information ethics: The future of the humanities. Nagoya City: V2 Solution Publisher.Google Scholar
  13. Hofkirchner, W. (2013). Self-organisation as the mechanism of development and evolution in social systems. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 125–143). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofkirchner, W. (2014). On the validity of describing ‘morphogenic society’ as a system and justifiability of thinking about it as a social formation. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 119–141). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofkirchner, W. (2015). “Mechanisms” at work in information society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming the social order (pp. 95–112). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Hofkirchner, W. (2016). Ethics from systems: Origin, development and current state of normativity. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (pp. 239–253). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hofkirchner, W. (2017). Information for a global sustainable information society. In: M. Burgin, and W. Hofkirchner (Eds.), The future information society: Social and technological problems, Singapore, World Scientific (in print)Google Scholar
  18. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  19. Laermans, R. (2011a). The promises of commonalism. In R. De Roo, K. Vanhasebrouck, & L. De Cauter (Eds.), Art and activism in the age of globalisation (pp. 240–249). Rotterdam: Nai Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Laermans, R. (2011b). Artistic collaboration and the promises of commonalism. https://fabricoftrust.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/vortrag_rudi_laermans_tqw3.pdf
  21. Laermans, R. (2012). Teaching theory and the art of not-knowing: Notes on pedagogical commonalism. Krisis, 1, 63–73.Google Scholar
  22. Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  23. Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence. New York etc: Plenium Trade.Google Scholar
  24. Lévy, P. (2001). Cyberculture. Minneapolis etc: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Linebaugh, P. (2014). Stop, thief! The commons, enclosure, and resistance. Oakland: PM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Logan, R. (2007). The extended mind: The emergence of language, the human mind and culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morin, E. (1992). Method, towards a study of humankind, The Nature of Nature (Vol. 1). New York etc: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wallerstein, I. (1988). One world, many worlds. New York: Rienner.Google Scholar
  33. Zimmermann, R. E. (2014). Η ΝΕΑ ΠΟΛΥ: Neue Stadtbegriffe auf dem Weg in die Heimat. Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Zimmermann, R. E. (2015). Mesógios - Zur Struktur der Polis-Netzwerke. In R. Faber & A. Lichtenberger (Eds.), Ein pluriverses Universum: Zivilisationen und Religionen im antiken Mittelmeerraum (pp. 113–130). Paderborn: Fink.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Design and Technology AssessmentVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems ScienceViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations