СТРАТЕГИИ СЛОЖНОСТНОГО МЫШЛЕНИЯ Множественность объекта и «эвристики сборки»
Abstract
В статье рассматривается проблема нарастания неопределенности и непредсказуемости процессов в современных социальных системах. Показывается, что в основание поиска стратегий работы с неопределенностью может быть положено представление о социальной сложности.
Рассмотрение социальной сложности выполняется путем выявления ее источников и возможных стратегий работы с ней. Согласно предлагаемому подходу, к источникам социальной сложности отнесены: информационная асимметрия, множественная актуализация объекта, аутопойезис коммуникации,
эмерджентный интерфейс, сетевые эффекты. Предложена рабочая схема, в рамках которой выполнено разделение стратегий взаимодействия со сложными социальными объектами на «потенциально хрупкие» и «включающие оптику сложностного мышления».
References
1. Akerlof, G. (1994). The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the
2. Market Mechanism. THESIS, 5, 91–104. (In Russian).
3. Аntonovskiy, А. U., (2007). Niklas Luhmann: The epistemic introduction into
4. the theory of social systems. Мoscow: Russian Academy of Sciences’s the
5. Institute of Philosophy. (In Russian).
6. Arshinov, V. I. (2011). Synergetic converges with complexity.Voprosy filosofii.
7. , 74-83. (In Russian).
8. Аsmolov, G. A, & Аsmolov, A. G. (2019). The Internet as a generative space:
9. Historical-evolutional perspective. Voprosy Psychologii, 4, 23 (In Russian).
10. Baecker, D. (2001). Why Systems? Theory Culture & Society, 1, 59–74. DOI:
11. 1177/026327601018001005
12. Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge University Press.
13. DeLanda, М. (2018). A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory AndSocial Complexity (P. 8). Мoscow: Gile Press. (In Russian).
14. Evans, E. (2011). Domain-driven design (DDD). Мoscow: Williams. (In Russian).
15. Greenfield, A. (2019). Radical Technologies. Мoscow: Delo Publishing House.
16. (In Russian).
17. Ivakhnenko, Е. N. (2013). Sociology meets complexity. RSUH/RGGU bulletin.
18. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Art studies 11(112), 90–101. (In Russian).
19. Ivakhnenko, Е. N., & Attaeva, L. I. (2015). Autopoiesis of “epistemic objects”
20. as a new horizont of the social theory. Scientific almanac questions of the
21. social theory, 7(1-2), 96–106. (In Russian).
22. Kahneman, D., Slovik, P., & Tversky, A. (2005). Judgment Under Uncertainty.
23. Kharkov: Humanitarian Centre Publishing House. (In Russian).
24. Kahneman, D. (2016). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Мoscow: AST. (In Russian).
25. Kiyashchenko, L. P. (2019). Reflexion is a system complexity modulator (soft
26. forms of control). In V. E. Lepsky (Ed.). Reflexion processes and control
27. (Pp. 200–205). Moscow: Cogito Centre. (In Russian).
28. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2006). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial
29. knowledge societies. In V. Vakhshtayn (Ed.). Sociology of things (pp.
30. –306). Мoscow: Publishing House Territoriya Budushchego [Territory
31. of the future]. (In Russian).
32. Knyazeva, Е. N., & Kurdyumov, S. P. (2002). The Foundation of synergy. Saint
33. Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Russian).
34. Kraynova, I. A. (2019). Conceptualization of the “Conspiracy of silence”
35. As an aspect of the investigation of social risks. RSUH/RGGU bulletin.
36. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Art studies, 2, 35–45. (In Russian). DOI:
37. 28995/2073-6401-2019-2-35-45.
38. Latour, B. (2017). Reassembling the Social. Мoscow: HSE Publishing House.
39. (In Russian).
40. Law, J. (2015). After Method. Moscow: The Gaidar Institute Publishing House.
41. (In Russian).
42. Lepsky, V. Е. (2010). Reflexive and active environments for innovative development. Мoscow: Cogito Centre. (In Russian).
43. Lefebvre, V. А. (2003). The Reflection. Мoscow: Cogito Centre. (In Russian).
44. Luhmann, N. (2011). The Society of Society (Vol. 5). Moscow: Logos.
45. (In Russian).
46. Moiseyev, N. N. (1998). Parting with the simplicity (Pp. 361–362). Мoscow:
47. Agraf. (In Russian).
48. Mol, A. (2018). The Body Multiple (P. 80). Russia, Perm: Gile Press.
49. (In Russian).
50. Моrin, E. (2013a). The Method (Pp. 326–329). Moscow: Kanon. (In Russian).
51. Моrin, E. (2013b). Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future. Synergetics. Anthology (P. 303). Мoscow, Saint Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitanyh
52. iniciativ. (In Russian).
53. Moskalev, I. Е. (2015). About social risks and possibilities of development of
54. nbic-technologies. In V. E. Lepsky (Ed.). Reflexion processes and control
55. (P. 110). Moscow: Cogito Centre. (In Russian).
56. Nowotny, H. (2005). The Increase of Complexity and its Reduction:
57. Emergent Interfaces between the Natural Sciences, Humanities
58. and Social Sciences. Theory Culture & Society, 22(5), 15–31.
59. DOI:10.1177/0263276405057189.
60. Orlov, D. Е. (2014). Towards understanding the complexity of techno-social
61. objects. RSUH/RGGU bulletin. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Art studies,
62. (132), 129–137. (In Russian).
63. Papanek, V. (2020). Design for the real world. Мoscow: Aronov-Books.
64. (In Russian).
65. Poddiakov, A. N. (2010). Learn and teach in the face of uncertainty. Educational Policy, 7–8, 78–83. (In Russian).
66. Stark, D. (2001).Ambiguous Assets for Uncertain Environments: Heterarchy in
67. Postsocialist Firms. Economic Sociology, 2(2), 115–132. (In Russian).
68. Svirskiy, Ya. I., & Arshinov, V. I. (2019). Something about complexity. Afterword by the translator and editor. E. Morin. About complexity
69. (Pp. 273–282). Мoscow: Gnosis Books. (In Russian).
70. Таleb, N. (2014). Antifragility. Мoscow: KoLibri. (In Russian).
71. Tomke, S. (2020). How to create a culture of experimentation. Harvard
72. Business Review (Russia), 4, 26–34. (In Russian).
73. Zabotkina, V. I., & Pozdnyakova, Е. М. (2020). Cognitive modeling of a conceptual domain sociocultural threats. Cognitive studies of language,
74. (40), 51–65. (In Russian).
75. Zolo, D. (2010). Democracy and Complexity. Мoscow: HSE Publishing House.
76. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
, . Educational Policy. 2021;(1):46-55. (In Russ.)
Views:
74
JATS XML
Email this article 