This paper presents the core tenets of the radical human-centricity concept, posited as a response to the systemic crisis of modern organizational management, where proclaimed human-centricity often results in the instrumentalization of the individual. Drawing on the traditions of cultural activity psychology, dialogical philosophy, existentialism, and post-structuralism, it deconstructs the prevailing reductionist models in management theory and practice: the “human-as function” and the “human-as-bundle-of-skills”. In their stead, the work advances an ontology of the unfinished subject, whose being is a continuous process of meaning making and becoming. Consequently, the organization ceases to be an external machine into which the person is inserted as a component; it transforms into a dialogical space, an environment for co-becoming. The paper substantiates the claim that the genuine source of organizational development, preadaptation, and antifragility lies in a methodology of diversity. Here, diversity is understood not merely as cognitive, but as existential-ontological and anthropological – that is, as the polyphony of human lifeworlds, value systems, and modes of being. The practical implementation of this paradigm necessitates a shift from a subject-object to a subject-subject (dialogic) logic of interaction, a transformation of the leader’s role, a transition from hierarchical structures to network heterarchies, and a rethinking of fundamental organizational processes. Radical human-centricity is a strategic imperative for organizational survival in conditions of complexity and uncertainty, precisely because human agency and irreducible diversity serve as the primary engine for innovation and renewal. The paper substantiates the cultural anthropology of organization as an independent paradigm for analyzing and designing organizational development.

The construct of “superdiversity”, introduced by Steven Vertovec, has enriched the intellectual toolkit of social science methodology in response to the need to conceptualize new levels of complexity in contemporary sociocultural reality. Its fundamental difference from the notion of “diversity” lies in the dynamic intersection of multiple parameters that characterize modern identity. The epistemological significance of the concept of superdiversity is associated with a rejection of reductionist models of identification, such as nation, ethnicity, and class; a shift toward multidimensional, non-linear, and context-sensitive forms of analysis; and the integration of diverse disciplinary approaches for a deeper understanding of the complex and heterogeneous dynamics of social systems.

The explicit and implicit influence of this phenomenon on social dynamics is manifested primarily in the fact that superdiversity is capable of transforming social stratification, generating flexible and fluid systems of inequality in which social status is determined not by a single variable but by a combination of factors such as language, legal status, level of education, and so forth. From these methodological positions, it is appropriate to conceptualize superdiversity as a practical embodiment of a transdisciplinary approach, within which biological, cultural, social, psychological, and technological aspects of contemporary phenomenology are integrated into a unified analytical field.

At the same time, general complexity theory can serve as a broader methodological framework for the study of superdiversity, as it allows for the explanation of the emergent properties of social systems, spontaneous forms of self-organization, and unpredictable interaction effects involving multiple actors. As an analytical tool for studying social dynamics, this conceptual model reflects not only an epistemological but also an ontological shift from linear and unified structures toward non-linear, context-sensitive, heterogeneous, and multi-level interactions.

In applied terms, this conceptual model initiates a rethinking of current problems in the fields of social policy, urban studies, and education, promoting greater flexibility, contextual sensitivity, and the development of competencies for managing complexity.

The article discusses examples of practices for recovering from digital noise. There are six different ways that will help a modern teacher to prevent emotional burnout due to the large flow of incoming messages. Among the proposed methods there are psychological, organizational and technical techniques.

Scholars actively debate what artificial intelligence is for humans — a cultural tool, a means of digital externalization, a digital significant Other, or a future alternative, replacement for the human. Far less frequently discussed is who the human is for technologies and their designers. The paper shows that AI technologies — understood not as a single engineering solution but as a system of heterogeneous approaches — not only rest on fundamentally different conceptions of the human, but also transmit these images through their architectures, thereby facilitating corresponding practices and shaping culture, new worlds and a new forms of being. The architectures of most types of AI both, implemented in practice and only discussed in the literature (generative, human-centered, trustworthy, explainable, interpretable, embodied, situated, enactive, social, as well as designs developed within sociotechnical and actor-network frameworks) rely on reduced, incomplete images of the human being. Among the principal risks associated with broad deployment of such systems is the risk of dehumanization — the elimination from human practices of those features that make them genuinely human: contextual understanding, meaning-making, moral and ethical responsibility, deep interpersonal bonds, co action, variability, autonomy and self-determination. In these architectures the human too often appears only as a performer of a social role (user, client, worker, patient, student, etc.). Overcoming the reduction of the human in AI architectures is possible through redesign of those architectures. Corresponding technologies must move beyond simplified anthropologies and be built on complex images of the human being. Such technologies can not only facilitate human development and the realization of human potential, but also contribute to the formation of a truly human-centered culture — a culture of dignity (A. G. Asmolov). Practical tenets intended to underlie the design of non-reductionist architectures are formulated

The name Abram Kardiner is mentioned relatively infrequently by Russian academia — despite the fact that he was a key figure in psychoanalysis, a founder of a school and even an entire movement that integrated psychology and social anthropology, and one of the first to link mental illness to cultural characteristics, long before the concept of culture-bound syndromes entered psychiatry. He also researched traumatic disorders and war neuroses. The subjects he explored and the questions he raised are not only still relevant but are acquiring new resonance and urgency today.

The absence of Kardiner’s texts in Russian was due, firstly, to the fact that psychoanalysis was practically banned in the USSR. Kardiner’s famous seminar and his works, which examined culture and society through the lens of psychoanalysis, contradicted historical materialism and were completely rejected by Soviet scholars. Today, in the education of both psychologists and anthropologists, interest in the history of science and various theories is, for a number of reasons, greatly reduced. It is especially important to pay tribute to Kardiner’s role in the construction/creating of modern interdisciplinary anthropological discourse.