Hypernomie as a Phenomenon of Modern Society

Vladimir  Kuzmenkov; Konstantin  Starostenko; Iryna  Soina; Alexander  Chekulaev

doi:10.46398/cuestpol.3970.17

Vladimir Kuzmenkov Orel Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.V. Lukyanov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9872-1417
Konstantin Starostenko Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1850-8606
Iryna Soina Kharkov State Academy of Physical Culture https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9554-999X
Alexander Chekulaev Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0812-9023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.17

Palabras clave: anomia, poder, hipernomía, control social, conformismo

Resumen

El propósito del artículo es aclarar las características esenciales de la hipernomía como fenómeno social. Fueron utilizados los métodos comparativo-histórico, estructural-funcional y valorativo. La referencia a los trabajos de R. Dahrendorf, E. Gellner, K. Stenner, teóricos de la anomia, nos permitió identificar una serie de rasgos característicos de la hipernomía. El primero debe incluir un estricto control disciplinario sobre el comportamiento de los ciudadanos que afecte las costumbres corporales. Existe otra característica de la hipernomía que es la identificación de las funciones de poder y el control sobre el poder. Esto es inherente no solo a los países comunistas y poscomunistas, sino también a las democracias tradicionales que ejercen control sobre los ciudadanos a través de Internet. La tercera característica de la hipernomía es el predominio de la planificación y el control de la producción. Las sociedades hipernómicas imponen una comprensión utilitaria del bien y del mal, borrando el lenguaje moral tradicional. La cuarta propiedad de la hipernomía es la difusión ubicua del conformismo, el autoengaño y el culto de la personalidad autoritaria. Se formulan dos conclusiones principales: si bien la hipernomía es lo opuesto a la anomia, dialécticamente se complementan y pueden pasar de uno en otro.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Biografía del autor/a

Vladimir Kuzmenkov , Orel Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.V. Lukyanov

Department of Social and Philosophical Disciplines of the Orel Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.V. Lukyanov, Orel, 302027, 2, Ignatovast, Russia.

Konstantin Starostenko, Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev

The chief of the Department of general and applied politology of Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev, Orel, 302026, 95, Komsomolskayast, Russia.

Iryna Soina, Kharkov State Academy of Physical Culture

Department of Ukrainian and Foreign Languages, Kharkov State Academy of Physical Culture, Kharkov, 61058, 99Klochkovskayast, Ukraine.

Alexander Chekulaev, Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev

Department of general and applied politology of Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev, Orel, 302026, 95, Komsomolskaya., Russia.

Citas

ADORNO, Theodor. 2001. The Authoritarian Personality. Moscow, Russia. ALTEMEYER, Bruno. 2006. The Authoritarians. Debate. Winnipeg, Canada. BARICHKO, Yaroslav. 2010. “Three Types of Corporality of Culture” In: Chelyabinsk Humanities. No. 3, pp. 97-102.

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. 2000. The Transparency of Evil. MMG. Moscow, Russia.

DAHRENDORF, Ralf. 1994. “Letter to a Polish friend” In: Put’. No. 3, pp. 24-28.

FOUCAULT, Paul-Michel. 2018. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. MMG. Moscow, Russia.

FUKUYAMA, Francis. 2004. Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnological Revolution. Moscow, Russia.

GALTUNG, Johan. 1996. “On the Social Costs of Modernization. Social Disintegration, Atomie / Anomie and Social Development” In: Development and Change. No. 27, pp. 379-413.

GELLNER, Ernest. 2004. Conditions of Freedom. Civil Society and Its Historical Rivals. Moscow, Russia.

GUARDINI, Romano. 1990. “The End of a New Time” In:Voprosy Philosophic. No. 4, pp. 127-163.

HE, Dan; MESSNER, Steven. 2020. “Social Disorganization Theory in Contemporary China: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research” In: Asian Journal of Criminology. No. 15, pp.1-24.

KOROLENKO, Tsezar; DONSKIKH, Tatiana. 1990. Seven Ways to Disaster. Destructive Behavior in the Modern World. Novosibirsk, Russia.

KOROLEV, Sergey. 2008. “Power and Everyday Life: A Socio-philosophical View” In: Russia and the modern world. No. 3, pp.49-73.

KRAVCHENKO, Sergey. 2019. “The Many Faces of Metamorphoses: on the Innovations of Two Canadian Sociologists” In: Sociological Studies. No. 2, pp. 26-35.

LEKTORSKY, Vladislav. 2020. “Transformation of Individual and Collective Memory in the Context of Digitalization” In: Electronic Scientific and Educational Journal History. No. 11, pp. 17-29.

MARTYANOV, Victor; FISHMAN, Leonid. 2016. “Ethics of Virtue for the New Estates: Transformation of Political Morality in Contemporary Russia” In: Voprosy Filosofii, No. 10, pp. 58-68.

MESSNER, Steven; ZHANG, Lening; ZHANG, Sheldon; GRUNER, Colin. 2017. “Neighborhood crime control in a changing China: Tiao-Jie, Bang-Jiao, and neighborhood watches” In: Journal of research in crime and delinquency. No. 54, pp. 544-577.

SHEPHERD, Richard. 2019. Unnatural Reasons. Forensic Notes: High- profile Murders, Horrific Terrorist Attacks and Convoluted Cases. Moscow, Russia.

STENNER, Karin. 2009. ““Conservatism”, context-dependence, and cognitive incapacity” In: Psychological Inquiry. No. 20, pp.189-195.

STENNER, Karin. 2009. “Three kinds of conservatism” In: Psychological Inquiry. No. 20, pp.142-159.

TRUFANOVA, Elena. 2021. “Private and Public in the Digital Space: Blurring of the Lines” In: Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. No. 3, pp.14-38.

ZHAO, Tingyang. 2015. “Realizing the Chinese Dream?” In: Journal of International Relations Theory and World Politics. No. 13, pp.21-34.