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

Keywords: anomie, power, hypernomia, social control, conformism

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to clarify the essential characteristics of hypernomy as a social phenomenon. The comparative-historical, structural-functional and evaluative methods were used. Reference to the works of R. Dahrendorf, E. Gellner, K. Stenner, theorists of anomie, allowed us to identify several characteristic features of hypernomy. The first must include strict disciplinary control over the behaviour of citizens that affects bodily customs. There is another characteristic of hypernomy which is the identification of the functions of power and control over power. This is inherent not only in communist and post-communist countries, but also in traditional democracies that exert control over citizens through the Internet. The third characteristic of hypernomy is the predominance of production planning and control. Hypernomic societies impose a utilitarian understanding of good and evil, erasing traditional moral language. The fourth property of hypernomy is the ubiquitous spread of conformism, self-deception, and the cult of authoritarian personality. Two main conclusions are formulated: while hypernomics is the opposite of anomie, dialectically they complement each other and can pass from one to another.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

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.

References

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.