Comparative analysis of the technocratic governance cases and deliberative-democratic self-rule in the internet-sphere
https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2020-1-54-51-60
Abstract
Introduction. The paper compares two approaches to the formation of the internet-sphere. The technocratic approach strengthens itself in the cybernetic-system methodology, it is based on the technocratic governance of society and implies the total governance of the internet-sphere in the interests of the government, the suppression of the individual personality by “programming” its consciousness. This approach is evidenced by “the system of social credit” in China.
The deliberative-democratic approach emerges from phenomenology and substantiates an egalitarian model of democracy which implies a universal discussion and importance of the meanings sent by each person in the internet-sphere. The case of online-deliberative forums is analyzed. These forums serve to reveal the opinions of the citizens themselves and to define the genuine public opinion. The advantages of the second approach are identified.
Materials and methods. This article uses logical methods of analysis: analysis, synthesis, comparative analysis.
The results of the study. This study shows how the cybernetic-systemic methodology holistically analyzing society and assuming its programming “from top to bottom” leads to technocratic governance of society and the Internet. It also shows how the phenomenological approach aimed at perceiving the personal meanings of each citizen becomes the basis of deliberative democracy and online deliberative discussions.
Discussion and conclusions. The paper arrives at the following conclusions. Serious risks produced by the use of the cybernetic-systemic principles in governing the Internet sphere are shown: programming the personality consciousness, emasculating the senses experienced by it, and regulating the entire social life. In contrast with the cybernetic approach, the advantages of the phenomenological approach are analytically shown, because it perceives the personal meanings of each individual and leads to their revealing in the Internet sphere, which creates the foundation for maintaining a democratic regime.
About the Author
A. N. Linde
MGIMO (University) under the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia
Russian Federation
Andrey Linde, PhD (Political science), Senior Lecturer with the Department of Regional Governance and National Politics
Russian Federation
Andrey Linde, PhD (Political science), Senior Lecturer with the Department of Regional Governance and National Politics
References
1. Abels H., 1998. Romantika, fenomenologicheskaya sociologiya i kachestvennoe social’noe issledovanie [Romantic, phenomenological sociology and qualitative social research]. Zhurnal sociologii i social’noj antropologii [Journal of sociology and social anthropology]. № 1. P. 98-124.
2. Wiener N., 1969. Mojo otnoshenie k kibernetike. Ejo proshloe i budushhee [My connection with cybernetics. It’s origins and it’s future]. Moscow.
3. Wiener N., 1998. CHelovecheskoe ispol’zovanie chelovecheskih sushchestv: kibernetika i obshchestvo [The Human Use Of Human Beings: Cybernetics And Society]. Wiener N., CHelovek upravlyayushchij [Human governing]. Boston.
4. Volodenkov S.V., 2016. Ot informacii k kommunikacii: kommunikacionnye tekhnologii v usloviyah sovremennogo post-informacionnogo obshchestva [From information to communication: communication technologies in the conditions of the modern post-information society]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta (elektronnyj zhurnal) [Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (electronic journal)]. No. 4. P. 1-10.
5. Husserl E., 2013. Krizis evropejskih nauk i transcendental’naya fenomenologiya: vvedenie v fenomenologicheskuyu filosofiyu [The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy]. St. Petersburg.
6. Gutorov V.A., 2014. Politicheskie kommunikacii i SMI kak faktory evolyucii teorii demokratii [Political communications and the media as factors in the evolution of the theory of democracy]. SCHOLA-2014: Sbornik nauchnyh statej fakul’teta politologii Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni M.V. Lomonosova [SCHOLA-2014: Collection of scientific articles of the Department of Political Science of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov]. Moscow.
7. Kovachich L., 2017. Bol’shoj brat 2.0. Kak Kitaj stroit cifrovuyu diktaturu [Big Brother 2.0. How China builds a digital dictatorship]. Carnegie Moscow Center. URL: http://carnegie.ru/commentary/71546
8. Linde A.N. 2015. Znachenie fenomenologicheskogo podhoda k kommunikacii (v sravnenii s sistemno-funkcional’noj teoriej) [The meaning of the phenomenological approach to communication (in comparison with the system-functional theory)]. Kommunikaciya kak disciplina i oblast’ znaniya v sovremennom mire: dialog podhodov [Communication as a discipline and as a area of knowledge in the modern world: a dialogue of approaches]. Moscow, P. 88-97.
9. Timofeeva L.N., 2009. Politicheskaya kommunikativistika: problemy stanovleniya [Political communication: the problems of formation]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political studies]. № 5. P. 41-54.
10. Held D., 2006. Modeli demokratii [Models of Democracy]. Polity Press.
11. Shutz A., 1994. Formirovanie ponyatiya i teorii v obshchestvennyh naukah [Formation of the Concept and Theory in the Social Sciences]. Amerikanskaya sociologicheskaya mysl’: Teksty [American sociological thought: Texts]. Moscow, P. 480-498.
12. Craig R.T., 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory. № 9. Vol. 2. P. 119-161.
13. Fishkin J., Luskin R., 2005. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica. Stanford. P. 284-298.
14. Fishkin J., 2009. Virtual Public Consultation: Prospects for Internet Deliberative Democracy. Online deliberation. Design, research and practice. Stanford: CSLI Publications. P. 23-35.
15. Garfinkel H., 1967. Studies in Ethnometodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
16. Habermas J., 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Boston, Beacon Press.
17. Luhmann N., 1994. Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung [Political planning: Essays on the sociology of politics and administration]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Review
For citations:
Linde A.N. Comparative analysis of the technocratic governance cases and deliberative-democratic self-rule in the internet-sphere. Journal of Law and Administration. 2020;16(1):51-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2020-1-54-51-60
Views:
506
Email this article 