Semiosis of Political Action

Authors

  • Larisa P. Kiyashchenko Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 12, ul. Goncharnaya, Moscow, 109004, Russian Federation.
  • Anastasia V. Golofast Academy of Labor and Social Relations, 90, ul. Lobachevskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2023.310

Abstract

Aristotle, calling man “political by nature,” predetermined the actual opportunity to consider politics through the prism of practical action, through specific ways of equitable arrangement of public life. Thrown into a digital existence, where the ambivalent task of realizing one’s vulnerable position arises, exposing oneself to risk, while simultaneously navigating the indefinite space of a dynamically developing community. The modern territory of politics is being mastered by actants with the help of a renewed arsenal of means, taking into account the meaning of design (de + signare), the signs of which acquire multiplication of ideas about complexly organized integrity of its image. Integration ties of semiosis “sew through” the heterotopy of the renewed territory of political action, putting down the chronological framework of events in sign expression (index, symbol, code, number), to compare and supplement possible transformational semiotic shifts and confusions, thus creating a plausible and recognizable semiotic image of the current state of affairs in society. Semiotic representation emphasizes the sign, symbolic nature of political action as a political event, realized by its subject in the process of normogenesis and anchored in the pragmatics of everyday activity. Conditional analytical dismemberment of the process of semiosis (syntactics, semantics, pragmatics) of political action initiates the synchronization of methodological synthesis, which leads to the co-creation of the subject and structure at the level of reflective analysis. This allows us to add the “included third”, traditional for the transdisciplinary methodological approach, into the agent-structure dichotomy, which is classic for the science of politics, serving as a target reason for creating integral image of political action. It should be noted that the “included third” as the target cause does not guarantee the unambiguity of the outcome of the formation of the specified action, but only adjusts the optics of tracking its possible configurations, taking into account both contextual and environmental conditionality.

Keywords:

procreation, replication, reproduction, semiosis, included third, political action, transdisciplinarity, digitalization

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1987), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bennett, J. (2010), Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things, Durham: Duke University Press.

Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

Кошарная, Г.Б. (2016), Триангуляция как способ обеспечения валидности результатов эмпирического исследования, Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион. Общественные науки, No 2 (38), c. 117–122.

Denzin, N. (1970), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Chicago:Aldine.

Lewontin, R. (2000), The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Киященко, Л.П. (2010), Тройная спираль трансдисциплинарности в обществе знаний, Знание. Понимание. Умение, No 3, с. 67–74.

Киященко, Л.П. (2017), Событие. Личность. Время (К философии трансдисциплинарности),М.: ИФ РАН.

Nicolescu, B. (2007), Transdisciplinarity as Methodological Framework for Going Beyond the Science-Religion Debate, Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, no. 2, pp. 35–60.

King, L. Why is Separation of the Three Helices Important? The Institute for Triple Helix Innovation. URL: http://www.triplehelixinstitute.org/?q=node/178 (дата обращения: 17.08.2021).

Hirschman, A. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Delanda, M. (2006), A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kaun, A. et al. (2016), Political Agency at the Digital Crossroads?, Media and Communication, vol. 4, is. 4, pp. 1–7.

Häkli, J. and Kallio, K. (2013), Subject, action and polis, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 38(2),pp. 181–200.

Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. (1998), What is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 962–1023.

Регев Й. (2016), Невозможное и совпадение: о революционной ситуации в философии, Пермь: Гиле Пресс.

Brown, B. (2015), Daring Greatly, Penguin Random House.

Shaviro, S. (2012), Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Голосовкер, Я.Э. (1987), Логика мифа, М.: Наука.

Byrne, R. (2005), The Rational Imagination. How People Create Alternatives to Reality, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Философия науки: Синергетика реальности человеческого измерения (2002), отв. ред. Аршинов, В.И., Киященко, Л.П.и Тищенко, П.Д., М.: ИФРАН.

Киященко, Л.П. (2009), Философия трансдисциплинарности, М.: ИФРАН.

Кант, И. (1966), Сочинения: в 6 т., общ. ред. Асмус, В.Ф., Гулыга, А.В. и Ойзерман, Т.И., М.: Мысль, т. 5.

Порус, В.Н. (1996), Парадоксы научной рациональности и этики, в: Научные и вненаучные формы мышления , М.: ИФ РАН, с. 168–185.

Бразговская, Е.Е. (2008), Языки и коды. Введение в семиотику культуры, Пермь: Изд-во ПГПУ.

Kahneman, D. (2013), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Tomz, M. (2012), Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across Three Centuries, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Luhmann, N. (2017), Trust and Power, Cambridge: Polity.

Лавренова, О.А. (2020), Секция семиотики пространства на XIV Всемирном семиотическом конгрессе. Обзор, М.: ИНИОН РАН.

Fairclough, N. (2010), Critical discourse analysis, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.


References

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1987), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bennett, J. (2010), Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things, Durham: Duke University Press.

Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

Kosharnaya, G.B. (2016), Triangulation as a way to ensure the validity of empiric research results, University proceedings. Volga region. Social sciences, no. 2 (38), pp. 117–122 (In Russian)

Denzin, N. (1970), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, Chicago: Aldine.

Lewontin, R. (2000), The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Kiyashchenko L.P. (2010), Triple Helix of Transdisciplinarity in the Society of Knowledge, Znanie.Ponimanie. Umenie, no. 3, pp. 67–74. (In Russian)

Kiiashchenko L.P. (2017), Event. Personality. Time (Towards the Philosophy of Transdisciplinarity), Moscow: IP RAS Publ.

Nicolescu, B. (2007), Transdisciplinarity as Methodological Framework for Going Beyond the Science-Religion Debate, Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, no. 2, pp. 35–60.

King, L. Why is Separation of the Three Helices Important? The Institute for Triple Helix Innovation. Available at: http://www.triplehelixinstitute.org/?q=node/178 (accessed: 17.08.2021).

Hirschman, A. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Delanda, M. (2006), A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kaun, A. et al. (2016), Political Agency at the Digital Crossroads?, Media and Communication, vol. 4, is. 4, pp. 1–7.

Häkli, J. and Kallio, K. (2013), Subject, action and polis, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 38(2), pp. 181–200.

Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998), What is Agency?, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 962–1023.

Regev, J. (2016), The Impossible and coincidence: on the Revolutionary situation in philosophy, Perm: Gile Press Publ. (In Russian)

Brown, B. (2015), Daring Greatly, Penguin Random House.

Shaviro, S. (2012), Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Golosovker, Ya.E. (1987), Logic of Myth, Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)

Byrne, R. (2005), The Rational Imagination. How People Create Alternatives to Reality, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Philosophy of science. Synergetics of human-dimensional reality (2002), ed. by Arshinov, V.I., Kiiashchenko, L.P. and Tishchenko, P.D., Moscow: IPH RAS Publ. (In Russian)

Kiiashchenko, L.P. (2009), Philosophy of transdisciplinarity, Moscow: IPH RAS Publ. (In Russian)

Kant, I. (1966), Selected works, in 6 vols., Мoscow: Mysl’ Publ., vol. 5. (In Russian)

Porus, V.N. (1996), Paradoxes of scientific rationality and ethics, in: Scientific and non-scientific forms of thinking, Moscow: IPH RAS Publ., pp. 168–185. (In Russian)

Brazgovskaya E.E. (2008), Languages and codes. Introduction to semiotics of culture, Perm: Perm University Press. (In Russian)

Kahneman, D. (2013), Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Tomz, M. (2012), Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across Three Centuries, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Luhmann, N. (2017), Trust and Power, Cambridge: Polity.

Lavrenova, O.A. (2020), Section of space semiotics at the XIV International Semiotic congress. A Review. Moscow: INION RAN Publ. (In Russian)

Fairclough, N. (2010), Critical discourse analysis, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

Published

2023-09-28

How to Cite

Kiyashchenko, L. P., & Golofast, A. V. (2023). Semiosis of Political Action. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 39(3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2023.310