Economic theory

Society. Personality. Technologies: Social Paradoxes of Industry 4.0

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 164, Issue 3-4, Pages: 9-13

Citation information:
Kamensky, E. (2017). Society. Personality. Technologies: Social Paradoxes of Industry 4.0. Economic Annals-XXI, 164(3-4), 9-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V164-02

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Evgeny Kamensky
PhD (Sociology),
Southwest State University
94, 50 Let Oktyabrya Str., Kursk, 305040, Russia
kamensky80@mail.ru
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-7167

Society. Personality. Technologies: Social Paradoxes of Industry 4.0

Abstract. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) and a «new» economy formed on its basis are some of the global phenomena of modern times. It is connected with the development of a global information and technology platform for industrial communications. In order to be able to integrate into such an environment, a person has to master operational skills of the user. Such communication is provided by the created interfaces and protocols. The assumption that the so-called McDonaldisation in society and protocol forms of its actors’ social activity reflect their technological essence is substantiated in the article.

The methodological foundations of the study are the interdisciplinary theses of universalism, synergetic effects and the complexity theory adapted to sociological issues. In this regard, the method of theoretical modelling is the basic one.

It has been revealed that instrumental values which involve the skills of an actor as an operator become important. The main paradox of the situation is that the growing technological complexity in the context of Industry 4.0 technocratic capitalism is in inverse proportionality to the spiritual sphere which is simplified in the postmodern tradition of misconceptions of consumer society and a mass actor-consumer’s false sense of involvement in the innovative development of techno-environment and knowledge economy.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; Industrial Revolution; Cyber-Physical Technologies; Social Agency; Consumer Society

JEL Classification: C45; О33; Р17; Z13

Acknowledgement. The research is financed by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 15-18-10013 «Social-anthropological dimensions of convergent technologies».

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V164-02

References

  1. Buhl, A. (1997). Die virtuelle Gesellschaft. Okonomie, Politik und Kultur im Zeichen des Cyberspace. Opladen.
  2. Ritzer, G. (2000). The McDonaldization Of Society. Pine Forge Press.
  3. Kravchenko, S. A. (2012). Difficult Society: the Demand for Turns in Sociology. Sociological research, 5, 19-28 (in Russ.).
  4. Rittel Horst, W. J., & Webber Melvin, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  5. Kovar, J., Mouralova, К., Ksica, F., Kroupa J., Andrs, О., & Hadas, Z. (2016). Virtual reality in context of Industry 4.0 proposed projects at Brno University of Technology. 17th International Conference on Mechatronics – Mechatronika (ME), 1-7.
    Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7827785/?part=1
  6. Kinnunen, S. P., Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2016). Help-giving and moral courage on the Internet. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), article 6.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-6
  7. Brooks, S., & Longstreet, P. (2015). Social networking’s peril: Cognitive absorption, social networking usage, and depression. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(4), article 5.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-4-5
  8. Baygin, М., Yetis, Н., Karakose, М., & Akin, Е. (2016). An effect analysis of industry 4.0 to higher education. 15th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 1-4. 
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2016.7760744
  9. Halenar, I., Juhasova, B., & Juhas, M. (2016). Proposal of communication standardization of industrial networks in Industry 4.0. IEEE 20th Jubilee International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), 119-124. 
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/INES.2016.7555105
  10. Grebenshchikova, E. (2016). NBIC-Convergence and Technoethics: Common Ethical Perspective. lпtеrnаtiоnаl Journal of Technoethics,  7(1), 77-84.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.2016010106
  11. Aseeva, I. A. (2016). Antropological and Social Measurements of Modern Technoscience. 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts (SGEM). Anthropology, archaeology, history and philosophy, vol. 2, 613-620.
  12. Kamensky, E. G. (2016). «Cyberphysical» Society: Agency. Values. Communication. Proceedings of the South-West State University. Series: The Economy. Sociology. Management, 4, 224-233. (in Russ.).
  13. Roblek, V, Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A Complex View of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1-11.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016653987
  14. Budanov, V. G. (2007). Synergetics Methodological Principles. New in Synergetics: New Reality, New Problems, New Generation. Ser. Informatics: Unlimited Possibilities and Possible Limitations. Moscow: RAS (in Russ.).
  15. Haken, H. (1996). Sinergetics as a Bridge and Social Sciences. In Khalil E. L. & Boulding. K. E. (Eds.), Evolution, Order and Complexity. (pp. 234-248). London; New York: Routledge,
  16. Haken, H. (2012). Synergetics: An Introduction. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York; Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
  17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
  18. Arshinov, V. I. (2011). Innovations, Traditions, and Antiques as Value Components of Culture in its Synergetic and Complex Dimension. Personality. Culture. Society, 13(2), 79-89 (in Russ.).
  19. Mainzer, K. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and innovation dynamics. On convergence of research, technology, economy, and society. Poiesis and Praxis, 7(4), 275-289.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0088-8
  20. Toffler, A. (1971). Future Shock. Bantam Books.
  21. Toffler, A. (1984). The Third Wave. Bantam Books.
  22. Beck, U. (1987). The Anthropological Shock and the Contours of the Risk Society. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 22, 153-165.
    Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035363
  23. Beck, U. (1992). From Industrial Society to the Risk: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society, 9(1), 97-123.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/026327692009001006
  24. Parsons, T. (1968). The Structure of Social Action: a study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers.  New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
    Retrieved from https://openlibrary.org/books/OL22096408M/The_structure_of_social_action
  25. Boev, E., & Kamensky, E. (2015). An Innovation Civilization in the Context of the Anthroposphere Crisis of the Technogenic Society. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 328-335.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p328
  26. Kamensky, E. (2016). Innovations. Anomie. Corruption: Basic Theoretical Models. Economic Annals-XXI, 157(3-4(1)), 8-11.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V157-0002
  27. Kravchenko, S. A. (2012). The Formation of a Complex Society: Justification the Humanistic Theory of Complexity. Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russ.).
  28. Kondratiev, N. D. (1922) World Economy and Its Conjuncture during and after the War. Vologda: Regional Branch of the State Publishing House. (in Russ.).
  29. Marks-Tarlow, T., Robertson, R., & Combs, A. (2002). Varela and the Uroboros: The psychological significance of reentry. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9(2), 31-47.
    Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/chk/2002/00000009/00000002/114
  30. Marks-Tarlow, Т. (2004). Semiotic Seams: Fractal Dynamics of Reentry. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 11(1), 49-62.
    Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2004/00000011/00000001/art00004
  31. Bauer, H., Baur, C., Camplone, G. et al. (2015). Industry 4.0: How to Navigate Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector. Technical report, McKinsey Digital.
  32. Romanovsky, N. V. (2000). Interfaces of Sociology and Cyberspace. Sociological Research, 1, 16-23 (in Russ.).
  33. Budanov, V. G. (2015). A Conceptual Model of Socio-Anthropological Projections of Convergent NBICS Technologies. Socio-Anthropological Resources of Transdisciplinary Research in the Context of Innovative Civilization. Kursk, 22-32 (in Russ.).
  34. Zolo, D. (1992). Democracy and Complexity. A Realist Approach. Polity Press, Cambridge & Blackwell Publishers.
  35. Budanov, V. G. (2015). The Formation of an Era of Great Transit: Risks, Forms, Technologies. Scientific Bulletins of the Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Law, 199(31(2)), 37-51 (in Russ.).
  36. Castells, М. (2009). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I. (2nd ed.). UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  37. Aseeva, I. A., & Budanov, V. G. (Eds.). (2015). Socio-anthropological Dimensions of Converged Technologies. Methodological Aspects: multi-authored monograph. Kursk: University Book Publisher (in Russ.).
  38. Aseeva, I. A., & Budanov, V. G. (2015). Social and humanitarian expert assessment of biomedical innovations. Asian Social Science, 21(11), 125-132.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n21p125

Received 5.02.2017

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , ,

More Papers