employee
Moscow, Russian Federation
employee
Russian Federation
employee
Russian Federation
UDC 003
UDC 316.7
In this work, the philosophical analysis of the role of national cultural codes in the development of digital society is presented. The authors explore various approaches to the definition of the concept of “national cultural code”. The emphasis is placed on the synergetic approach that considers to the fullest extent the variability of different cultural elements and their interconnection. The definition of national cultural code is provided. The authors highlight main trends in the transformation of national cultural codes under the influence of digitalization: universalization, localization, and individualization. It has been concluded that the national cultural code provides some sort of “ideological immunity” against the negative side of digitalization, without hindering the use of its positive possibilities.
culture, cultural code, values, public consciousness, economy, digitalization, cultural field
1. Babosov E. “The Cultural Code of Nation: A Subject and the Features”. Nauka i innovatsii = The Science and Innovations 3 (157) (2016): 48—50. (In Russian).
2. Volokhova N. V., Ogurtsova A. Yu. “The Place and Role of the Field of Culture in the Formation and Development of the Russian Digital Economy”. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal = International Research Journal 11-4 (113) (2021): 125—129. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2021.113.11.143
3. Gordienko O. V., Sokolova A. A., Simonova A. A. “Axiological Characteristics of Digitalized Education”. Pedagogika i psikhologiya obrazovaniya = Pedagogy and Psychology of Education 3 (2019): 9—21. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31862/2500-297X-2019-3-9-21
4. Diner E. V., Lopatina N. V. “A Single Digital Space of Knowledge in the Formation of the Cultural Code of an Individual: Design Methodology”. Vestnik MGUKI = Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture and Arts 6 (98) (2020): 130—138. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/1997-0803-2020-698-130-138
5. Klyuchevskiy V. O. Course of Russian History. Ed. by E. G. Basov. Moscow: Al’fa-kniga, 2019. 1197 p. (In Russian). Polnoe izdanie v odnom tome.
6. Kuznetsova T. F. “Digitalization as a Cultural Value and Digital Technologies”. Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znaniya = The Horizons of Humanities Knowledge 5 (2019): 3—13. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17805/ggz.2019.5.1
7. Mamedova N. M. “Humans in the Age of Digitalization: On the Verge of Real and Virtual”. Vek globalizatsii 3 (39) (2021): 74—85. (In Russian).
8. Mikailova I. “Global Digitalization of Sociocultural Reproduction: ‘Deus ex Machina’ or the End of the Human Era?” Sotsial’nye novatsii i sotsial’nye nauki = Social Novelties and Social Sciences 1 (3) (2021): 121—132. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31249/snsn/2021.01.10
9. Stepin V. S. Civilization and Culture. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2011. 407 p., ill. (In Russian). Klassika gumanitarnoy mysli.
10. Khudolei N. V. “National Culture Code and Its Actualization in Proverbs, Sayings, and in the Literary Classics”. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Voprosy obrazovaniya: yazyki i spetsial’nost’ = RUDN Journal of Language Education and Translingual Practices 14.4 (2017): 643—653. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8011-2017-14-4-643-653
11. Baudrillard J. Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée, 1981. 240 p. (In French).
12. Feyerabend P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New York: Verso Books, 1975. 339 p.
13. Medak Tomislav. “Transformations of Cultural Production, Free Culture and the Future of the Internet”. Digital Culture: The Changing Dynamics. Ed. by A. Uzelac, B. Cvetičanin. Zagreb: Institute of International Relations, 2008. 59—70.
14. Srivastava A. “The Dark Side of Digitization in Higher Education Causing Technostress”. Digital Transformation in Education: Emerging Markets and Opportunities. Singapore: Bentham Books, 2023. 20—45.
15. Yacobi Ben G. “The Human Dilemma: Life Between Illusion and Reality”. Journal of Philosophy of Life 3.3 (2013): 202—211.
