Traditional Man in the “Digital Cell”. Ideal Sources of Alternative Scenarios (20–30s of the XXth century)

Introduction. The ideology and methodology of solving the problem practically posed in modern Russia is discussed: to preserve traditional values in a high-tech modern society. The author substantiates the legitimacy of comparing the current global situation with the situation between the two world wars in the twentieth century and referring to the heuristic potential of the ideas about the essence of technology expressed at that time.

Methodology and sources. An attempt has been made to move from a categorical to a conceptual analysis of the interface between the traditional person and the imperative of technological development. A traditional person is described in a postmodern paradigm that configures several analytical perspectives: the “tradition and modernity” interpretation scheme, an individualizing method, a civilizational approach, a historical perspective, Orthodox anthropology, the concept of organ projection, transhumanism and posthumanism. The works of the 20s – early 30s of the XX century are used as sources for the analysis. “Man and Technology” by O. Spengler, “Man and Machine” by N. Berdyaev, “Organoprojection” by P. Florensky.

Results and discussion. Examples of interpretation of a traditional person are considered, which allow rethinking the linear scheme “from tradition to modernity”. 1. A traditional person belongs to a distinctive culture. Scientific and technological progress is a product of the Western European cultural type. The enslavement to technology is not a cause, but a symptom of its decay due to a lack of perspective and purpose. 2. A traditional person is a person who is changing, continuing the creation of the world and maintaining a connection with eternity. From the reflections of Berdyaev follows the methodological setting: to treat man at the same time as God and as nature. It has a heuristic significance for the analysis of modern technologies. 3. A traditional person is an ancient, classical person who has yet to be restored in its integrity in synergy with technology, not in piece or elite, but in mass incarnations. The ideas of pairing traditional man and technological growth – cultural identity, connection with eternity, synergy of man and technology in organ projection are considered as guidelines for possible scenarios for the development of modern technologies in the interests of man, alternative to trans- and posthuman projects of improvement or pre- overpowering man based on secular eschatology. A critical analysis of proactive experimental and bioconservative approaches to the development of new technologies is given.

Conclusion. A shift in the attention of researchers and practitioners – in education, upbringing, management from traditional methods of social reproduction and personal development to technical improvements of a person – is fixed. Which again makes the question of the normativity of human nature urgent.

1. ”Session of the online forum ”Davos Agenda 2021”” (2021), Prezident Rossii [President of Russia], available at: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64938 (accessed 31.03.2021).

2. Berdyaev, N.A. (1933), “Man and machine. (The problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology)”, Put’ [Path], no. 38, pp. 3–38, available at: https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/ bogoslov/Berd/_ChelMash.php (accessed 31.03.2021).

3. Wallerstein, I. (1987), “World-Systems Analysis”, Social Theory Today, in Giddens, A. and Turner, J.H. (eds.), Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 315.

4. Shatskii, E. (1990), Utopiya i traditsiya [Utopia and Tradition], Transl. by Chalikova, V.A., in Chalikova, V.A. (ed.), Progress, Moscow, USSR.

5. Huntington, S.P. (2003), Tret’ya volna. Demokratizatsiya v kontse ХХ veka [The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century], Transl. by Pantshoi, L.Yu., ROSSPEN, Moscow, RUS.

6. Spengler, O. (1995), “Chelovek i tekhnika”, Transl. by Rutkevich, A.M., Kul’turologiya. XX vek: Antologiya [Culturology. XX century: Anthology], in Levit, S.Ya. (ed.), Yurist, Moscow, RUS, pp. 454–496.

7. Bostrom, N. (2005), “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity”, Bioetics, vol. 19 (3), pp. 202–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x.

8. Floridi, L. (2001), The Philosophy of Information, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

9. Florenskii, P.A. (1993), “Organ projection”, Russkii kosmizm: Antologiya filosofskoi mysli [Russian cosmism: Anthology of philosophical thought], in Semenova, S.G. and Gacheva, A.G. (eds.), Pedagogika-Press, Moscow, RUS, pp. 161–162.

10. Sedykh, O.M. and Khamenkov, M.A. (2016), “Organ projection: Russian context”, Philosophy of Science and Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 132–151.

11. Pavlenko, A.N. (2002), “Possibility of technology: a view from the Lavra and a voice from Marburg”, Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik [Historical and Philosophical Yearbook], IF RAN, Moscow, RUS, pp. 386–408. URL: https://iphras.ru/page49403450 (accessed 31.03.2021).

12. Wolbring, G. (2008), “Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement?”,

13. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 21 (1), pp. 25–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610802002189.

14. Tirosh-Samuelson, H. (2012), “Transhumanism as a Secularist Faith”, Zygon, vol. 47 (4), pp. 710–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01288.x.

15. Aguiluz-Ibarguen, M. and Beriain, J. (2020), “Struggles on the futures of human nature. Sociological perspectives”, EMPIRIA. Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales, vol. 47, pp. 105–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/empiria.47.2020.27426.

16.