The impact of digitalization on the sustainability of social orders

Ravochkin Nikita Nikolaevich Doctor of Philosophy Professor; Department of History, Philosophy and Social Sciences; Kuzbass State Technical University named after T.F. Gorbachev. Associate Professor, Department of Pedagogical Technologies, Kuzbass State Agricultural Academy 650000, Russia, Kemerovo region, Kemerovo, Vesennaya str., 28 nickravochkin@mail.ru Other publications by this author

In one of its variants, modern society is understood as "digital", where, along with information and knowledge, the leading place is given to advanced technical means that ensure their functioning and distribution. It follows that the digitalization of the social fabric remodels the relationships and connections between numerous subjects. Let us note that the literally permanent development of the digital society becomes possible thanks to the regular habitualization of practices taking into account innovative techniques and technologies, which makes it possible to diagnose their spread to all sides and spheres of social reality.

It is self-evident that the existence of a modern society in constant motion cannot be marked exclusively in one modality, therefore, critics and supporters stand out among modern thinkers who express advantages and disadvantages in their vision of the impact of digitalization on social processes. Judgments that sometimes reach antagonistic ones relate to technological progress, changes in the economic and political positions of participants in international relations, as well as the results and practical consequences of digitalization for social systems as a whole, which would make it possible to comprehend their sustainability.

A.D. Kuzovkov, D.N. Tkachenko and M.M. Sharavova give high positive assessments of the process under consideration, pointing out that the development of digital technologies is the driving force of the economic development of modern society, and the digitalization of management and traditional industries opens up wide opportunities for improving production efficiency. With regard to the latter, the authors focus not only on a priori profit growth, but also on increasing labor productivity, as well as optimizing logistics. In addition to this, they also include a reduction in transaction costs, which makes it possible to increase "such qualitative indicators as optimization of organizational and resource structure, growth of intellectual labor, quality of goods and services, investment attractiveness and competitiveness. At the same time, the degree of customer satisfaction with personal requests increases due to ensuring that the supply meets demand, resource needs and material losses of producers and consumers decrease" ^{[9, p. 22]}.

In addition, the synergetic nature of digitalization cannot but affect the development of the social system as a whole. In particular, the analysis of foreign investment experience, China and the United States, gives every reason to declare an exceptionally positive effect of capitalization received from investments in advanced technologies. At the same time, researchers believe that such projects and investments themselves should primarily be indirect in nature. They argue that there is no need for direct undisguised influence of influential actors on the processes of direct production or distribution of goods and services, then their analytical abilities to fix "growth points" and subsequent justification of a multiple increase in GDP due to investments in these industries play a much more important role ^[8;9].

Let's try to present some areas of effects, according to which it is advisable to invest in digital technologies for an integral effect to achieve the sustainability of the social order:

- Internal, in which the efficiency of social capital increases due to the acquisition of competencies for the use of embedded technologies. In our opinion, in a number of countries and even entire macro-regions, even initial investments in technological development would reduce costs and bring states to new positions in the global system of relations by, in mathematical terms, increasing the permissible load and throughput of various queuing systems, increasing the functional characteristics of society as a whole;

? Horizontal, according to which technology transfer is carried out between individual agents. In this case, the use of digital tools can spread and be confined not only to any one sphere, but, taking into account adaptation, can be applied in other areas of public life. Thus, the implementation and subsequent modernization of various technical means, one of the most striking examples is the blockchain, allows us to form cross–sectoral competitive advantages for several industries, significantly strengthening the existing social order;

? Vertical, optimizing investments of resources throughout the entire cycle of creation of goods, services or social innovations. Numerous examples of digital infrastructure development that helps accelerate the processes of distribution of various goods from the producer to the consumer do not need comment. Also noteworthy is the delegation of some operations to artificial agents of social relations implemented in messengers and chatbots. Finally, in intellectual activity and social innovation, it is digitalization that allows theorists and practitioners of various transformations to be in touch 24/7 and not take into account the geographical remoteness of participants in the intellectual network involved in the genesis of ideas of state-building.

Digitalization significantly affects the primacy of communicative rationality, and also makes it possible to more clearly draw the network type of society based on convergent technologies. In this logic, the cumulative effect of the development of the whole society as a system, represented as a dynamic network, increases, where the leading role is assigned to its properties, but not to the nodal elements ^[3]. Another positive consequence of the impact of digitalization on modern society can be considered the possibility of bridging the digital divide, which is a form of social inequality and appears in three versions: differences (1) in access to the latest digital technologies, (2) in the effectiveness of the use of appropriate technologies, as well as (3) the realization of life chances and opportunities that are determined by the use of advanced technologies ^[5]. In unity, all the elements presented lead to a reduction in the gap between individuals and social groups, allowing for the full development of a system of connections and relationships relevant to the modern world.

At the same time, it is impossible not to pay attention to the negative consequences of digitalization. Some scientists, among whom N.V. Kuznetsov can be distinguished, focus on the latent nature of the negative effects of digitalization ^[7]. It is self-evident that the danger of these risks is associated with their imperceptible nature for many participants in public relations. Accordingly, their diagnosis is alienated to power actors and other influential subjects, which largely reflects the instability of society due to the non-habitualized nature of a number of practices that could be effective and lead to the positivization of interactions.

Speaking about the most obvious and obvious threats objectified by digitalization and entailing instability of the social order, it is impossible not to mention the growth of unemployment. On the one hand, there are promising prospects, suggesting an increase in well-being in a number of areas of public life, primarily in developed countries. However, the acceleration of automation and robotization of labor can lead to diametrically opposite consequences: jobs that once belonged to a person no longer require his necessary participation in the role of a producing entity. In modern scientific developments, one can find opinions that in the near future the vast majority of people will lose their permanent job ^[6;13]. The dichotomous division of the entire population seems to be fundamental, which will occur against the background of digital segregation of society – there will be those who adapt relatively easily to changes and those who refuse or are unable to adapt to the current contextual realities. As a result, those employees who have lost their jobs for one reason or another have a dialectical attitude towards their own future: either to remain unemployed, or to undergo retraining for further labor adaptation ^[14]. However, it is worth noting that such a simplified division of people still contains negative markers, since the ultimate version indicates that some countries cannot achieve the desired evolutionary scenarios due to failed "digital socialization".

In his desire to occupy and maintain a certain central line, A.A. Khachaturian shows that the most significant problem will be the so-called "structural"digital unemployment" (e-unemployment), arising from the release of workers as a result of the digitalization of the economy and the emergence of a large number of "extra people" for whom productive employment and to solve the issue of self-realization and satisfaction of their household and social needs" ^{[15, p. 105]}. Indeed, this option fairly reflects the integral effect of digitalization, since the problem of unemployment is not limited solely to the need to find a place to perform labor functions for many who have lost their permanent employment. Indeed, it is impractical to focus solely on the financial side of the issue. In our opinion, the issues of improving information and digital technologies themselves, which subsequently determine the high added value of goods and services produced and the quality of human resources, occupy a decisive place for social orders. The digital world, having a synergetic nature, is really able to create conditions under which the unpredictability of social actions increases. One of the significant manifestations of this state of affairs is the "washing out" of a number of professions that were once in demand and have now lost their relevance in the digital world. We are talking about improving the functionality of the staff: the issue of full-fledged self-realization includes not only the performance of work duties, but the realization of the social potential of individuals. Ultimately, this makes it possible to form the social policy of the state, supporting not only the members of society left behind due to this futuroshock, but also the stability of society.

At the same time, another effect is the transformation of the social structure on a planetary scale: "As a result of the robotization and digitalization of the economy, the manufacturing middle class begins its social drift towards the precariat – the population that does not have a "normal" job, which would be characterized by permanent employment, stable earnings and social guarantees" ^{[15, p. 109]}. It is noteworthy that such ontological shifts determine the vectors of development of both society as a whole and each individual in a twofold way. The consequences of the divergence of individual and collective existence give every reason to believe an extremely unstable state of social orders. It would be more accurate to say that this turbulence of society is associated with the presence of former roles and statuses at numerous points of bifurcation, the successful exit from which is associated with the adaptive abilities of individuals, entire groups and even states to the contextual realities set by digitalization.

The gaps we allow in technical and technological development, as expected, contribute to the aggravation of the existing unevenness in access to the benefits of digital civilization: "Already today, in developed countries that are at the forefront of digitalization, the social alienation of people is increasing, expressed in various forms of individual desocialization: "digital mowglism", "fear of offline", social infantilism, etc. There are temptations of total digital manipulation of people's consciousness ("digital totalitarianism"), leading to the loss of privacy of individual life" ^{[15, p. 104]}. The very idea of a person's transition to other ways of co-existence changes the established rules of intersubjective interactions and the organization of the hostel as a whole.

We dare to believe that numerous transformations contribute to the rejection of family functions that are significant in traditional society. L.N. Ruliene states that the very essence of family relations ceases to be perceived as socially valuable, which can be observed both in some countries and in entire regions of humanity. Referring to fundamental and applied social research, she shows that the reproductive function of the family in some Eastern countries is perceived as a luxury, since the prevailing majority of the population thinks in terms of pragmatism and success, which in turn is due to lack of money and difficulties in acquiring housing. L.N. Ruliene notes: "In South Korea, more and more women decide not to get married, not to have children, and often not to enter into close relationships with men at all. Such women began to be called the "sampo generation" ("sampo" — the rejection of three things: sex, marriage and children)" ^{[12, 22]}. In addition to this, family values in a digital society are being replaced by axiological modes of the consumerist model of society, where a person lives exclusively for the consumption of new experiences. It is characteristic that in the generally accepted logic, such a society is characterized by a complete absence of reality and desires to adapt to normal life ^[11]. Turning to empirical contexts, it can be found that the aging of the population in the Asian and European region triggers multiple threats to the stability of society due to a decrease in the quality of human capital, which in the short or medium term will not be able to respond to the challenges of a difficult-to-predict future.

In our opinion, the fundamental nature of this threat, brought to the limit by digitalization, consists in the possible destruction of the social fabric, which we explain by the loss of general social norms of collective existence. In particular, it is recognized how the narrative approach becomes a kind of alternative principle of the organization of social structure, inevitably assuming the incorporation of completely new principles of the organization of social life ^{[1, p. 38]}. The logic of the narrative approach is known: not only the social, but also the personal foundations of existence are being lost. It is assumed that the narrative determines the way(s) of being both an individual and society as a whole, which means that it is illegal to talk about at least some kind of permanence of a person as a personal subject ^{[4, 167]}. The transformation of family relations is a practical consequence of the modification of the intellectual foundations of society passing through the digital stage. The removal of traditional roles and the necessities of being a really existing subject determines the intentions for extreme individuality and the construction of a maximally digitized personal identity in many areas of life.

This leads to an increase in conflictogenicity within each individual society, which is determined by the difference in preferences. Of course, the digital world allows you to increase the speed of receiving support from individuals who share any common interests, which for a while allows you to overcome the difficulties associated with a misunderstanding of value ideas. At the same time, modern realities increasingly indicate the subsequent divergence and problematic modeling of congruent configurations of interests and needs for Another, which will mean the eternal search for support when someone disagrees with a particular set of preferences. Another side of the problem is the regular use of online communication, which destroys the direct forms of contact that have been established for centuries. The thoughts of A. Pechchei, convinced of the rapid loss of his qualities by humanity and becoming by nature an appendage of digital technologies, are becoming more and more clearly visible ^[16].

The unpredictability of social transformations can be assumed to be the result of generalization of digitalization vectors in a natural way. The mixing of positive and effective in the aspect of building a social structure and interactions and the high probability of the occurrence of negative and impossible in terms of social foresight determines the unstable nature of the existing order in the absolute majority of states. The functioning of such key digitalization-based institutions, one of which is e-government, is associated with a number of difficulties. This includes the need for regular maintenance and maintenance of a functional digital environment, and the search and habitualization of effective methods and practices of interaction between power actors and those parts of society to which their powers and activities extend.

It is impossible not to note the subjective side of digital transformations of social institutions. If the formation of technical and technological processes can be understood as an objective side, then the reflection of the subjective side consists in the participants' rejection of social interaction and unwillingness to be involved in the transformations taking place around them. Digitalization of social institutions implies a sharp change in the usual way of life, with which most people are simply not ready to part ^[10].

Along with this, the hypertrophied digitalization of social systems erodes its axiological foundations. It is reasonable to assume that, depending on the reach of multimedia users and the number of people involved in creating innovations and the degree of participation of the country in the digital development of the world, there is a technization of the mentality and public consciousness based solely on the synthesis of informatization and technology. It is curious that the rejection of traditional ideas makes it possible to ensure the high efficiency of such societies ^[2]. Such a technocratic attitude towards society and the population leads to the "dehumanization" of relations. The first priority is technology and technical devices, humane attitude to each individual being fades into the background. The well-known ideas of E. Fromm do not allow the formation of intellectual and human capital, which in a digital society creates a total dependence on technical devices in the majority, the mass.

However, the problem of humanitarian components does not receive any resolution, which creates additional fractures in social orders. The fundamental contradiction of digitalization is that the creative community accumulates intellectual capital, which determines the very possibility of its development. Meaningfully, the digital society, forming the reluctance of most people to create and form the grounds for creating something fundamentally new, destroys its own foundations and de facto subordinates people to various technical objects. Thus, states that are at the highest possible level of digital development are increasingly and more aggressively purchasing intellectually developed and creative people for the evolutionary development of their own systems, deliberately weakening other countries and thereby increasing the overall level of unpredictability on a global scale.

To sum up, we can say that the digital world creates risks and threats, increasing the unpredictability of the modern world and destabilizing the stability of social orders. We are talking about a number of indicators that are somehow based on digitalization and determine the existence of collective and individual ways of existence. Digitalization has a fundamental and partially negative impact on the formation of the labor market, "washing out" some of the traditional professions and forcing people to make difficult existential choices. Attention is drawn to the negative factors that determine interactions between subjects at the individual level, as a result of which the usual forms of interactions are lost and the overall level of conflictogenicity increases. Finally, the technization of society leads to the "dehumanization" of a person, making the latter an appendage of the digital world. In general, we can say that ensuring the sustainability of society seems to be an achievable goal, but only in cases when technical and digital phenomena will cease to be perceived by humanity as the dominant value of the modern world.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.