Keywords

1 Introduction

The thought about the politics in the modern complicated world escapes from basic macro-cognitive optics, based on categories: Society, Country, Capitalism, Democracy, Liberality, Alienation, Modernization, Archaization, Globalization, and that this methodological challenge demands answer becomes keynote of discourses in relation to the political being and horizon of political science development (2012). Characteristically that political science in searching for ways for defeating its categorical methodology insufficiency mostly turns to sociology, its ideas and explanation potential. Ideas of being flowness (Bauman), symbolistic capital (Burdie), informational society (Castels), society of communications (Luman), globalization of world and risks (Beck), creative society (Florida), express different sides of social reality and forms of social process become (became) dominants of interpretation models of political sciences.

But with the entire popularity of these conceptual ideas they are not without reductionism and must be supplemented by holistic reality measures. For instance in “Social time and space” (STS) category should express all sides of social being.

Appealing to united forms of social being is updated by one more obstacle—absence of modern scientific portrait of society which could be accepted by social-humanitarian sciences. Before it was doctrine of Marks. However if you understand politics as a “complex of social practices and discourses, directed to form, develop and investigate legal and moral norms; forms of governments; relations and authority institutions”, it is evidently nothing more than a method and a way of social being regulation. In this point of view political obviously cannot be considered without Social Time-Space and problematic of STS is equally addressed to philosophy and to political science. Growing activization of researchers’ attention to problems of Political Time-Space methodology tells about it (Prokhorenko 2012).

2 STS Theory Genesis as an Aspect of Political Philosophy and Epistemology

Intentions, methods and actual problematic of Laws of cognition are determined by the social and cultural in the widest meaning, i.e. dominating on this historical stage trends of cultural and civilizational progress, social practice forms (including political), which in unity and integrity are expressed STS categories. In the meantime the semantic contents operationality of this category are determined by the highest modern level of cognition, existing paradigm set of ideas and explanation of scientific machinery. As a result we get vicious circle of methodology, breaking which (if it happens) means not only new step/stage in social cognition (and in semantic content of STS category), and in evolution of social regulation wheels, forms of social being. In retrospection, it can be tracked easily.

In the Age of Enlightment—in the time of epic social transformations and rising of science appears the problem of social time and social space. Before in the cognitive practice there wasn’t distinguishing of casualty mechanisms in the world of the nature processes and the society. Ancient philosophy as known used “macrocosm-microcosm” models spreading natural principles and laws on the society and in the middle Ages casualty reduced to the God. Viko, in whose ideas refracted his time ideas and processes, persuasively demonstrates, that wheels of social phenomenon determination are evidently different than in the nature and such wise gives for the arena of cognition and philosophical reflection problem of the social space and the social time (Thagapsoev and Gatiatullina 2011).

Subsequently in the context of complex and contradictory processes of industrial capitalism establishing problematic of STS gains actuality goes out in the field of attention of sociological science. For instance G. Zimmel introduces idea about heart and forms of STS, which in the future gets different development in works of Rickel, Parsons and Brodele. But if Zimmel’s social time and space are “Pure forms” (in the way of Kants a priories), on the base of which possible (and must be) comprehension and describing of reality (social and politician), then in the works of Rikkert it tells about cultural space, “which raises Man above nature and his biological roots”. And to Parsons, he interprets STS as a system of stratifications and measure of their evolution, i.e. as forms and measures of social evolution, emphasizing their interdependence of social space and social time.

In turn Brodel invents in science terms “Time of big longitivity” and “Structures of routine” i.e. expanding methodological horizons of STS categories usage and demonstrating high operationality of STS category not only in sociology, and in historical science.

However Marks works in original form relies on idea of STS. Here STS are classical structures and sum of public relations which gain integrity, typological forms and dynamics in socio-economic systems and their periodic change. In this context everything in political being of society is caused by socio-economic systems and laws of its evolution.

Stated conceptions with all formulated differences are same and unified in one thing—they fit principles and logic of classical science i.e. interpret STS as ontological constant of society which can be described as a set of structures and their linear evolution in time, “On the way of progress”. Thereby Man in this conception is shown just indirectly in super individual structures (over structures and institutions as reference of structures), pressurize Man and “making limits” for his activity. Within frames of such interpretation of STS the political wheels cannot be anything else than forms of coercion.

New stage in STS comprehension (one more breaking of “methodological circle”) give ideas of A. Bergson which accordant with principles of existential philosophy and generate by “the Phantom of disappointment” in rational mind in conditions of social disasters social chaos in the first half of twentieth century by First World War and following wave of crises, revolutions and civil wars with all problems for political being for Man.

Bergson assumes STS are the life functions, condition and form of “the vital impulse” (Polyakova 2015). With such understanding STS close up and submissions of P. Burdie, tractating social space as part of a human “currency field”, created by habitus—normative system of social activities determined by culture and broadcasting social experience from Man to Man. From previous generations to the next. Thus Bergsons and Burdies social space is not only the outer condition, but the function of society being (of the man) and existential form—field of interaction and society members’ cultural mental exchange. In the developing of these ideas P. Shtompka underlines four levels of this characteristic existential field which “encircle” man and his interior space, firstly:

  • field of ideas, believes and definitions;

  • field of norms, regulations, prohibitions and restrictions;

  • field of communications and interactions;

  • field of resources (opportunities) (Shtompka 2005).

Conceptions of STS by Bergson, Burdie and Shtompke are the new level in comprehension of STS and in the meaning that they suit the logic of the neoclassical science in which frames nature and society are seen (and interpreted) as a complex system subject to numerous emergent processes dependent of personal factors. Such comprehension of STS requires multiple forms of social and political being, thus multiple forms and methods of social management: from economical motivation and justice regulation to the social self-organizing and the social autonomy.

In 90-s in context of social transformations of social being and making of the Russian political science problematic of STS in our homeland expectedly gain actuality what can be seen in the works of Andreev, Vengherov etc. Again has been proved the regularity: when during the cognition processes is seen that changed socio cultural context (social and political being) doesn’t fit theoretic methodological frames—in this case frames of historical materialism—opens new way to the new level of social cognition, opening new views of structures, processes and mechanisms of social being (and genesis of STS) make doubtable forms and wheels of political being.

Without details let’s note that during polemics in 90s was underlined: political time-space is a part and an aspect of STS. In the meantime was stated that political time-space executes functions of ordering and organization of political life, designing and instituonalization of political deeds and processes; express multilayers of political life and discontinuity of political being time. By this logic the STS as before kept being outcast in relation to the man as “territory of political spreading” term and background of political being and its processes, i.e. polemics is not a “new milestone” in genesis of the STS theory. Anyway and Russian political practice in 90s is not a standard in political being genesis. But since that time has changed a lot in socio political being and political sciences.

The modern civilizational situation since end of the 80s—beginning of the 90s changes quite intensively and dictates necessity for new views on the STS. In the conditions of globalization and nonstop transforming of all aspects of human life, STS analysis methodology on the base of regular structure-ontological categories (geographical space, type of the civilization and the culture, political system, social class structure of the society, judicial, authority, and management institutions) as it was underlined loses efficiency. Nowadays condition of civilization is anything but “threshold” as a herald of the change of all human being forms from economic and technological to socio cultural, existential and anthropological. Respectively the major measures are scales, rates and diversity of the changes (processes) by which are covered all aspects of man life: culture, technology, semantic practice, social organizing, political processes, and communicative relations. In the meantime the dynamics and radicalism make problematic to express their heart, on this claim lots of definitions: postindustrial, informational, society of creativity, post economics era, “society of knowledge” and even “post human era”. And this “escaping from cognition” process of qualitative changes in being is up to break before everything else over “social space” and “social time” categories, their meaning which try to solve ideas and approaches of U. Beck, M. Castels, and R. Florida etc.

Castels assumes that if subject is the modern society which he determines as informational, STS cannot be considered as an outer form of society existence because now “STS is the society”. Castels form of social space is physic geometrical metrics, not the social institutional structure but the streams and the structure of the cargo, money, streams, raw materials, labor, and information streams. Actually Castels fixes the new architectonics and dynamics, new trends of STS. By the way special place in his theories keel social nets. Only here (in the nets) space loses its physical and geometrical dimensions and time becomes the absolute unit of the space. But this space can be compared only with ideal, with mind products. Indeed assurance that the social net is firstly a mechanism of production of meanings and the space of exchange. That means a mechanism of generation and legitimation of forms of sociality and social relations which determines the STS now is widespread.

3 Identity as a Measure of STS and Political Being

To the contained should be added one more obstacle: in the contest of the modern globalization social being gains permanently changing character, and all the measures of society and STS like economics (market, private property, stock exchange, shares, e-money), consumption (consumerism) and also mechanisms of socio cultural communication and the ways of interaction (the Internet) become widespread “trans dimensional”. In these conditions features of architectonic of STS are expressed not only with sets of the legitimated by time ontological structures (social, institutional, artifact) and their temporality but the changing and divers flow of meanings, information, cultural and political situations, innovational technologies, behavior strategies and lifestyles which require identification, verification and legitimation.

In this context operationality of STS is under a question without supplement of “Identity” category. On this obstacle indicate other authors. Just specific and interpretational arsenal of identity allows reflecting specifics and nuances of the “flowing” social time and “transformational” social space of our era and the most important compare STS and its aspects (economics, culture, communication, religion, social psychology and the political space) with the man and the forms of his activity. There is political being in these relations, its forms and mechanisms (Polyakova 2014).

Let’s explain it on the examples. Features the social being of the era as known find reflection in the personal identity of people, social actors because human identity is variant of aggregation constellation by individuality (in the individual) being meanings, cultural forms and sociality, motivations to actions, valuable positions, and behavior patterns “here—now” in this historical period. But the personal cultural forms of cultural being became possible just with early forms of European capitalism and on the previous stages of history the man keeps being (and he has to continue) in the frames of socio cultural identity, given with birth—with class identity, religion, ethnicity. Thus supporting and reproduction—sacral social identity make the meaning of the social and the political being in preindustrial societies. In this situation socio spatial society specifics determine mainly geographically (in the wide meaning) and the markers of the local culture to which it belong. And the political being of the society its forms and mechanisms have “canonical character”—serve to save their “sacral” identity and its STS and spreading of its geography.

But with evolution of capitalism, differentiation of forms of activity and structures of the society develops new paradigm type of social identity,—“transformative”-reflective appearance of choice, social escalators, and variations of the motivations of professional and cultural of the individual self-determination. And progress is the major goal of the industrial society is comprehended as a growth of the material artifacts diversity and evolution of social identities spectrum and the ways of their regulations. As a result development of social being and STS structuration are made not because of only geographical factor (it’s value is graded and removing by the way of industrial infrastructure development, diversity and efficiency of transportation and communications) or local culture specifics and by the industrial technologies and the artifacts they produce and the growth of the social identity diversity which now is shown in a lot of works.

It’s clear that in this context political being (space) thickens and the identity of its forms and mechanisms gain great variety of characters: unions, parliament, elections, political parties, and labor movements, etc.

As was mentioned civilizational situation changed radically during the second half of the twentieth century. In the context of the new types of communication development forms new modus of social identity which can be determined as “communicative-spectral” because expresses universal (mental, value orientated, professional, behavioristic, cultural, and spatial) man’s mobility and the major role of the informational streams and the communicative pressure in his life (Tkhagapsoev & Gatiatullina 2012). The matter is right now against the stable existence of personal identity work almost all the forms and wheels of informational man’s being: market, the Internet, mass culture, political and commercial aggressive pressure because they offer ready solutions that are given in the beautiful combination of the forms of meanings, values, life goals, i.e. projects of personal identity, the life strategy and the lifestyle. As a result the social identity gets not only plural (variative) but the flickering and quite unstable character, inspired by circumstantial factors (small social groups, fashion, media, political and cultural technologies). Actually appears “living situation” of the man social identity in “flowing time” and changing social space which cannot be described but in categorical system “identity” and on the base of the identification methods which is related to the political being and its forms (Gatiatullina 2011).

Let’s use examples again. It’s clear that social (political) space-time is the totality of the actors, their relations, behavior strategies, and the ways to act. The state of the modern situation is so that the traditional dichotomical forms of action of the political subject (admission—not admission of acting authority, acceptance—not acceptance of supported norms and values, support—refusing the course) more frequently are substituted by demonstration of identity and performance on its visual semantic base. But because the modern society is differentiated in numerous social groups, demonstration of self-identity by small groups becomes the only form of political activity. Their typology is a question of a discrete analysis we just mention that it is almost inexhaustible: from senseless loony identity of “flashmobers” and “identity of irony” to “identity of aggression” of radical nationalists and “identity of permanent dread” of different society members.

Identity as a measure of STS and the political being gains especial meaning when the matter is in the virtual sphere which importance unstoppably grows for all aspects of social being (economics, culture, education). The reason is the virtual without substantial structural forms can be described, comprehended and represented only on the base of “identity” category, for instance: on the base of identity types/forms of actors of virtual space (blogger, poster, moderator, medium, provider. etc.) or of used virtual technologies (chat, forum, flash mob, PayPal, stock exchange, e-library, social nets, trainings, etc.).

The written demonstrates that genesis of STS includes its formation growing mechanism. As a result the historical epochs match not only their “own design” of STS but the dominant mechanisms of its formation and “epochal” features of social casualty. In preindustrial society STS structure determines as was mentioned mostly by the natural geographical habitual factors of the society and local cultures specifics. In the industrial society moves the entire row of mechanisms evolution of STS (consequently the new forms of the social casualty) among them the prolipheration of industrial technologies and produced material artifacts, social identity spectrum dynamics and mechanisms of its regulation (political, legal, cultural, economic). Today in the terms of globalization (free moving of producing potential “looking for cheap labor”, projecting and producing “identity of everything”) activity becomes the major mechanism of social being structuring. As a result types of identity (goods, relations, processes, forms of consumption, lifestyles and horizons of perspective society development) produced by the creative man (individual, small groups) now regulate everything what happens with the society (politics, economics, culture) e.g. STS, forms and the wheels of the society political being. In other words STS is maid mostly by subjective personal factor.

This is time to turn to the social practice, to the specific examples (Gatiatullina et al. 2015).

Anybody who is familiar with Council of Europe decision (1996) “The key competences for Europe” effortlessly can see that these competences are just “description” of the type of the social identity “Of the modern European” of the informational era. It (personality) as it turns has to know, comprehend, and be able to do a lot, consequently accumulate inside many competitors, among them:

  • Be able to live in the modern society of democracy, improve its institutions.

  • Be able to accept the cultural differences, live with persons with different cultures, languages, and religions (Khasanova 2014).

  • Have wide communication abilities, ability to know more than one language.

  • Be able to build own life and activity in the modern informational space, comprehend and take into account with its pros and contras, usage of informational and media technologies.

  • Ability to study during the entire life. It is the base of your social being and its success.

“Picture (identity) of era personality type” appears more detailed if we use the ideas of J. Raven who matches competences with such types of sociality and with motivations of social of the person counting about 40 different types of competences (Thagapsoev & Gatiatullina 2011).

Characteristically that the accent is on the abilities/competences that form personal qualities “readiness”, “ability”, “responsibility”, and “confidence” in actions and the social behavior, and also adherence to innovations and believe in their effectiveness which is mostly claimed in the modern complicated, dynamically changing very competitive world.

It is clear that in formation of the man competences education is crucial. In these circumstances the reorientation of the modern educational system (from high school to the university) to the principles of competences approach contains some regularity. But obvious and another for establishing the man the best subject for the modern social system (with democracy of participation, innovational economics, culturalism, moral ethics pluralism, etc.) frames and methods of the education is not enough, there should be another factors of human socialization and determination of his behavior (efficient legal system, legality, market, institutions of the civil society). In this context the widespread idea of Russians in the frames of education that they can and even must form the actual competences is erroneous—“abilities for the 21st century” (Shtompka 2005). Of course this is not without suitable structuration and political being of the country.

In this case (for the goals of our article) is very important something else: categorical ideas “competences” and “competence” in the European discourses subordinated to the representations of “modern man” identities, and to the forms and mechanisms of its correlation to the structures and processes of the modern STS, which unfortunately is not the subject of the homeland historical science. However it is related to the whole raw of aspects of methodological potential of “identity” category. Thus against the logic and the structure of the general typology which includes the next kit of “form families” of identity (each one unites the entire spectrum of specific identity forms):

  • Social (societal, political, cultural, subcultural, professional, religious, network, club, corporative, identity of the small social groups);

  • Socionatural (geopolitical, civilizational, gender-related, age-related, kwir-identity);

  • Natural (identity of specie, genus, ecosystem, population, physical, chemical, and cosmological object);

  • Mental (logical mathematician constructions and models, fashion, paradigm of science and art creation, paradigm of genre, brand, etc.);

  • Artifactual (identity of technics, cultural stuff, objects of the social infrastructure), the entire raw of identity forms in our discourses is represented and tractated incorrectly. For instance civilizational, geopolitical, ethnical, and gender related identity forms are usually related to the “social” class. As a matter of fact they are just forms of socio natural identities, principally different structure and the causal determination from social identity. But the “societal identity” which could shed light on the character and mechanisms of “economical” and “political” relations which often and actively discussed in the political science till it became the subject of the scientific discourses (Pushkareva 2012).

The circle of “underestimate” examples of the methodology potential of identity or unsuccessful appellation is not over. For instance, in the contest of the Russian national identity problems often mentioned the multilevel identity (even the strategy to reach it) like something existing, empirical. But from position of methodology the situation looks differently. Because the identity being is a form and a measure of existence regularity, and the whole knowledge about this regularity appears like a system formation—the unity of evidences, abilities, connections-relations, behavior strategies and patterns which (as any system) can be hierarchical or referential (depends of the connections between inner parts). Thus the social identity of “mass person” being a complex system of mental, behavior, ethnic, cultural, subcultural, professional, and another patterns rather has referential character. But it can get (and gets, as show the forms) hierarchy with evidence of a dominant element, which can be religious or ideology political implement of the social identity carrier (Thagapsoev & Gatiatullina 2010).

Another example as a matter of fact shows that identity of the most youth subcultures has hierarchy structure because determinates by the “factor of idol” or informal leader. In the meantime it hard to imagine the reasons that can give the hierarchy structure to the social identity of the fashion man, opened to the world of cultural meanings and values and standing out of the politics. Such identity is referential which is called “by the definition”. Among referential can be such forms of social identity like “professional” and “societal”.

And further, in the political sciences appealing to the opposition “micro social” and “macro social” when for political chronotops, sphere politics and the actual political relations and processes more suitable mesa scale measure which somehow “forgotten” in methodology. Would be good to notice that representation of the forms and mechanisms of co-organizing of large scale measures (micro, mesa, macro) of social and political being demands support of labeling and identification cognitive source of “identity” category (for instance, on the base of identification and ranking the magnitude of subjects, actors, mediums of social relations and processes).

4 Reality of the Socio-Political Being of Man in the World of Virtuality

In the processes of the modern STS and its causal mechanisms as was mentioned already, subjective in such forms like “projectivity” and “virtuality” more and more dominate the physical and geometrical, natural and geographical, and socio-institutional. However the STS is not only a kit of structures and social subjects, their relations and connections, but includes the mechanisms of “self-motion” e.g. transformation, evolution of social being. If social transformation can be understood like social transformations of man’s being and form of his adaptation to these changes through “activation of subjective factor”, then virtualization of being in the forms and scales that today take place, no doubt is the social transformation (its type and form). Because right now the successful work for a company or studying in the university do not demand physical contact with these structures. The structures can function (and functioning) in the virtual space. As to “political” (political connections and relations, projects, technologies, etc.) it moves more to the virtual space. On the background of decreasing influence of traditional forms of authority we see increasing importance of self-organizing. But principally important self-organizing of people and their deeds (e.g. mechanism of structuring of social and political time and space) are oriented to the ideas, meanings, and projects given by the net. As a result we have: formal hierarchy of social and political status that is being in the society in the net is substituted by the theater and carnival of randomly elected and changed actors of status identities. In this context in formal influence identities’ constructor (horizons of future, fashion, odd forms of consumption and public behavior), idols of mass culture (show, sport) in the nets and in everyday life is higher than influence of political authority and formal structures/institutions of social regulation.

These specifics of the modern STS evidently determine the specifics of political area. Judging by the facts the understanding of democracy as a form of authority which directs submission of minority to majority, and the authority as a legitimate source of violence “in the sake of justice and safety” now more frequently doesn’t fit in the political philosophy of the modern “virtual society” which as a rule followed by the principles of “participation democracy”, and “rational misbelieve” to the authority. In the meantime the mechanism of “virtual society” influence on the authority becomes habitual and effective. Here some of them: “informational tsunami on the subject of…” (corruption, freedom of speech, occurrence of the Crimea in Russia, attitude to the sexual minorities) created in the social networks; “virtual unions and struggle front” with anybody; constructing and organizing of “smart mob” which can be transformed in the “angry society” in the type of manageable chaos (euromaidan) or regular mob (Condopoga, Birulevo, Manejnaya square, Bolotnaya square). Altogether there is a trend to the growing role and importance of “political actors of virtual space” on the realities of the social life. It is worth to be mentioned that “Time” magazine included the famous virtual activists “Anonymous” in the list of “a hundred of the most influential persons” of 2012. This growth of virtual “political power” of the individual and small groups which could work not only for democracy development but for cultivation of “reverted forms” of political being (pseudo democracy, “e-totalitarism”, e.g. different forms of attacks on the human freedoms) gives new actuality and new dimensions to the almost forgotten political anthropology.

The modern trends of technics development, which are out of the eyesight of social philosophy and political science, work for growing importance of subjective factor and “single subject”. In particular concentration of information, energy and technological operations in a single workplace (just in one pair of hands), also are the convergence of different technologies (robots, analytical centers, multifunctional machines, supercomputers). In addition came out technologies of integration/synthesis of classical engineering technologies with Nano-, Bio-, and cognitive technologies building new horizons not only for technological but for socio anthropological future which demands fixed political and theoretical attention because “man’s power” becomes unlimited in creational as in destroying meaning. In this context activation of discourses on the subject of human political dimension (Pushkareva 2012) probably could be comprehended as a reflection of the growing role of the individual subject and its projective constructional potential in the modern world and its processes.

In conclusion, the mentioned specifics of the historical evolution of STS are reflected in the epoch’s political chronots. Thus in the preindustrial society political chronotops and their status geopolitical hierarchy mostly are specified by “geographical power” of the country (territory scale, population, the available resources) and in the industrial society by the technological feasibility in the wide spectrum of meanings. The examples are widely known: geopolitical face of the world in preindustrial era was determined by Middle East countries of the “fertile soils” (Babylon, Egypt) and countries of the “great steppes” of grain cultures (China, Persia). But in this era of the industrial technologies geopolitical leadership moved to countries which were poor for resources, didn’t have big territories and population, to Netherlands and the Great Britain, e.g. to the “technological leaders”. And the modern world, its political chronotops and their geopolitical range their driving factor not only natural, production and technical factor, but:

  • Diversity and design of creative identity of political and cultural man’s self-determination;

  • Spectrum of forms of consumption and horizons of the social future in the frames of political chronotop;

  • Intellectual level of political practice in the space of chronotop and its informational supplement (informational power)

  • Scale and level of involvement “virtuality” in socio-political and cultural man’s being in the space of this or another political chronotop.