Unity of tradition and innovation as a sustainable development factor of digital society

Against the background of many complex problems threatening the sustainable development of world civilization, the dialectic of tradition and innovation is considered as a pattern of social evolution. The specifics of its implementation are determined by specific historical conditions that allow us to distinguish three stages of development – with the dominance of tradition, the predominance of innovation, the unity of tradition and innovation. The need for such unity in a digital society is due to its characteristics of a “complex society”, a risk society, an increase in the number of social ontologies, and changes in indicators of human subjectivity. The disappearing unambiguity of cause-and-effect relationships, growing social uncertainty create the danger of going off the trajectory of sustainable and effective development, generating the need for a guideline that protects from mistakes. Centuries-old cultural experience, which appears in the modern world as a tradition, can become such a reference point. The mechanism of unity of tradition and innovation is revealed by relying on the structure of spiritual culture, which has a level character and has behavioral, ideological and genetic formations. The realization of their potential is presented as considering the requirements that have developed over thousands of years, and in the form of meanings and archetypes, often inexplicable, but encouraging certain choices and actions. In general, we are talking about the transition from one social type of thinking and activity to another, corresponding to the digital civilization and capable of ensuring the sustainable development of society and the individual.

1. Bauman Z. (2005), The individualized society, Trans from Eng. Inozemtsev V.L., Logos, Moscow (in Russian).

2. Beck U. (2001), What is globalization? Errors of globalism – answers to globalization, Trans. From German Grigorjev A.and Sedelnik V., Progress-Tradition, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

3. Beck U. (2015), Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean to climate change and risk society? Current sociology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 75–88, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114559951

4. Bodrunov S.D. (2022), “From economic interests – to noo values”, Voprosy Filosofii, no. 7, pp. 15–26, (in Russian), https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2022-7-15-26

5. Burgers T., Robinson D.R.S. (2016), “Networked authoritarianism is on the rise”, Sicherheit & Frieden, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 248–252, https://doi.org/10.5771/0175-274x-2016-4-248

6. Chernavin Yu.A. (1997), The social status of a serviceman (socio-philosophical concept), VU, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

7. Gadamer H.-G. (1988), Truth and Method: Fundamentals of Philosophical Hermeneutics, Trans. From German, Progress, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

8. Iakunichev D.A. (2022), “Risk society: a possible model for the development of modern society”, Risk society: a possible model for the development of modern society, Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, no. 68, pp. 174–182 (in Russian).

9. Jung K.G. (1994), Problems of the soul of our time, Trans from German Bokovnikov A.M., Progress: University, B.G., Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

10. Kameneva T.N., Kunilova K.D., Tseluiko A.V. (2022), Media communication as a factor of diaspora self-organization, Digital Sociology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 56–66, (in Russian), https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2022-5-4-56-66

11. Noskova A.V. (2013), “Complex society in Sergey Kravchenko’s eyes”, Journal “Polis”. Political studies, no. 3, pp. 164–167, (in Russian).

12. Pearce K. E., Kendzior S. (2012), “Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan”, Journal of Communications, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 283–298, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01633.x

13. Weber M. (2021), Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism, Trans from German Levina M., AST, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).