The Ego-Medianess of Contemporary Communications as a Social-Philosophical Problem

Anton N. For­tu­na­tov
Lobachevsky State Uni­ver­si­ty of Nizh­ni Nov­gorod

The Ego-Medi­aness of Con­tem­po­rary Com­mu­ni­ca­tions as a Social-Philo­soph­i­cal Prob­lem

Abstract. The aim of the arti­cle is to ana­lyze mod­ern com­mu­ni­ca­tion, which became a self-con­tained sys­tem of social rela­tions, dic­tat­ing a new sta­tus to the sub­ject rep­re­sent­ed in it. The basic the­sis is that com­mu­ni­ca­tion as a social phe­nom­e­non evolves and leads to the dehu­man­iza­tion of social space. The author comes to a con­clu­sion about the degra­da­tion of its most impor­tant prin­ci­ple that is inter­sub­jec­tiv­i­ty, rely­ing on the the­o­ry of com­mu­nica­tive ratio­nal­i­ty by Haber­mas and the devel­op­ing of it. The old notions of com­mu­ni­ca­tion, as an immense space of infor­ma­tion oppor­tu­ni­ties, run into more and more obvi­ous ten­den­cies toward self-iso­la­tion of sub­jects, to the impos­si­bil­i­ty of find­ing a com­mon lan­guage between rep­re­sen­ta­tives of var­i­ous com­mu­nica­tive sys-tems. The research tasks include the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of fac­tors that affect this process. In par­tic­u­lar, it is empha­sized that the tech­no­log­i­cal sup­ply of com­mu­ni­ca­tion links becomes a con­stant val­ue that deter­mines all infor­ma­tion inter-actions in mag­ni­tude. There is a sit­u­a­tion when com­mu­nica­tive tech­nolo­gies begin to replace the very fact of human inter­ac­tion. There is a sit­u­a­tion when com­mu­ni­ca-tive tech­nolo­gies begin to replace the very fact of human inter­ac­tion. Per­son­al­i­ty, forced into the real­i­ty of the com­mu­nica­tive tech­nos­phere, receives at its dis­pos­al unprece­dent­ed tech­no­log­i­cal oppor­tu­ni­ties, which make it extreme­ly impor­tant to raise the ques­tion of the ethics of inter­act­ing sub­jects. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion tech­nolo­gies destroy for­mer moral guide-lines, turn­ing social devi­a­tions into “norm”. The arti­cle rais­es the ques­tion of new eth­i­cal imper­a­tives in the media real­i­ty, based on social antag­o­nism and rejec­tion of the Oth­er, on a hos­tile atti­tude towards it. The results of the research­es con­duct­ed by the author lead him to the para­dox­i­cal con­clu­sion that the evo­lu­tion of com­mu­ni­ca­tion, invert­ed inside itself, gen­er­ates a new phe­nom­e­non, des­ig­nat­ed by the author as an “ego-medi­um”. The indi­vid­ual becomes the source and con­sumer of his own news, iso­lat­ing him­self from the Oth­ers, who appear not as a ref­er­ence group, but as ma-ter­i­al for self-affir­ma­tion. The human ele­ment in per­son­al­i­ty, in con­trast to this, begins to man­i­fest itself in over­com­ing the dic­tates of tech­nol­o­gy. The method of inter­pre­ta­tion and recon­struc­tion of social and philo­soph­i­cal con­cepts of var­i­ous authors, the method of sit­u­a­tion­al analy­sis and phe-nom­e­no­log­i­cal descrip­tion is used.

Key­words: com­mu­ni­ca­tion, media real­i­ty, medi­um, infor­ma­tion soci­ety, sub­ject, com­mu­ni­ca­tion tech­nolo­gies, tele­vi­sion, ethics.

DOI: 10.5840/dspl2018119


  1. Bau­drillard J. A l’ombre des majorités silen­cieuses, ou la fin du social. Eka­ter­in­burg: UrGU, 2000. 96 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  2. Var­tano­va E.L. Medi­a­jekonomi­ka zarubezh­nyh stran. Ucheb­noe poso­bie [Media eco­nom­ics of for­eign coun­tries. School­book]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2003. 535 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  3. Dery M. Escape Veloc­i­ty: Cyber­cul­ture at the End of the Cen­tu­ry. Eka­ter­in­burg: Ultra. Kul­tura; Mщысщц: AST MOSKVA, 2008. 228 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  4. Levin G.D. Filosof­skie kat­e­gorii v sovre­men­nom diskurse [Philo­soph­i­cal cat­e­gories in mod­ern dis­course]. Moscow: Logos, 2007. 224 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  5. Luh­mann N. Die Real­ität der Massen­me­di­en / A. Antonovskiy (tran­sk.). Moscow: Prak­sis, 2005. 256 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  6. McLuhan M. The Guten­berg Galaxy: The Mak­ing of Typo­graph­ic Man. Kiev: Nika-Cen­tr Jel­ga; Izda­tel­skij dom Dmitri­ja Bura­go, 2003. 432 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  7. Slo­vo v dejstvii. Intent-anal­iz politich­esko­go diskur­sa [Slo­vo v dejstvii. Intent-anal­iz politich­esko­go diskur­sa]. Saint Peters­burg: Alete­j­ja, 2000.316 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  8. Fer­raris M. Dove sei? Ontolo­gia del tele­foni­no / K. Timenchik, M. Ustyuzhani­no­va (transl.). Moscow: Novoe lit­er­aturnoe obozre­nie, 2010. 352 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  9. For­tu­na­tov A.N. Rit­mich­eska­ja orga­ni­zaci­ja tele­vizion­nyh novostej kak jetiko-smyslo­va­ja prob­le­ma [Rhyth­mic orga­ni­za­tion of tele­vi­sion news as an eth­i­cal and seman­tic prob­lem], Vest­nik of Lobachevsky Uni­ver­si­ty of Nizh­ni Nov­gorod, 2008, no 2, pp. 238–242. (In Russ­ian)
  10. For­tu­na­tov A.N. Kom­mu­nikaci­ja i odinochest­vo: opyt dialek­tich­esko­go anal­iza [Сom­mu­ni­ca­tion and lone­li­ness: a dialec­ti­cal analy­sis], Vest­nik of Lobachevsky Uni­ver­si­ty of Nizh­ni Nov­gorod, 2014, no 1(2), pp. 464–467. (In Russ­ian)
  11. Haber­mas J. Moral­be­wusst­sein und kom­mu­nika­tives han­deln / D.V. Sklyad­ne­va (transl.). Saint Peters­burg: Nau­ka, 2001. 380 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  12. Haber­mas J. Tech­nik und Wis­senschaft als «Ide­olo­gie» / M.L. Kharkov (transl.). Moscow: Prak­sis, 2007. 208 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  13. La Roche W. von, Buch­holy A. (Hrsg.) Radio-jour­nal­is­mus. Ein Hand­buch für Aus­bil­dung und Prax­is im Hör­funk. München: List, 1988. 427 ss.
  14. Schütz A. Phe­nom­e­nol­o­gy and the Social Sci­ences. In: M. Far­ber (ed.). Phi­lo soph­i­cal Essays in Mem­o­ry of Edmund Husserl. Cam­bridge, Mass.: Har­vard. Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1940, pp. 164–186
  15. (accessed on Decem­ber 25, 2017).

Comments are closed.