| English
"Куда идет мир? Каково будущее науки? Как "объять необъятное", получая образование - высшее, среднее, начальное? Как преодолеть "пропасть двух культур" - естественнонаучной и гуманитарной? Как создать и вырастить научную школу? Какова структура нашего познания? Как управлять риском? Можно ли с единой точки зрения взглянуть на проблемы математики и экономики, физики и психологии, компьютерных наук и географии, техники и философии?"

«Network society as an emergent social formation: the biopolitical perspective» 
Alexander V. Oleskin

Опубликовано в: Видеоматериалы

Biopolitics was interpreted  in a recent book edited by Somit & Peterson as a “term used to describe the approach of those political scientists who use biological concepts, with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory at the center, and biological research techniques to study, explain, predict, and sometimes even to prescribe political behavior” (Somit, A. & Peterson, S. A. (2011). Introduction. In: S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Research in Biopolitics. Vol.9. Biology and Politics. The Cutting Edge (pp.3-10). UK, North America, Japan, etc.: Emerald Group Publ. Ltd., p. 3). Alternative definitions suggested for the term biopolitics, especially those given by Michel Foucault and his school, are discussed in some detail in one of my books but unfortunately, they cannot be considered in this short talk. I’d like just to emphasize that biopolitics, as undoubtedly a borderline field between biology and politics science, should encourages comparisons between the organization of biological systems (colonies, flocks, fish shoals, ape troops, etc.) and that of human society. One of the typical organizational patterns used both by living nature and humankind is based upon distributed decentralized network structures that are characterized by cooperative interaction among their parts (nodes). There is another book that has been produced by me on this subject (PIC 3) Network structures in the wider sense are definea as any “set of items, which we will call vertices or sometimes nodes, with connections between them, called edges” (PIC 4 Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256). Importantly, a prominent feature of a large number of biological and also social networks is their decentralization. Networks of this kind lack a single central leader or pacemaker.  Their activities and collective behavior are determined by intricate interactions among a large number of partial pace-makers (leaders). An example is found in the Internet that is largely based on this principle. Decentralized networks are to be contrasted with  hierarchical  structures characterized by a central leader or pacemaker. Some scholars in the social sciences also distinguish networks from market structures and their analogs, quasi-market structures in living nature, that are characterized by competitive rather than co-operative interactions among the actors involved.