Conceptualization of the “conspiracy of silence” as an aspect of the investigation of social risks
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-2-35-45
Abstract
The author of the article attempts to implement a “turn to the material” in the analysis of social practices and social risks they generate. Such an approach demonstrates the rejection of the classical subject-object consideration of the issue. Instead, an object-centric approach is proposed, according to which the object comes with the function of an actor in social interaction, which has traditionally been attributed to the subject. The methodology of the object-centric approach used in the article makes it possible to expand in a new way the analysis of the concept of “conspiracy of silence” (E. Zerubavel) – towards its communicative reproduction. The author follows step by step the process of constructing communicative acts that form a kind of multiple ontology of a “conspiracy of silence” around certain events. Thus, exploring the social and political aspects, the article focuses on two trends, say: the “conspiracies of silence”, firstly, can create communicative conditions of the communities solidarity and, secondly, they can create the social risks. The author defends the position that the ontology of the object is not given in the order of things, but it is reproduced in the variety of socio-material practices. As a significant illustration of such position, the author uses the practices of conceptualizing multiple ontologies of the body and the diseases which are negotiated in the investigation of A. Mol, and the symbolic practices of the everyday life coordination (T. Pinch).
About the Author
I. A. KraynovaRussian Federation
References
1. Haraway D. The Cyborgs Manifest. Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2017. 128 p. (In Russ.)
2. Latour B. There was no New Time. Essay on Symmetric Anthropology. Moscow: European University Publ.; 2006. 296 p. (In Russ.)
3. Latour B. About interobjectivity. Sotsiologiya veshchei. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego Publ.; 2006. P. 169-99. (In Russ.)
4. Erofeeva M. Actor-network theory. An object-oriented sociology without objects? Logos. 2017;3:83-112. (In Russ.)
5. MacKenzie D. Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. Do economists make markets? Ed. by D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, L. Siu. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. P. 54-86.
6. Knorr-Cetina K., Bryugger. U. The market as an object of affection. A study of postsocial relations in financial markets. Sociology of things. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego Publ.; 2006. P. 307-41. (In Russ.)
7. Ivahnenko E.N. Sociology meets complexity. RSUH / RGGU Bulletin. Series.“Philosophy. Religious studies”. 2013;1:90-101. (In Russ.)
8. Orlov D.E., Orlova N.A. Autopoiesis of techno-social systems as the factor in the growth of social risks. RUDN journal of sociology. 2015;15(2):59-68. (In Russ.)
9. Dmitriev I.B. Aspects of conjunction of views of Rortyand Luhmann in the prospect of overcoming the old intellectual tradition. RSUH/ RGGU Bulletin. Series “Philosophy. Religion studies”. 2014;10:106-12. (In Russ.)
10. Luhman N. The Society of society (Theory of Society). Part. 5: Samoopisaniya. Moscow: Logos Publ.; 2011. 640 p. (In Russ.)
11. Luman N. “What is happening?” and “What’s at the back of it?” Two sociologies and the theory of society. Russian sociological review. 2007;6(3): 100-101. (In Russ.)
12. Zerubavel E. The elephant in the room: Silence and denial in everyday life. Oxford University Press, 2007. 176 p.
13. Vildavski A., Dejk K. Theories of Risk Perception. Who Fears, What and Why? Thesis. 1994;5:268-76. (In Russ.)
14. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. 292 p.
15. Moss M. The physical impact of the collectively inspired thoughts about death on the individual. Obshchestva. Obmen. Lichnost’: Trudy po sotsial’noi antropologii. Moscow: Eastern literature Publ.; 1996. P. 223-41. (In Russ.)
16. Dzolo D. Democracy andcomplexty. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki Publ.; 2010. 320 p. (In Russ.)
17. Sontag S. Illness as metaphor. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2016. 176 p. (In Russ.)
18. Mol A. Multiple body. Ontology in medical practice. Perm: Gile Press, 2018. 254 p. (In Russ.)
19. Pinch T. Taming the non-human. Ontology of artifacts. The interaction of the “natural” and “artificial” components of the vital world. Ed. by O.V. Stoliarova. Moscow: Delo Publ.; 2012. P. 352-74. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Kraynova I.A. Conceptualization of the “conspiracy of silence” as an aspect of the investigation of social risks. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies. 2019;(2):35-45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-2-35-45