V. N. Goncharov, Doctor of Philosophy, assistant professor,
North Caucasus Federal University,
The organizational and structural interpretation of information infrastructure has defined a technocratic list in judgment of informatization which despite steady understanding of informatization as social process, still gets a response in qualifiers of scientific and professional activity, information resources concerning informatization. Localized organizational approach in interpretation of information infrastructure of society has become partly a cause of infringement in understanding of continuity between information infrastructure of a preinformation era and information infrastructure of information society that, unfortunately, finds reflection in the social practicians, in the imperious decisions directed to modernization not only separate organizations but social structures and institutes [1, р. 5–10].
When considering information infrastructure of society as a social institute, it is necessary to draw upon the fundamental sociological works devoted to the matter. Here we have a need to consider functions of information infrastructure of society as social institute at the level of various moving forces of informatization: starting from the mass actor of informatization and finishing with the state as the leading social actor.
Appealing to this problem is caused, certainly, by the events connected with destiny of classical elements of information infrastructure of society which itself can be also considered as social institutes. Their activity in the last decades quite often makes remember G. Spencer and his concept of dysfunction of social institute: it is necessary to agree that their functions change during informatization, and changed social requirements don't find adequate reflection in their structure and functions. But it was always predicted, expected consequences of information development of society and, first of all, developments of its information infrastructure which new elements correct dysfunction of classical elements.
Level of participation of representatives of various information professions in the strategic orientation of information infrastructure of the society allows to speak about the high level of information culture of society at this stage (understanding this term as a set of ways accepted for this society and results of information development which are expressed in the norms, values, ideology and traditions of information activities). Information culture of society of the subinformation period and the first stage of informatization differs in the harmony of traditions and innovations provided with information experts as the main subject of management of development of information infrastructure at that time.
It should be noted that for the first time in practice the social phenomenon of so global level as informatization sets a task of management and makes the demand of diversification of methodology including information policy as the polyvariable instrument of public administration in the conditions of informatization [5, р. 115–120].
The analysis of the present stage of informatization of society, including processes of transformation of its information infrastructure raises heuristicity of provision on polysystem nature of management of informatization of society which defines variety, difficult hierarchy and differentiation of roles of subjects of management (state, networks of social partnership, market structures, professional resources of information activities, mass actor of information activities) and multilevel system of the administrative relations, including self-government and self-organization [2, р. 118–124].
In the modern conditions not the state or professional resources of information activities, but mass consumer acts as the leading social actor of informatization: fundamental changes, new round of informatization of microlevel, activity of the mass consumer demand change at the macrolevel, changes at the level of social institutes and global social systems. Informatization in this way shows us a good example of status dynamics of actors of informatization, change of dominant positions of information experts in the most information sphere.
The social and institutional analysis of information infrastructure of modern society shows opposition of professional resources (information experts) and the mass actor. On the one hand, the mass actor of informatization is the basis of modern public administration of information infrastructure. Priorities in the effect of presence in the modern social and information systems, in the degree of information activity are assigned to the mass user who is carrying out nonprofessional social and information influence thanks to achievements of informatization. Publicity of dialogue «power – society» assumes speed of reaction practically to any inquiry of the mass actor and special interpretation of social efficiency: incomprehensibility to a lot of function of social and information institute is an indicator of its inefficiency [4, р. 87–93].
It is possible to note the fact that social disintegration of information experts as social and professional group weakens information infrastructure, interferes with realization of its social and institutional functions [6, р. 73–78]. In many respects it is explained by behavior of non-uniform professional elite whose social activity concentrates on the ends opposite each other of the tense bowstring. On the one hand, the intensive innovations which sometimes don't have any innovative potential owing to misunderstanding of a social need, fundamental information laws and rejection of the acquired experience. On the other hand, opposition of itself to information infrastructure, creation of new departmental barriers to preserve at any cost the status quo of the leader of social and information influence that in the reality results in lack of harmony with the modern cultural environment, to washing out of basic social functions of separate institutes [3, р. 9–12]. This situation creates risks for strategically focused development of information infrastructure of society, its functioning as social institute of information society in the context of development of the modern civilization [7, р. 145–160].
1. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С. Контуры типологического исследования социальности современного общества // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Философия. Психология. Педагогика. – 2014. – Т. 14. – № 2-1. – С. 5–10.
2. Говердовская Е. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. – 2014. – № 7. – С. 118–124.
3. Ерохин А. М. Религия и искусство в системе культуры // European Social Science Journal. – 2014. – № 7-2 (46). – С. 9–12.
4. Камалова О. Н., Карпун А. Б. Основные структурные элементы политической власти // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 87–93.
5. Колосова О. Ю. Экологическая идеология как фактор устойчивого общественного развития // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2015. – № 4. – С. 115–120.
6. Лобейко Ю. А. Социально-психологические проблемы общения в контексте межличностных общественных отношений // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2015. – № 4. – С. 73–78.
7. Несмеянов Е. Е. «Цивилизация молодых»: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. – 2013. – № 6. – С. 145v160.