Cultural Norm and Personal Security: The Bifurcation Point of the Sociocultural System

The work examines the current state of the sociocultural environment and raises the question of how to assess the direction of cultural changes. The author argues for the divergence cultural and civilizational development vectors and posits that the primary contradiction within the sociocultural system, in the present cultural-historical context, arises from the dichotomy of The identified trends in civilizational development necessitate a reevaluation of fundamental cultural norms related to human security, highlighting a critical juncture in the evolution of these security norms. Consequently, addressing the issue of changing norms is linked to the concept of artification, which refers to the transformation of the natural into the artificial, and naturalization, which denotes the conversion of the artificial into the natural. In this context, the sociocultural system is analyzed through the lens of processes of reproduction and development, particularly in relation to the transformations in the context of the “naturalization and artification”. Based on the information presented, the objective of this work is to establish a theoretical framework for analyzing the key concepts of the sociocultural system within the space-time continuum of contemporary reality through the application of bifurcation theory. This study offers a theoretical and methodological justification for utilizing bifurcation theory in the examination of sociocultural systems and elaborates on the essence and content of the theoretical construct. According to bifurcation theory, the sociocultural system encompasses three parameters: phase space, time, and the laws of evolution, which collectively enable us to describe the state of the system. The author outlines the key dynamic and system-forming characteristics of a sociocultural system. In conclusion, a sociocultural system, as defined by bifurcation theory, can be conceptualized as a space comprising three topologically equivalent planes: material existence (activities influenced by the type of civilization), cultural existence (cultural norms and standards), and spiritual existence (personal meanings and superordinate values). The multidimensional analysis of time cycles indicates that the sociocultural system is currently undergoing a qualitative transformation, during which the control parameters of the system—specifically security and subjectivity—are evolving. This qualitative transition in the system necessitates the selection of a trajectory for the development of cultural norms, particularly in the context of disrupted cycles of cultural translation and the rapid emergence of new elements within intellectualized digital spaces.

Introduction

“It is symbolic that at the turn of the XX—XXI cen­turies, the problem of the meaning and essence of cul­ture...the limits and ways of culture’s influence on the individual is becoming relevant again” [Martsinkovskaya, 2014, p. 401].

Culture is a set of production, social, and spiritual [Gromyko, 2023; Barros, 2024; Korte, 2020; Shanmugasundaram, 2023] achievements of mankind [Ozhegov, 2021]. However, “achievement”, interpreted as a positive result of efforts [at the same place], is not uniquely definable in relation to sociocultural transformations associated with modern technologies. Changes do not mean the strengthening of the intellectual power of the society or its spiritual activ­ity [Kantor, 2009]. Scientists discover an inverse relation between the achievements in the field of rationalization and hu­man technologization and its activities (artificial intel­ligence, transhumanism) and the degree of involvement and, consequently, the development of mental functions (memory, attention, thinking), spiritual, and moral cat­egories [Gromyko, 2023; Barros, 2024; Korte, 2020; Shanmugasundaram, 2023]. Based on the idea of duality of the social and the individual [Levyash, 2013], can we attribute such innovations to the cultural heritage of human civiliza­tion? And is not the growth of differences in vectors of cultural and civilizational development evident? ‘The notion of progress includes not only the existent, but also the proper — the evaluation from the position of a certain criterion. What is it like?’ Pitirim Sorokin, one of the founders of theoretical sociology of the XX cen­tury and president of the 1st International Congress on Comparative Studies of Civilizations, poses the question and says: “One way or another, the criteria of progress have to reckon with the principle of happiness...they assert a causal connection between the objective crite­rion and happiness, but, reduced to the latter, “deprive themselves of the ground”” [ibid., p.181]. The scientist, who is characterized by a holistic interpretation of social change, states that the issue is posed but not solved. In the context of the breakthrough to a new civilizational mode and mastering convergent (NBIC) technologies, the condition for transition to new strategies of civiliza­tional development is a new matrix of values [Gurov, 2022; Caceres-Carrasco, 2020; Sotiropoulou, 2021]. One should pay attention to the distinction between progress and development outlined by the followers of the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC), in which progress is associated with the assimilation of best prac­tices and development with finding an individual trajec­tory of original transformations.

Crystallizing the main contradiction of the sociocul­tural system in the current cultural-historical situation, it can be defined as conditioned by the categorical pair of ‘artificial-natural’ [Sizikova, 2023]. B. Yudin G. notes that the distinction between the artificial and the natural runs through the entire work of G. Shchedrovitsky, the found­er of MMС. This distinction will be more and more up-to-date in the upcoming years [Rats, 2010; Korteling, 2021; Siemens, 2022; Winfield, 2022]. Consider that MMC rejected the naturalistic paradigm for defin­ing the concepts of “artificial” and “natural”: in the early stages of MMC, it was proposed that regularities imple­menting a norm when external conditions change were considered artificial, and regularities possessing no norm and varying with changing conditions were considered natural. Subsequent scientific reflection of these concepts by MMC led to the definition of artificial by referring to the planned results of the activity and natural — to the side effects of the activity not envisaged by the objectives [Rats, 2010]. At the same time, the category of activity acts as a framework in the definition of “artificial-natural” and is entirely based on the concept of norm. V. Dubrovsky points out that “an activity is exclusively and fully marked by the norm” [Dubrovskii, 2011, p. 459]. At the same time, norms are the basis for the reproduction of society and its de­velopment, which itself is first and foremost the develop­ment of norms. ‘The production of utopian or non-utopi­an ideals is a process of artificially changing norms’ [Shchedrovitskii, 2011, p. 149]. The process of artificially changing cultural norms is usually implemented with particular goals in mind. Due to this, the appeal to the issue of the norms’ evolv­ing categorical pair “ratification-naturalization” becomes relevant. Discussing the relevance of the artificial change of norms, it is unavoidable to introduce the category of safety, articulated in relation to the risks of ratification and naturalization. These risks determine the necessity of reflection of the dynamics of cultural and semantic pa­rameters of the socio-cultural system in correlation with the unfolding of civilization processes as a materialized result of human activity. Thus, we consider a sociocul­tural system from the point of view of reproduction and development processes’ implementation, which are car­ried out in the light of “naturalization and ratification” transformations. At the same time, within the cultural and historical approach, the conjugation of the categories of “personal safety”, “cultural development” and “civiliza­tional development” is subject to problematization. In re­lation to this, the purpose of our study is the formulation of a theoretical basis for analysis of these notions.

Theoretical and methodological justification of the bifurcation theory implementation in the study of sociocultural system

Bifurcation theory is a synergetic theory about the self-ordering of phenomena in a non-equilibrium milieu [Luongo, 2023]. There is an attempt to develop a synergetic theory in G. Shpet’s concept, in which “culture is considered as a factor structuring and building the process of socializa­tion and formation of sociocultural identity of a person in crisis periods” [Martsinkovskaya, 2014, p. 397]. Let us note two positions of relevance of bifurcation theory for description of so­ciocultural systems: 1) openness, importance of study­ing the vectors of action of key agents of influence on the processes of social self-organization in dynamics. (“To cover the process of a thing’s development in all its phases and changes means to learn its essence in study, for it is only in motion the thing demonstrates itself” [1, p. 62—63]). 2) possession of properties of complex sys­tems: instability, nonlinearity, adaptability, presence of variations of future states, external and internal “noise.” The reason for the loss of permanence is the intensive growth of new elements in the system, interrupting the connections’ formation. From our point of view, such a role in the modern sociocultural system is played by multidimensional intellectualized digital spaces [Nikitin, 2010].

The essence and contents of theoretical construct on the basis of bifurcation theory

According to the bifurcation theory, the sociocultural system consists of three objects [Luongo, 2023]: 1. Phase space: set of coordinates for its description. Bifurcation theoretical constructions usually use spaces with Euclidean metrics — Cartesian or polar coordinate system. To construct the initial categorical grid of the sociocultural system, we turned to the Cartesian space of R. Descartes. Based on the method of modeling through idealized representa­tions, we define a sociocultural system as a space formed by three topologically equivalent planes: material existence (activities mediated by the type of civilization), cultural existence (cultural norms and standards), and spiritual existence (personal meanings, super values) (Pic. 1). As sources for the ideal analogy, we analyzed the definitions of a sociocultural system and its key elements. Among the basic thesis we distinguish: correlation of social evolu­tion and evolution of physical and intellectual abilities of humans [Winfield, 2022], idea of values trinity, social relations, and personality [Chernyak, 2009], considering the personality as an actor in sociocultural system [7, 9]. Let us outline two stages of its implementation turning to modeling by means of ide­alized representations. 1 — abstraction of identification, aimed at correlation of the scientists’ perceptions and drawing a general scheme (Fig. 1) by means of generaliza­tion when moving from the empirically singular through the empirically universal to the logically abstract [5, 21]. 2 — morphological description of the sociocultural system structure, which allowed us to identify the main elements and reflect the connections of the parameters of topologi­cal spaces. (Fig. 1).

It should be noted, that material existence is correlat­ed with the space of social situations, where the norms’ implementation is carried out [Piskoppel', 2001], and the personality is considered from the position of resisting internal im­pulses and external pressures in self-determination in relation to the world and society [Leont'yev, 2020].

2. Time is the second element of the system. Change in time is the key factor in the transformation of the so­ciocultural system. Generalizing Toffler’s cycles, three-wave theory cycles and Sorokin’s cycles from the posi­tion of the time factor, we obtain that the current period is a transitional one from one quality of the system to another [Makasheva, 2021]. P. Sorokin describes this period as social entropy — the disintegration of normative-value struc­tures, accompanied by the fading of socializing and regu­latory functions [Levyash, 2013].

3. A law of evolution to determine the state of a sys­tem at a point in time. Trajectories of development of cultural norms at the point of intersection of cultures of post-industrial and digital civilizations can be analyzed as bifurcation curves (pic. 2). The bifurcation point, i.e., a sort of social reality in which the split occurs. The state of the sociocultural system can be described by two vec­tors of possible movement from the bifurcation point: the waterfall phase trajectory of the aging postmodern culture and the ascending arm of digital civilization culture (pic. 2). Every culture sooner or later exhausts its creative possibilities, and it is followed by a decline period [ibid.]. On the other hand, it is poorly formed value-normative regulators of “digital” activities that mainly determine the issue of personal safety in the cur­rent transformations of sociocultural reality. Note that this position corresponds to D. Leontiev’s idea that civi­lization crisis is a deviation of the self-regulation vector in people. In accordance with this position, the issues of personal security in this context are considered to be caused by a shift in the balance of interaction between the individual and society within the framework of the processes of “individualization-integration,” which is expressed either in the absorption of the individual by digital reality or in disintegration with it.

Thus, we consider the bifurcation point as a critical point of security norms change, in which the vector of sociocultural development can follow the trajectory of preserving pre-digital norms of personal security or the trajectory that cultivates undeveloped standards for the use of digital tools [Salomatova, 2023; Smirnov, 2023; Floridi, 2021; Krisnana, 2022]. “It is an explosion or flash of the not yet unfolded semantic space of culture, which contains the potential of future paths of develop­ment, but at the moment of bifurcation the explosion is determined by randomness” [Muzyka, 2014, p. 307]. But what are the probabilities of choosing one path or the other? The answer to this question lies in the field of studying bi­furcation properties of a sociocultural system (tab.). Or­der parameters are managing or controlling independent variables of a dynamical system. They are characterized by critical levels — the values at which the state of a dy­namic system changes from stable to unstable.

Fig. 1. Limit scheme of the triplate space of a sociocultural system

Fig. 2. Three-plane diagram of the dynamics of cultural norms of sociocultural system 

Note: 3-postmodern type of civilization, 4-digital type of civilization; X — individualization; Y-integration 

Table. Characterization of three-category scheme of the sociocultural system

The direction of rearrangement is determined by attractors and repellers. Attractor is the limiting equi­librium of a system to which it tends as a goal. In non-conservative systems, attractors are equilibrium points to which a variable tends when changing in time. If a variable enters the attractor field, it evolves according to the plan inserted in the attractor. The special point of the vector field — the equilibrium point of the dy­namical system — is the origin of a straight line paral­lel to the time axis and integrally corresponding to the phase trajectory. In Fig. 2, the equilibrium “0” point denotes the equilibrium state of the order parameters: safety, subjectivity, and normatively. Referring to Fig­ure 1, in which we have emphasized the epistemological basis of the sociocultural system scheme, we note as a postmodern attractor the knowledge paradigm oriented towards the traditions of continuity and cultural diver­sification. In our view, the attractor of digital culture is a competence-based paradigm. It is associated with glo­balization, equalization, increasing world’s cohesiveness, formalization of cultural norms into standards of activ­ity with partial neutralization of meaning. The “attrac­tor” concept is opposed to the “repeller” concept, which is a set of parameters that “repel” the system from the equilibrium position, expressing restrictions and prohi­bitions for movement in this direction. The public con­sciousness can be assumed as a repeller for the develop­ment of the digital branch of cultural norms. It forms an ambiguous response to digital communication, the algo­rithmization of life space, and is conservatively minded towards pre-digital axiological parameters of the system. Tectonic changes and the formation of a new platform of technologies acts as a repeller of the current post-indus­trial branch. [George, 2021].

Basic claims of sociocultural system from the point of view of bifurcation theory

Cultural norm is a semiotic characteristic of a socio­cultural system showing the connection between the spiritual and material through the transmission of ac­tivity ways and crystallization of values of this activity to provide conditions for the formation of subjectivity within a particular civilization.

Subjectivity: an integral characteristic of an indi­vidual’s activity, reflecting the balance of external and internal focuses of the self. Subjectivity is a two-dimen­sional characteristic of a sociocultural system, express­ing both the effectiveness of activity in the plane of ma­terial existence and the degree of maintenance of super values in the light of spiritual existence. Thus, in the subjectivity dimension, the “equilibrium point of self” characterizes the balance of individualization and inte­gration processes.

Personal safety: a characteristic of a socio-cultural system that provides the conditions for the subject’s up­ward movement along the line of cultural development through the unfolding of the processes of individualiza­tion and integration in dynamic balance.

Civilization is a materialized projection of a particular culture on the timescale (pic. 2).

The higher the level of civilizational development, the more likely is the refraction and deformation of cul­tural processes formed as a response to the previous civi­lizational challenge.

Discussio 

Due to G. Spencer, who defined evolution as “a uni­versal process characterized by integration, differentia­tion, and ordering,” the evolutionary approach for ana­lyzing the social change became traditional [Spencer, 2021]. His point of view on the interdependence of social evolution and the evolution of people’s physical and intellectual abilities, which is reflected in the unity of spiritual, cul­tural, and material existence of the three-dimensional space of the sociocultural system we have constructed, is crucial for us. Bibler writes that culture is created by humans in such a way that it allows him to reflect, refract, and transform all powerful determinations from outside. Therefore, the change in the trajectory of social development is carried out in accordance with the change in the cultural norm [Chernyak, 2009]; culture acts as a kind of fil­ter, which, on the one hand, “does not give a foothold to random and destructive changes, and, on the other hand — “provides legitimacy to changes in the lifestyle, which express the very essence of new existences” [Piskoppel', 2001, p. 25]. Accordingly, culture acts as a stabilization factor for society [Ordonez‐Ponce, 2023], which restores the connection of times, “allowing to find points of support in the changing re­ality” [Martsinkovskaya, 2014, p. 396]. Turning to the cultural norm as a key characteristic of the sociocultural system, linking the axiological focus of the individual and the target component of his/her activity, we emphasize its role in the formation of subjectivity [Petrovskiy, 2023]. Note that the idea of subject mediating the relationship between civili­zational development and culture correlates with D. Zibelman’s position on the existence of culture only in individuals. “An individual who fulfills cultural func­tions and, due to this, satisfies his needs, can potential­ly find himself at the heart of a bundle containing any combination of such functions from those represented in the culture” [Zil'berman, 2015, p. 43]. Distinction of two poles: in­dividualization and integration within the subjectivity is crucial for us. From a scientific perspective, social evolution itself is a two-way process of differentiation and integration. Such consideration of subjectivity cor­relates with the understanding of external and internal subjectivity by G. Prygin [Mikheyeva, 2023]. D. Risman also bases his typology of traditional and modern society on the dis­tinction between “the personality oriented from with­in” and “the personality oriented from outside” [Zil'berman, 2015, p. 275]. Defining the bifurcation point as a crisis state of a three-plane sociocultural system, we note that accord­ing to Sorokin, the crisis of personality becomes the integral expression of values and social relations’ crisis [Sorokin, 1992]. In this aspect, there is an emphasis on the topic of personal safety as a problem of ensuring conditions for its creative inclusion in the new cultural space. Analyz­ing the issue of naturalization of the world of civiliza­tion, V. Zinchenko points out the need to make civi­lization “man-sized” but “not suppressing man” [Zinchenko, 2004]. It is essential to note the role of sociocultural design, ob­jective multipurpose programming, and norming as key tools of society to manage the risks of transformation of cultural norms [Brady, 2024; Burrell, 2021]. Defining the particular instru­ments, we can denote the potential of the “developmen­tal step” scheme by G. Schedrovitsky [Zinchenko, 2004]. The scheme fixes the necessity of artificial and technical transfor­mations for co-organization of the indicated processes and implementation of the developmental objectives of a given sociocultural system., We note two aspects that are postulated by the “development step” scheme in the context of this bifurcation theory: 1) development takes place when natural and artificial-technical com­ponents are combined and 2) control is possible only in relation to the future.

Conclusions

1. In the framework of bifurcation theory, a socio­cultural system can be constructed as a space with three topologically equivalent planes: material existence (ac­tivities mediated by the type of civilization), cultural existence (cultural norms and standards), and spiritual existence (personal meanings, super values). The dy­namic and systemic characteristics of the sociocultural system are highlighted. The dynamic characteristics of the system are analyzed from the perspective of changes in the cultural norm, articulated through the categori­cal pairs “artificial and natural” and “artification-natu­ralization”.
2. According to the multidimensional analysis of time cycles, the sociocultural system is currently experienc­ing a state of qualitative transformation associated with changes in the critical indicators of the control param­eters of the sociocultural system — safety, norming, and subjectivity. 
3. The transition from one quality of the system to another is associated with the need to choose the tra­jectory of cultural norm development in the conditions of breaking cycles of translation and intensive growth of the number of new elements due to the emergence of intellectualized digital spaces. The bifurcation point within the constructed theoretical construct is a critical point of changing security norms. 

Final statement

Thus, we consider the sociocultural system from the point of bifurcation theory. This theory made it possible to correlate three aspects of human existence — spiritual, cultural, and material — within a single dynamic system, identifying critical positions for the system and outlin­ing possible vectors of sociocultural change. It is stated that presently the sociocultural system is in a state of qualitative transformation of the control parameters of the system — safety, subjectivity, and norming. Depend­ing on a set of factors, including random fluctuations of the system and the strength and position of attractors and repellers, the probable transformation scenarios for the sociocultural system are determined. This paper is focused on the change of cultural norms related to per­sonal safety. It is obvious that the limits set on personal security are determined by cultural norms from the point of physical, psychological and social conditions of human existence and must be correlated with the human proportionality and human appropriateness of the ongo­ing institutional and ideological processes. 

1. Vygotskii L.S. Sobranie sochinenii: V 6-ti t. Problemy razvitiya psikhiki [Collected works: In 6 volumes. Problems of mental development]. Vol. 3. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1983. 368 p. (In Russ.).
2. Gromyko Yu.V. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya i al'ternativy tsifrovizatsii [Cultural-historical psychology and alternatives to digitalization]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 27-40. DOI:10.17759/chp.2023190204. (In Russ.).
3. Gurevich P.S. Dukhovnoye protivoborstvo tsivilizatsiy [Spiritual confrontation of civilizations]. Sovremennyye global'nyye vyzovy i natsional'nyye interesy: XVI Mezhdunarodnyye Likhachevskiye nauchnyye chteniya (19—21 maya 2016 g. Sankt-Peterburg) [Modern global challenges and national interests: XVI International Likhachev Scientific Readings]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGUP, 2016, pp. 68—70. (In Russ.).
4. Gurov O.N. V.S. Stopin: vzglyady na tekhnogennuyu tsivilizatsiyu [V.S. Stepin: views on technogenic civilization]. Pivovarovskiye chteniya [Pivovarovsky readings], 2022, pp. 53-58. (In Russ.).
5. Dubrovskii V.Ya. Ocherki po obshchei teorii deyatel'nosti [Essays on the general theory of activity.]. Moscow: NNF «Institut razvitiya im. G.P. Shchedrovitskogo», 2011. 576 p. (In Russ.).
6. Zil'berman D.B. K ponimaniyu kul'turnoi traditsii [Towards an understanding of cultural tradition]. Moscow: NNF «Institut razvitiya im. G.P. Shchedrovitskogo», 2015. 623 p. (In Russ.).
7. Zinchenko V.P. Kommentariy psikhologa k trudam i dnyam G.P. Shchedrovitskogo [Psychologist's commentary on the works and days of G.P. Shchedrovitsky]. Poznayushcheye myshleniye i sotsial'noye deystviye [Cognitive thinking and social action], Moscow: F.A.S.-media, 2004. 544 p. (In Russ.).
8. Kantor V.K. Russkiy yevropeyets — Yuriy Lotman [Russian European — Yuri Lotman] Yuriy Mikhaylovich Lotman [Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman]. Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya, 2009. 399 p. (In Russ.).
9. Kudryavtsev V.T. Culture as Self-Perception. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology,2016. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 113–128. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2016120307
10. Levyash I.YA. K. Marks i P. Sorokin: poisk integrativnoy paradigmy [Marx and P. Sorokin: search for an integrative paradigm]. Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin [Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin]. Sapov V.V. (ed.). Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya, 2013. 606 p. (In Russ.).
11. Leont'yev D.A. Kachestvo zhizni i blagopoluchiye: ob"yektivnyye, sub"yektivnyye i sub"yektnyye aspekty [Quality of life and well-being: objective, subjective and subjective aspects] Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2020. Vol. 41, no. 6. pp. 86-95. (In Russ.).
12. Makasheva N.A. Kondrat'yev i novaya metodologicheskaya povestka dnya v ekonomike [Kondratiev and the new methodological agenda in economics] Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Economic Journal], 2021, no. 7 (1), pp. 50-66. DOI:10.32609/j.ruje.7.56826 (In Russ.).
13. Martsinkovskaya T.D. G.G. Shpet - parafraz na sovremennuyu temu [G.G. Shpet - a paraphrase on a modern topic]. In Shchedrin T.G. (ed.), Gustav Gustavovich Shpet. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya, 2014. 606 p. (In Russ.).
14. Mikheyeva Ye.V., Prygin G.S. Instrument teoreticheskogo modelirovaniya issledovaniya sub"yektnosti v situatsiyakh neopredelennosti [A tool for theoretical modeling of the study of subjectivity in situations of uncertainty]. Yaroslavskiy pedagogicheskiy vestnik [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin], 2023, no. 4. pp. 116-128. DOI:10.20323/1813-145X_2023_4_133_116 (In Russ.).
15. Muzyka O.A. Bifurkatsiya i konflikt: mnogoobraziye vzglyadov i sovremennyye podkhody [Bifurcation and conflict: diversity of views and modern approaches]. Vestnik Taganrogskogo instituta imeni A.P. Chekhova [Bulletin of the Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekhov], 2014, no. 2, pp. 305-309. (In Russ.).
16. Nikitin V.A. Sotsiokul'turnyye izmeneniya, opredelyayushchiye novyye zadachi issledovaniya obrazovaniya [Sociocultural changes that determine new tasks in education research]. In Marach V.G. (ed.), Chteniya pamyati G.P. Shchedrovitskogo 2008-2009 godov [Readings in memory of G.P. Shchedrovitsky 2008-2009]. Moscow: Nekommercheskiy nauchnyy fond «Institut razvitiya im. G.P. Shchedrovitskogo», 2010. 480 p. (In Russ.).
17. Ozhegov S.I. Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Ast, 2021. 736 p. (In Russ.).
18. Petrovskiy V.A. O statuse «YA» v kul'turno-deyatel'nostnom diskurse [On the status of “I” in cultural and activity discourse]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no.1, pp. 35—40. DOI:10.17759/chp.2023190105 (In Russ.).
19. Piskoppel' A.A. «Kul'tura» i ee ponyatiinoe okruzhenie [“Culture” and its conceptual environment]. Etnometodologiya: problemy, podkhody, kontseptsii [Ethnomethodology: problems, approaches, concepts]. Moscow, 2001. Vol. 8. 160 p. (In Russ.).
20. Rats M.V. «Iskusstvennoye» i «yestestvennoye» [“Artificial” and “natural”]. In Shchedrovitsky P.G. (eds.), Georgiy Petrovich Shchedrovitskiy [Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky]. Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya, 2010. 600 p. (In Russ.).
21. Rozin V.M. Nauchnyye issledovaniya i skhemy v Moskovskom metodologicheskom kruzhke [Scientific research and schemes in the Moscow Methodological Circle]. Moscow: NNF «Institut razvitiya im. G.P. Shchedrovitskogo, 2011. 496 p. (In Russ.).
22. Salomatova O.V. Kontseptsiya tsifrovoi igry S. Edvards v kontekste kul'turno-istoricheskoi paradigm [The concept of a digital game S. Edwards in the context of the cultural-historical paradigm]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 30-38. DOI:10.17759/ chp.2023190304. (In Russ.).
23. Sizikova T.E. K itogam Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa «L. S. Vygotskii i A. R. Luriya: kul'turno — istoricheskaya psikhologiya i voprosy tsifrovizatsii v sotsial'nykh praktikakh» [To the results of the International Congress “L. S. Vygotsky and A. R. Luria: cultural-historical psychology and issues of digitalization in social practices”]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 76-79. DOI:10.17759/chp.2023190210. (In Russ.).
24. Smirnov S.A. L.S. Vygotskii i tsifra: Vyzov dlya kul'turno-istoricheskoi psikhologii [Vygotsky and a number: A challenge for cultural-historical psychology]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2023. Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 41-51. DOI:10.17759/chp.2023190205. (In Russ.).
25. Sorokin P.A. Chelovek. Tsivilizatsiya. Obshchestvo [Human. Civilization. Society]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1992. 543 p. (In Russ.).
26. Chernyak L.S. Vnenakhodimost' v dialoge: samodeterminatsiya mysli i determinatsii vnemyslennyye [Externality in dialogue: self-determination of thought and non-thoughtful determination]. In Akhutin A.V. (eds.), Vladimir Solomonovich Bibler. Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya, 2009. 375 p. (In Russ.).
27. Shchedrovitskii G.P. K ponyatiyu «kul'tura»: izvlecheniya iz tekstov [On the concept of “culture”: extracts from texts]. Etnometodologiya: problemy, podkhody, kontseptsii [Ethnomethodology: problems, approaches, concepts]. Moscow, 2011. Vol. 16, 168 p. (In Russ.).
28. Barros E. Understanding the Influence of Digital Technology on Human Cognitive Processes: A Review, 2024. DOI:10.20944/preprints202404.1844.v1.
29. Brady W.J., Crockett M.J. Norm Psychology in the Digital Age: How Social Media Shapes the Cultural Evolution of Normativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2024, no. 19, pp. 62-64. DOI:10.1177/17456916231187395
30. Burrell J., Fourcade M. The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology, 2021. Vol. 47, pp. 213-237.
31. Caceres-Carrasco F.R., Santos F.J., Guzman C. Social capital, personal values and economic development: effect on innovation. An international analysis. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2020. Vol. 33, pp. 70-95.
32. Floridi L., Cowls J., King T.C., Taddeo M. How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence, 2021. Vol. 144, pp. 125-151.
33. George A.H., Fernando M., George A.S., Baskar T., Pandey D. Metaverse: The next stage of human culture and the internet. International Journal of Advanced Research Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJARTET), 2021. Vol. 12, pp. 1-10.
34. Korte M. The impact of the digital revolution 
on human brain and behavior: where 
do we stand? Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 2020. Vol. 22, pp. 101-111. DOI:10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte.
35. Korteling J.H., van de Boer-Visschedijk G.C., Blankendaal R.A., Boonekamp R.C., Eikelboom A.R. Human-versus artificial intelligence. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2021, no. 4. DOI:10.3389/frai.2021.622364.
36. Krisnana I., Hariani V., Kurnia I.D., Arief Y.S. The use of gadgets and their relationship to poor sleep quality and social interaction on mid-adolescents: a cross-sectional study. International journal of adolescent medicine and health, 2022. Vol. 34. DOI:10.1515/ijamh-2019-0101.
37. Luongo A., Ferretti M., Di Nino S. Stability and bifurcation of structures: statical and dynamical systems. Springer Nature, 2023. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-27572-2.
38. Ordonez‐Ponce E. The role of local cultural factors in the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development, 2023. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1122-1134.
39. Shanmugasundaram M., Tamilarasu А. The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2023, no. 2. DOI:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077.
40. Siemens G., Marmolejo-Ramos F., Gabriel F., Medeiros K., Marrone R., Joksimovic S., Maarten de Laat Human and artificial cognition. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2022. Vol. 3, pp. 100-107. DOI:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100107.
41. Sotiropoulou A., Papadimitriou D., Maroudas L. Personal values and typologies of social entrepreneurs. The case of Greece. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2021. Vol. 12, pp. 1-27.
42. Spencer H. The Data of Ethics Justice. Routledge, 2021. URL: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/331/Spencer_0622.pdf (Accessed 01.03.2024)
43. Winfield A.F., Blackmore S. Experiments in artificial culture: from noisy imitation to storytelling robots. Phil. Trans. R. Soc, 2022. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2020.0323.