"Kon" and "Law" in the Constitution of Social reality

Girnik Mariya Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0002-0338-5175 Educator, History and Philosophy faculty, Kosygin State University 119071, Russia, Moscow Autonomous Okrug, Moscow, Malaya Kaluzhskaya str., 1 ma_nuna@mail.ru

The relevance of the appeal to the topic is due to the desire to reveal the heuristic potential of comparing the non-identical functions of "kon" and "law" as a tool for analyzing the processes of the constitution of social reality. Historically, "con" precedes "law". According to Yu. S. Stepanov, in Russian culture, etymologically, "law" comes from "kon" ("beginning" and "end" are the limit) [Stepanov 2004, pp. 591-592]. Therefore, the very situation of the reduction of "kon", – its displacement by the category of "law", – reveals in a special way the issues of the constitution of social reality in Russian culture, which remains the conceptual basis not only of modern Russian legal culture, but of Russian sociality as a whole. The problem being raised, therefore, is directly related to the subject field of social philosophy in the aspect of the search for adequate sociality in the conditions of development and transformations of Russian society at the present stage. Although due to certain circumstances it has been displaced from the trends of theoretical discourse and is reflected exclusively in the historical context of archaic Slavic sociality, reflected in the language [Stepanov 2004] and the origins of the architecture of Russian cities [Mokeev 2001].

Let us consider the constitution of social reality as an object – as a socio-historical process that establishes the basic categories of society's perception of its social being. The emphasis will be on the little-studied function of "con", indicating the lack of identity between the categories "con" and "law".

The research is held together by general theoretical methods of typology and comparison. Methodological difficulties are based on the ambiguity of the concept of the nature of sociality. Thanks to A.S. Akhiezer's theory of constructive tension, it is possible to distinguish between innovative and traditional ways of reconstructing social reality.

G. Ya. Mokeev's appeal to the linguo-archeology of the Ancient Slavic concept of "con" is connected precisely with the syncretism of its spatial and value characteristics. "Con" cemented the rules of behavior (respect, help, protect, etc.) and the structure of customs in a certain territory, in a habitable space, at the same time pointing to the boundaries of social norms. In relation to the action of established social norms, the habitable space itself was also determined, outside of which it was initially required to establish a con before the beginning of development. "Prince" ("knez", originally "priest"), according to G. Ya. Mokeev's research, is the designation of the social status of the subject that sets the limits of the action of social norms: "knez", taking into account the written reduction of the saying, literally means "kon is me" [Mokeev 2001]. A distinctive characteristic of the con (unlike the con, outside the con) is self-regulation (establishment and correction depending on the territory) and the inevitability of the action of its constituent rules. Kon is close to the concept of customary law [Vinokurova 2019; Damdynchap 2020; Plotskaya 2019] with the exception of the principle of establishing kon, which is absent in custom. Con is not a custom in itself, but a limit that establishes and delimits customs. If customary law is the source and measure of the justice of legal law, then con is the source and measure (including the limiter) of the rightness of customary law. Obviously, because it establishes the functions of the con, the functions like the original status of "Prince", remain popular in the subcultural formations outside of the dominant cultural norms [of Reent 2009; Chirun 2019; Vincent 2021; Kekoshvili, Slade 2020]. Con remains a sought-after tool in the unregulated sphere of social creativity dominated by the dominant culture. And this aspect of social self-organization remains the least studied due to the concentration of theoretical attention, primarily on the law, which has displaced the phenomenon of cohn into the marginal sphere of lawlessness.

G. Ya. Mokeev gives a number of excerpts from texts, the time of their appearance (XI–XII centuries) is associated with the spread of Christianity among the Eastern Slavs [Mokeev 2001]. The quotations are intended to characterize the significant differences in the concepts of kona and the law. At the same time, they testify to the importance of the concept of "con" in the constitution of the social reality of that time. According to the logic of G. Ya. Mokeev, the word "koniga" is derived from the merger of "kon + yoke", i.e. it means "bound" by the yoke-record of kon. He finds the following confirmations of his thought: "What is the essence of Slovenian books? Neither that is God created, nor the aggels, nor the essence of them, like the Jews, and the Romans, and the Greeks: they are the essence and the pleasant essence of God," wrote chernorizets Brave in the XII century. "About pismeneh" [Mokeev 2001]. The Slovene-Christian books immediately recorded the significance of the concept of "con": "The Word from time Immemorial" – states the Ostromir Gospel of the XI century; "Who will not bow to the Primordial? Who will praise the Horse?" Grigory Nazianzin exclaimed [Mokeev 2001].

 Gennady Yakovlevich, notes the popularity of the root kon: "... in our language there are remarkable single-root words: from time immemorial, a horse breeder (leader, instigator), to groom (once to teach a horse), to finish, to finish (finish the job), the end (the limit of the phenomenon, the edge of the subject), the end (part of the settlement), a kennel (once a small dwelling), of course, the end, thoroughly, finished, endless, primordial, poskonny, kondovy ..." [Mokeev 2001]. – and concludes that the law ("... which at first obviously meant a set of denying rules: do not kill, do not rob, do not destroy, do not set fire...") replaces the concept of kona in view of the change of the tribal system, living according to the rules of kona: "I have my own customs, and the law is my father, and everyone has their own morals"(PVL, Introduction); "We swear ... according to the law and according to the law of our language" (Dogov. Oleg's book, 912); "What is the law for? The Apostle Paul asked, and answered, "He was given after, because of crimes" (Gal., III:19)" [Mokeev 2001].

So, "con" is a partially lost designation of the phenomenon of the constitution of social reality. The Con was not established by order or force, but was developed in the course of the life of society – it was played out through sacred magical practices, practices of self-government and self-regulation of social existence. He was initially associated with the practical experience of the joint life of society and remained so mobile that his written fixation (book) indicated only some outdated, deadened slice of sociality. At the same time, the younger generation was trained to follow the kon through mentoring practices in various fields of activity, including crafts, crafts, celebrations, friendly and family relations, etc. Con remained the most important attribute of collective identity. And in this sense, it is close to the designation of a common identity – "totem" in the interpretation of A.S. Akhiezer [Akhiezer 1998]. The Con is one of the significant elements of the common cultural identity and, like the totem, remains a sensitive sphere of self–determination and orientation in the social environment. If A.S. Akhiezer opposes the totem with an anti-totem, then the law opposes the con, in the historical and cultural aspect, the theory of binary oppositions is valid in this case [Akhiezer 1998, pp. 60-68].

A.S. Akhiezer reveals the concept of the word "truth" as the fundamental legal concept of Russian culture, referring to A.I. Klibanov: "The ideal of Truth in the people's utopia" is an anticipation of the perfect state of the human race on earth. It necessarily includes the idea and belief that the ultimate-perfect state is the original and enduring heritage of the human race on earth, not a chimera, not an imagination, but a real asset, forcibly alienated, however, and subject to return by legal ownership" [Akhiezer 1998, pp. 76-77]. From what has been said, it is obvious that the unwritten law of the universe occupies a sacred place in the entire system of the constitution of social reality. A.S. Akhiezer writes: "The ability of the ancient Slavs to reproduce local communities is the starting cell, if you will, the logical and concrete historical beginning of the further state history of the country. This initial cell exists not only as a social community, as a certain system of social relations, but also as the content of its specific culture, as the universal basis of reproductive activity, the corresponding constructive tension" [Akhiezer 1998, p. 81]. Hence, the world is like a self–regulating community living by common norms, not agreed upon, but "primordial", corresponding to common cosmogonic concepts [Akhiezer 1998, p. 87]. Akhiezer draws attention to the specifics of veche decisions: the decision of the veche does not allow the possibility of an alternative opinion. The decision of the Veche is the con, the frontier of truth [Akhiezer 1998, p. 88]. Everything that corresponds to the group decision made at the Veche is con, everything else is lawlessness and self–will. The Veche ideal, thus, strengthens the localization of society around the totem (con), corresponds to the oldest forms of tabulation of activity, excluding individual and personal manifestations of autonomy, its self-command, i.e. initially restricts the right to self-will. At the level of a small localized society, the Veche way of life is similar to the idea of a social contract. But a distinctive feature of the veche way of life is the unconventional type of decision–making: not an agreement between the subjects based on compromise, but a single uncompromising opinion of the subjects, supported by practical experience - a conciliar opinion that belongs to the whole Veche, and not to any of its elements. No one can assume the authorship of this opinion, much less demand any social preferences for this reason.

Historical and cultural grounds allow us to emphasize the main distinguishing feature of the con from the law that supplanted it. The law is replacing the stake due to social differentiation and the establishment of a monopoly on the use of force. The presence of mechanisms of force authorization, coercion is the basic basis for the application of the law. But does the presence of power tools exclude the practice of constituting social reality by means of a con?

Our main thesis is the assertion that the power mechanisms available to the state and provided by the corporation's own security service cannot fully regulate the sphere of social creativity. It is not only about marginalized areas outside the legalized norms of the dominant culture. In an attempt to outline the general field of communication theories, R.T. Craig pointed out the dominance of its cybernetic model in the theory and practice of social communication management [Craig 1999]. This trend, in our opinion, in the context of a decrease in the role of the orientation function of consciousness and the dominance of the project function [Momdjian 2021, pp. 42, 45-46], prevents theorists from studying the actual changes caused by the intensive informatization of public relations. The cybernetic mechanism works only in exceptional conditions of the monopoly of the use of force coercion of the periphery by the center of force, i.e. in the conditions of the law. The absence of such grounds, for example in the field of international relations, when several centers of power are involved in the game, provided that its use is ethically taboo, actualizes the con as an instrument for setting a global or regional agenda. Whoever determines the current agenda is on the horse (at stake).

Today, the fact of the game specifics of the totality of international relations becomes quite obvious. Economic, legal and power factors do not always determine the rules of the game. Information and disinformation, propaganda, legitimization and discrediting of the source of information, as determining the stable guidelines of public consciousness and social development of the center, are today decisive instruments of influence. The struggle unfolds just around the con. Whoever determines the limits of what is permissible (i.e. con), he has real political power – he establishes the norms that constitute social reality. But at the same time, the dilemma of unipolar influence, unilateral sanctioning of the rules of the game is becoming more acute [Timofeev 2019], even if reformatted to meet the needs of the center for the common history of the leading countries of the world striving for dominance [Puzanova et al. 2020].

Artificial intelligence technologies create conditions for the concentration of global influence factors in one hand, and it is not a fact that these hands will remain under human control in the near future [Smolin 2020]. But it's not the very fact of automating decision-making that worries. It is alarming to exclude a person from the decision–making procedure, which is directly intertwined with the establishment of the con – the rules of the game and the limits of their relevance - the establishment of the Truth. The displacement of a person from the sphere of the constitution of social reality into the sphere of the execution of a rigidly programmed law causes implicit anxiety. The identity of the law in the absence of truth and justice condemns humanity to a powerless and weak-willed mechanical existence. And this is what turns out to be ethically unacceptable, since it borders on the first step towards the self-destruction of the species.

If historically the development of the mechanisms of self-organization of society is associated with the establishment of a con in the direct experience of joint life activity, is it possible that the complete exclusion of this living mechanism of social creativity from social practices leads to the degradation of sociality?

Let us consider, based on the assertion of the importance of kon in social creativity, i.e. in the practices of social self-organization and self-regulation, the problem of combating corruption.

An interesting observation was made by psychologists of the Higher School of Economics on the basis of sociological measurements: suffering associated with anxiety determines the acceptability of corruption [Mironova, Tatarko 2021]. If we detail the functions of corruption ("simplification of administrative relations, acceleration of managerial decision-making, reduction and weakening of bureaucratic barriers, redistribution of resources in conditions of their shortage; "providing an objective need by illegal means" that is not adequately satisfied by normal social institutions" [Egoryshev, Egorysheva 2021], then corruption turns out to be the most rational way to overcome or preventing suffering in the short term in conditions of dysfunction of social norms. At the same time, the danger in the medium and long term is not the very form of establishing special rules of the game (con) in the context of the dysfunction of the law, but the exclusion of the function of the law from the constitution of social reality during the institutionalization of corruption. I.e., the recipient of the benefits of a corrupt scheme benefits not so much from the need to establish special rules of the game (con), but from the situation of constant change rules of the game (violations of the con in conditions of dysfunction of the law). The situation of establishing a con outside the law gives advantages to the side dictating the terms of the game. The harmful effect is provoked not by the con itself, but by the instability of the con, which makes it impossible to establish and enforce the law.

Until recently, Russian motorists were well aware of the situation of an insurmountable nature in personal relationships with road inspectors, when the enforcement of the law (traffic rules and fines for violating them) turns out to be economically unprofitable and irrational. The condition for the dysfunction of the law in such a situation is the very possibility of avoiding legal sanctions by both parties or the ignorance of one or both parties about the degree of protection of the right to avoid damage in a lawful way. As a rule, the game situation of establishing a con in a "conversation" with a traffic inspector concerns situations with a really absent injured party, i.e. offenses are related solely to the parties' compliance with the discipline prescribed in the traffic regulations. If the minimum wage is cheaper than a legal fine if it is impossible to ensure the inevitability of a legal punishment, then a legal sanction is always only a threat that provides the "guardian of order" with a preferential position in establishing the rules of the game on the road (con). Traffic regulations are actually regularly "rewritten" by drivers and inspectors by mutual consent, provided that there is no injured party. Again, it is not the very fact of the establishment of a con that is an obstacle to the establishment of a legal order, but the absence of a mechanism for enforcing compliance with the latter. Where there is no reason to comply with the law, the con works – its establishment turns out to be more cost-effective and rational.

Of course, in our case we are not talking about the justification of corruption, but about the statement of social practices of establishing a con in the conditions of unprofitability of the law. In our opinion, it is not these practices themselves that pose a threat to society, but the deliberate creation of conditions when the resolution of a conflict situation is possible exclusively outside the law, when there is a deliberate discrediting of the law in order to gain benefits or other advantages from its dysfunction.

Thus, there are sufficient grounds to distinguish the functions of the con and the law in the constitution of social reality. The functions of kon are in demand in conditions of dysfunction of the law, but the variability and impermanence of kon is also detrimental, as is the expansion of the area of lawlessness. The social functions of cohn remain poorly studied due to the concentration of research on the patterns of management of a single center of power by a poorly organized periphery. However, it is enough to assume the existence of patterns of self-organization of the periphery, so that the monopoly of the use of force to enforce the law acquired the characteristic of atavism in a multipolar world, and dialectical-dialogical patterns of establishing a con became the only alternative to a zero-sum game.