Informal practices in intellectual networks

Ravochkin Nikita Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0003-1247-8231 Doctor of Philosophy Professor; Department of History, Philosophy and Social Sciences; Kuzbass State Technical University named after T.F. Gorbachev. Professor, Department of Pedagogical Technologies, Kuzbass State Agricultural University named after V.N. Poletskov 650000, Russia, Kemerovo region, Kemerovo, Vesennaya str., 28 nickravochkin@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Popov Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Doctor of Philosophy Professor, Department of Sociology and Conflictology, Altai State University 656049, Russia, Altai Krai, Barnaul, Lenin str., 61 popov.eug@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The starting point for many socio-philosophical concepts is the thesis of the normative conditionality of the processes taking place in society. More precisely, it should be noted that the presence of formalized ways of relationships determines the stability of the social system – this is the main message of the vast majority of positions whose representatives consider the statics and dynamics of societies. The basic position assumes the existence of a certain hierarchy of norms that determine the entire set of intersubjective interactions and thereby determine the rules of personal and collective practices.

Within the framework of this logic, we emphasize that violation of established requirements will sooner or later lead to sanctions from the public system. Being soft or harsh, such measures include punishments for violations of the established order and their main goal is to bring the social structure to a very specific stability, that is, fixed norms and requirements. It is precisely this state of affairs that is considered acceptable, since it allows maintaining the stability of the social system as its ontological characteristic, providing many options for scenarios of positive historical development controlled by the dominant system of connections and relationships. Of course, the practical consequences of such ideas center around the center–periphery pair, which is used to organize a system of interactions and enhance capabilities in order to increase the manageability of the periphery. The use of pre-formed and proven norms of social interaction determines the whole variety of practices, therefore, according to the power actors, the possibility of achieving the necessary results that are required by this society increases.

Approaches to the normative foundations of society

The researchers proceed from the fact that the existing development and changes of society are associated with deformations of the normative foundations and its structure. Among these, the concepts of P. Shtompka and R. Merton attract attention ^[17;18]. For the first thinker, the emergence and consolidation of social norms associated with normative innovations and diffusion, in which qualitatively different principles penetrate into social structures through descriptive rules, was considered conceptually correct ^[18]. He expresses the idea that "active people are guided by values when setting their goals, and norms and rules when choosing the means for action" ^{[3, p. 122]}. As a result, culture favors and promotes various types of activities, but in a number of ways restricts some forms of activity of social actors. At the present stage of understanding normativity, it can be said that in absolutely any socio-cultural space there is a set of ascriptive and descriptive norms, and the first of them, presented in the form of requirements and prohibitions, ensure the stability of society, while description opens up opportunities for development. Thus, society turns out to be not an easy platform for realizing the interests of individual people based on the choice of combinations of profitable and effective methods.

In turn, R. Merton recognized a different scheme of development of society through the habitualization of deviations from strict rules. Certain forms of deviations and offsets from what is permissible and desirable do not cause sanctions, which allows us to consider such shifts congruent with the regulatory system, or marked as permitted. On this basis, new norms are being created that differ from the previous ones in their regulatory potential, content and functionality ^[17]. Turning to the example of the ethos of science, R. Merton shows that a departure from the classical forms, techniques and normative foundations of research search makes it possible to improve the quality and effectiveness of the results obtained ^[9].

Formal and informal practices

It should be noted that the existing forms of regulation of public relations suggest the idea of the existence of formalized practices for the implementation of pluralism of interaction options, as well as appropriate ways to resolve conflict situations. It is believed that formalized practices in a certain sense act as a panacea for overcoming possible difficulties on the way to the evolutionary trajectories of the development of social systems. However, modern scientists increasingly agree in their opinions that most of the relationships that arise between social actors are realized through informal practices. The latter include such varieties of them, carried out "on the basis of implicit rules and restrictions beyond the norms established in society. Informal practices develop in primary groups and reflect emotional relationships of affection, kinship, sympathy, respect, love, friendship, neighborhood" ^{[10, p. 128]}. The norms understood in this way are interpreted as regulators of interactions that exist as unformulated regulations or in the form of formally non-fixed rules and principles.

In addition, informal practices can be replicated in a social environment on the basis that there are mutually shared expectations of a particular behavior in the specific conditions of a human community. Being historically established forms of collective human activity, these practices become informal institutions. At the same time, social scientists express the idea of a significant part of the close relations between the participants of such interactions. In political, economic and other forms of interaction, the number of agreed interests increases, which indicates the effectiveness of such unspoken rules.

It should be noted that there are various types of informal practices. Among these, for example, those that are formed due to the development of technical means and the high prevalence of portable digital devices can be distinguished. N.A. Seliverstova writes that the development of social reality and the formation of the virtual side of collective existence enhances the effects of augmented reality, when habitual behaviors and routine actions receive increased effectiveness of using various devices in in various spheres of public life ^[13]. In addition, the achievements that have appeared in the realities of digitalization make it possible to meet the various needs of individuals by simplifying their activities in current conditions and increasing the speed of social interactions.

In addition to the above, it should be noted the fundamental importance of P. Bourdieu's idea of habitus, since it makes it possible to standardize existing behavioral models in the structure of social interactions. Indeed, this, on the one hand, simplifies the contact between subjects, and on the other hand, increases the effectiveness of such interactions. At the same time, it should be assumed that habitus, including those caused by digitalization processes, is legitimately considered as the basis for the use of informal practices in network forms of interaction. It is reasonable to say that the informal nature of social practices contains a powerful resource for restructuring public relations and relationships based on personal communications. This becomes possible due to the flexibility of roles and statuses, as well as the appeal to the elasticity of most norms accepted in modern society ^[6]. The latter property should be understood mainly from the perspective of linguistic reality and the possibilities of its broad interpretation as a communication tool. This happens precisely because of the ambiguous use of terms included in the normative description of social ties and relationships, as well as on the basis of the priority of interpersonal foundations in the organization of the processes of collective existence. In particular, this may relate to labor issues. Here we can talk about the most informal organization of this type of process, as well as about the appropriate payment options.

Networks of intellectuals and their informal practices in the spheres of public life. Science and education.

The analysis of the content of informal practices in various fields allows us to assert that in functioning networks of intellectuals, diverse variations of interactions are realized, which in their content do not correspond to established norms, often going beyond them. Thus, in the education system, as one of the most striking versions of the practical embodiment of the intellectual environment, we can talk about a set of informal practices that naturally lead to both positive and negative consequences. Among the latter are tutoring services, overestimation of grades or certification of students without the necessary verification, as well as a number of other actions that violate the requirements for the educational process in their content. According to researchers in the field of education, such practices have a destructive effect on the system of training competent specialists ^[16].

It is characteristic that there is a group of informal practices that are neutral in their content, one way or another related to the education system. As O.A. Simonenko points out, some of them are rooted in the universities of medieval Europe and are associated with the implementation of a certain ceremonial, which allows to circumvent established fixed norms in order to confirm a certain attitude towards employees, employees and other members of the community ^[14]. At the same time, it should be said that in the education and science system, the acquisition of new knowledge may be subject to informal practices. Moreover, such a process has a rather positive significance for understanding the entire array of information received about the world around us. It is valuable not only and not so much the amount of data, but the possibility of using non-institutionalized mechanisms for acquiring knowledge in modern society. S.V. Tikhonova turns to M. Polani's concept to substantiate the position that various social networks form conditions in which users themselves create a context that can be considered an empirical source of informal knowledge. It is believed that formal, or better to say, formalized, is the knowledge that obeys the requirements of official science and the system of obtaining information. However, it is fair to recognize the existence of such an array of data that (as yet or never at all) does not comply with the requirements of existing scientific search structures. It is indicated that "the term "informal knowledge" allows us to show the personal aspect of knowledge, its implementation before being formalized into institutional canons dictated by social institutions of spiritual production – science, religion, art" ^{[15, p. 118]}. It turns out that people who are not included in the system of such official institutions produce knowledge that in a number of modern countries is recognized as unscientific or may even be labeled as ordinary. However, we note that the production of such knowledge is characterized by the use of a fairly wide range of influence in areas, as well as the diversity of the emotionally motivating side of the process of obtaining them.

In this regard, we point out that it is more logical for networks of intellectuals represented by professional scientists to recognize the totality of ideas and data obtained through informal means. In addition to this, one cannot disagree with M. Polanyi's argument about the existentially colored property of the cognitive activity process: "Every act of cognition includes the silent and passionate contribution of a person who learns everything that becomes known, and this contribution is not just some imperfection, but is a necessary component of all knowledge in general" ^{[12, p. 318]}. Thus, it turns out to be fundamental not only the knowledge that is produced within the walls of institutionalized science, but also that which is created on the basis of extra-scientific and pre-scientific forms of comprehension of the surrounding reality. It can also be said that informal practices in intellectual networks are determined by the abilities of their participants not only in terms of obtaining data related to their direct specialization about the world, but also for the development of science as a whole. The existential-personal experience of perceived information can provoke the formation of more and more new knowledge, which is advisable to assume as one of the bases for the existence and functioning of the networks we are considering.

Another aspect of informal practices is also important when it comes to obtaining implicit knowledge. We emphasize that the institutionalization of science does not allow the production of absolutely all forms of new information and knowledge. In this regard, informal interaction of intellectuals becomes valuable, who can receive information, create knowledge and form new ideas based on joint experiments, research and everything that is somehow related to the subject of their professional creativity. The assimilation of the information created and the production of new ideas becomes possible under the condition of established personal contacts and communication with colleagues. Thus, an intellectual network is being formed, the elements of which allow generating fundamentally new mental constructs due to the collaboration of human capital and increasing the potential of each individual entity belonging to this association. An emergent effect is used, in which the efficiency of the entire system of the intellectual environment turns out to be much higher than the aggregate efficiency of its members individually. It is advisable to talk about the need to turn to such informal practices as interpersonal communication between colleagues, which can de facto be considered an effective basis for the emergence of an intellectual environment.

At the same time, the presented logic requires the use of new efficiency criteria in the creation of knowledge and its subsequent applicability in real life. This can include common sense in various forms used "to describe: 1) attitudes, values, traditions, intuitions of experts /researchers that are not directly fixed in the texts-the results and standards of expertise; 2) distributed collective knowledge possessed by the organization as a collective subject" ^{[15, p. 119]}. The presented method of producing knowledge and information allows networks of intellectuals to gain access to decision-making in various areas of activity in the realities of modern public life.

The activities of networks of intellectuals in politics

It is reasonable to say that the formation and use of a number of social ideas becomes the basis for the formation of various versions of the "society of knowledge" and the possibilities of networks of intellectuals to exert expert influence on political, economic and other processes. Thus, within the framework of the political sphere, a similar picture can be observed: the presence of dominant normative foundations allows for the habitualization of practices into specific forms of interaction at all levels of social existence. However, it is well known that formal rules are not able to regulate absolutely all interactions between participants in social contact. As a result, it is recognized that "as a result, the unprecedented discrepancy between formal norms and informal practices turns out not to be a manifestation of antagonism between the legitimate management system and non-normative deviations from it, but an integral feature of a single, stably functioning body of power, the very essence of which is the routine violation of the formal" ^{[4, p. 28]}. The practical usefulness of informal practices in such cases is seen precisely through the formation of such unusual behaviors that facilitate communication and interaction in social systems under any political order.

One of the special cases of informal practices in the political process is cronyism and nepotism. As you know, these concepts form the so-called "mutual responsibility". By its existence and content, the latter successfully manages to push into the background the layer of problems that are directly related to statehood and the solution of primary tasks. In addition, researchers studying practices in political networks of intellectuals express the point of view that "the informal element of political and bureaucratic institutions is, on the one hand, a link between unforeseen conditions of its functioning and formal principles - principles of organizational activity, on the other – a reaction to formal rules and procedures and for special circumstances that are not provided for by the general rules, but require an individual approach" ^{[7, p. 35]}. Today, an important place is occupied by the idea of the unpredictability and riskiness of the functioning of various institutions, which is determined by the discourse of modern society on a global scale. Social praxis is rich in cases when the adaptation of the entire state system will be effective, but with the obligatory condition of using informal mechanisms of interaction.

In our opinion, turning to such approaches and guiding informal practices makes it possible to fully exploit the potential of networks of intellectuals in the field of politics, since an integrated system assumes readiness for a wide range of possible challenges, both from outside and from within. The value of the considered informal practices lies in the definition and implementation of various social ideas in the political sphere, which would simultaneously have heuristic and practical potential in the reorganization of the conditions of collective existence. It should be noted that the high importance of the practices analyzed by us in the field of politics consists in the individualization of procedures that allow individuals and entire groups to go through various forms of socialization ^[8]. As a result, a certain institutional architectonics is being created, which opens up opportunities not only for identifying personal versions of informal interactions, but also for unifying behavioral models at the level of collective interaction.

It is self–evident that as social life has become more complicated, many interpretations and typologies of informal practices have appeared by now - however, all of them imply a certain attitude to officially established norms and the mandatory introduction of various additions by combinations of relevant elements. So, we can talk about a group of practices in which the position is expressed about the a priori impossibility of full formalization of human behavior and socio-political processes. In this case, the particular components are combined with formal structural elements and thereby increase the overall effectiveness of interactions. Another group of practices allows regulating the informal needs of social actors. The third kind of this activity makes it possible to ignore the officially fixed patterns of behavior of certain participants involved in political processes ^{[1, pp. 46-49]}. So, regardless of the nature of informal practices, it is impossible not to say about their determinative possibilities for increasing the effectiveness of political processes, which carries a pronounced pragmatic potential. As a result, the use of informal practices by networks of intellectuals allows social systems to increase the chances of realizing their evolutionary development opportunities and more accurately determine the vectors of future transformations.

Informal practices in the field of economics

We also see network interactions as useful for those cases when the negative sides of formal and informal elements overlap and function to select the most acceptable models of social interaction. The use of informal practices in intellectual environments can also be observed in the economic environment of modern society. Studying the state of affairs on some Eastern economic platforms, T.N. Zhuravskaya expresses the idea that the basic relations regarding property are realized on the basis of the ambivalent nature of practices. One side of the issue is the use of the resources of the current legal framework, in accordance with the rules of which business is conducted. The other one focuses on certain schemes of "circumvention" of formal rules in order to find ways to optimize the cost of resources for entrepreneurial activity ^[5]. Within the framework of this dilemma, the practice of the existence of "owners without property" is manifested, the essence of which can be seen in how real economic agents who own goods, services and other benefits formalize their right to openly fake participants in the processes of production, distribution and exchange of goods. And although the external requirements for economic activity are observed at the proper level, the practical implementation of such interactions proceeds with a pronounced predominance of informal components.

Conceptually, intelligent networks form a very specific base, which is subsequently implemented into necessary and effective options for the development of economic relations. Regulatory requirements require the owner to remain, but at the same time a fairly high level of formal imperatives and prohibitions remains ^[2]. To offset some of them, there is a need to turn to informal practices, which will contribute to a more efficient distribution of significant benefits and services. In Russian realities, one can also observe a number of forms and ways of implementing informal practices in conducting economic activities. Methods such as home crafts, garage economy, waste management or "scattered manufacture" can be distinguished here. The idea is expressed that networks of intellectuals are not a multitude of highly educated subjects who use knowledge to produce and reproduce necessary goods and services. Rather, we are talking about the diversity of certain communities of people whose purpose is to meet their own needs or the requirements of small groups, and in some cases even to ensure survival. This logic uses a number of principles that are meaningfully related to non-market mechanisms of economic institutions. It is believed that informal practices in the system of purchase and sale relations open up opportunities to fully use the economic emphasis of interactions associated with the collectivist structure and practices of local entities: "Such production is for the most part outside capitalist forms of management, is not focused on the use of modern or innovative technical means (which, however, is controversial), however cooperation and the artel or communal way of organizing labor are widely represented here" ^{[11, p. 60]}. There is no doubt that the described type of economic activity largely contains excessively archaic elements of functioning institutions, which are masked by modern legal norms and completely clothed in actual organizational forms.

Conclusion

Summing up the results of the study, we can say that informal practices in the networks of intellectuals are determined by the dialectic of the external rigid, institutionally established and regulated, and informal, that is based on tacit forms and methods of implementation. Having a pronounced praxiological goal to achieve the productivity of social systems, the practices considered in this study make it possible to neutralize the negative impact of existing formalized requirements and various phenomena on social existence. It is important that, regardless of the subject field, informal practices involve the use of modifications of various ideas to change the existing conditions and established interactions. In addition to this, we note that the ontological nature of informal practices is expressed through the possibilities of implementing positive and negative trends and actions in the conditions of social existence, thereby determining the constructive or destructive position of individual or collective subjects. First of all, we are talking about the fact that in any community it is assumed that interests must be coordinated for productive cooperation, but such actions include demands for compromises and related partial concessions. It is the latter that can be interpreted as a somewhat negative side of the interactions. At the same time, all participants in interactions in various spheres of life implement their own mental constructs into the social process in order to increase the effectiveness of cooperation. In this way, networks of intellectuals manage to implement the necessary practices through the addition of informal structural elements of officially fixed regulatory bases.