Impact of the Social Credit System in China on Political Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2022-10-12-27Keywords:
business climate, business confdence, business activity, control, collectivism, individualism, recipient of informationAbstract
The social credit system, created in the PRC in 2014 and which has been in widespread use since approximately 2016, is being evaluated.The assessment by the population is being considered. An estimate expressed in market indicators is given. Assessment by a learned community trying to comprehend the social credit system in terms of the paradigm of authoritarian government analyzed.The results of the consideration of market indicators show that the introduction of the social credit system did not have an impact on business climate indicators such as BCI or PMI.Meanwhile, for the sake of business climate indicators, the social credit system was introduced, as was stated when it was created: this system was designed to prevent unscrupulous behavior of frms. Thus, the declared goal of introducing a social credit system was not achieved.It seems logical to wonder if there was a different goal from the declared goal of introducing social credit, the goal of strengthening the tendency of authoritarian government.At the same time, point studies of the assessment of the social credit system by the population showed a high level of approval of social credit by citizens.Western liberal thought with its cult of individualism sees the following consequences of the introduction of a social credit system: violation of human rights, non-observance of the principle of social justice, violation of the principle of privacy, violation of the principle of equality of rights, development of totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies.It is assumed that some conclusions based on this approach may be called into question due to a mismatch of values: it is proved that assessment categories based on the values of extreme individualism are poorly applied to Chinese society, whose ideology is based on collectivist values.In this regard, a fundamentally different approach is applied to assessing the social credit system: signs of authoritarianism are postulated as the presence of unequal opportunities for symbolic construction of reality; the social credit system is tested for such capabilities within the theory of mass communication.The social credit system used to control the content of Internet sites will have an extremely negative impact on political communication, making it more asymmetric, on the democratic structure of the political system and human quality.Downloads
References
Адамьянц Т. З. К диалогической телекоммуникации: от воздействия к взаимодействию. М.: Институт социологии РАН, 1999.
Адамьянц Т. З. Латентные технологии информационных войн и "двойных стандартов" // Социоогические исследования. 2016. № 12. С. 123-127.
Арон Р. Введение в философию истории: очерк о границах исторической объективности / Арон Р. Избранное. Введение в философию истории. М.: ПЕР СЭ, СПб.: Университетская книга, 2000.
Байер Ю. П., Васильева В. А., Ветренко И. А. The Social Credit System of the People's Republic of China through the Eyes of Foreign Researchers // Управленческое консультирование. 2020. № 7. С. 20-31.
Бауман З. Философские связи и влечения постмодернистской социологии // Вопросы социологии. Т. 1. № 2. 1992. С. 2-22.
Буткевич С. А. Система социального кредита в Китайской Народной Республике в зеркале криминологии // Вестник Уральского юридического института МВД России. 2019. № 1. С. 111-116.
Бялькина Д. В. Китайская система социального кредита // Человек: преступление и наказание. Сборник материалов Международной научно-теоретической конференции адъюнктов, аспирантов, соискателей, курсантов и студентов. В 3-х ч. Рязань: Академия права и управления Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний, 2020. С. 45-50.
Вебер М. Наука как призвание и профессия / Вебер М. Избранные произведения. М.: Прогресс, 1990. С. 707-736.
Генкин А. С. Китайский опыт внедрения системы социального кредита: скоринг как универсальная монетизация доверия // Страховое дело. 2019. № 10 (319). С. 3-20.
Дюркгейм Э. Метод социологии / Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. Метод социологии. М.: Наука, 1995. С. 391-532.
Кривопусков В. В. Методологические основания социологического исследования доверия как фактора консолидации российского общества // Гуманитарные, социально-экономические и общественные науки. Сер.: Социологические науки, 2013. № 1, c. 79-83.
Крушинский А., Ломанов А., Переломов Л. "Китайская мечта" и категории традиционной китайской мысли // Проблемы Дальнего Востока. 2015. № 5. С. 135-148.
Лукьянов А. Е. Философские проблемы "китайской мечты" // Вестник РУДН. Сер. "Философия". 2015. № 4. С. 50-59.
Разумов Е. А. Цифровое диктаторство: особенности системы социального кредита в Китайской Народной Республике // Труды института истории, археологии и этнографии ДВО РАН. 2019. Т. 24. С. 86-97.
Рувинский Р. З., Комарова Т. Д. Система социального кредита в Китайской Народной Республике: нормативно-правовое основание и принципы функционирования // NB: Административное право и практика администрирования. 2019. № 4. С. 18-53.
Трахтенберг А. Д. Китайская система социального кредита: взгляд снаружи и изнутри // Дискурс-Пи. 2019. № 4 (37). С. 108-118.
Черницына Е. Н. Политическое доверие: как его измерить? // Государственное управление. Электронный вестник. № 54. Февраль 2016. С. 130-145.
Adorno Th., Frenkel E., Brunswick S., Levinson D., Sanford R. The Authoritarian Personality. NY, 1950.
Ashley R. K. Living on Borderlines: Man, Poststructuralism and War / eds. DerDerian J., Shapiro M. J. International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings in World Politics. Lexington, 1989. P. 259-321.
Bauman Z. Is there a postmodern sociology? // The Postmodern Turn (New Perspectives on Social Theory) / ed. S. Seidman. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Bauman Z. Postmodernity, or Living with Ambivalence // Contemporary Social Theory / ed. A. Elliot. Blacwell Publishers, 1999.
Blumer H. Symbolic Interactionism. Berkley: University of California Press, 1969.
Brown C. Critical Theory and Postmodernism / eds. A. J. R. Groom, M. Light. Contemporary International Relations. A Guide to Theory. L., 1994. P. 56-69.
Garfnkel H. Studies in Ethnomethodology. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Glaeser E. L., Laibson D., Scheinkman J. A., Soutter C. L. Measuring trust // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2000. N 115 (3). P. 811-846.
Eagleton T. After Theory. NY: Basic Books, 2003.
Engelmann S., Chen M., Fisher F., Kao P. at al. Clear. Sanctions, Vague Rewards: How China's Social Credit System Currently Defnes "Good" and "Bad" Behavior. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '19). Association for Computing Machinery. NY, 2019. P. 69-78.
Harvey D. Postmodernism // Contemporary Social Theory / ed. A. Elliot. Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
Jiang M., Fu K.-W. Chinese Social Media and Big Data: Big Data, Big Brother, Big Proft? // Policy and Internet. 2018. N 4 (10). P. 372-392.
Kasl F. Surveillance in digitalized society: The Chinese social credit system from a European perspective // Lawyer Quarterly. 2019. N 4 (9). P. 349-358.
Kostka G. China's social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval // New Media and Society. 2019. N 21 (7). P. 1565-1593.
Laband J. How Can Individuals, Companies Be Limited by Bad Social Credit in China? // China Business Review, Feb. 2017. URL: https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/how-can-individuals-companies-be-limited-by-bad-social-credit-in-china/(accessed: 28.01.2020).
Laski H. J. Towards a Universal Declaration of Human Rights // Human rights teaching. IY.1985. P. 7-11.
Lasswell H. D. Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927; Reprinted with a new introduction, 1971). NY, 1971.
Lasswell H. The Structure and the Function of Communication in Society // The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Chicago, 1971.
Lasswell H. D., Smith B. L., Casey R. D. Propaganda, Communication and Public Order. Princeton, 1946.
Lee J. W. Your life is number // Psychology today. 2019. N 7-8. C. 72-81.
Lyotard J. F. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Mouzelis N. The Poverty of Sociological Theory // Sociology. Vol. 27. N 4. November 1993.
Newcomb T. An Approach to the Study of Communications Acts // Psychological Review, 1953, N 60.
Osgood Ch. E. Focus on Meaning: Explorations in Semantic Space. Mouton Publishers, 1979.
Osgood Ch. E. Psycholinguistics: a survey of theory and research problems // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1954. N 49.
Osgood Ch. E. Psycholinguistics, Cross-Cultural Universals, and Prospects for Mankind. Praeger Publishers, 1988.
Osgood Ch. E., May W. S., Miron M. S. Cross Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1975.
Osgood Ch. E., Suci G., Tannenbaum P. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1957.
Osgood Ch. E., Tzeng O. (eds.). Language, Meaning, and Culture: The Selected Papers of C. E. Osgood. Praeger Publishers, 1990.
Parsons T. Economy and Society. NY, 1956.
Parsons T. The Structure of Social Action. NY, 1968.
Robinson W. S. The logical Structure of Analytic Induction // American Sociological Review.1951. N 6. Vol. 16. P. 812-818.
Rosaldo R. Subjectivity in social analysis // The Postmodern Turn (New Perspectives on Social Theory) / ed. S. Seidman. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Schannon C., Weaver W. The athematical Theory of Communivation. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
Schramm W. How Communication Works / ed. Shramm W. The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954.
Walker R. B. J. Culture, Discours and Insecurity //Alternatives, 1986. Vol. 11. N 4. P. 485-504.
Weber M. The Methodology of the Social Sciences / eds. E. Shits, H. Finch. NY: Free Press, 1949.
