Modern life-design practices: vectors of transformations in the focus of globalization trends

  • K. V. Nastoiashcha Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Keywords: life-style practice, self-improvement, downshifting, awareness-raising practice


The article is devoted to the life-style designing practices of modern man. Contrary to conventional, traditional, background practices, the practice of living constructions is constructive, transformative practices. They are conditioned by more individual contexts than cultural ones. However, these practices as well as religious practices tend to transcendental, sacred meaning, and therefore often subjective due to the fact that by building a strategy of his life one way or another, the person thus also responds to existential, semiotic issues. Globalization has brought in their adjustments by changing the general vector of these practices, influenced by its main trends – individualization, virtualization, mobility and universalization of culture. And here it is worth mentioning Enghelhard postmaterialization with its emphasis on the quality of life, the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, tolerance, the orientation of the modern man to self-development, self-realization, life for life, life for themselves, ecologism, etc. Due to the influence of global trends, modifications of practices, variations of life styles, heterogeneity of culturals capitals of actors are increasing. Globalization and processes associated with it endow sociality with new qualities, new vectors. And this has different consequences. For us, the first changes the practice of life design by expanding the spectrum of choice of activities forms, life styles, life strategies, as well as their intensification and deprivation of social filters in the form of gender, age, social status. Due to the fact that the practices of life-building are becoming more individualistic, subjective, creative, poly-stylistic, often separated from social-traditional life styles, socially necessary scenarios, which, on the one hand, creates a problem and causes social tension, with the second - hides the powerful potential for further transformation of the social system. That is why modern life-building practices are mostly focused on self-employment, not in the context of professional self-realization, in order to generate income, but in the sense of taking on a variety of interesting activities, such as master classes, trainings, trips, clubs of interests, but more so has a leisure and developing character than applied or self-improving. The spread of downshifting practices, the reduction of vertical mobility, the so-called «slow life» and the popularization of practices of «awareness» is due not only to the antithesis of redundancy of alternatives to choice, but also to other factors, in particular the deepening of existential issues for both modern humans and for humanitarian thinking in general, that seems to already have a protective trend – the antithesis to technologization of science and relevant methodologies.


1. Waters, M. (1994). Modern sociological theory. London: Sage Publication.
2. Sudakov, V.I. (1995). Sociologicheskoe poznanie: sovremennye tendencii i stimuly razvitija [Sociological knowledge: current trends and development incentives]. Dnepropetrovsk: DGU [in Russian].
3. Tytarenko, T.M., Kochubeinyk, O.M., & Cheremnykh, K.O. (2014). Psykholohichni praktyky konstruiuvannia zhyttia v umovakh postmodernoi sotsialnosti [Psychological practices of constructing life in conditions of postmodern sociality]. Kyiv: Milenium [in Ukrainian].
4. Ginev, D. (2014). Social Practices From the Viewpoint of Trans-Subjective Existentialism. European Journal of Social Theory, 17, 77-94.
5. Inglhart, R. (1997). Postmodern: menjajushhiesja cennosti i izmenjajushhiesja obshhestva [Postmodern: Changing Values and Changing Societies]. Politicheskie issledovanija, 4, 6-32 [in Russian].
6. Mel’nikov, A.S. (2018). Jekzistencial’naja sociologija: problema identifikacii paradigmal’noj specifiki [Existential sociology: the problem of identifying paradigmatic specificity]. Kiev [in Russian].
7. Kampfner, Dzh. (2012). Svoboda na prodazhu [Freedom for sale]. Moscow: Astrel’: Corpus [in Russian].
8. Bodrijjar, Zh. (2006). Obshhestvo potreblenija [Consumer Society]. Moscow: Respublika [in Russian].
9. Skol’ko deneg turisty potratjat v Ukraine v 2026 godu (obnovleno) [How much money tourists will spend in Ukraine in 2026 (updated)]. Retrieved from: [in Russian].
10. Andriievska, Yu.D. (2016). Pryvatnist yak sotsiokulturnyi fenomen [Privatization as a socio-cultural phenomenon]. Candidate`s thesis. Kyiv
11. Soboleva, N.I. (1989). Mirovozzrenie i zhiznennyj vybor lichnosti [The worldview and life choice of a person]. Kiev: Naukova dumka [in Russian].
12. Fromm, Je. (2009). Imet’ ili byt’ [To have or to be]. Moscow: AST Moskva [in Russian].
13. Rosenthal, E. (2005). The Era of Choice: The Ability to Choose and Its Transformation of Contemporary Life. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14. Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York: Ecco.
15. Giddens, Je. (2003). Ustroenie obshhestva: Ocherk teorii strukturacii [The Disposition of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt [in Russian].
16. Wolff, K. (2002). What it Contains. Boston: Lexington Books.
17. Turner, B., & Samson, С. (1995). Medіcal Power and Socіal Knowledge. London: Sage.
18. Wong, Y. (2004). Knowing Through Discomfort: A Mindfulness-based Critical Social Work Pedagogy. Critical Social Work, 5 (1).
19. Pakholok, O.O. (2013). Styl zhyttia, oriientovanyi na zdorovia, yak komunikatyvna praktyka [A lifestyle oriented towards health as a communicative practice]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho un-tu im. V. N. Karazina. Seriia «Sotsiolohichni doslidzhennia suchasnoho suspilstva: teoriia, teoriia, metody», 30, 54-57 [in Ukrainian].
How to Cite
Nastoiashcha, K. V. (2018). Modern life-design practices: vectors of transformations in the focus of globalization trends. Grani, 21(11), 31-39.