Safety of vital activity: a comparative analysis of traditional and new paradigms in the contemporary sociology

  • L. V. Kalashnikova Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University
Keywords: safety of the vital activity, safety concept, the referent of security, ontological security, national security.


In modern society there is a necessity to revise the traditional mechanisms, ensuring its safe functioning and development and which are based on the priorities of the national security. The main reasons of this are the large-scale emergence of new hazards, in particular, the deepening of the economic globalization, the deformation of the international law, the failure of the authorities of individual States to provide an adequate level of citizens’ protection, civil society strengthening, increase of the role of public organizations in international politics, etc. A review of traditional sociological health and safety paradigms of the second half of the XX – beginning of the XXI century has been presented in the article (the theory of self-referental systems by N. Luhmann, the concept of risk society by U. Beck, the theory of the ontological security by A. Giddens, the theory of social changes by P. Sztompka, the concept of the information society by A. Toffler, the anthropological theory of security by M. Douglas, the theory of social space by M. Castells, the theory of communicative action by J. Habermas). The essence of critical theory (post-positivism by K. Popper, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend, G. Arrah, the theory of securitization by B. Buzan, O. Waver, J. Wilde, the theory of emancipation by K. Booth, post-structuralism by R. B. J. Walker, the theory of insecurities by D. Bigo) have also been examined in the contradiction to realist theories, in which the state is the dominant subject of the security. A range of issues, relevant to the development theories and practices of the sociology of safety as a branch of the sociological theory have been studied, in particular, dichroism of the social space, the lack of temporal integrity, a variety of risks and crises of modern social development, the erosion of national boundaries, the formation of a new social space, the proliferation of different kinds of destructive deviance as forms of protective group and individual behavior, non-linearity and the radicalization of social and cultural change, growing social tension in key systems of social relations.Possible future development of the sociology of vital activity’s safety at the present stage of institutionalization has been outlined by the expansion of definitions of the subject area (explanation of the connections on micro-, macro- and meso-level of the security’s existence) in the context of the sector studies (in particular, by examination of social practices of perception of risks, threats, dangers, social actors (social groups, communities, social movements, regional society, ethnic group, nation, etc.), as well as the evaluation of the potential for their activities to forecast the negative consequences of hazards).


1. Bigo, D., Williams, P. (Eds), 2008. International Political Sociology in Security Studies: An Introduction. Routledge: Abingdon, 116-128 (in English).
2. Boucher, D., 1998. Political theories of international relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 480 (in English).
3. Booth, К., 2007. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 473 (in English).
4. Buzan, B., & Waver, O., & Wilde, J., 1998. Security: a new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Pub, 162 (in English).
5. Douglas, M., 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge, 323 (in English).
6. Toffler, A., 1975. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 562 (in English).
7. Walker, R. B. J., 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 323 (in English).
8. Bek, U., 2000. Obshhestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [The risk society. On the way to another modernity]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija, 384 (in Russian).
9. Bodrijjar, Zh., 2006. Obshhestvo potreblenija. Ego mify i struktury (Samarskoj, E.A., Trans) [The society of consumption. Its myths and structures]. Moscow: Respublika; Kul’turnaja revoljucija, 268 (in Russian).
10. Bodrijjar, Zh., 2000. Simvolicheskij obmen i smert’ (Zenkin, S.N., Trans) [Symbolic exchange and death]. Moscow: Dobrosvet, 397 (in Russian).
11. Giddens, Je., 1994. Sud’ba, risk i bezopasnost’ [Fate, risk and security]. Thesis 5, 40-102 (in Russian).
12. Kastel’s, M., 2000. Informacionnaja jepoha: jekonomika, obshhestvo i kul’tura (Shkaratana, O.I., Trans) [The information age: economy, society and culture]. Moscow: Gos. un-t Vyssh. shk. jekonomiki. 607 (in Russian).
13. Luman, N., 2005. Jevoljucija (Antonovskij, A., Trans) [Evolution]. Moscow:Izdatel’stvo «Logos», 66-78 (in Russian).
14. Habermas, Ju., Denezhkina, A.V. (Eds), 2005. Krizis gosudarstva blagosostojanija i ischerpannost’ utopicheskoj jenergii [The crisis of the welfare state and the exhaustion of utopian energies]. Moscow: GARDARIKI, 112-116 (in Russian).
15. Shtompka, P., 2001. Kul’turnaja travma v postkommunisticheskom obshhestve [Cultural trauma in post-Communist society]. Sociologicheskie issledovanija, No 2, 3-12 (in Russian).
16. Shtompka, P., 2008. Sociologija. Analiz sovremennogo obshhestva (Chervonnoj, S.M., Trans) [Sociology. Analysis of modern society]. Moscow: Logos, 664 (in Russian).
How to Cite
Kalashnikova, L. (2017). Safety of vital activity: a comparative analysis of traditional and new paradigms in the contemporary sociology. Grani, 20(3), 11-16.