2408-932XResearch Result. Social Studies and Humanities2408-932X10.18413 /2408-932X-2015-1-1-8-16138RESEARCHESTHE BACKBONE OF DEMOCRACY. THE METAINSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF MODERN SOCIETYTHE BACKBONE OF DEMOCRACY. THE METAINSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF MODERN SOCIETYBiryukovNikolai I.BiryukovNikolai I.nibiryukov@yandex.ruSergeevViktor M.SergeevViktor M.sasergeev1@rambler.ru20151100

The article deals with the “minimal configuration” of social institutions that ensure sustainable development not by adapting to the environment (the adaptive behaviour characteristic of traditional societies), but through uninterrupted generation and implementation of innovations that transform environment to meet the changing needs of humankind. This type of active adaptive behaviour characteristic of modern society could not be maintained in the absence of three basic “metainstitutions” of modernity, viz. 1) science, 2) the banking and exchange system, 3) institutions of representative democracy (parliaments), plus three “support institutions”: 4) free press (mass media), 5) rational bureaucracy, 6) independent judiciary.

The article deals with the “minimal configuration” of social institutions that ensure sustainable development not by adapting to the environment (the adaptive behaviour characteristic of traditional societies), but through uninterrupted generation and implementation of innovations that transform environment to meet the changing needs of humankind. This type of active adaptive behaviour characteristic of modern society could not be maintained in the absence of three basic “metainstitutions” of modernity, viz. 1) science, 2) the banking and exchange system, 3) institutions of representative democracy (parliaments), plus three “support institutions”: 4) free press (mass media), 5) rational bureaucracy, 6) independent judiciary.

innovationsmetainstitutionsmodern societyscienceinnovationsmetainstitutionsmodern societyscienceСписок литературыBarbour, Violet. Capitalism in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1963. 171 p.Constas, Helen. Max Weber's Two Conceptions of Bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 63, No. 4. 1958. Pp. 400-409. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2774140 (date of access: February 10, 2015).De Waal, Frans. The Bonobo and the Atheist. In Search of Humanism Among the Primates. W.W. Norton & Company. N.Y., London. 2013. 304 p.Douglas, Heather E. The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 40. No. 1 (Jan., 2003). Pp. 59-68.Epstein, Mikhail. The Phoenix of Philosophy. On the Meaning and Significance of Contemporary Russian Thought. Symposion. A Journal of Russian Thought, Los Angeles: Charles Schlacks, Jr., Publisher (University of Southern California). Vol. 1. 1996. Pp. 35-74. URL: http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/ar_phoenix_philosophy.html (date of access: February 10, 2015).Franke, Anselm. Death and Life of Fiction or the Modern Taowu. URL: http://www.taipeibiennial.org/2012/en/death_and_life_anselm_franke.pdf (date of access: February 10, 2015).O’Brien, Patrick, et al, editors. Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 361 p.Popper, Karl. The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge: Troels Eggers Hansen. 2008. 510 p.The Environment and Sustainable Development in the New Central Europe (Austrian and Habsburg Studies). Ed. by Gary B. Cohen & Zbignew Bochniarz. Gardners Books. 2006. 260 p.Tol, Richard S.J. Sustainable Development in Europe – Concepts, Evaluation and Applications – Edited by Uwe Schubert and Eckhard Stoermer. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law. Volume 17. Issue 1. April 2008. Pp. 136–137.