UDC: 141.72
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-2-116


viewing

PANTONOMY: TOWARDS A NEW ONTOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF RADICAL INTERDEPENDENCE

A. V. Markov
Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: markovius@gmail.com

O. A. Shtayn
Ural Federal University named after the First of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: shtaynshtayn@gmail.com

Abstract. The social and political sciences of the Modern era and modernity were built on the foundation of the binary opposition «autonomy – heteronomy», which is currently undergoing a deep crisis. Theoretical challenges posed by poststructuralism, speculative realism, and actor-network theory have revealed the inadequacy of this model for describing a reality characterized by distributed agency, non-linear causality, and the radical interdependence of the human and non-human.

The aim of the article is to rehabilitate and radically reinterpret the concept of «pantonomy», introduced by José Ortega y Gasset, as a key concept for a new ontology of the social. The task of the research is to demonstrate the heuristic potential of pantonomy for analyzing contemporary challenges such as the climate crisis, digitalization, and biopolitics. The main method of the research was philosophical reconstruction and theoretical synthesis, which allowed for the integration of Ortega y Gasset’s ideas with the achievements of contemporary post-anthropocentric philosophy.

The main results lie in the development of a three-dimensional model of pantonomy as a process of co-creation of the rules of being (nomos): 1) in the ontological dimension, pantonomy describes the mutual constitution of the agent and its circumstances; 2) in the political dimension, it understands constituent power as a permanent and distributed process; 3) in the ethical dimension, it asserts responsibility as responsiveness stemming from co-participation in networks of interdependence.

The novelty of the research consists in the dialectical sublation of the concept of autopoiesis (Maturana, Varela, Luhmann) within pantonomy, which makes it possible to overcome its «blind spot» – the problem of the solipsism of the system – and to describe the social as the self-reproduction of connection, not unity. The practical significance of the work is related to the development of a new conceptual apparatus for the social and political sciences, as well as to the design of institutions capable of working with complexity rather than simplifying it.

Directions for further research based on this work imply the development of a pantonomic methodology for the social sciences, focusing on tracing the processes of co-creation in specific assemblages; the study of non-Western genealogies of pantonomy in philosophical traditions initially oriented towards holism and interconnectedness; as well as the design of pantonomic institutions capable of working with complexity rather than simplifying it.

Key words: pantonomy, autonomy, heteronomy, Ortega y Gasset, autopoiesis, actor-network theory, speculative realism, hyperobjects, constituent power, responsibility.

Cite as: Markov A. V., Shtayn, O. A. (2026) [Pantonomy: towards a new ontology of the social in the context of radical interdependence]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 2, pp. 116–126. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-2-116.


References

  1. Braidotti, R. (2021) Postchelovek [Posthuman]. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 408 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  2. Grishchenyuk, I. G. (2015) [Contraverses of the Psychosphere: Pantonomy versus Dehumanization]. Vestnik Ivanovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye nauki [Bulletin of Ivanovo State University. Series: Humanities]. Vol. 3 (8), pp. 66–71. (In Russ.).
  3. Deleuze, J., Guattari, F. (2010) Tysyacha plato: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya [A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia]. Yekaterinburg: U-Factoria; M. : Astrel, 895 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  4. Derrida, J. (2000) O grammatologii [On Grammatology]. M. : Ad Marginem, 511 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  5. Callon, M. (2015) [Some Elements of the Sociology of Translation: The Domestication of Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint-Brieuc Bay]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power]. Vol. 27. No. 1, pp. 196–231. (In Russ.).
  6. Kant, I. (1994) [Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment] [1784]. Otvet na vopros: Chto takoye Prosveshcheniye? [1784] [I. Kant Collected Works: in 8 volumes]. M.: Choro. Vol. 8, pp. 29–37. (In Russ.).
  7. Latour, B. (2014) Peresborka sotsial’nogo: vvedeniye v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishing House, 384 p.
  8. Levinas, E. (2019) [Totality and the Infinite]. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Gaidar Institute Publishing House; Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, St. Petersburg State University, 464 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  9. Lo, J. (2015) Posle metoda: besporyadok i sotsial’naya nauka [After Method: Disorder and Social Science]. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 344 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  10. Meillassoux, K. (2015) Posle konechnosti: Esse o neobkhodimosti kontingentnosti [After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency]. Yekaterinburg; Moscow: Cabinet Scholar, 188 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  11. Morton, T. (2019) Giperob”yekty: Filosofiya i ekologiya posle kontsa mira [Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World]. Perm: Hyle Press, 284 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  12. Noé, A. (2024) Vso perepleteno. Kak iskusstvo i filosofiya delayut nas takimi, kakiye my yest [Everything Intertwined. How Art and Philosophy Make Us Who We Are]. Moscow: AST, 320 p.
  13. Ortega, y Gasset H. (1994) [«I Am I and My Circumstances» (Introduction to «Meditations on Don Quixote») [1914] ]. KH. Ortega-i-Gasset Etyudy ob Ispanii [H. Ortega y Gasset Studies on Spain]. K. : Symbol, pp. 64–75. (In Russ.).
  14. Ortega, y Gasset H. (1991) [What is Philosophy? Lecture V [1929]]. KH. Ortega-i-Gasset Chto takoye filosofiya? [H. Ortega y Gasset What is Philosophy?]. M. : Science, pp. 95–108. (In Russ.).
  15. Rawls, J. (1995) Teoriya spravedlivosti [Theory of Justice]. Novosibirsk: Publishing house of Novosibirsk University, 535 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  16. Rousseau, J.-J. (1998) [On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right]. Zh.-Zh. Russo Ob obshchestvennom dogovore. Traktaty [J.-J. Rousseau On the Social Contract. Treatises]. M. : KANON-press, pp. 195– 322. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  17. Filippov, A. F. (2003) [Systems Theory: Autopoiesis Continues]. Sotsiologicheskoye obozreniye [Sociological Review]. Vol. 3. No. 1, pp. 50–58. (In Russ.).
  18. Foucault, M. (1996) Volya k istine: po tu storonu znaniya, vlasti i seksual’nosti [The Will to Truth: Beyond Knowledge, Power, and Sexuality]. M. : Kastal, 448 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  19. Foucault, M. (1999) Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdeniye tyur’my [Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison]. M. : Ad Marginem, 480 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  20. Habermas, J. (2000) Moral’noye soznaniye i kommunikativnoye deystviye [Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action]. St. Petersburg: Science, 380 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  21. Haraway, D. (2020) Ostavayas’ so smutoy: zavodit’ sorodichey v khtulutsene [Staying with the Turmoil: Making Kindred in the Chthulucene]. Perm: Hyle Press, 340 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  22. Harman, G. (2020) Spekulyativnyy realizm: vvedeniye [Speculative Realism: Introduction]. Moscow: RIPOL classic, 290 p. (In Russ., transl. from Eng.).
  23. Yanitsky, O. N. (2019) [Globalization and hybridization: towards a new social order]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. Vol. 8, pp. 8–18. – https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250006132-8. (In Russ.).
  24. Álvarez, J. M. D., Brioso, J. (2023) The Philosopher and His Philosophies. Ortega, Husserlian Phenomenology and Beyond. HORIZON. Studies in phenomenology. Vol. 12. No. 2, pp. 285–301. – https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2023-12-2-285-301. (In Eng.).
  25. Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press, 544 p. (In Eng.).
  26. Derrida, J. (1994) Force de loi : le « fondement mystique de l’autorité ». Paris: Galilée, 145 p. (In Fr.).
  27. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 627 p. (In Eng.).
  28. Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 42, 141 p. (In Eng.).
  29. Mouffe, Ch. (2005) On the Political. L. ; N.Y. : Routledge, 144 p. (In Eng.).
  30. Noë, A. (2009) Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. N.Y. : Hill and Wang, 214 p. (In Eng.).
  31. Otabe, T. (2025) A Dao-centric or Nature-centric Perspective on Human Environment: A Contribution from Modern Japanese Aesthetics. Comparative and Continental Philosophy, pp. 1–8. – https://doi.org/10.1080/17570638.2025.2566849. (In Eng.).
  32. Stengers, I. (2015) In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism. Lüneburg: meson press, 180 p. (In Eng.).

In order for us to provide you with high-quality services, we use cookies that are stored on your computer (location information; ip-address; type, language, OS and browser version; device type and screen resolution; source from which you came to site the user; what pages the user opens and what buttons the user clicks; the same information is used to process statistical data on the use of the site through the Yandex.Metrika Internet service). By clicking the "I agree" button, you confirm that you are informed about the use of cookies on our website. You can disable cookies in your browser settings.