A sociocentric view of collective intelligence: Marx, Durkheim, and modernity

The light and shadows of digital reality. Living intelligence and its avatars

Abstract

The article examines the sociocentric approach to collective intelligence (CI). Classical tradition exclusively linked cognition to an individual subject, considering intellectual life as on of the dimensions of human existence. In opposition, socially oriented teachings that appeared in the 19th century articulated the need to externalize intelligence toward collective reality. Two key figures in the context of this “extended” view are K. Marx and E. Durkheim. The paper reconstructs their theories of CI, showing how these theories are conditioned by general positions of their authors. Introducing the concept of general intellect, Marx focuses on the economic determination of its genesis in capitalist society. The embodiment of this intellect is a system of machines, which, however, represents a technically alienated form of labor of the “collective worker,” consisting not only of the industrial proletariat but also of scientists and engineers. This study takes into account modern receptions of Marx’s idea by P. Virno and M. Pasquinelli. Durkheim, recognizing the division of labor as a significant foundation for CI, does not reduce the latter to economy. Pluralistically, he highlights manifestations of CI in such spheres as religion, morality, and law. A developed society is built on organic solidarity, which implies a larger role of the personal factor. Individual consciousness consistently separates from collective consciousness, becoming more specialized; consequently, collectivity appears in an indirect way, as consisting in the mutual interdependence of individuals within the objective processes of cooperation and exchange. Durkheim inherits, to a greater extent, the legacy of classical rationalism, understanding CI as an impersonal system of general concepts. At the same time, he argues that categories are representations of cumulative collective experience, which makes them a posteriori. His sociocentrism overcomes logocentrism. Durkheim’s followers point out the importance of emotional and affective layers in the shared living, without which integration at the cognitive level is impossible. Despite the differences, the positions of Marx and Durkheim have points of contact. The article concludes that when some radical and one-sided provisions of both frameworks are weakened and sociocentrism is conceptually augmented by the idea of inter-subjectivity, their approaches may be combined for obtaining a more holistic view of modern CI as a complex socio-anthropological phenomenon.