The Concept of Anthropotechnics in the Social and Humanitarian Dimension




a person, management, education, anthropotechnics, technologies, civilization, culture


Purpose. This research defines the conceptual foundations of anthropotechnics as a science that studies modern processes of interaction between humans and technologies in the socio-humanitarian dimension. Theoretical basis. The authors use the method of anthropological analysis, which allows generalizing the approaches of anthropotechnics in the socio-cultural context in the "human-technology" system. Originality. Based on the results of the research, the understanding of the essence of anthropotechnics as a science that studies human interaction with technologies and technical systems has been clarified. The idea of implementing anthropotechnical approaches to the management of the educational process gained further development, in particular in the context of practical training of applicants for education, distance learning, and dual education forms. The concept of professional activity and professional self-realization of the individual is taken into account, and promising directions in the development of anthropotechnics in the context of the application of artificial intelligence are determined. Conclusions. Considering anthropotechnics in a philosophical and sociocultural dimension is an important approach to understanding the interaction of technologies, people, and society as a whole, where technologies affect human perception of the world and interaction with it. The range of approaches chosen by the authors, the disclosure of their principles and categories allows for considering the object of this research – anthropotechnics as a modern science – in a multifaceted and holistic way, to interpret the results of the research based on the use of the basic categories of approaches: a person, equipment, technology, activity, development, personality, system.


Ford, J. H. (1958). An evaluation of the philosophy of art of Lewis Mumford (PhD dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. (in English)

Heidegger, M. (1954). Die Frage nach der Technik. Retrieved from (in German)

Hughes, R. (2021). THE UNKNOWN QUANTITY: sleep as a trope in sloterdijk’s anthropotechnics. Angelaki, 26(1), 142-155. DOI: (in English)

Ihde, D. (2009). From da Vinci to CAD and beyond. Synthese, 168(3), 453-467. DOI: (in English)

Ihde, D. (2019). Phenomenology in America (1964-1984). In M. B. Ferri (Ed.), The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America (pp. 345-364). Springer. DOI: (in English)

McLuhan, M. (1962). Тhe Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press. (in English)

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD. (in English)

Ray, P. P., & Das, P. K. (2023). Charting the Terrain of Artificial Intelligence: a Multidimensional Exploration of Ethics, Agency, and Future Directions. Philosophy & Technology, 36(2). DOI: (in English)

Roney, P., & Rossi, A. (2021). Sloterdijk’s anthropotechnics. Angelaki, 26(1), 3-8. DOI: (in English)

Rosenberger, R. (2022). Localizations of Dystopia. Foundations of Science, 27(2), 709-715. DOI: (in English)

Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Du mußt dein Leben ändern: Über Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (in German)




How to Cite

Bazhan, S. P., & Chernova, N. S. (2023). The Concept of Anthropotechnics in the Social and Humanitarian Dimension. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (24), 88–100.