Keywords: polymedia reality, social space, hybrid spaces, life in-between, new mobilities, network subjectivity


The theoretical analysis of the article focuses on understanding the topology of modern socio-cultural space, the peculiarities of which (re)configuration can be explained by the dynamic construction of the «in-between». The configurative format «in-between» means the ontological quality that most vividly embodies the experience of hybrid existence in the modern «multimedia environment», the zone of dynamic multiplicity of real and virtual, public and private, the main feature of which is mobility. It is shown that under the conditions of the new mobility, life becomes more variable, fluid, multilayered, that is, it corresponds to a reality that cannot be reduced to an either/or alternative. Therefore, the heuristic possibility of essentialist binary dichotomies, which excessively narrow the pragmatics of modern human existence, is questioned. It is noted that in the context of the social and existential challenges of the digital culture, the configuration of human life-space is no longer contained within modern ontological binary oppositions such as public/private, outside/inside, closedness/openness, stable/turbulent, own/other. It is proved that, in contrast to the binary world order of the «first»/organized modernity, the topological position of the «in-between» is made possible by a completely different logic, the fundamental points of which are the processes of constant transfers of public/private, performativity and situationality, procedurality, (de)localization, flexibility, transparency, topological multiplicity. It is argue changes in the nature of subjectivity (here: the ability to act). In particular, under the conditions of a multimedia, networked reality, the ability to «live in motion», i.e., to be mobile, tuned to constant movement, the endless search for new places, relationships, impressions, identities, locations, are the sought-after qualities of human subjectivity. It has been established that together with new opportunities, digital network structures also dictate a new life imperative, which enables appropriate behavioral practices marked by a frank orientation towards the public performance of private roles: any (in)action must be recorded in the media. The result of deprivation processes is the transformation of the social order of society into an intimate space of collective life (privatization). rresponding


1. Бауман З., Донскіс Л. Моральна сліпота. Втрата чутливості у плинній сучасності / пер. з англ. О. Буценко. Київ: Духі літера, 2014. 280 с.
2. Віріліо П. Інформаційна бомба/пер. з фр. Олега Демківа. Незалежний культурологічний часопис «Ї». 2003. Число 30: Маніпуляція свідомістю. С. 164–173.
3. Гілен П. Культура та інші фундаменталізми / пер. із. гол. О. Смерек. Харків: IST Publishing, 2019. 112 с.
4. Калитко Катерина (Kalytko Kateryna). Зараз напишу довгий текст … URL: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0wixCpLFbQ2wg4d51QHa3wyASZUJvUWp83uzyu4CHiLfZCTD2Xxyg2GxEcZer46t3l&id=669786448&sfnsn=mo
(дата звернення: 20.05.2023).
5. Петренко-Лисак А. Мобільні комунікації у транзитивному просторі метрополітену. Вісник ХНУ імені ВН Каразіна. Серія «Соціологічні дослідження сучасного суспільства: методологія, теорія, методи». 2017. № 39. С. 239–243.
6. Стан сингулярності: соціальні структури, ситуації, повсякденні практики / С. Макеєв, С. Оксамитна, А. Домаранська, О. Іванов, Т. Костюченко, Л. Малиш, Т. Марценюк, С. Стукало; за ред. С. Макеєва і С. Оксамитної. Київ: НаУКМА, 2017.
180 с.
7. Штретлінг С., Міщенко К. Передмова. Рухливий простір. Міждисциплінарна онтологія / за ред. Міщенко К., Штретлінг С. Київ: Аванпост-Прим, 2018, С. 6–11.
8. Bauman Z. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity, 2008. 232 р.
9. Bourriaud N. Relational Aesthetics Paris: Les Presses du Reel, 2002 (for the english translation), 125 р.
10. Butcher M. From ’fish out of water’to ’fitting in’: The challenge of re-placing home in a mobile world. Population, Space and Place, 2010. Р. 23–36. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.575 (дата звернення: 21.05.2023).
11. Campbell S. W. From Frontier to Field: Old and New Theoretical Directions in Mobile Communication Studies. Communication Theory. Vol. 29, Issue 1, February, 2019. P. 46–65.
12. Chambers D. Networked intimacy: algorithmic friendship and scalable sociality. European j. of communication, 2017. Vol. 32. N 1. P. 26–36.
13. Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces / ed. by R. Silvestone, E. Hirsch. L.; N.Y.: Routledge, 1992. 236 p.
14. Corbin Dwyer S., Buckle J. L. The space between: On being an insider–outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2009. Р. 54–63. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1609406918788176 (дата звернення: 27.05.2023).
15. D’Andrea A. Neo-nomadism: a theory of post-identitarian mobility in the global age. Mobilities, 2016. № 1 (1). Р. 95–119. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233071987_Neo-Nomadism_A_Theory_of_Post-Identitarian_Mobility_in_the_
Global (дата звернення: 27.05.2023).
16. de Loryn B. Not necessarily a place: How mobile transnational online workers (digital nomads) construct and experience’home’. Global Network, 2022. Vol. 22, Issue 1. P. 103–118. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ftr/10.1111/glob.12333 (дата звернення: 17.11.2022).
17. Griffin Emory A. A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. V. 1. P. 60–67. URL: http://www.afirstlook.com/docs/proxemic.pdf (дата звернення: 15.06.2023).
18. Greenfield A. Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. London, New York: Verso, 2017. 349 р.
19. Hannonen O. In search of a digital nomad: defning the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism, 2020. V. 22. P. 335–353. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z#citeas (дата звернення: 02.06.2023).
20. Hardt M., Negri А. Empire. Harvard University Press, 2000. 478 р.
21. Jackson M. At home in the world. Duke University Press, 2000. 188 р.
22. Madianou M., Miller D. Migration and new media: transnational families and polymedia. London: Routledge, 2012. 193 p.
23. Mallett S. Understanding home: A critical review of the literature. Sociological Review, 2004. Р. 62–89. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227699627_Understanding_Home_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Literature (дата звернення:
24. Mariek M. Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct, Communication Theory. Vol. 31, Issue 4, November, 2021. Р. 932–955. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/31/4/932/5927565?searchresult=1#312635277 (дата звернення: 23.05.2023).
25. Siles I., Espinoza-Rojas J., Naranjo A., & Tristán M. F. The Mutual Domestication of Users and Algorithmic Recommendations on Netflix. Communication, Culture and Critique, 2019. V. 12. Р. 499–518.
26. Tolstokorova A. Who cares for carers?: Feminization of labor migration from Ukraine and its impact on social welfare. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs, 2009. V. XVIII. № 1. Р. 62–84.
27. Urry J. Sociology beyond societies. Mobilities for twenty-first century. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. 255 р.
28. Urry J. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007. 336 p.
29. Virno P. Grammar of the Multitude. For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. 120 p.
30. Žižek S. A Permanent Economic Emergency. New Left Review. V. 64, July–August, 2010. P. 85–95.
How to Cite
KHODUS, O. (2023). «LIFE IN-BETWEEN»: SPACE, TOPOS, SELF IN THE CONTEXT OF POLIMEDIA REALITY. Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Philosophy, Pedagogy, 1(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.54891/2786-7005-2023-1-1
Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Philosophy, Pedagogy