Institution-formation theory and principles of its construction. Globalization and the main mechanisms of the development of society

3. With each historical cycle, the intensity of inter-civilizational interaction increases, resulting in humanity gradually becoming a unified social system.

4. The modern age represents a transition from industrial to post-industrial global civilization.

5. Globalization transformations are typical of the establishment of modern post-industrial global civilization.

6. The main contradiction of the neoliberal-technocratic model of globalization is that it does not serve the interests of humanity but, rather, the interests of the largest transnational corporations (TNCs).

This concept explains the fact that sociocultural unification and the convergence of local societies present a threat because they reduce the viability and development potential of humanity. The answer to this challenge is the establishment of “fourth-generation” civilizations. This theory, which is based on the idea of a historically evolving structure of local civilizations, including the change of civilizational leadership, is developed in detail in various works30,31. This concept substantiates the fact that the tendency towards socio-cultural unification of local civilizations currently plays a major role. In other words, the convergence of local civilizations is heading towards a global one. This theory takes the neoliberal model of global convergence (“westernization”, according to A. Zinoviev’s terminology32) as the basis, without seeing or proposing any alternative models of development or subjects interested in alternative development.

Meanwhile, global unification is impossible at the very least because there is a struggle of peripheral local civilizations against the currently dominant civilization of the West. This struggle will inevitably produce fundamentally different kinds of social life and fundamentally different social norms and rules, alternative values, and models of social life.

Having absorbed the whole world, the global civilization will inevitably generate new ways of forming groups and structures.

However, Y.V. Yakovets’s rejection of the formation-based approach leads to the rejection of his main achievement – the notion of conflict and group interests as the driving forces of social and historical development. It also leads to the rejection of the achievements and possibilities of sociological structuralism, which sees society as a system of objectively existing social groups and structures that include, in particular, class and ethnocultural communities.

E.A. Azroyants33 develops his original model of globalization as the concept of historical cycles and distinguishes three main cycles in human evolution: the emergence of humans; the establishment and development of the social community; and, ultimately, the establishment of a global megasociety as the highest “spiritual and moral” form of human existence.

Development cycles are connected with transitional periods, which contain situations where it is possible to make a history-defining choice of the future path, the crossroads, from which different historical development paths branch out. Each cycle is seen as an evolutionary niche, a transition in the course of which there is a choice of a probable way of developing the local or global society. At the same time, the current situation, which is characterized by the global crisis, does not exclude the possibility of a fatal outcome for local civilizations and humanity as a whole as one of these options.

E.A. Azroyants rightly believes that humanity is experiencing a civilizational crisis corresponding to the transition from the second cycle, i.e. the establishment of a community, to the third, the establishment of a “megasociety”. Accordingly, the current liberal model of globalization (globalization of TNCs and financial capital) does not allow a new level of development to be reached, which requires the development of a qualitatively new, “humanistic” model of global development. However, according to the author, the modern world has not formed social actors that are capable of, and interested in, “resisting TNCs and managing globalization in the interests of the entire humankind”.

At the same time, E.A. Azroyants believes that the spiritual and technological types of development of society have different goals. As a result, technological development under certain conditions objectively generates social regression, which manifests itself in the sphere of social relations. Under the conditions of neoliberal globalization, there is both cultural and civilizational unification and general degradation of culture.

However, the appeal to “network structures” with their amorphousness and lack of explicit control centres – the appeal that is popular today, in the age of artificial “social networks” – only highlights that the concept is subject-less. It has no place for real political actors and their interests.

In general, these theoretical constructions are limited to a statement regarding the factual side of globalization. They emphasize its inherent system of growing internal contradictions, but are limited to the moral condemnation of the “new world order”. In this case, declaring the civilizational approach as a methodological basis, E.A. Azroyants, under the name of “historical cycles”, de facto offers his version of the formation-based approach. He repeats the main postulate of economic reductionism (and liberal fundamentalism as its variety) about the fatal inevitability of the merger of cultures and civilizations as the global economy is being established.

Thus, the works of Y.V. Yakovets and E.A. Azroyants are typical contemporary works on the sociology and culturology of civilizations. They project and theorize the passive reflection of local social groups (including local civilizations), which are pushed by globalization to the periphery of social life together with their system of interests. Notably, the civilizational approach in these situations proceeds from a convergent and essentially staged model of development of social communities. In these concepts, the development of society is assumed to progress by merging the preceding communities until a global culturally homogeneous society (megasociety, “global humanity”, etc.) emerges. This concept ignores the obvious tendencies of modernity toward ethnocultural divergence, fragmentation, and the reinvigorated importance of ethnicity and religion.

S. Pivovarov34 raises the question of the current state of the formation-based and civilizational approaches as complementary. He notes, in particular, that the formation-based approach borrows key ideas from Christian thought, including the universality of history, its regularity, and the possibility of periodization.

A.I. Fursov stands out among the proponents of the formation-based approach, as he considers history to be more than a struggle of classes, social groups, and state bodies within a particular social formation35. He believes that societal development is characterized by long cycles of confrontation between the elites and the grass-roots movements. They can expand so far as to reach the global level in the last cycle of history. According to A.I. Fursov, the present moment is characterized by global revenge of the elites and, as a consequence, by a global collapse of the social gains of the majority.

A.I. Fursov sees the mutual need for social cooperation, which requires a certain structure of the “social pyramid”, as a factor that determines the balance between “the upper” and “the lower” that coexist within society. Thus, population shortages after the wars and epidemics of the Middle Ages led to the emancipation of the third estate. The needs of industry, first for workers and then for a market for manufactured goods, led to the containment of elites and the rise of the social status of the masses. The phenomenon of socialism emerged. It appeared first as a doctrine and later as a social system. This phenomenon was largely responsible for the appearance of the “middle class” in the bourgeois industrial countries. Thus, according to A.I. Fursov, globalization is another revenge of the elites, who have broken away from the nation state basis and extract resources from the “privatization of the welfare state” created in the industrial era.

When analysing the views of this author, it should be noted that his concept, for all its originality and importance for science, does not consider mechanisms of conflict and contradictions in society. At the same time, these phenomena contribute not less but rather more to the transformation of society than the need for cooperation between individuals.

Thus, a comparative philosophical and methodological analysis of the known theories of globalization, which are created within the framework of various scientific disciplines, shows that they represent the diversity of this era as a set of individual patterns. Most of these concepts reduce globalization, which is a comprehensive phenomenon, to private, albeit essential, phenomena of an economic, sociocultural, or political nature. These concepts, both apologetic and critical, are characterized by the absolutization of convergent aspects of development. They see such processes of transformation of society as monopolization and unification, including economic, social, and ethnocultural, as the leading tendencies of development of society. They deny the phenomenon of social regression and processes of divergent nature, which are objective trends that are inherent in globalization.

1.4 Attributes of globalization

To obtain a more detailed definition of globalization as a qualitatively new socio-historical reality, its main qualitative differences from previous eras should be highlighted. To this end, based on the existing theoretical basis, an analysis of globalization development trends was conducted, which allowed us to identify its essential foundations.

The study of globalization shows that the most important, most obvious feature, or attribute, of globalization is the emergence of global social space. It has emerged as a result of the qualitative reduction of spatial, political, and other barriers that not so long ago separated local societies.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

Safonov, A.L. Osevoe Vremya-2: vozvraschenie k istokam ili pogruzheni vo t’mu? // Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. #14 (Filosofia, sotsiologia, politologia, kulturologia). Ulan Ude, 2012, pp. 34—42.

2

Davidson, A.B. Cecil Rhodes and His Time. / Sesil Rods i ego vremya. M.: Mysl., 1984, 367 pp.

3

Lenin, V.I. Imperialism kak vyshays stadiya kapitalisma. M.: Lend, 2019, 128 pp.

4

Kautsky, K. Natsionalnoe gosudarstvo, imeprialisticheskoe gosudarstvo i soyuz gosudarstv. M.: Delo, 1917, 94 pp.

5

Hobson, J.A. Imperialism. A study. London: Nisbet, 1902, 400 pp.

6

Davidson, A.B. Cecil Rhodes and His Time. Sesil Rods i ego vremya. M.: Mysl., 1984, 367 pp.

7

Erhard, L. 50 years of thoughts / Polveka razmyshlenii. Translated from German by A. Andronov, V. Kotelkin, T. Rodionova, N. Selezneva. M.: Nauka, 1996, 606 pp.

8

Lisichkin, V.A., Shelepin, L.A. Globalnaya imperia Zla. M.: Krymsky most-9D, Forum, 2001, 448 pp.

9

Borlaug, N. Green revolution // Ecologia i Zhizn, 200, #4, pp. 37—42.

10

Appendix 1 has a full list of various schools of thought on globalization and authors who belong to them.

11

Safonov, A.L. Osevoe vremya-2: vozvraschenie k istokam ili pogruzhenie vo t’mu? // Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, #14 (Philosophy, sociology, political sciences, cultural sciences). Ulan Ude, 2012, pp. 34—42.

12

Zinoviev, A.A. Na puti k sverkhobschestvu. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2000, 637 pp.

13

Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man. / Konets istorii i poslednii chelovek. M.: Ermak, AST, 2005, 592 pp.

14

Hardt, M. Negri, A. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. M.: Praksis, 2004, 440 pp.

15

Prazauskas, A.A. Etnonatsionalizm, mnogonatsionalnoe gosudarstvo i protsessy globalizatsii / Ethnonationalism, multinational state and globalization // Polis, 1997, #2, pp. 95—105.

16

Guseinov, A.A. Lichnost i natsiya v svete globalizma.// Eastern Christian civilization and eastern Christian society in the modern society. M., 2001, pp. 25—33.

17

Stepin, V.S. O typakh tsivilizatsionnogo razvitiya i stsenariev buduschego. Epokha peremen i stsenarii buduschego. M., 1996, 368 pp.

18

Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man. / Konets istorii i poslednii chelovek. M.: Ermak, AST, 2005, 592 pp.

19

Zinoviev, A.A. Globalny cheloveinik. M., 1994, 448 pp.

20

Braudel, F. Grammar of civilizations. / Grammatika tsivilizatsii M.: Ves mir, 2008, 552 pp.

21

Guseinov, A.A. Lichnost i natsiya v svete globalizma. // Eastern Christian civilization and eastern Christian society in the modern society. M., 2001, pp. 25—33.

22

Hayek, F. Individualism and Economic Order. / Individualizm i globalny poryadok. M.: Izograf, 2000, 256 pp.

23

Friedman, M. Methodology of positive economic science / Metodologiya pozitivnoi ekonomicheskoi nauki. // THESIS, 1994, #4, pp. 20—52.

24

Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies. / Otkrytoe obschestvo i ego vragi. M.: Feniks, Mezhdunarodny fond Kulturnaya Initsiativa, 1992, 448 pp.

25

Kuznetsov, P.G. Izbrannye trudy. Dubna, 2014, 360 pp.

26

Kondratiev, K.Y., Krapivin, V.F., Savinykh V.P. Perspektivy razvitiya tsivilizatsii: mnogomerny analiz. M.: Logos, 2003, 576 pp.

27

Fedotov, A.P. Globalistika: Nachala nauki o sovremennom mire lyudei. Kurs lektsii. M.: Aspekt-press, 2002, 224 pp.

28

Subetto, A.I. Kapitalokratia i globalny imperializm. SPb.: Asterion, 2009, 572 pp.

29

Yakovets, Y.V. Globalizatsia i vzaimodeistvie tsivilizatsii. M., 1993, 137 pp.

30

Yakovets, Y.V. U istokov novoi tsivilizatsii. M., 1993, 137 pp.

31

Yakovets, Y.V. Ctsykly, krizisy, prognozy. M., 1999, 283 pp.

32

Zinoviev, A.A. Na puti k sverobschestvu. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2000, 637 pp.

33

Azroyants, E.A. Razmyshlenia o buduschem // Globalizatsiya. Konflikt ili dialog tsivilizatsiiz? M., 2002, pp. 37—45.

34

Pivovarov, Y.S. Istoriografia ili antropologia // Globalizatsia. Konflikt ili dialog tsivilizatsii. M., 2002, pp. 162—170.

35

Fursov, A.I. Twilight of modern times: terrorism or global war? / Na zakate sovremennosti: terrorism ili vsemirnaya voyma? // RIZH, 1999, Book 2, #3, pp. 193—231.