Institution-formation theory and principles of its construction. Globalization and the main mechanisms of the development of society. A. L. Safonov
Читать онлайн книгу.
biological object. Nevertheless, for many primitive ethnic groups, obtaining the status of a protected object (small indigenous peoples with a traditional economy) was a relatively successful way out of the “trap of globalization”.
In general, the pressure of globalization on local societies and groups yields two types of reactions. The first one manifests in the closure and development of protective group consciousness, in the transformation of local societies into diasporas. The second type manifests in the aspiration of local and regional communities, politically formed as states, to enter globalization on their own, most favorable, conditions. A third type is also possible – the development of a separate global project. But this has the highest resource requirements and, without reservations, is available only to China.
In any case, even when criticizing, “rejecting” globalization in its Western expansionist version, it is necessary to recognize that the problem itself and the challenges associated with it remain. This happens because the foundations of globalization – the globalization of the economy, the transformation of local societies into open systems, the removal of spatial and informational barriers, the growing crisis of resources and demographics – exist and develop objectively.
Contemporary Russian studies of globalization lie within the framework of several theoretical approaches that unwittingly reflect the balance of social forces and interests in and around Russia.
The neoliberal view of globalization, which, to a large extent, has acquired the status of the official concept of reform and development of the Russian Federation, reflects the views of modern Russian elites, whose interests are largely associated with the raw material economic cycle and the global economic order. It is simply a local adaptation of the views and theoretical constructions of such classics of neoliberalism as F. Hayek22, M. Friedman23, and K. Popper24. Accordingly, the negative consequences of total liberalization of all spheres of human existence are presented as “objectively inevitable” and, as a consequence, as an alternative-free and uncontrollable phenomenon. Any attempt to manage it threatens an even worse outcome.
In general, liberal approaches to globalization, as an extreme form of economic determinism, are characterized by the denial of the systemic complexity of social development, fundamentally irreducible to the phenomena and laws of the economic and material order.
Thus, the neoliberal concept of globalization, which has taken hold of the elites and expresses their interests in a concentrated way, acquires the character of an objective historical factor. In general, neoliberalism is not only a theoretical model describing the real processes of the modern age. Its main task is to create standard perceptions whose implementation in economic policy is one of the characteristic manifestations of globalization. In particular, neoliberalism, taken as a phenomenon of social consciousness, can be seen as a theory justifying the separation of the ruling classes from local societies and the formation of a global elite. The main provisions of this concept are based on the direct results of the vertical fragmentation of society and the crisis of post-industrial nations.
Significant scientific results, achieved in the socio-ecological fields, which consider globalization in terms of the development of the global crisis of resources, demographics, and the environment. It should be noted that this field has been controlled from the very beginning by representatives of global elites with the help of some international organizations and foundations that organize scientific research.
By manipulating the “global threats”, the adherents of the concepts of “sustainable development” and “zero growth” motivate the withdrawal of states and relevant social communities to abstain from choosing their own path of development. They advocate the creation of supranational institutions with global political power that are uncontrollable and non-transparent for the participating countries, and justify the “objective necessity” of reducing the living standards and social guarantees of the bulk of the population and even the “inevitable decline” of the world’s population.
However, the term “sustainable development” clearly reflects the interests of global financial elites who lobby for the preservation and increase of disparity between the “global core” and “global periphery”, the solution of global contradictions, which is found at the expense of economic and political outsiders of the global community.
At the same time, in Russia, the foundation in the field of fundamental sciences about nature could not fail to culminate in scientific achievements, significant not only in the applied sense but also in the general philosophical one. Firstly, this concerns the concept of physical economics of P.G. Kuznetsov25 and several works on globalistics and system analysis of global development, which were carried out by Russian researchers. Among the latter, we should mention the works of the world-renowned geophysicist and climatologist K.Y. Kondratyev and his associates26, and the works of A.P. Fedotov27 and A.I. Subetto, with their focus on the noosphere28.
The crisis of the formation-based approach as a form of economic determinism elicited a natural interest in the civilizational approach, which focuses on problems of a sociocultural order. Among the Russian authors who consider globalization from the standpoint of the civilizational approach, the concepts of Y.V. Yakovets and E.A. Azroyants should be highlighted.
Thus, the work “Globalization and the interaction of civilizations”29 puts forward the main ideas of the modern civilizational approach to globalization:
1. Human history is a periodic change of global civilizations, which assumes the form of consecutive global historical cycles.
2. Each global civilization can be conventionally represented as a five-step pyramid, where the demographic substratum with its biosocial needs and manifestations lies at the foundation. At the top of the pyramid, there are phenomena of a spiritual and cultural nature, including culture, science, education, ideology, ethics, and religion. Social transformation begins at the bottom step and gradually transforms all steps of the pyramid, leading to a change of one civilization into another one.
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
Hayek, F. Individualism and Economic Order. / Individualizm i globalny poryadok. M.: Izograf, 2000, 256 pp.
Friedman, M. Methodology of positive economic science / Metodologiya pozitivnoi ekonomicheskoi nauki. // THESIS, 1994, #4, pp. 20—52.
Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies. / Otkrytoe obschestvo i ego vragi. M.: Feniks, Mezhdunarodny fond Kulturnaya Initsiativa, 1992, 448 pp.
Kuznetsov, P.G. Izbrannye trudy. Dubna, 2014, 360 pp.
Kondratiev, K.Y., Krapivin, V.F., Savinykh V.P. Perspektivy razvitiya tsivilizatsii: mnogomerny analiz. M.: Logos, 2003, 576 pp.
Fedotov, A.P. Globalistika: Nachala nauki o sovremennom mire lyudei. Kurs lektsii. M.: Aspekt-press, 2002, 224 pp.
Subetto, A.I. Kapitalokratia i globalny imperializm. SPb.: Asterion, 2009, 572 pp.
Yakovets, Y.V. Globalizatsia i vzaimodeistvie tsivilizatsii. M., 1993, 137 pp.
Yakovets, Y.V. U istokov novoi tsivilizatsii. M., 1993, 137 pp.
Yakovets, Y.V. Ctsykly, krizisy, prognozy. M., 1999, 283 pp.
Zinoviev, A.A. Na puti k sverobschestvu. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2000, 637 pp.