the spatial disconnection of local economies and the interaction of local social systems, is universally recognized.
Most researchers agree that the objective basis of globalization is scientific and technological progress and the increase in productive forces, used by a range of economically and politically dominant countries (“the golden billion”) and their elites for their own economic and political ends, including the establishment of a world order that generally benefits them.
A certain consensus exists on the necessity of preserving the cultural and civilizational diversity of the world, which objectively clashes with the Western project of globalization.
Most researchers believe that a unipolar model of globalization based on liberal fundamentalism allows no future for the existing local civilizations and corresponding cultural and historical communities, or for the West itself. At the same time, the modern scientific community cannot offer anything except a vague slogan of “dialogue of civilizations’.
The idea of the dialogue of civilizations, as an extremely abstract position devoid of clearly formulated ideas and of any connection to social agents, is formulated in the foreword to the Russian translation of Braudel’s Grammar of Civilizations:83 “Globalization develops at the same time as the multipolar world appears. Civilizations have to learn… to agree to the existence of other civilizations, admit that they will never achieve dominance over others, be ready to see equal partners in others.”
As a result, theoretical consensus on globalistics is limited by the fact-based side of the globalizational processes.
As for the theory of globalization as such, the process is ongoing in terms of theory that reflects objectively the growing antagonism of social agents of global development, principally global and local elites. As a result, the theory of globalization and contiguous scientific areas and disciplines form the stage for a battle between the interests of global and local elites and may therefore be seen as the reflection of globalization processes in the сollective consciousness.
It is therefore evident that the theory of globalization needs to go beyond separate disciplines and local theoretical constructions to consider the interpretation of globalization processes on a sociophilosophical level.
Most globalization models have been based on a multi-stage approach, typically including economic determinism. Within this approach, globalization is seen as an objectively predetermined, largely economic process of the spread and universalization of the Western economic model in its neoliberal version. This has created an impression of the establishment of a global “suprasociety’ (Zinoviev), the announcement of the “end of history’84 and the appearance of the global empire with a Euro-Atlantic civilizational nucleus and several rings of dependable and agentless periphery.
The scope of the research may serve as a basis for the classification of theoretical approaches.
The approach to globalization as an objective historical tendency of the extension of intergovernmental and intercivilizational interactions and contacts was developed in the works of Beck,85 Berger,86 Huntington,87 Goldblatt,88 Castells,89 McLuhan,90 Soros,91 Stiglitz,92 Bratimov,93 Utkin,94 Chumakov,95,96 and others.
Geoeconomic and geopolitical aspects of globalization were studied in the works by Buzgalin and Kolganov,97 Delyagin,98,99 Inozemtsev,100 Subetto,101 Utkin102 and others.
The problem of the influence of globalization on the nation state and state institutions was studied in the works by Beck,103 Bauman,104 Stryker,105 Drucker,106 Butenko,107 Rieger and Leibfried108 Podzigun,109 Kara-Murza,110 Karmadanov,111 Kagarlitsky,112 Pantin,113 Panarin114, E. Pozdnyakov,115 Spiridonov and others.
The world-systems approach to globalization as a process of increasingly multi-faceted and all-encompassing interaction of social agents and beings is used by Braudel116, Amin,117,118 Wallerstein,119 and others.
The approach to global development based on resources and ecology – one of whose variants, the sustainable development concept, became the basis for UN policies on demographics and development – has been considerably influential. This approach is based on objective natural resource limits (the “natural ceiling’), on economic activity and, as a result, on optimal population size. Nevertheless, the concept of the crisis of resources and demographics, while it does single out objective issues, cannot in principle be used to describe and make a prognosis for the social component of this crisis and how it could play out.
The correspondence between convergent and divergent social processes may be the basis for a classification. The philosophers who created the concept of humankind’s multi-stage development towards a single global social community can be considered the forerunners of modern globalistics, and one could single out the fundamental works in this field by Kant, Marx, Teilhard de Chardin, Vernadsky, Toynbee, Russell, Jaspers and others.
Representatives of the civilizational approach, who emphasize the unexpectedly stable preservation of sociocultural communities and cultural-civilizational differences even in a connected economic and social community, insist on the restricted nature of the convergent tendencies of globalization in the sociocultural sphere.
Most existing theories and concepts are based on the reduction of globalization as an all-encompassing phenomenon into separate, although significant, phenomena of economic, sociocultural and political character.
In addition to the above, convergent aspects of development (monopolization and unification, including ethnocultural) are being seen in absolute terms and the phenomenon of social regression is being denied as an objective tendency, an attribute of globalization.
It is equally important that globalization is a comprehensive system
Braudel, F. Grammaire des Civilisations. – M.: Ves’ mir, 2008. – 552 p.
Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. M.: Yermak, ACT, 2005. – 592 p.
Beck, Ulrich. 60. Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. M.: Progress-Traditsiya, 2001. – 384 p.
Berger, Peter, Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Construction of Reality // Translated by E. Rutkevich. M.: Nauka, 1995. – 342 p.
Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order // Translated by P. Velimeyev. M.: AST, AST Moskva, 2006. – 571 p.
Granin, Y. D. Ethnoses, Nation State and Formation of the Russian Nation. Experience of Philosophical and Methodological Research. M.: IF RAN, 2007. – 167 p.
Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. M., 1999. – p. 492—505.
McLuhan, M. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man / Mаршалл Mаклюэн. M.: Akademich. Proyekt: Fond “Mir”, 2005. – 496 p.
Soros, G. On Globalization. M.: Praksis, 2004. – 276 p.
Stiglitz, J. World in the last decade of the twentieth century // Transnational Processes: Twenty-First Century. M., 2004. – p. 19—23.
Bratimov, O. V. Reality of Globalization: Games and Rules of the New Era / O. V. Bratimov, Y. M. Gorsky, M. G. Delyagin, A. A. Kovalenko. M.: INFRA-M, 2000. – 344 p.
Utkin, А. I. Globalization: Process and Interpretation. M.: Logos, 2001. – 254 p.
Chumakov, A. N. Globalization. Limits of Whole World. M.: Prospekt, 2005. – 432 p.
Chumakov, A. N. Metaphysics of Globalization. Cultural-Civilizational Context. M.: Kanon+, ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, 2006. – 516 p.
Buzgalin, A. V., Kolganov, A. I. Global Capital. M.: Editorial URSS, 2004. – 512 p.
Delyagin, M. G. Global Crisis. General Theory of Globalization. Course of Lectures. M.: Ifra-M, 2003. – 768 p.
Delyagin, M. G. Globalization. Global crisis and “closing technologies” // Transnational Processes: XXI Century. M.: Sovremennaya Ekonomika i pravo, 2004. – p. 24—51.
Inozemtsev, V. L. Democracy: forced and desired. Successes and failures of democratization on the brink of a thousand years // Issues of Philosophy. 2006. №9 – p. 34—46.
Subetto, A. I. Capitalocracy and Global Imperialism. St. Petersburg: Asterion, 2009. – 572 p.
Utkin, А. I. New Global Order. M.: Algoritm, Eksmo, 2006. – 640 p.
Beck, Ulrich. Power in the Global Age: A New Global Political Economy. M.: Progress-Traditsiya, 2007. – 464 p.
Bauman, Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. M.: Ves Mir Publishing House, 2004. – 188 p.
Stryker, R. Globalization and the Welfare State. M., 2004. C. N. – p. 83—92.
Drucker, P. Post-Capitalist Society. M., 1999. – p. 67—100.
Butenko, A. P. Globalization: essence and contemporary problems / А. П. Butenko // Sotsialno-Gumanitarnye Znaniya. 2002. №3 – p. 3—19.
Rieger, E., Leibfried, S. Limits to Globalization: Welfare States and the World Economy. M., 2004. 4. II. – p. 94—101.
Podzigun, I. M. Globalization as reality and problem / Philosophy. 2003. №1 – p. 5—16.
Kara-Murza, S. G. Globalization and crisis of enlightenment // Transnational Processes XXI Century. M., 2004. – p. 291—293.
Karmadonov, O.A. Globalization and symbolic power // Philosophy. 2005. №5. – p. 49—56.
Kagarlitsky, B. Y. Marxism. M.: AST, 2005. – 462 p.
Pantin, V. I., Lapkin, V. V. Philosophy of Historical Forecast-Making. Dubna: Feniks+, 2006. – 448 p.
Panarin, A. S. Seduction by Globalization. M., 2002. – 440 p.
Pozdnyakov, E.A. Nation, state, national interests // Voprosy Ekonomiki, 1994. №2 – p.64—74.
Fernand Braudel, A History of Civilizations, New York: Penguin Books, 1993
Amin, Samir. The American Ideology. M., 2005. – p. 211—219.
Amin, Samir. Political dimension // Globalization of Defiance. Translation. M., 2004. – p. 265—286.
Wallerstein, I. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction – M.: Publishing House Territoriya Buduschego, 2006. – 248 p.
