Globalization: the "Westernization" and alternative forms of global strategies
Material posted: Publication date: 18-01-2014

"Over the past decades, the issue of globalization and its effects remains one of the most controversial. It would seem that the formation of international markets, the free movement of capital from country to country, increasing flows of migrants and tourists, the formation of TRANS-, inter - and supranational financial, economic and political institutions were supposed to bring Nations together in some kind of global integrity – planetary civilization. But while globalization does not destroy, but preserves the planetary hierarchy of the different peoples and Nations."

 

The UN, it is obvious, first of all, economic benefits for many countries turn into significant losses.

The unfolding process of globalization, on the one hand, creates problems for the continued existence of nation States as the most common institutional forms of hostels, and with another – stimulates the growth of their activity, causing a defensive reaction of resistance. In this regard, hyperglobalist refer to the coming post-national state, the network society, global Empire or global democracy. The anti-globalists argue that the nation-state has not exhausted its historical resource and predict the bursts of activity of national States in different areas.

In this dispute, fairly seasoned political rhetoric, the last point will put future. In this article I will try to show that the main subjects of contemporary globalization, as before, remains the national state, developing their own forms of global strategies to other, non-Western, civilized basis. At the theoretical level, this task is complicated by the fact that in the scientific community there is no common view on the nature, shape, nature and direction of evolution of the globalization process.

The paradoxes of modern interpretations of globalization

First of all these paradoxes objectively determined by the multidimensional nature and historicism of the phenomenon being studied, as well as the lack of systematic interdisciplinary research, overcoming the natural limitation of the globalization research within one scientific discipline. Now it is no coincidence that theoretical image of globalization as a historical phenomenon is diffused and dispersed in different disciplinary "apartments".

Economists have focused on the formation of global markets, supranational financial and economic institutions, free movement of capital and labor from country to country. Sociologists traditionally attributed to the emergence of globalization with the emergence and development of capitalism and the immanent processes of modernization. Political scientists, focusing on the emergence of supra - and inter-state political entities, interpret globalization as a process of qualitative change in the nature of international relations, world politics, the subjects of which, together with the national States become interquadrennial education – the UN, the WTO, unions of States (e.g., EU and CIS), political and military-political blocs (NATO).

There are also more broad approaches, the originality of which is objectively justified, on the one hand, penetration in social science fundamental ideas of the modern scientific picture of the world and the competitiveness of different traditional conceptualizations of the history of mankind. So, using the idea of universal evolutionism and categorical apparatus of synergetics, aspiring to become the core of the modern scientific picture of the world, globalization interpret, for example, as an objective, the evolution of geobiological [1, p. 407]. Or as an objective function of the nonlinear process of self-organization of social system in supercomplex organism – megacolon, which, being submitted by the local social organisms (societies), is the perfect program life-cycle stages of birth, growth and death [2, p. 65, 66, 248, 250]. In the new paradigm globalization is interpreted as a stage of universal or global history, which is cyclical in nature.

Although the categorical system of synergetics and theory of systems is very aggressive in most of the major works, serial synergetic interpretation of globalization in the context of universal history are scarce, and they failed. The reason lies in the metaphorical use as a metalanguage of the language of synergetics, as well as unclear epistemological status of synergetics [3, p. 27, 31 – 33], and the concept of universal evolutionism. This concept is considered "a metaphor for traditional philosophical problems and a research project postneoclassical science, philosophical and scientific Foundation which is still not clarified, and often don't even realized" [4, pp. 93 – 94].

Therefore most researchers prefer to work within the traditional – linear and non-linear sociological interpretations of human history where globalization is understood either as one of several opposing trends of history, or as one resulting trend historicalcomparative.

In the first case, placing globalization in line with the trends in localization, nationalization and regionalization, it interprets as "a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and interactions... generating Intercontinental or interregional flows and patterns of activity, interactions and manifestations of power" [5, p. 19]. In the second case, the same process of changing the spatial-temporal characteristics and order of economic, political, cultural and other interactions between Nations and gosudarstviennyie as the acquisition history of the quality of globality (universality) [1].

The role of the main determinants of the globalization process researchers choose:

  • the development of science and technology of technosphere (technicist approach);
  • the development of the economic world-system (world-system approach);
  • distribution of world and local cultures and civilizations (sociocultural approach);
  • the modernization of societies along the lines of "agrarian – industrial – post-industrial" or "traditional – modern company – postmodern" (modernist approach).

In many works, these approaches are combined or overlap, but the vast majority of research is dominated by the view that globalization embodies a clear increase interdependence and interrelatedness of humanity based on Western models of development. Expansion of this model divided the world into the developed "center" and a backward "periphery", are forced to explore scientific, technical, political and cultural achievements and the standards of the West. According to this line of historical periodization westernized version of globalization. Its first stage is generally considered to be "long XVI century" (I. Wallerstein), linking with the development of capitalism in Europe and the colonization of the world by Europeans. The second to the nineteenth century, the century of the industrial revolution and the formation of the world market, the third to the middle of the twentieth century, the era of scientific and technological revolution and international organizations.

There are other, more large-scale periodization, the beginning of globalization belong to the Neolithic revolution or Axial age. In these cases, globalization is interpreted as, for example, cyclically wave "is never ending, but striving for the completion of the process of integration of different States and civilizations" [6 .6].

In our task does not include a detailed comparative analysis of these the most common interpretations and periodization of globalization. Most of them interpret it as a spontaneous, self-sustaining process, based on the implied besubjected this phenomenon. At the same time, interpretation and periodization will complement each other, if we interpret globalization as a megatrend to unite civilization, economically, culturally, politically and otherwise divided humanity into a global (planetary)community. Posledniaya at the same time all these dividing lines and in the variety of specific historical forms. It is only important to avoid absolutism and objectivism, the best cure for which was and remains the philosophy that interprets the social history of the species homo sapiens is not like field of action of certain impersonal forces or systems that are realized outside of the joint socially organized human activity as a process, the integrity and unity provided by him which is involved in Consciousness. In this socio-philosophical aspect of globalization cannot be reduced to one of its many sides, and is seen as a complex historical phenomenon that changes from era to era, the content and form.

The phenomenon of globalization

The point of view of social philosophy and the philosophy of history, defines this approach to the historical material, within which historical events are studied in the context of the dialectical action of the unity of Being and Consciousness. Being objective and immutable, but it is not given to us in addition to our own, including intellectual efforts. For the first time this paradox was formulated by rené Descartes in his famous statement "cogito ergo sum" meaning that thinking is somehow a deeper way Soprichastnost Genesis and to some extent confirms it for us.

Subsequently, this intuition has been defined as a "dialectical unity of ontology and epistemology". And in the XVIII–XIX centuries by the efforts of I. Kant, J. Fichte, G. Hegel and K. Marx was deeply researched the idea of history as the activity of the historical unity of Being and Consciousness in which the Consciousness of being closely connected with the supply of its socio-cultural environment, actively involved in qualitative changes of the historical process. While the historical process was understood as socially and culturally decorated joint (subject-practical and spiritual) work in close-knit groups of people.

In the context of our topic, this means the inadmissibility of the study of globalization out of touch with the evolution of the interests (needs), attitudes and forms of consciousness interacting spatially localized subjects of history, undergoing a variety of transformations and acquisitions. The history known to us is not only the history of the interactions of otnoshenii (including domination and subordination) between peoples, States and civilizations, but also the internal history of the emergence, development and disappearance of these peoples and civilizations. Only being dissected by the scalpel of the categorical apparatus of the theory and abstracted, they exist as independent stories. But within meta-disciplinary philosophic-methodological synthesis, emphasizing the dialectic between the internal and the external, social, political and cultural, without one another they are simply impossible, as impossible vnestilevoe the existence of components of the humanity of individuals.

Therefore, globalization can be regarded as a megatrend toward the unification of mankind, embodied in the dialectic of spatial and temporal displacements, interactions and transformations anthropological-social, that is cultural and politically connected, wholes.Thus,globalization is not only the distribution of people, artefacts, symbols and information beyond regions and continents, but also accompanying and determining this process, the organization and reorganization of internal and external social space of living together in integrated societies (families, tribes, ethnic groups, Nations) of individuals. Accordingly, sources and driving forces of globalization are the needs (interests) are United in the social integrity of people, the impossibility of satisfaction in the local area of existence stimulated their proliferation beyond regions and continents. This spread, despite the constant struggle for resources, were accompanied by the establishment of values, norms and institutions of collective life.

Such an understanding of globalization is extremely common, but not an empty distinction in the use of which disciplinary research is able to neutralize the idea of besubjected this phenomenon and at least partially eliminate the nearly universal consideration of globalization to economic, political or any other component of the historical process.

Globalization as megatrend of human history, the way of implementation which is the subject-practical and spiritual functioning of individuals, integrated in the socio-cultural, economically and politically different anthropological integrity is implemented in the whole spectrum of relations between them. Therefore it can be considered as a set of economic processes (trade, Finance, production, etc.), political (military and diplomatic) and/or cultural (religious, ideological, scientific-technical and etc.) of globalization, carried out at different speeds, consistency and success in different places and in different historical periods. It is important not to forget about the relationship, the spatial-temporal dynamics and the incompleteness of these processes. It should also be noted that in long historical retrospect globalization is always performed as a sequence of coexisting and successive historical forms. The source of these forms usually were spatial and the concomitant political, economic and cultural expansion coming to the forefront of regional history societies, States and civilizations. And content – disappearance, absorption and/or transformation facing anthropological wholes: changing the geographic scale of the infrastructure and their interactions. The latter was expressed and is reflected in the increase in the number and length of transport, trade and economic, political, information and cultural networks and communications. In the end – and it is also element of the content of globalization is the formation of an organized differently every time, but expanding the overall external and internal social space of living together.

We can say that the globalization of humanity initially embodies the unity of social history provided by competition and the continuity of Being and of Consciousness which form its anthropological wholes. Let us consider the main stages of this process, focusing mainly on social and political components.

Displacement of the centers of world development in the globalization process

Depending on initial interpretations can be built a variety of historical periodization and the corresponding historical forms of globalization. Its start can be considered the deep past – times of the spread of the Earth species homo sapiens. Since the Neolithic revolution, the entire known history of the species homo sapiens is a history of migrations, great migrations and wars and postisometric primitive, pre-state and state feature of groups and societies over the geographical space are the area of residence and focused on these areas resources. Keep them for a long period of time, the winners could only by organizing a common economic and political space of common life for the inhabitants of these territories of people through the development of universal norms of coexistence. So arose early States and their analogues, and later ethnic, Imperial and national States, within which the first efforts of tribal and ethnic elites, and then the state bureaucracy carried out the assimilation and integration of linguistically, religiously and culturally different population in a new relatively homogeneous socijalnazastita. So there are geographically, economically, culturally and/or politically connected in society (tribes, unions of tribes, ethnic groups and Nations) groups of people, emotionally, symbolically and conceptually identifying itself as a single entity, and seeking to extend to the limits of the known world.

In most cases this spread was in the nature of military and colonial expansions, which, in addition to increasing the number of transport flows and communication, has been transfer beyond the local territories, regions and continents of works of literature and art, engineering and technology, religious and secular ideologies, scientific knowledge and the types of rationality, norms and patterns of economic, political and social life.

What, for example, the world-historic significance of the formation of the Empire of Alexander the great and the Roman Empire? First of all that they have contributed to the spread of the great Greco-Roman culture on huge spaces of the Road, arguing in "the colonies" and "the provinces" is the same for all ethnic groups and peoples state naliticheskie ideology and the common laws of cohabitation.Similarly, the great Muscovy, colonizing in the XV – XVIII centuries, the lands beyond the Volga and beyond the Urals, performed essentially the same civilizing mission, implement the Roman idea of "common space" and the common "rights of the citizen (citizen)" in Eurasia. In this case, no matter whose legal code of Rome or Moscow – was better. It is important that turning tens of millions of ethnically and religiously different people into "citizens" or "citizens" of one state created the possibility for coexistence and mutual enrichment of different cultures and religions, for normal economic life, scientific and technological progress. The same can be said about the colonization of America, Asia and Africa by European nation-States (democratic empires) in the XVII-XIX centuries.

Inevitable in such cases, "meeting of cultures" was accompanied by various kinds of borrowing, unintended assimilyatsiya and deliberately carried out by acculturation, symbolic violence, causing the resistance of linguistically and culturally different populations of the conquered territories. But in any case, knowledge, artifacts, and institutions of different groups of people were available to others, has acquired the status of universal values, sought new horizons and transformed the worldview, step by step, making the economically, social and politically divided mankind materially, intellectually and spiritually more connected. The idea of humanity and its antropologicheskie unity was represented subjectively and psychologically acceptable, and the unity of mankind in global integrity philosophically and politically founded the project, which, after a thousand years after the teachings of the founders of the ideology of cosmopolitanism the cynics, Panhellenic monarchical doctrine of Isocrates, Xenophon and Aristotle, articulated embodied in the concepts of I. Kant and K. Marx.

Thus, in the context of social and political history of mankind, globalization is associated with the emergence and development of integration in large and small culturally different societies and between them. The competition arising between them, inevitably led either to new socio-cultural and political mergers or breakups of the former wholes that result in another reconfiguration of international space relations between the integrated in the societies of individuals.

In fact the socio-political history of globalization is a story of transformation and local historyprovider postisometric societies, politically decorated in early States and their analogues, into the regional history of ancient and medieval ethnic States and empires, and then the world extorionate, national States and educated their colonial empires.

This process linked the mankind not only strength of the state form of territorial control. Also created new "anonymous" system of government – transnational organizations and multinational corporations. In other words, the formation of world history – a contradictory process associated with alternating attempts to unite peoples (with their own time and geographic scale) on certain areas of the planet.

In the context of our study the latter is of fundamental importance: it underlines the limitations of building zapamietania interpretations and periodization of globalization, reducing the diversity of past and future concrete historical forms of the exercise of this trend to one of them. Such, in particular, are all concepts of globalization, linking its beginning with the formation and development of European capitalism in XVII–XIX centuries, accompanying the development of science and technology, market relations and the formation of national States, Imperial impulse which led to the emergence of the capitalist world-system and the subsequent Westernization of the world.

It is Westernization, according to the authors of these concepts, the only real and possible form of globalization of humanity in the past and in the foreseeable future. But it is not, because "center" and "periphery" are constantly interchanged, and the history of mankind even in Eurasia has never been "one way street", inevitably leading to unification on the basis of any one type of economic, social, cultural and political development.

History is not a linear process, and the result of the interaction and struggle of numerous individual and collective subjects of the historical development of people, societies, States and civilizations. Respectively, and globalization as one of the trends of history was and is the resultant of many attempts at a shared space of common life of peoples and States on the basis of different models of civilization development. The result of such attempts was a temporary dominance and distribution within multiple geographic regions one of the local civilizations, the political form of existence which in most cases became the Empire. Empire were the most powerful political tool of "melting" and accelerate the process of integration of linguistically, religiously and culturally different elite and population in Imperial territories. So, replacing each other as leaders in Eurasia has formed and developed in Chinese, Indian, ellino-Macedonian, Roman, Arab-Islamic, Western European and Euro-Atlantic form of globalization.

Fair comment, A. G. Frank, "the movement of the center of the world – oscillating process, marked by successive movements relative to an imaginary line that separates East from West in Eurasia" [7, p. 1]. This idea is confirmed by numerous historical-economic and historical-cultural research A. young, E. Levinas, E. J. said. scientists reorientation, convincingly proving that, since the XII century until the mid XVIII century, the center of economic, commercial and even industrial progress (till XV century) was Asia.

The largest Asian Empire greatly surpassed any European state with its military power, cultural and political influence [7, p. 123-127]. Already in the XI century the educational attainment of the population in medieval China was quite high (20-30%), significant growth of printed books on history, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and military Affairs. For military purposes was used gunpowder. Even the production of cast iron was based on the advanced technology (the use of coke and blast furnace continuous purge), which became known in England only 500 years later, and was carried out at the enterprises, numbering hundreds of workers. In China existed an extensive transport network and well-developed financial system. By the XIV century there were many preconditions of the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the late eighteenth century It was, as the researchers believe, relatively well-developed market economy, formed the pursuit of profits and fueled the rapid spread of advanced technology. Agricultural revolution in England occurred in the XVIII century, China has carried out 700 years earlier, thanks to what could be a giant city with millions of inhabitants.

However, in the struggle for world domination, the victory went to Europe. Explaining this historical paradox, many associate it, for example, with voluntary refusal of China and Japan from the scientific, technical and industrial modernization, which was perceived as a threat to the traditional worldview and culture [2], and despotism and sacred nature of Imperial power in Muslim countries and for many other reasons. Be that as it may, since the XVI century, the globalization rush largest nomadic, agrarian, industrial and semi-industrialized empires of Central and South-East Asia (China and India) have dried up. Since then, despite the stubborn resistance led by the Ottomans the Islamic world, the subsequent four centuries, globalization went hand in hand with colonialism of national States in Western Europe, industrial, economic and military-technical development which has allowed them to expand their presence in America, Asia and Africa.

Does this mean that the future of globalization is the inevitable Westernization of the global periphery and semi-periphery? A specific answer to this question depends in large part on whether non-Western countries, adapted to the present that is patterned after American patterns, Westernization, to develop their own national forms of global strategies.

National forms of global strategies

Discussing this issue, many researchers have attributed the prospects of the semi-periphery of States with palliative measures – with the strategy of concentrating resources on advanced directions of scientific and technical progress or establish the legal basis for globalization to establish a real equality between all participants in the globalization process or, for example, with the reduced requirements of the leading countries in cheap labour. The last two assumptions are of a utopian character, but of national forms of global strategies related to the refusal to blindly follow the recommendations of the International monetary Fund (IMF), the world trade organization (WTO) and other international institutions of neo-liberalism, quite real. Instead it is proposed to recognize the priority of national interests, the modernization of the economy based not only on borrowed from Western forms of economic and political life, but on their own socio-cultural and political traditions and resources. The key point of such national strategies is a measure of the combination of these Western and national forms of modernization. The options here can be very different – from extremely high level of Westernization of several aspects of the state to a marginal, covering mainly economic sphere.

An example of the first embodiment of the globalization development has given Japan, which borrowed Western economic and political standards without loss of civilizational identity. After the Second world war occupation regime of the USA in Japan demanded the disintegration of collective structures as conductors militaristic consciousness, but the liberalization did not lead to a simple destruction of traditional society. The ruling elite put forward a different program: don't have to break the traditional structures of society, and to change the objectives of the state using community structures as a conduit of state influence. Thus, Japan is not a culture adapted to the tasks of modernization and governing elites who want to modernize, adapt to the culture. The Japanese modernized on the basis of their own civilization: social and cultural change, they carried out a technological revolution [8, p. 32-41].

The same path went the new industrial countries of South-East Asia. Their success in the long term was not as significant in comparison with China, which began to develop economic and technological systems of the West, not radically changing social and political values. According to some scholars, China provides a model for development based on their own, not Western rationality: "rationality In the political class and particularly the bureaucracy – not just the media functions, but above all patriots ... the Rational here is not the Cartesian and Confucian" [9, p. 18].

The Chinese leadership seeks admission to the WTO, at the same time defending during the discussion of the conditions for their own interests. Some concessions (lower tariffs on high-tech products from the USA, etc.) were made only in words, to achieve results in the negotiations. In the strategic plan maintained the policy of protectionism, especially in agriculture and nascent industries. On the other hand, the Chinese found that some of the measures the WTO can become a tool for self-defense (the use of anti-dumping laws, improve quality control of imported goods, etc.).

In 2010, the national science Foundation of the USA published a detailed statistical summary of the global dynamics of scientific and technological development for 1995-2009: the science develops in China, which is already caught up in the number of researchers. In Western Europe and the USA continues to be moderate growth; in Russia the main indicators of scientific and technological development do not grow but decrease.

Therefore, the Chinese obviously have a lot to learn – first and foremost to protect the national interest. To guide this country search of more favorable conditions on the international market is less important than participation in creating the rules of the game in this market. According to researchers, Chinese leaders, recognizing the need to deepen integration with the global economy, has sought to manage this process on their own terms, to maximize profit and to minimize their vulnerability. As a result of such nationally oriented position in the country brought a flood of foreign direct investment (FDI) with such force that in 2010 China on the level of annual FDI surpassed the US. However, in 2012 the inflow of direct foreign investments amounted to us $111,72 billion, which is 3.7% less than in the previous year. This is the first contraction in three years. Nevertheless, the volume of FDI in China remains substantial.

The secret of success lies in the preservation of the role of government in the economy, which has become especially important in modern conditions, characterized by instability of financial capital and the fluctuations of global markets. It is significant that the Asian crisis of 1997-1998 did not affect China, although the country is economically linked to South East Asia caught up in the crisis. It happened because the financial sector in China has not been liberalized. The result is that the leaders of modernization "Asian tigers" – turned out to be less attractive partners for global transnational corporations (TNCs), and China, by contrast, is interesting, owing to its limited integration into the globalization of Finance. The purpose of the global MNCs in entering into China is a fast profit, they are interested in a stable government, thanks to which the country embarked on the "sinicization" of products, which in turn ensures better sales and bigger profits. As a result the Chinese affiliates become "Patriotic" in its strategy than can hardly boast of other countries semi-periphery. But in 2013, the vector of the flow of FDI has shifted from China to Malaysia and Singapore.

India is also a country that is able to create an alternative national model of modernization. After independence, the government of the Indian national Congress proclaimed a course towards accelerated economic growth with minimal external assistance.

However, the influence of the principles of the consumer society led in the 1980-ies to the rejection of the system of control of imports, above the inflow of foreign capital and to abandon restrictions (liberalization) the activities of TNCs. Indian leaders of the time, unlike the Chinese leaders, saw in the attraction of foreign capital the sources of economic growth, while in China, thanks to the policy of a regulated government market, the economy itself has attracted outside capital. As a result, in the 1980-1990-ies the level of economic development of India has changed little. FDI did not meet expectations, the growth in the luxury consumption has not led to economic progress. The country is still difficult to cope with the problem of mass poverty, a heavy load hanging on the economy. Measures to liberalize the financial system in the 1990s years have only made matters worse, not only the most underprivileged, but in General poor people.

It is worth mentioning that in the first decade of the twenty-first century India's economy has demonstrated growth rates comparable to China. Reaching for a short while in 2009 the indicator of China 9.1%, India has since then continuously slows down development. In 2010, the growth rate declined to 8.8% in 2011 to 7.1%, while the forecast for 2013 world's leading rating agencies was below 6%. Standard and Poor's, for example, has lowered the forecast estimates economic growth of India in 2013, from 6.5% to 5.5%. India not only managed to overtake by this indicator, China, it again behind him by more than 3%. And with a GDP per capita of India is inferior to China more than twice, the slowdown in economic growth in India becomes a major problem.

At the same time, globalization has not brought India serious socio-political upheavals that took place in South-East Asia and Latin America. In Indian society the prevailing view about the necessity of self-development in accordance with national interests. Globalization is not seen as a one-dimensional process, it is believed that a country can choose its own development strategy. As noted by many researchers, in India there is consensus between major political forces on key issues of development and participation in globalization. Indian reforms have not changed the orientation on the protection of the domestic market, resulting in the national capital continued to strengthen. The privatization of the public sector has been more successful and effective than in Russia, the reforms were no surges or damage. The emphasis was on the development of the domestic market. It was not the policy of autarky, and a reasonable focus on their own problems, some of which have been successfully resolved. All this testifies to the originality of the Indian national modernization strategy.

Other countries, rather, adapt to globalization than develop their own national strategy. In some it is obtained successfully, in particular, by the Arabian monarchies, others – for example, countries in Tropical Africa South of the Sahara – does not work at all. The reasons are less related to national-cultural characteristics, and to a greater extent so that the resources of these States demanded the global economy.

Some researchers see promise in establishing a triangle "Russia – India – China" as the Union of three multi-ethnic and multi-religious civilizations, state interests are not provided by the Euro-Atlantic version of globalization. All three countries advocate the democratization of international order, strengthening the role of the UN, against NATO expansion and have a common enemy in the face of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism. One way or another, and to Russia, India, and China, and to other countries in the task of liberation from the erroneous concepts and search for more appropriate strategies. The basis of such strategies would be the rejection of neo-liberal dogmas, strengthening of sovereignty and the role of the state as tools for the solution of global problems.

Will Russia be able to create an alternative model of modernization to their own civilizational basis? Given that in the past centuries Russia has several times lost its civilizational identity, far from it. Not pleased with the policy of the country in the field of economy modernization, development of science and education. The comparison with China is not in favor of Russia. According to various sources expenses

Tags: assessment , forecasts , geopolitics