EnglishРусский

Social and cultural aspects of globalization process

O. Yu. Kolosova, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, associate professor

Krasnodar University of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation,

Stavropol branch, Stavropol Territory, Russia

 

At the present stage this sort of designing does not satisfy researchers any more. The description of the phenomena in the retrospective terms with the prefix “post-”, accenting the end of a certain stage of society evolution, does not correspond with the needs of understanding of dynamics of the process [2, р. 168–177].

It is clear that the research paradigm has changed too. Firstly, forms of manifestation of global processes become more and more ambivalent that significantly complicates their interpretation [17, р. 241]. Secondly (but it isn't less important), interest in development factors, their judgment according to synthesis of theoretical conclusions with public policy attitudes [14, р. 87–93].

To a certain extent these processes make intrinsic feature of information society and apply for the present model of inclusiveness [3, р. 309–315]. There is essential influence of parameters of cultural factors on the movement of society from traditionalism to modernization, on correlation of modernization shifts with globalization processes [5, р. 118–124]. There is a formation of single sociocultural space and global culture which is the immanent characteristic of the present world order [13, р. 123–128]. The global culture consists of a set of supranational, national, ethnic, religious, social and group, individual identities which interaction generates qualitatively new social experience [16, р. 39–44].

Elements of global culture are both uniform models of consumption and orientation to the institutes of democracy and market proper to national cultures of the leading actors of globalization [8, р. 155–159]. It is possible to speak about the universal statement of the general ethical principles and value orientations. It is about fundamental binding of sociocultural community of any significance value.

Meanwhile practice of social self-organization and a form of institutionalization of that global civil society which, according to supporters of social responsible globalization, is capable to provide controllability of a new world in many respects depends on the answer to this question. Identification of cultural motivation of social changes appears to be an effective way of the analysis of intensive cross-border processes, characteristic for the present era. After all social and cultural streams don't become isolated within the national states (or other steady political communities) [4]. They reflect constantly changing social reality and react to these changes, having direct impact on institutional design of modern societies, objectified individual behavior by broadcast of cultural preferences on the level of institutes. The modern states also carry out some other important social functions - in education, health care, culture, social help [15, р. 282–284]. Leaving position of the main player the state in the system of public regulation creates threat for performance of these functions too.

As far as increasing of processes of globalization people start rising against loss of their unique face and sovereignty. Splash in ethnic consciousness is everywhere, it causes intensity growth; almost everywhere processes of globalization are followed by growth of the conflictness [6, р. 151–155]. Globalization not only challenges role and value of the state nation, but also undermines bases of institutes of civil society in the countries acting as the main subjects of this process [9, р. 119–123].

Life worth living of the person in modern conditions is possible only in the system of the certain culture, valuable and standard environment, atmosphere of the certain mentality [7, р. 124–129]. Globalization destroys these systems of fine-drawn mechanisms of public life, depreciating, impoverishing the vital circle of the person. Globalization sharply lowers the level of moral development of society, having impact on formation of consciousness of the personality [12, р. 18–22].

Globalization is absolutely indifferent to that how evenly there is a process of acceleration of economic and social development, it is possible to judge on that fact that the whole states and social groups dropped out of process of globalization and hardly ever will become its active subjects. However, contradictory, dual nature of globalization is most distinctly shown by its consideration in the system of culturological coordinates [10, р. 172–176].

On the one hand, globalization obviously promotes acceleration of process of a sociodynamics of culture. Under its influence rates of production, distribution and consumption of cultural values sharply increase. Cycle period of culture is sharply reduced that leads to increase in volume of information received by the individual to expansion of its outlook, increase of intellectual level [18, р. 177–182]. Due to new information technologies a person of global society had an opportunity to get acquainted with the whole set of artifacts which were inaccessible to people of industrial and post-industrial society owing to absence at their considerable part of opportunity to make excursion trips to various countries, to travel all over the world, to use services provided by the well-known storages of cultural values where the considerable part of world cultural heritage is concentrated.

Globalization legalized existence of a certain cultural standard according to which the person of information society has to know several foreign languages, be able to use the personal computer, carry out process of communication with representatives of other cultural worlds, understand tendencies of development of the modern art, literature, philosophy, science [11, р. 6–9].

Globalization has increased intensity of cultural exchanges, sharply expanded a circle of those who makes infinite process of transition of one cultural world to another. Globalization creates prerequisites for the culture exit out of limits of communal and breeding and local and territorial formations. Due to the new information technologies ideas, symbols, knowledge and abilities which are saved up by one or another ethnos are widely adopted in other cultural worlds, promoting formation at representatives of other nations and the people of more exact representation that one or another culture represents, what place it takes among a set of national and ethnic cultures [19, р. 10–16].

Globalization is a sociocultural process which along with the positive moments generates also a number of the negative phenomena which are evident those who consider it as a subject of the scientific analysis. That technical progress has led to change of communication opportunities of the person and society in space and time [1, р. 156–159]. Slowly, during the millennia there was a process of communication compression of the world where everybody makes a single society. It was promoted by a number of fundamental discoveries and achievements. As a result there was an existential compression of the world which reduced not only physical, but also social distances, put people of many layers and classes in rather identical living conditions. The accelerated formation of system of the global social relations as bases of the becoming global society was possible owing to denationalization of international intercourse.

 

Bibliography

 

1. Бакланов И. С., Бакланова О. А., Ерохин А. М. Эпистемологические и лингвистические исследования в аналитической философии науки: семантика конструктов // Вестник СевКавГТИ. – 2015. – Т. 1. – № 2 (21). – С. 156–159.

2. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С. Современная российская социальность в контексте социального конструкционизма // Вопросы социальной теории. – 2015. – Т. 7. – № 1-2. – С. 168–177.

3. Бакланов И. С., Яценко А. Л. Роль социальных сетей в процессах глобализации // Личность. Культура. Общество. – 2010. – Т. XII. – № 4 (59–60). – С. 309–315.

4. Говердовская Е. В., Антюхина А. В., Шульженко В. И. Актуальные проблемы духовной жизни личности и общества: региональный аспект. – Волгоград, 2014.  

5. Говердовская Е. В., Добычина Н. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. – 2014. – № 7. – С. 118–124.

6. Гончаров В. Н. Современные концепции общества: философский анализ // Культура. Духовность. Общество. – 2015. – № 16. – С. 151–155.

7. Гончаров В. Н. Социально-философский аспект исследования общества // Наука и современность. – 2014. – № 32-2. – С. 124–129.

8. Гончаров В. Н. Социально-философский анализ экономической сферы общества // Наука и современность. – 2015. – № 35. – С. 155–159.

9. Гончаров В. Н. «Политическая культура» и «политическая социализация» как основы гражданского общества в России // Система ценностей современного общества. – 2010. – № 15. – С. 119–123.

10. Гончаров В. Н. Общество как социальная система // Система ценностей современного общества. – 2015. – № 39. – С. 172–176.

11. Daraganova Yu.S. Философия науки // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2011. – № 4. – С. 6–9.

12. Ерохин А. М. Религиозное сознание в контексте общественных отношений // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 2 (81). – С. 18–22.

13. Ерохин А. М. Научно-информационный аспект исследования социокультурного развития общества в области культуры и искусства // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2015. – № 2. – С. 123–128.

14. Камалова О. Н., Карпун А. Б. Основные структурные элементы политической власти // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 87–93.

15. Лобейко Ю. А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal. – 2014. – № 7-2 (46). – С. 282–284.

16. Матяш Т. П., Несмеянов Е. Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 3 (82). – С. 39–44.

17. Микеева О. А. Анализ методологии и направлений исследований современной социальной реальности // Социально-гуманитарные знания. –2009. – № 9. – С. 241.

18. Несмеянов Е. Е. Соотношение религии и науки в гуманитарном знании и современном обществе (по материалам монографии К. В. Воденко и А. А. Мекушкина «Христианство и наука: история и современность» (М., 2014)) // Гуманитарий Юга России. – 2015. – № 1. – С. 177–182.

19. Матяш Т. П., Матяш Д. В., Несмеянов Е. Е. «Науки о природе» и «науки о духе»: судьба старой дилеммы // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 1 (80). – С. 10–16.

Комментарии:

Ваш ник:
Ваш email:
Текст комментария: