State Evolution In Context Of Globalization: A Methodological And Synergetic Analysis


The paper presents the methodological aspect of research on the problems of state and society evolution in the context of globalization. Within the framework of the St. Petersburg scientific school of social synergetics (V. P. Bransky school), these problems are included in the subject of eschatology, phenomenology and essentiology. The study is conducted on speculative models of society and the state, which functions and develops in the logic of the chosen gestalts. The main contradiction between management and self-organization is revealed, the source of macromutations in society (and the state), which is represented by the micro level of the evolution substrate (people, artifacts, production methods), is investigated. The principle of growth of the degree of synthesis of order and chaos, due to the desire of the system to maximize sustainability, is associated with the process of globalization, which leads, on the one hand, to strengthening order and responsibility at the macro level, and on the other, to individualization and freedom at the micro level. At the same time, the mechanism of social selection naturally develops into a mechanism of superselection. The state of the future is able to take over the function of superselection, becoming a global state.

Keywords: Self-organizationstatefreedomsuperselectionsuperattractorglobalization


The question of whether society will ever be able to free itself from the state as a whole or, in particular, from a number of obsolete functions, replace it with another organization, and also what the state is waiting for in the near and distant future, has arisen a long time ago and is investigated for long time been by philosophers and by scientists as well. From Plato to S. Moscovici and A. Panarin, the project of the state is becoming increasingly global, being represented more and more as the main tool for remaking the world and man, and no matter how institutions such as family, church, science or technology, the Bilderberg club or masons compete with the state, the state gains the upper hand in the competition between the transformation tools. Our work presents the methodological aspect of research into the problems of the evolution of the state and society in the context of globalization. In philosophy, in social synergetics, and, in particular, in the framework of the St. Petersburg school of social synergetics (V. P. Bransky school), these questions are included in the subject of eschatology, which, however, is preceded by such levels of object research as phenomenology and essentiology (teaching about the essence).

Problem Statement

We are guided by the methodology of the scientific research of Bransky (2002), in which modeling is allowed with the use of so-called gestalts – auxiliary structural images. A lot has been said and written about the problem of the expediency and correctness of references to physical synergetics in the study of social systems, and, as a rule, in the vein, that no analogy is suitable here because they allow the researcher to go the wrong way. This is partially agreeable. As an auxiliary, instrumental structural image (gestalt) to demonstrate the speculative model of interaction between society and the state, we use the description of the known physical experience (Haken, 2000). We replace in an empirical representation, in gestalt (in this case, physical experience) its elements with idealized objects (elements of the organizational structure of society). We end up with a speculative model of society, where the ideal object functions are in the logic of gestalt. So, consider an example of a heated fluid, in which structures are formed that resemble rotating shafts (Benard cells). When a certain temperature difference is reached above and below this liquid under conditions of its heating (control parameter), spatial structures arise in it - convection shafts, types of collective motion of molecules. Between configurations a competition arises, with the result that one configuration suppresses (subordinates) all others (the principle of subordination). In other cases, configurations can coexist and even stabilize one another. G. Haken calls the amplitudes of growing configurations order parameters. The order parameters form a special structure (hexagonal cells) at the moment when the system experiences instability and is located near the “bifurcation point”; they begin to be governed by the principle of subordination, i.e. they are lined up in a certain hierarchical structure, where one order parameter obeys another. The concept of order parameter and the principle of subordination, according to the German scholar, will become soon the central subject of discussion in sociology (Haken, 2003). The order parameter is the consistency of the action of elements on a system-wide background, quantified by the amplitude of the intensity of this process. This consistency of the parts as a whole can form something like a wave, a fashion, exciting and subduing other waves or a fashion. The mode of production (order parameter) in one sphere of social production, for example, science, is able to subordinate to itself other methods of cognition within the spiritual sphere, as well as subordinates already other methods of production. Such, for example, is the nature of the expansion of the religious worldview or the scientific paradigm (the synergistic effect of the influence of the spirit of capitalism is known, according to M. Weber, in the era of transition from a “traditionalist economy” to a capitalist enterprise (Weber, 1990).

Phenomenology of object research is associated with the observed processes. In society, this is, first of all, an individual choice (therefore, the problem of freedom), as well as bifurcations (revolutions, reforms, change of epochs) and social attractors (crises, wrecks or, on the contrary, sustainable development, stability). The state is a product of the historically defined mode of production and reproduction of organizations of public life, endowed with a special structure – a hierarchy of power, the main characteristic of the functioning of which is coerciveness. The principle of order, according to S. Moscovici (1998), implements such a kind of instrument as violence. As a certain method of organizational activity, the state, with appropriate control parameters (exchange with the external environment, in particular, external challenges, threats, as well as the nature of the evolution of initial conditions, etc.) subordinates to itself other methods of organizational activity (statism), which is observed more often. Nowadays, the influence of political fashion in modern world is widely known. The behavior of influential politicians, political parties, and the mass media form some new principles of political culture: sanctions against undesirable countries became for the modern West a favorite means of economic competition, and sex scandals in the USA have become a way of eliminating political opponents (but not only them). If a fashion or a boom of the same choices (behavioral reactions, actions) occurs in one area, then an order parameter is formed that is able to subjugate other order parameters in other areas, which sometimes leads to epochal shifts in the history of individual countries. As a result of this kind of action, the idea of justice inevitably acquires a political or utilitarian (economic) meaning and begins to justify the very synergistic effect that we described as gestalt, when the way in which government structures function enslaves other types of organizational activity in society.

Individuals and microgroups that reproduce (and realize) many degrees of freedom create chaos at the micro level of society, which breaks down to the macro level, to the level of large organizations (ethnos, superethnos, state, empire) in the form of a change (alternation) of chaos and order, distort or reform the macrostructure of a society. A strong correlation has been observed between the laws of population growth and the laws governing the formation, growth, and death of states, and these and other laws are associated with the characteristics of the global system. The internal stability of a hyperbolic population growth apparently – writes Knyazeva and Kurdyumov (2002), – and it is deeply connected with the characteristics of the world as a global system. The system-historical approach now being developed in demography is to consider the world as a single system, a non-linear and self-organizing system with positive (growth) and negative (stabilization) feedback. Not only the family and individuals transform the structure of the state and update the functioning of the spheres of public life, but, even more obviously, the state back actively influences the lives of individuals and families. How does this happen, more precisely, how can this be described in terms of social synergetics?

Research Questions

The reproduction cycle of a complex nonlinear social structure is represented by a selection mechanism; which is a question of regularity and causal cyclicity. Entering the concept of bifurcation allows us to create a non-linear model of the social environment. Near the bifurcation point, the maximum of instability, nonequilibrium, the system receives at least two directions for further evolution - a simple attractor and a strange attractor (with many of their possible forms). At the same time, there are also two general types of phase transitions - catastrophically fast, avalanche-like (exacerbated mode) and a mode of slow changes, which are obviously influenced by some kind of metastable structures (in a society - family, kinship community). As a result of the transition, hierarchization, complexity of the structure (simple attractor) or de-hierarchization (strange attractor) are possible. In the case of hierarchization, there are “prerequisites for increasing the degree of complexity, manifestation of the development trend, when random fluctuations form the conditions for bifurcations, in which there are opportunities for selecting a particular path to complication” (Busov & Zobova, 2014) Hierarchization is the emergence of a state in any of its historical forms and varieties, the unification of parts into a political whole, associated with the loss of a number of functions and their transfer to the whole. Dehierarchization (disintegration of the state, superethnos) is fraught with disunity, dismemberment of integrity into independent parts (families, communities, individuals), and such differentiation can complicate these parts, adding new functions to them. Both cases are the result of selection, when microfluction has caused significant changes in the macrostructure. Often the gestalt in the study of social selection is natural selection, which corresponds to the mechanism that allows to maximize the minimum differences between individuals, which ultimately leads to speciation.

If we consider the state as a model of social selection, we find that the state has its own selection factors: thesaurus (career elevators, preferences and other options for groups and individuals), a detector (a certain distribution of forces in society, including political competition, political and ideological groupings and cooperation), the selector (the basic rules that guide the detector, including the constitution, the basic principles of the state, the traditions). Terminology corresponds to the system of concepts and principles adopted in V. P. Bransky school, where social factors are a thesaurus (from which a choice is made; thesaurus is filled through bifurcations), a detector (who makes a choice, expressed through the correlation of forces in society) and a selector (governing rule, principle, law, on the basis of which a choice is made) (Bransky, & Pozharsky 2004). The thesaurus contains the structural possibilities of the existence of the state, and in the conditions of bifurcation their volume can increase significantly (or, conversely, decrease). The detector as a complex dynamic system of interaction of different forces and parties – in their competitive or cooperative relationship between themselves – leads to the selection and implementation of one of the many possibilities; it is a way of overcoming contradictions, providing stability and leading out the system to an attractor, that is, to the possible structure that will provide maximum stability with respect to a changing environment. The selector determines the boundaries of the detector and the direction of its activity; a kind of principle of directional flight, or the principle of optimizing the useful effect in the activities of the state. However, it should not be forgotten that the mechanism considered here is a mechanism of self-organization, and such mechanisms cannot be directly controlled as with an aircraft or a ship, but their development can be guided. At the time, academician Moiseyev (2000) said that “the idea of a managed society is a utopia <...> The development of society must not be controlled, but directed ...”. The contradiction between management and self-organization is the most important within the framework of the problem of state regulation in society. Where is the source of this contradiction, and what should I look for?

The source of self-organization is rooted in the micro level. Free choice made by an individual or a microgroup is a microfluctuation that can direct the reproduction process both towards chaos and towards streamlining, both towards deepening people’s disconnection, crisis, and towards finding a compromise, concord, overcoming a crisis, finding sustainable social macrostructure. The contradiction between management and self-organization manifests itself at all levels of society, but in different forms, first of all, as a relationship between choice (micro level of processes) and selection (macro level of processes). The choice of a subject, as already mentioned, is a microfluctuation, allowing randomness to form a new structure of the relation of probabilities, a new thesaurus, a new detector and a new selector, and in the organizational context – new forms of control (state regulation). In this connection, we relate two concepts: simple selection and superselection.

The problem of superselection indicates the possibility of hereditary macromutations in biological evolution and the possibility of similar leaps in social evolution. In super-selection, non-linearity is manifested in the form of the ability of a self-organizing system to act independently (reactivity, or the presence of feedback). In order for the selection to be more constructive, it must be radical, and for this, a new thesaurus is needed, which also entails a new detector and a new selector (Bransky, & Pozharsky, 2003). The selection of selection factors presupposes the existence of special situations when the selection of the laws governing evolution occurs. It is clear that the factors themselves do not manifest themselves outside and independently of the substrate of evolution: populations and individuals with their gene apparatus, as well as society and people with their inherent production methods and abilities. Consequently, it is necessary to look for the source of macromutations in the substrate of evolution. In the selection process of selection factors, meta-opportunities arise (talking about a narrow corridor into a difficult one) associated with people, artifacts, production methods. A popular expression is well known: Cadres decide everything! Creativity includes not only ordering (transition from chaos to order), but also chaos, when a game of accidents is observed. In order not to confine exclusively to the framework of freedom as a recognized need, it is also necessary to immerse yourself in the work of searching for homeostasis (ordering, hierarchization) determined by the factor of negative feedbacks, the aim of which is randomization (de-hierarchization), preferably controlled (deterministic chaos) and the presence of positive feedback, when freedom is defined as a known accident within the framework of the existing laws, that is, the existing thesaurus. From what has been said it is clear that the evolution of social reality is not reduced either to a unilateral increase in order, or to a unilateral increase in chaos. The evolution of dissipative structure is an increase in the degree of synthesis of order and chaos, due to the desire for maximum stability (Bransky, & Pozharsky, 2003). The dialectic of freedom is no longer presented as a contradiction between arbitrariness and responsibility, but as a contradiction between perceived necessity and known accident. Freedom creates for itself a new necessity, and does not slavishly accept the one that accidentally falls on it. Freedom as an accident known is aimed at knowing that accident which is the cause of fluctuations that change the ratio of probabilities in the variant necessary for the subject. Responsible freedom, responsibility, becomes, therefore, a known accident within the framework of a given law (Bransky, 1999), in other words, social creativity.

Purpose of the Study

The eschatology of the study of the evolution of the state is repelled from the source of fluctuations in the social system, that is, mainly from the problem of freedom. The process of globalization leads, on the one hand, to the strengthening of order and responsibility at the macro level, and on the other, to the enhancement of the role of an individual in the historical process. In the thesis, the global system strives for maximum order, predictability, and in the antithesis – to chaos and unpredictability. Here we see a peculiar manifestation of the minimax principle: the minimum of freedom is the maximum of order (necessity) and vice versa. The first trend is fraught with totalitarism, and the second – with anarchy. As an illustration of the second indicated tendency, the method of spontaneous privatization introduced in Russia in the early 1990s by reformers (A. Chubais, E. Gaidar and others), when the bourgeois-liberal principle of state non-interference became the selector, which led to anarchy in the economy, and then in other areas of society (Panarin, 2004). Is it possible against this background to work out the ideal of the development of society, the implementation of which would maintain order and not restrict freedom? The problem is in increasing the synthesis of order and chaos, namely, is there a global increase in the degree of synthesis of order and chaos or is it only local? Is it controlled by some kind of superatractor, a global quasi-target structure? The concept of a superattractor, introduced by V. P. Bransky means that the analysis of the evolution of a social system takes into account the presence of such a value of at least one of the control parameters, for example, life expectancy, which no longer corresponds to the concept of a local attractor, exhausts and removes it, translating logical reasoning into the plane of the global attractor.

Research Methods

It is necessary to at least briefly touch upon the problem of the relationship of the methodology of the synergistic philosophy of history and materialist dialectics. Methodology developed within the framework of the school of V. P. Bransky does not reject the dialectic in its main historical forms, represented by Hegel and Marx, but at the same time, they should not blindly, subjecting to criticism and rethinking such moments as the tendency to quite rigidly tie the historical to the logical (typical of Hegel), as well as characteristic of theorists of Marxism rigid binding of the options of the superstructure (state, ideology) to the characteristics of the economic basis. stability (Bransky, & Pozharsky, 2009) The nonlinear paradigm, including irreversibility, ambiguity of action, disproportionality and reactivity (the presence of feedback), leads to removing paradoxes (antinomies) that have arisen in phenomenology at the level of essentialism. Of course, this will be the removal of an incomplete, limited to the modern level of knowledge, but, nevertheless, holistic. The doctrine of self-organization (synergetic), in our opinion, includes in its particular case the Marxist dialectic, since it more than meets the requirements of the modern scientific picture of the world.


Let us analyze the problems of global progress formulated above and the superattractor. First, the superatractor must somehow manifest itself in the framework of local progress, and here its range must have a certain value, despite the fact that the hierarchy of structural levels of matter is a sequence of local attractors (microparticle – atom – molecule – cell – organism – a person, etc.), where each new level of organization can be considered as an attractor in relation to the previous, within the limits of global (infinite) progress, its value inevitably tends to zero, because here it manifests itself asymptotically. The value of the superattractor in the aspect of local progress is explained by a fraction of the absolute in the relative (the dialectic of the absolute and relative). The proportion of the global attractor contained in the local attractor will determine how large the qualitative leap is made in the evolution of a particular system. Secondly, the possibility of global progress is very likely, because it consists of local ones.


According to V. P. Bransky, thanks to the super-selection action, i.e., learning lessons from overcoming previous contradictions (namely, as a result of the formation of a global thesaurus, a global detector and a global selector – author), creates a “tendency to minimize the newly emerging contradictions. Thanks to this tendency, an opportunity arises to approach the superattractor arbitrarily, without reaching it in a finite period of time ... (Bransky, & Pozharsky 2004). At the same time, it is possible, at least “one step, to outpace the growth of global problems and civilizational crises, which turns out to be the main content of progress. In this formulation, the concept of global progress is meaningfully correlated with the concept of a superattractor. Formal differences between them are not significant for science. The state of the future assumes the function of superselection, becoming a global state, or a body of superselection in the presence of such factors as the global thesaurus, global detector and global selector. Let us conclude with a quote from a program article of our school on the problem of the global development of mankind: The results of a detailed analysis of the historical panorama of the events of the twentieth century. demonstrated that the global development of mankind is a derivative of its global self-organization, and the solution of the problem of such self-organization is equivalent to the discovery of the law governing humanity (Bransky, Pozharsky, Mikaylova, Busov, & Zobova, 2017).


  1. Bransky, V. P. (1999). Art and philosophy: the role of philosophy in the formation and perception of a work of art on the example of the history of painting. Kaliningrad: Amber tale.
  2. Bransky, V. P. (2002). Philosophy of physics of the twentieth century. results and prospects. Saint Petersburg: Polytechnic.
  3. Bransky, V. P., Pozharsky, S. D. (2003). Synergetic historicism as a new philosophy of history. Synergetic paradigm. Man and society in conditions of instability. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
  4. Bransky, V. P., Pozharsky, S. D. (2004). Globalization and synergistic historicism. Synergetic theory of globalization. Saint Petersburg: Polytechnic.
  5. Bransky, V. P., Pozharsky, S. D., Mikaylova, I. G., Busov, S. V., Zobova, M. R. (2017). The global development of mankind from the standpoint of a synergistic philosophy of history. Questions of philosophy, 5, 55-65.
  6. Busov, S. V., Zobova, M. R. (2014). Social Synergetics – Breakthrough into the Future. Scientific Opinion (scientific journal), 4, 18-24.
  7. Haken, G. (2000). Basic concepts of synergetics. Synergistic paradigm. The variety of searches and approaches. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
  8. Haken, G. (2003). Synergetics as a bridge between the natural and social sciences. Synergetic paradigm. Man and society in conditions of instability. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
  9. Knyazeva, E. N., Kurdyumov, S. P. (2002). Foundations of synergetics. Modes with exacerbation, self-organization, tempo-worlds. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia.
  10. Moiseev, N. N. (2000). The fate of civilization. Path of Reason. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture.
  11. Moscovici, S. (1998). The Machine that Creates the Gods. Translation from French. Moscow: Center of Psychology and Psychotherapy.
  12. Panarin, A. S. (2004). Strategic instability in the 21st century. Moscow: Eksmo, Algorithm.
  13. Bransky V. P., Pozharsky S. D. (Ed.). (2009). Synergetic philosophy of history. Ryazan: Copy-Print.
  14. Weber, M. (1990). Selected Works: Translation from German. Moscow: Progress.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

29 March 2019

eBook ISBN



Future Academy



Print ISBN (optional)


Edition Number

1st Edition




Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society

Cite this article as:

Busov, S., Zobova, M., & Rodyukov, A. (2019). State Evolution In Context Of Globalization: A Methodological And Synergetic Analysis. In D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 58. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 2558-2565). Future Academy.