In the article, the Civilization Guide of Russia and Dagestan defines civil society as the most effective contributor to the country's sustainable development and consolidation of the whole community. This direction of development is characteristic of countries in the post-Soviet space. An entire complex of circumstances forms the external and internal environment that determines the nature of sustainable development and civil society. The development of countries is carried out in the context of globalization, Eurasian and Eastern culture, postmodern and global culture, modernization, regionalization, special political regimes. The aim of the article is a cultural-historical analysis of this complex, refracted through the prism of regional features. Article concludes that there is the dependence of the socio-political consolidation of society on its civilizational development. With regard to Dagestan, its civilizational development strategy is associated with the concept of its modernization towards civil society. The second conclusion of the article is that the Dagestan prospects arising from the realities are such that they are forced to subordinate democratic transformations, first of all, to the development of ethnocultural pluralism and respect for ethnic parity, the principle of equal importance and support for the culture of all ethnic groups, acting along with state power as the leading subjects of social development. The third conclusion connects the civilizational strategy of Russia and Dagestan with the theory of the communicative community of Y. Habermas, through the prism of which the essence and content of civil society are modernized, consistent with the communitarian types of civil society.
Keywords: RussiaDagestancivil societyconsolidation
The issue of socio-political consolidation is the issue of agreement of the main actors regarding the civilizational future of society. Its scale determines the leading subjects of socio-political life. On a global scale, world powers and countries are collaborating in realizing the idea of a global partnership to address disarmament, counter-terrorism, and nuclear safety issues. Moreover, cooperation is not only in the field of military-political interaction but also in coordinating the strategies of the cultural and civilizational future of their countries. Inside this or that society, the activity of social and historical communities is significant. However, in the first and the second case, the idea of their unification and consolidation, the strategy of the future social development is crucial.
The vector of the future largely depends on the cultural and civilizational specifics of society. Therefore, in this article, we will try to highlight the factors of sustainable cultural and civilizational development of Russia and its regions, in particular Dagestan. We believe that one of the main factors of socio-political stability is civil society. Therefore, we will try to determine the regional specifics of the development of society in the context of the civilizational future of the countries of the post-Soviet space. The sustainable cultural and civilizational development of the countries of the post-Soviet Eurasian space depends on a rather complicated and not always definite correlation of factors, causes, determinants, conditions, subjective and objective circumstances of ongoing processes. The following provisions are the methodological basis of the study. Sustainable development of these countries should be carried out in the context of globalization, Eurasian and Eastern culture, postmodern and global culture, modernization, regionalization, special political regimes – a whole complex of circumstances that form the external and internal environment that determines the nature of sustainable development and civil society.
As for Russia and its regions, we are sure that the country's course, taken back in the early 90s of the twentieth century towards a liberal, liberal civil society, requires correction. This statement is based on the fact that many of the civil society's previous parameters are either lost or are being transformed. To such, we would include the priority of the material over the spiritual, the dominance of private ownership of the means of production, the principles of a market economy, a bet on rationalism, individualism in public life. Besides, now in the most advanced countries, there is a process of formation of a global civil society, which is undergoing a noticeable transformation of the former significant and significant sides of the traditional civil society. That is why Russia does not need Western guidelines, but a different culture and economy, a different civilization, a different civil society.
Unfortunately, politics is pragmatic, applied, and often even simple methodological principles. Such principles are historicism in consideration of phenomena, nonlinear determination in society, the synergistic effects of complex processes, and many others are massively ignored in the management of society out of ignorance. If we very briefly express the essence of civil society as a new type of civilization, then this is a society based on the freedom, equality, self-organization, and initiative of citizens, on the voluntary interaction of public actors and the social orientation of their activities, democracy and the rule of law (Resnik, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
The aim of the article is a cultural-historical analysis of a factors complex influencing the formation of civil society, refracted through the prism of regional features of Russia and Dagestan.
We are confident that the course of Russia and its regions, taken back in the early 90s of the twentieth century towards a liberal civil society, requires correction. The reason for this statement is that many of the previous parameters of civil society are either lost or transformed. To such we would include the priority of the material over the spiritual, the dominance of private ownership of the means of production, the principles of a market economy, a bet on rationalism, individualism in public life. Also, now in the most advanced countries, there is a process of formation of a global civil society, which is undergoing a noticeable transformation of the old significant and significant aspects of traditional civil society. That is why Russia does not need Western guidelines, but a different culture and economy, a different civilization, a different civil society.
Unfortunately, politics is pragmatic, applied, and often even simple methodological principles – historicism in considering phenomena, non-linear determination of society, the synergistic effects of complex processes, and many others are massively ignored in the management of society by ignorance. Let us turn to the essence of civil society as a new type of civilization. Civil society is a society that is based on the freedom, equality, self-organization, and initiative of citizens, on the voluntary interaction of public entities and the social orientation of their activities, democracy and the rule of law (Resnik, 2006).
As for foreign scientific thought, up to the present, another, no less important bias in understanding civil society prevails in it. Until now, many well-known Western "social activists" are sincerely convinced that civil society is an exceptional product of the West and that in non-Western regions, civil society can be considered such only if it is a copy of the western one. Sometimes domestic researchers, trying to judge the presence or absence of civil society in non-Western regions of the modern world, "look for" only those parameters that are characteristic of the West (democracy, the rule of law, a market economy, and the rule of private property). Meanwhile, there is no evidence that these characteristics are universal and not accidental, caused by cultural differences. Indeed, at one time, the unique civilization of the West was a kind of "anomaly in world development." At the same time, the more significant components of civil society are not yet adequately reflected in the scientific literature, and therefore, are practically not studied concerning Russian reality and countries of the non-Western range.
It seems to us that the main features of civil society are as follows:
1) an individual striving to become a person, as a particular unit of society and one of its subjects;
2) the presence of a variety of public institutions formed voluntarily or the basis of a multilateral agreement and performing an intermediary role in the relationship between the individual and the state, the "private" and "public" spheres, and private and common interests;
3) the presence of the state itself, which is a special civilized (based on the social division of labor) form of a hostel in which a developed social individual is formed.
Reznik (2006) gives an even more concise statement: “a society of free autonomous entities — namely, individuals, communities, and organizations that carry out their activities in the interests of the development of each person and the entire human race” (p. 65).
For us, the assertion that each socio-political system corresponds to a unique basic model of civil society, which in each particular country manifests itself in national-specific forms, is indisputable. This current of view is natural since both universalist and purely national-cultural and historical elements participate in the formation of national self-awareness and political culture of the people (Bilalov, 2015). In this case, the denial of the universality of the historical experience of European civilization becomes apparent. Moreover, it is logical to equate European civilization with a particular case with a refutation of its claims to the main path of human development.
The specific appearance of such a society is determined, first of all, by the prevailing type of civic culture, and then Western civil societies are divisible by models. According to Reznik, the modern world has generally developed three main models of social development – a “person -istic” type society (the USA and Canada), a “communal” type society (countries of Western and Eastern Europe) and a “corporate” type society (for example, Japan, South Korea). Note that in Europe itself, due to the North Atlantic influence, the personalistic type is also widespread, although social democratic tendencies are traditional here.
Of particular importance for the subject of our study of the prospects of civil society in Russia and Dagestan are the modern theoretical schemes proposed by the concepts of modernization and postmodernity (Turen, Habermas, Giddens, Bauman, and other researchers). In them, civil society is defined either as a society replacing the traditional social structure or as a society growing out of the modern state and bearing all its features. Modernization is recognized by most theorists of this concept as a secondary process, as if repeating, copying the West. This process has become a kind of catalyst, which developed following the logic of its life, and all the others modernized after it. The concept of modernization is based on the premise that in the real world, coexisting, modern, and post-modern social systems coexist. The most economically and culturally developed countries of the West are already reaching the post-modern level of development. A significant part of countries, including and Russia, is at the present development or the transition to it. According to this typology, the so-called developing countries relate to transitional or traditional forms of society in which civil society is still in its infancy.
For social philosophy as early as the twentieth century. The problems of preserving humanity as a real communicative community, through the prism of which the essence and content of civil society are modernized, have become urgent. Habermas considers free consensus to be the ideal of a communicative society. For the possibility of consensus, it is necessary to proceed from the condition that everyone who enters into communication, making any speech acts, must put forward a universal claim to significance. Clarity of expression, the truthfulness of the statement, the truthfulness of intention, and correctness of the norms are necessary. The result of such a communicative action is a discourse representing an ideal language situation. In a language situation, any participant has an equal opportunity to speak out and who is free of internal and external pressure.
Karl Otto Apel, agreeing with Habermas in his consensus theory. Apel considers it possible to strive for an ideal communicative community only in conditions free from public pressure, accepting the pragmatic, ethical, and moral ways put forward by Habermas to apply practical reason for organizing social organization. The need for the proper use of practical reason echoes the Kantian declaration of an “internal moral law” concluded in man, and civil society is conceived as the result of a consensus that submits not to ethical-pragmatic discourse, but only to moral. Although civil society can function on all of these discourses, expressing different types of rationality. Pragmatic discourse is coupled with classical rationality with the criteria of expediency, benefit, benefit – this is a subtype of ethical discourse (individualism, collectivism). The individual formation of will characteristic of him is evidence of the correspondence of pragmatic discourse with the golden rule of morality. However, the cultural origins of Russia and Dagestan are more in line with ethical discourse. Habermas defines this discourse as admitting communitarianism and corresponding value rationalism and not underestimating the importance of individual life projects. A citizen who is in identification with the collective, with a collective beginning in society, maintains a definite form of individualism. This circumstance opens up the prospect of a new, modern historical form of civil society within the framework of the communitarian type, classified by Reznik.
A common feature of various postmodern theories is the rejection of the focusing role of the types of discourses, rationality, and generally the rejection of the search for system-forming factors for the institutionalization of civil society. Most of them are characterized by a view on the formation of civil society as a mostly spontaneous and multivariate process, due to both objective and subjective factors. However, at the same time, the assumption is essential that the modern face of civil society is determined primarily by reasons of an intangible nature. In postmodernism, there is a general opinion that while at the stage of the emergence of civil society in its modern form, the development of industrial industry and technology is of paramount importance, then at the stage of transition to postmodernity, the influence of culture becomes predominant.
Of course, this culture appears as a postmodern or its corresponding projection, as dominant in the modern era of globalization in many advanced countries. This culture also defines the general vector of integrated cultural systems in most countries of the world. It takes on the shape of a global culture. According to the figurative remark of Mironov (2012), a culture receives an infectious infection through the planting of cultural stereotypes in it that do not follow from its history. The primary infection is an aggressive and omnivorous pop culture, as self-expression of modern mass culture and a typical product of the global information space. Pop culture is fundamentally estranged from fundamental ethnic, religious foundations, and traditions (Mironov, 2012). In such conditions of the spiritual sphere of most countries, it is necessary to carry out the cultural policy proclaimed by UNESCO in the middle of the last century as a set of conscious actions in society aimed at achieving particular goals based on the optimal use of physical and spiritual resources (Culturalpolicy, 1969). It is not easy in these conditions to realize the strategic goals of the contemporary cultural policy of Russia. Russia's policy presupposes the preservation of traditional spiritual and moral values, the all-Russian identity, and the increasing role of Russia in the global humanitarian and cultural space (Zamaraeva, 2017).
In the geopolitical space we are considering, the post-Soviet countries at the basis of civilizational development have the East-West dilemma, choosing values for the prospects of civil society. It also seems to us that the initial deep-seated difference between what is called the "West" and "East" is the basic orientation of the social structure principles either towards the individual or to some social whole, to the system (a tribe, a community, an empire). Accordingly, one can name these two basic cultural types: "person-centrism" and "system-centrism."
In the person-centric scale, the main thing is the individual. All social processes are viewed through the prism of the human person, his priority in society, his rights, and freedoms. On the system-centric scale of values, an individual is either wholly absent or perceived as a tool or building material to achieve any supra-individual – "system" – goals. Among the most important of them have always been stability, the invariability of the social order, and, as far as possible, expansion, expansion of the zone of influence. Nevertheless, system-centrism allows for contemporary manifestations of the corporate and communitarian types of civil society. According to Habermas, with the dominance of the cooperative principle in civil society, a reduction in the definite form of individualism is possible.
In recent centuries, eastern countries have been copying and borrowing European values. However, the era of globalization alarmed the East by an aggressive invasion into its deep spiritual world of the ideals of European Enlightenment, targeted rationalism. These processes had devastating consequences for the most modern West with many global problems. That is why the very philosophy of liberalism, which has become the basis of modern European culture, increasingly prefers reasonable conservatism. According to reasonable conservatism, freedom is not always a blessing: when they are not able to dispose of it, it turns into its opposite, harms people (Bilalov, 2016). So it is with liberal democracy, which extends the sphere of individual freedom to the utmost, which the United States tends to absolutize at the request of the United States in several regions of Western Europe and political regimes imposed on Muslim countries.
Prospects for the development of Russia, arising from existing realities, are associated with the following conclusions.
Firstly, democratic transformations in Russia should be subordinated to the development of ethnocultural pluralism, respect for ethnic parity, the principle of equal importance, and support for the culture of all ethnic groups. The civilization development strategy of Dagestan should take into account the possibilities of its modernization in the direction of civil society as a civilizational landmark. A global civil society should lead humanity to free itself from the global power of capital and a unipolar world, from consumer society and mass culture to the development of human qualities, genuine culture, nature conservation, to anti-globalism and alternative globalization (Buzgalin, 2008).
The second conclusion of the article is that the Dagestan prospects arising from the realities are such that democratic transformations must be subordinated to the development of ethnocultural pluralism, respect for ethnic parity, the principle of equal significance and support for the culture of all ethnic groups. Loyalty to the historical, cultural origins of the post-Soviet peoples turns them to the ideals and norms of Eurasianism. The ideals and norms of Eurasianism can be classified as fundamental, forming the globalization joints of the West and the East. The famous philosopher Shevchenko (2018) connects the prospects of Russia with the Eurasian future. His conclusions can be extrapolated to all countries of the post-Soviet space. The conclusions of Shevchenko in their historical basis, in their cultural matrix, relate to traditional societies. At the same time, a big idea and strategic goals and objectives based on integral ideology can maintain their value-semantic heterogeneity within the framework of national harmony and territorial integrity (Shevchenko, 2018).
The third conclusion of this article states the fit of the civilizational strategy of Russia and Dagestan into the theory of the communicative community of J. Habermas. Through the prism of the theory of Habermas, the essence and content of civil society are modernized, consistent with the communitarian types of civil society.
Thus, the circumstances and conditions of globalization, modernization, and global culture of Russian society are such that the socio-political consolidation of its main subjects – state power, nations, and nationalities – depends on the development of a common strategy for its cultural and civilizational future.
- Bilalov, M. I. (2015). Vectors of formation and comprehension of Russian self-awareness (conference review). Quest. of Philos., 11, 204–210.
- Bilalov, M. I. (2016). Spiritual determinants of sustainable development. South of Russ.: ecol., development, 11(4), 201–208.
- Buzgalin, A.V. (2008). Alterglobalism: in search of a positive alternative to the new empire. The century of globalizat., 1, 120–127.
- Cultural policy: a preliminary study. (1969). Paris: UNESCO.
- Mironov, V. V. (2012). Transformation of Culture in the space of global communication. Human. of the South of Russ., 1, 101–120.
- Reznik, Y. M. (2006). Civil society as a socio-cultural project of modern Russia: opportunities and implementation paradoxes. Management advice. Sci. J. on the theme: Econ. and Econ. Sci., Politics and Political Sci., 1, 55–72.
- Shevchenko, V. N. (2018). The return of China to the national path of development in the era of globalization: significance and conclusions for Russia. The Century of Globalizat., 3, 106–119.
- Zamaraeva, E. I. (2017). The cultural policy of Russia in the light of modern geopolitical problems. Culture in the context of globalization, a view from Russia (pp. 165–174). Under the editorship of A.N. Chumakova. Moscow: KNORUS.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
31 October 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, translation, interpretation
Cite this article as:
Bilalov, M. I., Murat, K., Kalimat, A., Vakhit, A., & Aset, D. (2020). Public And Political Consolidation Of The Russian Society In Its Civilization Strategy. In D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism» Dedicated to the 80th Anniversary of Turkayev Hassan Vakhitovich, vol 92. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 3837-3843). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.05.510