As the First Vice President of the Russian, Philosophical Society and professor of philosophy at the Moscow State Academy of Law, Editor in Chief of Vestnik RFO journal and Editor of many scholarly volumes and textbooks professor Alexander Chumakov is author of more than 230 research work and textbooks published in Russian, English, Chinese, German, French and Czech languages. He has to his credit many publications on global problems, philosophy, integration of world community, globalization and encyclopedia etc.

On the way to a global society

 Last years the attention of the world community is focused on globalization process that expands each year embracing more and more spheres of social life, making all dwellers of the planet members of one global society. Under the influence of globalization process social time and space have diminished and ceased to be obstacles to conversations and operative communication of people independently of their place of settling. The world became not just interdependent, but fragile, sensitive to scientific, technological and military achievements of the humankind. Moreover, from the beginning of the last century the world community more and more experiences the negative consequences of globalization, of which one should first of all name the global problems of modernity representing a serious threat for the whole humankind. This allows us to conclude that by nowadays the global society on the planet has generally emerged. Closeness of geographic space, universal interdependence and common threats, as well as world system of information, transportation means, etc. are its distinguishing characteristics.

It is important to say that by the middle of the 20th century the humankind had developed, so to speak, in separate compartments, local civilization relatively weakly influencing each other or, in fact, not interacting at all. Now the universal world civilization is being formed. Its basic contours were clear already in the beginning of the 20th century and the First World War was the first step to it. The League of Nations founded in 1919 in order to promote cooperation between nations and to provide “peace and security” guarantees was the first attempt of the world community (it was in that period on the stage of formation) to regulate interrelations in a civilized way. The beginning of the Second World War did not reverse the trend towards the formation of the universal humankind but only provided a new (barbarian) form for it, which was replaced with peaceful, civilized cooperation in making principally new structures of managing world economy.

In the period from 1945 to mid-1960s the majority of still existing international organizations was built up, for example, the UN, NATO, OPEC, UNESCO, etc. In the same period the universal world economy emerges where transnational corporations play the key role. Finally, the emergence and acuteness of global problems by the beginning of the 1970s has  shaped the contour of the formal process of unification of humanity. From this period one can speak about real formation of global society or universal world civilization demanding different countries and nations to follow norms, rules, bans and prescriptions universal for the whole humankind. One should mention, however, that world civilization does not devaluate the now existing national cultures and specific features of living and activity of various nations. It embraces them as its composing parts and is related to them in a way a megalopolis, for example, is related to self-sufficient polises on which it is based.

Thus, global society is a principally new page of the humankind’s history. And it is evident now that, unlike previous pages, this one will be dedicated to a new topic and written in another language. This new topic is the finishing of the external globalization process, the formation of its wholeness and unity, when integration processes dominate all spheres of social life. Another language means not only new communication means, such as Internet, e-mail, satellite television, cell phones, etc., but adjusting morality, ethics and law to the global changes. This, in its turn, means the formation and acceptance by the absolute majority of world community of such values that would be adequate to the new reality engendered by globalization.

That is why not only academics, politicians, public figures, business professionals but also broader population strata in various corners of the planet discuss the nature of globalization, trying to understand its essence, prospects and development goals. Some of them see globalization as mostly an objective historical process, which naturally transforms fragmented, dispersed humanity into a global community of people. Others see some pattern of globalization, specially planned activities of some states, transnational corporations, etc., pursuing their narrow, egotistic interests.

 While practically no one questions the idea that under the influence of globalization a global society is being formed on the planet, there are different opinions about how it is managed and about its future.

For example, there is a viewpoint that modern world is “unipolar” because at the international arena, according to this viewpoint, the US unequivocally dominate practically all spheres of social life. The others disagree with this, and support the idea of “multipolar” world. They think that world policy is a result of, at minimum, several centers of socioeconomic, political and military power. S.Huntington and his followers suggest that the emerging global society will face serious difficulties due to being torn apart by deadly contradictions caused by the clash of different civilizations. Those who support the idea of sustainable development, put forward in 1992 during the World Summit in Rio-de-Janeiro, are of different opinion. They think that the main task of world community having entered the era of global interdependence is to provide, first of all, harmonization of interrelations between society and the environment and optimization of the use of natural resources.

In spite of this broad spectrum of opinions related to global community, it is important for us that practically no one questions its existence. However, to judge properly about the global society it is important to understand that its corresponding processes, as well as globalization itself, are primarily and first of all, of objective nature. That means, they in principle don’t depend on will and subjective aspirations of private citizens or social groups, of state policy, etc. Globalization processes, as well as global problems, emerged not due to someone’s mistake or evil will, not accidentally. They are the result of the objective, consistent social development and changing relations between society and its environment. That is why although at the first glance the modern world has changed literally within the last decade, it is not so in reality.

Here one should mention that the transition from fragmentation, comminution and dissociatedness of  the world social relations to its unification, wholeness and globality, was a focus for the most clever minds already in the first half of the last century. One can recall works by Teiard de Chardin, Vladimir Vernandsky, Mahatma Ghandi, Carl Jaspers, the Manifesto of Russell-Einstein, etc. Nevertheless, for broader public consciousness these changes became clear only in the last decade, mostly due to the beginning of the information revolution. It takes place so quickly and impetuously, that humankind simply has no time not only to react adequately but also to theoretically think over the essence of what takes place.

This happens mostly because people try to explain the new changed world with the help of the established, familiar concepts and categories such is, for example, “civilization”, “democracy”, “sovereignty”, “universal values”, etc. No one pays attention to the fact that each of the terms, as well as the established system of values, ethical and legal norms, has been formed and acquired its contents under the conditions principally different from those taking place now.

The same thing happened with the principles of democracy, which had been formulated in the era of bourgeois revolutions and became the basis for contemporary democratic institutions. They took firm shape only in several countries and need new understanding to be acquired and spread to the whole planet. This is, may be, one of the most important tasks for the humankind to be resolved in the 21st century. Why? The fact, that world community now has “common house”, common destiny and common responsibility for what happens in the world does not yet mean that democratic values and principles of organization of social life, according to which so far only the minority of humankind lives, will be automatically accepted by the rest of world community. At least, active pushing of democratic values into the other cultures, unequipped for them, often provokes unrest, non-understanding and back-reaction.

At the same time, the growth of interdependence as well as understanding that no one is able to skip taking part in resolving common issues, only makes discussions about the share of participation and the measure of responsibility of parties in case the situation worsens more acute. Moreover, disagreements increase and become the sharper, the more contemporary world divided into “national apartments” moves towards globalization. At the same time, the gap in living standards and socioeconomic development of various nations grows. This fact is a serious obstacle to democratic transition and to the emergence of global civil society, which in the future should be formed as a result of transcending fragmentation and of the emergence of the holistic world.

It is no doubt that inaction or non-adequate steps will only worsen the situation. The more needed decisions are postponed, the higher the price will be for the world community to pay for returning to its normal condition, when at least the environment does not degrade.

The above-said seems evident. Nevertheless, an opinion is widespread that global problems touch different countries in a different way and, hence, their consequences are different too. That is why some countries, the advanced ones, first of all, try to redistribute the load of responsibility on the others, to wait for the other countries’ and peoples’ actions. But this seems to be a dangerous illusion due to one important issue. In case common action is not undertaken, no one will be able to avoid the influence of the negative consequences of global problems, because the former are outcome and result of the objective globalization process.

So, there is no alternative to universal humankind and in order to preserve civilization on the planet there must be not just common principles and rules of common living established but common responsibility for the destiny of each human being. In the global, culturally and civilizationally interconnected world not only global problems as such represent a serious danger but even individual outcasts, not talking about pariah states. Can such a society become a reality? It is not evident and depends on the fact whether humankind is able to transcend from understanding its unity to real unification and to become, finally, while preserving national identity of single communities, a world sociosystem of an open type, or, at least, to enter the way of democratic transition. This will depend on many factors, mostly connected with the clash of interests in the global world.

It is different goals and different interests what creates problems and tensions between civilizations. This does not contribute into overcoming a whole complex of global problems. First of all, we mean division into “national apartments” and everything what accompanies this (for example, sovereignty and non-interference into domestic issues of separate states, special positions of different civilizations with regard to basic human rights and freedoms, etc.). It not only remains nowadays; it is being defended actively, in spite of the fact that this situation already seriously contradicts basic principles of functioning of the global society.

Thus, there is no way to avoid in the foreseeable future a confrontation between states. The question is: what will be the rules of this confrontation, who is going to prescribe these rules and to play the role of an arbiter?

Now the US pretends to be such an arbiter. One can refer to frank observations of Z. Brzezinsky, P.Buckennan and some American presidents, where hegemonic US plans to build a unipolar world can be seen clearly.

Neither Russia, nor India, China, not even Western Europe, not mentioning the other countries and regions, will voluntarily agree with such approach to the building of the new world order. In the world full of nuclear weapons, forceful interference into at least one civilization’s business may provoke a chain reaction and is principally unacceptable. What remains is a way of negotiations, agreements, mutual concessions and covenants in behalf of common interest. At the same time, one should remember that different peoples, due to their cultural heritage and traditions, would always see the world differently from their neighbors, not talking about more distant communities. This seems to be understood already even in the US. George Soros writes, that “on September 11th the Americans were shocked, having found out that the others might see them in a different way than they see themselves. Now they are more ready to reevaluate the world and the US role in it than in better times”1. Evidently, it is not yet that evolution of opinions needed for both American society and the whole humankind to overcome global threats. Nevertheless, without such reevaluation humankind will not provide sustainable social development at the global level, and, hence, will not preserve itself as a global society.

Can this task be fulfilled? The answer to this question is not at all evident. Considering growing economic and social problems, the absence of good and effective laws both at the domestic and international level, favorable conditions emerge for the growth of nationalism, separatism, corruption, criminality, various forms of violence and extremism. As a result, nihilism and decadence increase, pessimism and social demoralization grow. Voices are heard that universal values, human rights, common destiny of humankind, etc. are only a “screen for the West” to cover its aggressive politics and protection of its interests. On the wave of such feelings some public figures vote for isolationism and dismantling of negotiation processes. For example, in Russia there are people thinking that we should not accept or even support “the values of the Western civilization”. They see the alternative in the uniqueness of Russian society and re-orientation to the East (as juxtaposed to the West).

We agree that each country needs to find its own path of development based on nationally oriented values, but we should mention the dangers of this path. Under the condition of global interdependence the big, system-forming (at the world scale) countries, such as, for example, Russia, India, China, Brazil, must be very flexible not to enter the path of confrontation not only with the advanced West, but with the rest of the world. One should have in mind that the limit for large-scale social experiments is practically at the end. It may happen that in case of a failed experiment the leadership of a “cornered” country may decide to use the last “argument” in its discussion with uncompliant adversary – the “nuclear stick” - or to support international terrorism. There is no need to discuss the consequences of such a step because they are evident.

We can only count on common sense, enlightenment and renovated humanism, the formation of which is also in the domain of philosophy. We need to rethink ourselves and the world where we live in order common morality and common law to became the main regulators of social relations in the new century. We should value human rights connected with human responsibilities above all and to acknowledge ourselves as one-world citizens to act in the same way. Each nation and state, supporting and developing its traditions, culture, customs, should, at the same time, put universal interests and values higher than national, corporate, religious or ethnic ones to provide survival and wealth for themselves too.

We, representatives of humanitarian knowledge, educators, are particularly responsible for the formation of global consciousness and such world outlook that would make all of us members of one global society.

(Footnotes)
1 Soros Dzh. O globalizatsii. Moscow: Rudomino, 2002. P. 10.