How is it possible to combine patriotic consciousness with globalization processes?

Abstract

Is it possible to combine patriotism with globalization processes? How real is process of consolidation of various ethnic cultures with different mentalities for joint solving of urgent socio-political, economic, environmental and other tasks of modern age? The author responds to these questions positively. To combine interests of the autonomous distinctive cultures as participants of globalization is quite possible, if not to reduce the processes of modernization to attempts of unification of unique humanitarian content. Ultimately, genuine cultural globalization, while maintaining the uniqueness of the cultural parameters acquired by each of these cultures due to their own historical experience must be the center of gravity in a single harmonious “counterpoint” of planetary cultural education and form the unity based on the system of universal values, present in every culture.

However, realization of above-mentioned national or ethnic identity in mutual relation of independent cultures with one another, especially during increase of globalization tendencies, has its pros and cons. Which of them will prevail in the future, largely is defined by the specific proposals regarding the tasks outlined in the title of this article. According to the author, nowadays the convergence of financial and economic, political and other interests of the different countries have reached so-called “point of no return”. It is supported by successes of scientific and technological revolution (in particular, in the area of the collection, storage and transmission of information, as well as in the area of granting of communication services, etc.), which made accessible the ways of inheritance and mutual exchange of spiritual values inside and between cultures, inconceivable some more decades ago. On the other hand, because these values every time grew on the unique ethno-mental soil, their founders and carriers have actual grounds for claims for recognition of their “creative autonomy” in the intellectual space of the global culture or even absolute leadership bordering on a dictatorship.

However, the process of cultural globalization that we are witnessing today with big or smaller contradictions regarding its internal components, suggests that centrifugal, not to say the isolationist, forces (acting voluntarily or involuntarily), and equally the quest for world domination in the cultural sphere, sharply reduce the positive expectations for the creative practice of all mankind.

This situation can be explained by the fact that the implementation of the first of subjective tendencies of cultural creation eventually leads to the preservation of traditional (in the Weber’s sense) purposes of material and spiritual production. Ultimately, it contributes to washing away cultures of this kind from the historical scene as a whole. No less sad fate may befall the ethno-cultural entities with overestimated mental self-esteem. Their initiators, as a rule, intend to implant in the public consciousness of humanity exclusively private, the only true and worthy, from their point of view, ideals and norms of cultural creation, opposed to all other. Means of implementation of such plans are very different, from introduction of cultural values, designed in special way and dubiously reasoned, to direct coercion or threats.

Historical practice shows that, eventually, arises the resistance to unification, and not only at the level of individual behavior, but largely on a mass scale. If whole nations and states do not wish to unify their culture in this way, attempts of self-affirmation and, on the contrary, preservation their own mentality and their cultural roots results in regional conflicts of ethnical, religious, political etc. nature. The tragic consequences of these conflicts can call into question peaceful coexistence of the mankind as a whole. If to admit these conclusions fair, then it is necessary to decline execution of unification cultural policy in the course of development of globalization processes. In this case, in modern world it would be impossible to talk about opportunity of globalization of culture as such. However, exactly today, as never before, grew the need for communication of different ethnic cultures for mutual exchange of historical experience. No matter how much some countries care about their own selfish interests, they are forced to interact with alien mentalities of other peoples, which also seek to meet their needs, just in the name of optimal observance of their own interests. This feature of our age proves opportunity for building the global structure of cultural creation and serves as its objective prerequisite.

Naturally, the question arises: is it possible to find in modern ethnic or national polyphony such forms of unification of the disparate, at first glance, cultures, which would lead them to a common denominator, which would preserve the stability and development? The answer, of course, is positive. Moreover, the proposed practice is implemented already long ago. It does not mean that the question has lost its relevance. First, the pace of socio-economic movement accelerate, and therefore, specific historical conditions of all participants in the globalization project are dramatically changing, setting new values, programs, and meanings. Second, there is a constant modernization of cultural attitudes of the ethno-mentalities, still opposing each other. The task of the present generations of historians, sociologists, culturologists, philosophers, and other humanitarian researchers of past and present is comparative analysis of objective characteristics, patterns, and most importantly, the effectiveness of these processes of modernization on a global scale. In the last decade, such analysis has unfolded in both national and world literature, and this problem promises rich and valuable results.

Described misinterpretation of cultural data as a way to solve globalization problems (even when it works for the unification of the original cultural material through an imitation of imposed pattern) is still an act of dialogue – conscious or intuitive, voluntary or protest, creative or epigone. In fact, this act always involves at least two subjects of cultural education. The most serious problem here is to make a distinction between different options of building a world culture from the position of aggregate interests of the mankind as whole. In turn, the answer to this general question requires a preliminary clarification of the criteria for the reinterpretation of established values of individual cultures. On the other hand, it is necessary to analyze how these criteria are compatible with the perspectives of the planetary unity of the total concept of cultural creation.