Теория компромисса

Вячеслав Кузнецов

Цена: 300 руб.

Электронная версия (формат PDF).

Купить
Поделиться ссылкой:
Теория компромисса

Foreword

In the 21st century, Russia’s cultural development strategy, as well as the whole world’s, through culture of development of the spiritual sphere, through culture of compromise, is becoming the basis for the new humanism, new model of the world-order, new model of the worldstructure. The scientific issue of this research may be presented as follows: how the theory of the global compromise can be formed (or cannot?) in the terms of a global game in which the result is not equal to zero – that is, all the participants of the Global Compromise, Global Game might win (or loose).

Today, that is a principally new issue with a global meaning for all of us. In a very few days, months and years we have to understand, form and provide for all-Russian and global consent on the main aspects of culture of compromise and culture of development. Compromise, consent, consensus as a humanitarian innovation by means of humanitarian education becomes the only principal way of surviving and dignified ecologically safe development in the context of rapid increase of climate changes and disturbing changes of the environment of life sustenance for all people and all nations.

The fact is that in the 21st century humanities a thesis that it is conflicts and catastrophes, risks and uncertainties and chaos that are ruling the world.

The position of the author is presented by the results of the research into a sociological theory of humanitarian interactions being defined by the category of “compromise”. This research concerns new approaches towards a promising model of scientific knowledge; towards new understanding of social reality. The author attempts to create a major Theory and Methodology of forestalling and preventive compromise which will allow to take the lead over even the early stages of the formation of stresses, conflicts, catastrophes, wars, terrorist attacks, crimes and corruption.

The author’s working hypothesis is – in a new global and accelerating world in which every man demands dignity, well-being and security, justice and happiness, it is compromise and culture of compromise, strategic partnership culture of compromise possess creative and consolidating cultural and network approach potential for achieving and preserving culture of life. In his working hypothesis, the author emphasizes a unique quality of compromise – its ability to provide for the peoples’ of Russia unity, unity of people and power in our country; its ability to help preventing global nuclear war in the 21st century which is really being prepared by supporters of culture of death.

The meaning of the working hypothesis of research into compromise may be formulated as follows: different kinds of compromise are now more and more effectively and constructively ruling the 21st century complex and accelerating world.

So the purpose of the presented research is to summarize the results of studying methodology and theory, procedures and mechanisms of framing and realization of forestalling global compromise between the peoples of the world and the ruling clans concerning global rules of playing with the meanings of life, and with life itself, of billions of people under the conditions of the 21st century global humanitarian structural revolution.

The author hopes that even preliminary results of the research into scientific self-definition of sociology of compromise allow to state that intellectual life in the 21st century is first of all characterized by search and realization of acceptable compromises for the inevitable optimal solution of contradictions (antagonistic contradictions among them).

It is a difficult but noble, actual and very urgent task: scientific foundations of sociology of compromise, foundations of humanitarian theory of compromise are here.

Introduction into the Research

The Phenomenon of “Compromise” in Practices, Theories, Games and Results

Compromise, according to the author, is the process and result of realizing an agreement between people, nations, states, their associations; between cultures and religions for an agreed period in the name of dignity, well-being and security of man, family, peoples, society, state and modern civilization based upon mutual political, economic, ideological concessions concerning aims, ideals, values, national interests, interpretations of the past, present and future of their peoples, nations and regions, understanding of democracy, patriotism, meanings of life and dreams. Then we may consider some tendencies in the process of the formation of compromise so that the principal scientific problem in the course of investigating the content and structure of compromise in the 21st century could be formulated. Firstly, the rapid growth of the importance of the phenomenon of compromise in practices of different spheres of life of the modern society (man’s lifesupport, his spiritual life, world-order, world outlook, economics etc.) as well as in all the humanities showed itself only on the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. The simplest content analysis of scientific texts, socialpolitical and economic articles in newspapers and magazines shows that the term “compromise” gets into the first dozen of the most frequently used notions. Secondly, the role and influence of the phenomenon of “compromise” is steadily becoming more actual and topical than the phenomena of “consensus” and “consent”. Thirdly, the analysis of correlation of the notions “compromise” – “conflict” shows, according to my research results, a considerable tendency in favour of compromise. Fourthly, it is possible that today we may rightfully assert that compromise rules the whole world in the 21st century. The relative proportions of the phenomena of compromise, conflict and consensus allow to suggest that with the leading role of compromise the phenomena of conflict and consensus may be considered as transformations of compromise.

The following considerations might be suggested at the stage of the formation of a general 21st century theory of compromise foundations. First of all, generalizations of the practices of realizing compromise are devoted to different aspects of promoting compromise which are applied to non-antagonistic contradictions and non-antagonistic conflicts. Antagonistic contradictions and conflicts are excluded from the sphere of practices. All of them are defined as uncompromising. The author’s position is different: since in the period of 2000–2009 a new phenomenon “global humanitarian strategic compromise” was established, the contents and structure of which are characterized by tolerance, dialogue, trust, security and prevention, practices and theory of preventive and forestalling compromise are becoming realities. Such kind of compromise can be effective also in situations of antagonistic contradictions and conflicts.

Thus, we can affirm that under the conditions of the 21st century interactions the well-known phenomenon of “compromise” is acquiring a new meaning, new condition, new dominant of interactions, activity, a wider circle of relations and behaviour of subjects, an important peculiar feature of modern consciousness.

Section I. Theories

Sociology of compromise itself is one of the important subdivisions of sociological science. The object of sociology of compromise is the whole civilization. That is why its object field is defined by the framework where presented are basic correlations, factors, connections, motives and functions interaction of which stipulates understanding of constructive and destructive conditions of existence, self-preservation and selfdevelopment of the civilization. Up till now researches into different aspects of the compromise (sociological, philosophical, political, ecological, juridical, economic etc.) did not include the analysis of the “environment of compromise” phenomenon. Today it would be rightful to suggest that the research into the environment of compromise will allow to discover new possibilities in the phenomenon of “compromiseness” itself. The most important is that in the functioning of mechanisms providing compromiseness it will be possible to investigate mechanisms of adaptation more effectively. New motivation for all the object field of compromise may become a fundamental problem for developing sociology of compomiseness, culture of compromise and sociology of culture of compromise. But also, important grounds for sociologizing compromiseness can be discovered here. Goals, ideals, values according to which we realize the significance of challenges, risks, threats and dangers: it is then and there that the phenomenon of compromise is being formed and outlined – it is becoming actual.

The substance definiteness of sociology of compromise is the social activity directed at defense and provision for achieving by people, society and nation their goals, values and interests.

The notion “sociology of compromise” itself may be defined as an independent sociological theory of a middle level oriented on theoretical and empirical researches into the state and dynamics of the provision of compromise.

According to the author, the field of research into sociology of compromise includes studying relations between people, between people and social institutions concerning problems of life sustenance. It’s about preserving life, achieving well-being, protecting their mentality, national culture and language. The object field of sociology of compromise includes the analysis of changes of basic institutions and processes which provide for stability and positive dynamics in different spheres of social activities. The structure of the object of sociology of compromise is directed toward the analysis of the following issues: relations between people in the process of life-support activities; discovering tendencies and defining adequateness of reactions on threatening and actual risks, challenges and dangers; discovering peculiarities of the dynamics of functioning of institutions for cooperation and solidarity, both official and unofficial, nature of their interactions and probable prospects of their transformation taking into account the inner and outer environment changes.

Section II. Methodologies

In his researches, the author is guided by geocultural scientific paradigm based upon significant unity of geoculture, geoeconomics and geopolitics. The important social practice of protecting and organizing worthy, happy and secure life of the individual and all nations is becoming the main priority. The author names such practice as culture of life. New researches into dominating tendencies in international sociology, in global diversity of social sciences allow to pay attention to an important peculiar feature of the world science, of the global scientific discourse: methodological pessimism characteristic of the last century gradually disappears into the past giving place to methodological optimism. Now it is possible to state more exactly, at the present stage of the research, that we are talking about Homo vitality, compromissimus, selfkritikos, ludens. This is very important for a more precise definition of the content, structure, understanding, sources and mechanisms of inner energy of the “culture of life” phenomenon (as culture of man’s security, culture of peace, culture of prevention, culture of trust, culture of dialogue). The results of the research, especially into the concrete experience of dynamics and realization of actual compromises, allow, in a very preliminary way, correlate a positive potential of “methodological optimism” in the sphere of compromise with the functioning of the dual position “compromiseness – justice” which is the most important essential characteristic of geoculture. In such a context it is both methodology and world outlook, as well as new humanism. But the most important thing in such a “correlation” is that the defined “position” forms new global rules of the game for the formation, realization and correction of the Agenda for the whole world community.

Section III. Institutions

Even preliminary analysis of the Rules of the Game functioning in the sphere of compromise revealed a new and actual statement of the problem of compromiseness and security. It is semblance of the Rules of the Game functioning which supposes unconditional fulfillment of the Rules by the subjects of security and compromiseness – the Players. However, even the most preliminary research into mechanisms of security, their technologies, corresponding results of the activities of the subjects of security revealed a considerable amount of influences, decisions and strange actions of the subjects of security which are not taken into consideration. A working hypothesis developed at the beginning of such researches is that behind the appearance of fulfilling the Rules of the Game there is the factor of “breaking, deformation and distortion of the agreed Rules of the Game”. A more thorough analysis of semblance and essence of an actual process of the Game in the sphere of security revealed also the way and technology of breaking its Rules: weak interactions, details and mechanisms of influence of which on the meanings of decisions, practices and results of actions in the sphere of security in modern conditions in fact do not yield to the necessary identification and monitoring.

Methodological, conceptual and heuristic conclusions presented here and resulting from the study of the foundations of theory and methodology of the influence of the Rules of the Game as an important institution of security, emphasized a new important sphere of “concentration and gathering” of theoretical knowledge (sociological, economic, philosophical, ecological). It is a question of studying the role and mechanisms of functioning of a global, actual and informal phenomenon: the Rules of the Game for the most important subjects of life sustenance of people, nations, states and civilizations; for the fate of peace and global security.

Thus, in a very preliminary manner, the notion “institutional sociology” may be defined as a science concerning norms and rules of agreement about goals, ideals, values, interests of man, nations, states; concerning allowed means, mechanisms and technologies of formal and informal interactions between the subjects of securing peace and safety; concerning definition and correction of the Rules of the Games while formulating the Agenda for the world community in the context of agreed model of the 21st century world-structure; concerning the results of observing the Rules of the Game and Agenda and content of corrections being implemented; concerning responsibility for risks and mistakes in the course of preparing and realization of the necessary compromises. A new strategy of security is being formed. It is oriented on forestalling and prevention: it allows, for the first time in the world history, to draw millions of people into the sphere of security on the conditions of co-operation and participation while all interactions are completely transparent. So, there appear possibilities of overcoming criminal manipulation of interests of personal and national security by hiding procedures, recourses, technologies, meanings and results with the help of a veil of secrecy. The great meaning of justice is becoming free from deformations implemented by those who develop rules of the game for the Western model of world-structure and world-order – its new Euro-Atlantic model of 2005–2009. Their methodological secret is: dissociation of justice and compromiseness; filling the content of the just with the meanings of Western humanism saturated with “culture of death”; separation of justice from the Millennium Development Goals (Summit 2000).

Section IV. Mechanisms

The real functioning of compromise as a complicated dynamic process actualizes significance of comprehension of its practices through methodology and theory of compromise. It is a question of the importance of creating a theory of administration and procedures of regulating compromise conditions and processes. The mechanism of compromiseness may be considered as a self-contained phenomenon uniting administration and regulation. The problem of studying compromise as a process was investigated by the author on the example of compromise dynamics in the sphere of the formation of the 21st century Russia’s national uniting, statehood and patriotic ideology. The study of compromiseness as a mechanism may be considered in the sphere of making of the Russian Federation national security for the 21st century.

In a sociological context, the “mechanism of compromiseness” category represents a relatively stable structure of interconnections and interactions of the subjects and objects of compromise, a real discourse for the discussion of conditions and changes in the sphere of compromise. The mode of action, display of energy by the mechanism of compromiseness is the activity of the subjects and objects of compromise, their actions and behavior, relations to the results of achieved and failed compromises, their interactions with the influence of the outer and inner environment of compromise.

An important characteristic feature of the compromise mechanism is its ability to correctly evaluate a positive result of activity so that to “appropriate” it.

No less actual is the ability of the compromise mechanism to recognize destroying and deforming influences of international terrorism and organized crime. Stable orientation on respect and tolerance in the course of dialogue, real discourse directed toward fundamental compromises preserving all its conceptual originality and attractiveness are the specific character features of this mechanism. The reality of the compromise mechanism functioning helps to harmonize the sources of compromise dynamics.

Section V. Technologies

The author considers technologization of the ways to geoculture as culture of preventing risks, dangers, threats to the goals, ideals, values, interests of man, family, society, statehood and modern civilization. Is it possible? Yes, if we are in the environment of high humanitarian technologies (hht, hi-hum-tech). Yes, if we unite institutionalization and netting in a single institution-network methodology based upon and with the help of hi-hum-tech. Yes, because the experience of culture of peace and new challenges of the 21st century demanded a new level and quality of dialogue between people, between nations, between people and power concerning lawfulness, ecology, co-operation, well-being – that is, concerning the uniting ideology.

Even the most preliminary study of the character of compromise functioning, compromise itself as a process, as a mechanism, as a technology in the environment and scale of hi-hum-tech allows to suggest that they are innovative, have a great potential for assistance and initiate innovations in the humanitarian sphere.

The meaning and purpose of sociology of humanitarian innovations as the technology of compromise: taking part in the main innovation of Russia, its society, its citizens in the 21st century – to become clever and strong today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, always.

Technology is defined as a new value able to be an instrument for controlling knowledge and human potential. The new information computerized society is characterized by its own class of technologies – these are high technologies. To adequately reflect the role of technologies in the 21st century it is necessary to define a new class of technologies – high humanitarian technologies which unite a new humanitarian synthesis with high technologies. Activities within the framework of the “Culture of Peace” project, the realization of the “dialogue between civilizations”, advance to “culture of security”, to “culture of globalization”, to strategic partnership culture of compromise and to culture of development by means of culture of compromise may serve as an example.

Section VI. Practices

Searching compromise, dialogue, uniting efforts while struggling for peace and security (providing good Charters and Declarations of peace and security with mechanisms and technologies which are dynamic and working for the result) agreed logistics of activities for all spheres of security, predictable and productive procedures are very urgent and in demand for all nations. First of all it has become clear that a distinct compromise concerning key issues of life sustenance, securing peace, dignity and safety of man is the most effective, the most “victorious” weapon against the supporters of “culture of death”. One’s own will and another man’s will, one’s own energy and another man’s energy are important here. A creative potential – positive optimistic, selfcriticizing and self-ironic activities on the field of compromise – is a worthy means, mechanism and technology of dialogue, trust and compromiseness.

Outstanding, as far as the fates of people, many nations and the whole world are concerned, activities connected with the preparation and conducting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki, August 1975) may be called an instructive experience of the formation and functioning of compromise practice while settling problems of peace and security. This experience is especially topical because the question of Helsinki-2 is inevitable for the Agenda 2010.

The fact is that for the second half of the 20th century and for the first decade of the 21st century the formation of compromiseness into real and global scale interaction practices was realized as theory and practice of detente, as the Helsinki process, as the experience of institutionalization of the compromise, compromiseness, concrete compromises achieved in difficult times, in a complicated sphere of providing security.

The autumn of 2009 was an important stage of the real formation of a specialized global, sociological in its essence, scientific discourse on the development of theory and methodology of the Global Compromise. 585 In a new diversity of intellectual connections with Asia, Europe, the USA and many other countries of the world, Russia was the initiating creative nucleus of the discourse.

The Main Meaning created, built and suggested to Eurasia and all peoples of the world by Russia, is defined by the author as “culture of humanitarian interactions”. For Russia in 2007–2009, most intensive and fruitful discussions in all circles of the society, all mass-media means, on all expert grounds, in the country’s scientific community conducted about security and justice “here and now” for each man, about well-being and freedom for all the country’s peoples, about an all-national goal and national idea for people and the state, about the strategy of the state’s development practically created, “nursed”, a unique phenomenon – “The Russian Citizens’ Concert”.

 

Creating the environment of methodologies, concepts, technologies and mechanisms, regulations and procedures, competence of sociology of compromise, sociology of compromise culture is an important and urgent scientific and practical activity for thousands of scientists. But the result of their work is interesting for millions of people in all countries, who have already realized and are convinced that in the 21st century, it is culture of prevention on the very early stages of the formation of threats, dangers, risks and challenges that can help preserving and providing for culture of life; it is forestalling and creative compromises that can most effectively contribute to the prevention of a possible nuclear catastrophe.

Conclusion

From Sociology of Compromise to Culture of Development of Man, Society and Civilization

The book contains the results of the research into the formation of an important trend in the Russian and world sociology topical for all the humanities – sociology of compromise. This new knowledge is oriented on substantiating constructive, creative interactions between people, nations, cultures, religions and different ways of life. The author considers as especially important the necessity and possibility of the timely “sociological” influence by prevention upon the rapidly growing danger of a global nuclear war in the 21st century. It is sociology that can and must warn the mankind of the threat of such war and suggest methodologies, concepts, technologies and mechanisms for the preventive compromise. The originality of theoretical, methodological and heuristic meanings of considering the phenomena of “compromise”, “culture of compromise”, “strategic partnership culture of compromise” and “forestalling compromise” is conditioned by the materials of the author’s elaboration of geocultural paradigm; new Moscow-Shanghai model of the world order; new humanism of the 21st century; new architecture of Russian, Eurasian and global security; culture of the development of man, society, nations and civilization. Innovative character of the research is determined by the fundamental issues of the international security theory being oriented on each man’s real security. The unity of the single, specific and common in sociology, philosophy, economics, politology of security of man, nations and civilizations is achieved by the implementation of the newly elaborated phenomena of compromise, justice, trust, world order and world structure, Rules of the Game, national security, Eurasian security, single humanitarian paradigm and “concert of the peoples of the world” into the sphere of global security.

The author of the research is Vyacheslav Nikolayevich Kuznetzov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Sociology, Professor, head of the Chair of Sociology of Culture, Education and Security at the Sociological Faculty of the Lomonosov Moscow State University.