DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-1-42-54
Two approaches to analyzing sociopolitical movements as a manifestation of the modern civilization crisis
Viktor O. Melnikov
Ph.D. Student of the Department of Philosophy
Perm State University,
15, Bukirev st., Perm, 614990, Russia;
e-mail: viktor_melnikov_psu@rambler.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0483-7364
In social science, there are two approaches to analyzing sociopolitical movements as a manifestation of the modern civilization crisis. The difference between them lies in understanding of the human development process. The substantial approach seeks and finds a single basis in the historical process, and then deduces all social life phenomena from it. The non-substantial approach, on the contrary, considers that such a foundation (substance, essence) does not exist and, therefore, its search is meaningless. Following opposite methodological positions, the representatives of these two approaches variously explain the phenomena of social reality. For instance, from the standpoint of the non-substantial approach, the modern civilization crisis is declared to result from a combination of random factors: technological changes, the hegemony of one or another discourse, the change of the world hegemon in the core-peripheral relations, etc. Hence, from this point of view, the crisis becomes fundamentally inexplicable. Changes that have occurred in the nature of the organization, the forms of activity and the ideology of sociopolitical movements in this case also become random and, as a result, cannot be comprehensively explained. The substantial approach considers the modern crisis to be a result of objective processes taking place in the very foundation of society (primarily in the development of universal labor). Consequently, sociopolitical movements are a form of manifestation of this crisis. The paper emphasizes that differences of these approaches do not have a purely theoretical character, because it is about developing a strategy to overcome the current crisis of civilization, i.e. about the future of mankind.
Keywords: substantial approach, non-substantial approach, Marxism, capitalism, human, civilization crisis, sociopolitical movements.
References
Bell, D. (1999). Gryaduschee postindustrial’noe obschestvo [The coming of post-industrial society]. Moscow: Academia Publ., 944 p.
Castells, M. (2000). Informatsionnaya epokha. Ekonomika, obschestvo i kul’tura [The information age: economy, society and culture]. Moscow: HSE Publ., 608 p.
Castells, M. (1999). Stanovlenie obschestva setevykh struktur [The rise of the network society]. Novaya postindustrial’naya volna na zapade. Antologiya, pod red. V.L. Inozemtseva [New postindustrial wave on the West. Anthology, ed. by V.L. Inozemtsev]. Moscow: Academia Publ., pp. 494–505.
Kagarlitskiy, B.Y. (2010). Ot imperiy — k imperializmu. Gosudarstvo i vozniknovenie burzuaznoy tsivilizatsii [From empires to imperialism. State and the emergence of bourgeois civilization]. Moscow: HSE Publ., 680 p.
Koryakin, V.V. (2008). Trud i edinyy zakonomernyy istoricheskyy protsess. Ch. 1 [Labor and a single natural historical process. Pt. 1]. Perm: PSU Publ., 418 p.
Lenin, V.I. (1953). Materializm i empiriokrititsizm. Kriticheskie zametki ob odnoy reaktsionnoy filosofii [Materialism and empirio-criticism. Critical comments on a reactionary philosophy]. Moscow: Politizgat Publ., 352 p.
Marx, K. (2015). Kapital: kritika politicheskoy ekonomii. T. 1 [Capital. A critique of political economy. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber Publ., 1200 p.
Marx, K. (1961). Kapital. T. III, ch. 1 [Capital. Vol. 3, pt. 1]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 25, pt. 1, 554 p.
Marx, K. (1959). К kritike politicheskoy ekonomii [A contibution to the critique of political economy]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 13, pp. 1–167.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1955). Nemetskaya ideologiya [The German ideology]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 3, pp. 7–544.
Mel’nikov, V.O. (2018). Izmeneniya v sfere organizatsii politicheskikh techeniy, politicheskoy ideologii s serediny XX veka kak sledstviya sovremennogo material’nogo proizvodstva [The changes in the political lines, political ideologies organization sphere from the middle of the 20th century as the consequences of modern material production]. Sosial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki: teoriya i praktika [Social Sciences and Humanities: Theory and Practice]. No. 1(2), pp. 156–170.
Mouffe, C.H. (2001). «Democracy — radical and plural»: interview. CSD Bulletin. Vol. 9 (1), pp. 10–13.
Orlov, V.V. (1998). Istoria chelovecheskogo intellekta [History of human intelligence]. Perm: PSU Publ., pt. 1, 2, 188 p.
Orlov, V.V. and Gritsenko, V.S (2012). Postindustrial’noe obschestvo i novaya forma truda [The postindustrial society and a new type of labour]. Filosofiya i obschestvo [Philosophy and Society]. Iss. 3(67), pp. 60–78.
Orlov, V.V. and Vasil’eva, T.S. (2006). Filosofiya ekonomiki [Philosophy of economics]. Perm: PSU Publ., 266 p.
Schwab, K. (2018). Tekhnologii chetvertoy promyshlennoy revolutsii, per. s angl. [Shaping the fourth industrial revolution. Trans. from Eng.]. Moscow: Eksmo Publ., 320 p.
Vasil’eva, T.S. and Orlov, V.V. (2007). Sotsial’naya filosofiya [Social philosophy]. Perm: PSU Publ., 352 p.
Received 01.02.2020
For citation:
Melnikov V.O. [Two approaches to analyzing sociopolitical movements as a manifestation of the modern civilization crisis]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofia. Psihologia. Sociologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 2020, issue 1, pp. 42–54 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-1-42-54