Alexander Dugin
Professor of the Moscow State
University, Doctor of political sciences, founder of the contemporary
Russian school of Geopolitics, leader of the International Social
Movement “Eurasian Movement“, Moscow, Russian Federation.
§ 1 Multipolarism as a Vision of the Future and Land in the Postmodern Era
Multipolarism as an Innovative Mold-Breaking Concept
The Multipolar Theory represents a
unique direction that cannot be qualified simply in terms of
“progress/conservatism”, “old/new”, “development/stagnation”, etc. The
unipolar and globalist view on history imagines the historical process
as a linear motion from the worse to the better, from the underdeveloped
to the developed, and so on and so forth. In this case, globalization
is seen as the horizon of a universal future, and everything that
impedes globalization is simply seen as the inertia of the past,
atavism, or a striving to blindly preserve the “status quo” at all
costs. In virtue of such a percept, globalism and “The Sea Power” are
also trying to interpret Multipolarism as exclusively being a
conservative position opposing the “inevitable change”. If globalization
is the Postmodern (the global society), Multipolarism appears to be
resistance to the Postmodern (containing elements of the Modern and even
Pre-Modern).
Alas, it is indeed possible to consider things under a different visual angle and set aside the dogmatics of linear progress[1] or the “monotonous process”[2].
The idea of time as a sociological category of the philosophy of
Multipolarism is based on interpreting the general paradigm of
Multipolarism through the view of an absolutely different system.
Multipolarism, in comparison with
unipolarity and globalism, is not just an appeal to the old or a call
for preserving everything as it is. Multipolarism does not insist either
on preserving national states (the Westphalian world) or on restoring
the bipolar model (the Yalta world), nor on freezing that transitional
state where international life is currently positioned. Multipolarism is
a look into the future (that which has not yet been), a project of
organization of the world order on absolutely new principles and
elements, and thus, a serious revision of the ideological,
philosophical, and sociological axioms that modernity rests upon.
Multipolarism, as well as unipolarity
and globalization, is oriented towards the construction of that which
has never been before it, to the creative strain of free spirit, the
philosophical search and the striving for building a better, more
absolute, fair, harmonious, and happy society. What is different,
however, is that the character of this society, its principles and
values, and also the methods to construct its foundation, are seen in a
radically different way when compared to the globalists’ vision.
Multipolarism sees the future to be multiple, full of variety,
differentiated, dissimilar, and preserving a wide palette of collective
and individual self-identification choices. There are also undertones of
frontier societies that experience the influence of different
identification matrices. This is a model of the “flourishing complexity”
of the world, where a multitude of places combines with a multitude of
times, where multiscale collective and individual actors engage in a
dialogue, and thus figuring out and sometimes transforming their
identity in the course of such a conversation. The West’s culture,
philosophy, policy, economy, and technology are seen in this future
world to be just one of many local phenomena, in no way excelling the
culture, philosophy, policy, economy, and technology of the Asiatic
societies and even the archaic tribes. All that we deal with in the form
of different ethnoses, peoples, nations, and civilizations are equitable variations of “human societies” (“Menschliche Gesellschaft”[3]).
Some of them are “disenchanted” (M. Weber) and materially developed,
while others are poor and plain, though still “enchanted” (M. Eliade),
sacred, and living in harmony and equilibrium with their ambient
existence. Multipolarism accepts whichever choice society makes, but any
choice becomes sensible only in the context of space and a historical
moment, and hence, it remains local. The most that Western culture,
perceived as something local, can do for others is be a source of
admiration and arouse delight, but a claim for universalism and
separation from the historical context turns it into a simulacrum, into a
Quasi-West, into a cartoon and kitsch. To some extent, this has already
happened in regards to American culture’s influence over Europe, where
it is still easy to recognize Europe, but this Europe is hypertrophic,
sterilized, and deprived of internal harmony and proportions, charm, and
tradition. It is a Europe of the universalist project and it is no
longer organic, taking on the characteristics of a complex, paradoxical,
dramatic, tragic, and contradictory historical and spatial phenomenon.
Multipolarism as the Postmodern
If we refer to the past, we will easily
find out that the Multipolar World, the international order based upon
the principle of Multipolarism, never existed. Multipolarism is
therefore a project, plan, and strategy of the future, not a mere
inertia or sluggish resistance to globalization. Multipolarism observes
the future, but sees it in a radically different way than the proponents of unipolarity, universalism, and globalization do, and it strives to bring its vision into life.
These considerations demonstrate that, in a certain sense, Multipolarism is also the Postmodern
(not the Modern or Premodern), but simply different from the Postmodern
visions of globalism and unipolarity. In this special sense, the
Multipolar Philosophy agrees that the present world order, and also that
of the past (national or bipolar), is imperfect and demands a radical
alteration. The Multipolar World is not an assertion of K. Schmitt’s
Second or Third Nomos of the Earth, but a battle for the Fourth Nomos
that must come in place of the present and the past. As well,
Multipolarism is not rejection of the Postmodern, but the establishment
of a radically different Postmodern than the version suggested by
the globalists and proponents of the unipolar world; different in
relation to the neo-liberal dominating version, and in relation to the
critical antiglobalist and alterglobalist position, it will be based
upon the same universalism as neo-liberalism, but only with the reverse
sign. The Multipolar Postmodern therefore represents something
altogether different from the Modern or Pre-Modern, neo-liberal
globalism or unipolar America-centric imperialism, or leftist
antiglobalist or alterglobalist ideas. Therefore, in the case of the
formalization of Multipolarism into a systemized ideology, the
conversation drifts precisely to “The Fourth Political Theory”.
The Multipolar Idea recognizes that
national states do not correspond with the challenges of history, and
moreover, they are merely a preparatory stage for globalization.
Therefore, it supports integration processes in specific regions,
insisting so that their borders consider the civilizational
peculiarities of the societies historically developed in these
territories. This is a positive feature of postmodernism.
The Multipolar Idea posits that the
significance of new non-state actors must increase in international
politics, but these actors must be, first of all, original historically
developed organic societies (such as ethnoses) having an established
relationship to their space of activity. This is also a postmodernist
feature.
The Multipolar Idea rejects the
universal “Great Narratives” (stories), European logocentrism, rigid
power hierarchies, and an assumable normative patriarchate. Instead of
this, it supports the value of local, multifaceted, and asymmetrical
identities reflecting the spirit of each specific culture, whatever it
is and however alien and execrable it seems to the rest. This is yet
another postmodernist feature.
The Multipolar Idea rejects the
mechanistic approach to reality and the Descartes division into the
subject and the object. It does this by affirming integrity, holism, and
an integral approach to the world, one that is organic and balanced,
based rather upon the “geometry of nature” (B. Mandelbrot) than on the
“geometry of the machine”. This yields ecologism for the Multipolar
World, rejection of the “subjugation of nature” concept (F. Bacon), and
transition to “a dialogue with nature”. This is an even better
postmodern feature.
The Multipolar Postmodern against the Unipolar (Globalist/Antiglobalist) Postmodern
When the conversation drifts to the
measure of things in the future world, serious contradictions begin to
arise between the Multipolar Theory and Postmodernism. Liberal and
Neo-Marxist Postmodernism operate with the basic concepts of the “individual” and linear “progress”,
conceived in the prospect of the “liberation of the individual” and, on
the last stage, in the prospect of “liberation from the individual” and
a transition to the post-man, be it a cyborg, mutant, rhizome, or
clone. Moreover, it is the principle of individuality that they consider
universal. Here, the Multipolar Idea sharply diverges with the main
line of Postmodernism and posits the society[4],
collective personality, collective consciousness (E. Durkheim), and the
collective unconscious (K. G. Jung) as the center of things. Society is
a matrix of existence; it creates individuals, people, languages,
cultures, economies, political systems, time, and space. In the
Multipolar Idea, there is not just one society, as societies are many,
and they are all incommensurable with one other. An individual has
become “the measure of things” in such an absolute and accomplished form
only in one type of society (Western European), and in all other
societies, he has not and will not become so. This is because they are
structured in an absolutely different way. One must acknowledge the
inalienable right for each society to be such as it wants to be and to
create reality by its own means, be it through assigning an individual
and man a superior value or not assigning them any.
The same idea concerns the issue of “progress”. Since time is a social phenomenon[5],
it is structured in a different way in each society. In some societies,
it bears in itself an increase in the role of the individual in
history, while in others it does not. Therefore, there is no determining
factor across societies concerning the concepts of individualism and
post-humanity. The fate of the West will likely continue to proceed
towards these aforementioned directions, as this path is connected with
the logic of its history. The West’s embrace of individualism and
post-humanity has the potential to inflict collateral damage to other
societies and nations, as even if these ideas are already somewhat
present in their culture, it is as a rule usually in the form of
externally enforced colonial precepts that are align paradigms for the
local societies themselves. It is this colonial imperialist universalism
of the West that is the main challenge for the Multipolar Idea.
By using the terms of geopolitics, it can be said that Multipolarism is the land, continental, tellurocratic version of the Postmodern, whereas globalism (as well as antiglobalism) is its sea and thalassocratic version.
§ 2 Multipolarism and Globalization Theories
Multipolarism against the Global Policy
From the position of Multipolarism, let us now consider the basic theories of globalization and how they relate to one another.
The World Polity Theory (J.
Meyer, J. Boli, etc.) presumes the creation of an integrated global
state, and with the support of individual citizens, it is maximally
opposite to Multipolarism and represents its formal antithesis.
It is similar to the theses of “the end of history” (rapid or gradual)
by F. Fukuyama and all the other rigidly globalist unipolar projects
that describe a desirable and probable future that completely
contradicts the Multipolar one. In this case, between Multipolarism and
the theory of globalization, there exists a relation of plus and minus,
black and white, etc. As an example, there is a radical antagonism of
ultimatums: either “The World Polity” or Multipolarism.
Multipolarism and the Global Culture (in Defense of Localization)
The case study of relations is more
difficult to conduct with the World Culture Theory (R. Robertson) and
“transformationists” concepts (E. Giddens, etc.). Critical appraisals of
globalization in the spirit of S. Huntington can also be referred to
here. In these theories, they analyze the balance of two trends –
universalization (pure globalism) and localization (R. Robertson) – or
the new appearance of civilization contours (S. Huntington). If the
attitude of the Multipolar Theory to universalization is unambiguously
antagonistic, a number of phenomena that manifest themselves as
secondary effects in the course of globalization can, on the contrary,
be appraised positively. The weakening of the sociopolitical context of
national states in these theories is demonstrated from two sides:
partially, their functions are transferred to global entities, and
partially, they turn out to be in the hands of some new, local actors.
On the other hand, due to the fragility and looseness of national
states, civilizational and religious factors assume ever greater
importance. It is this set of phenomena that accompany globalization,
and they are consequences of the weakening of previous state and
ideological world models that deserve positive attention and become
elements of the Multipolar Theory.
The secondary effects of globalization
return societies to a specific spatial, cultural, and occasionally,
religious context. This leads to the reinforcement of the role of ethnic
identity, an increase in the importance of the confessional factor, and
increased attention to local communities and problems. In summarizing
these phenomena, they can be realized as strategic positions of the
Multipolar World Order that must be fixed, fastened, and supported.
Within the “glocalization” described by Robertson, Multipolarism is
interested in “localization”, being in complete solidarity with it.
Robertson himself believes that the processes of “glocalization” are not
predetermined and can sway to one side or another. Accepting this
analysis, the supporters of the Multipolar World must consciously apply
their efforts so that the processes sway to the “local” side and
overweigh the “global” one.
Multipolar Conclusions from the Analysis of the World-System Theory
The World-System Theory by I.
Wallerstein is interesting for the Multipolar Theory due to the fact
that it adequately describes the economic, political, and sociological
algorithm of globalization. Wallerstein’s “World System” represents the
global capitalist elite as huddling around “The Core”, even if its
representatives come from the “periphery” countries. “The world
proletariat” that gradually transits from a national identity to a
class-based (international) one personifies the “periphery” not just
geographically, but also socially. National states are no more than
sites where one and the same mechanical process takes place. This is the
enrichment of oligarchs and their integration in the supranational
(global) “Core” and the pauperization of the masses, which gradually
interfuse with the working class of other nations in the course of
migration processes.
From the point of view of the Multipolar Theory, this analysis does not consider geopolitics or the cultural and civilizational factor.
The latter is the disregard for the topic inherent in Marxism as a
whole, which is first of all focused on the disclosure of the economic
mechanics of society’s organization. In the present world, “The Second
World” (i.e. regional integration formations or “Great Spaces”) is
situated between “The Core” and “the Periphery”. Under I. Wallerstein’s
logic, their existence changes nothing in the general structure of the
world-system, and they merely represent a step in the direction of
complete globalization – the integration of the elites in “The Core” and
the “internationalization of the masses” occur more rapidly here than
in the context of national states. But under the logic of the Multipolar
Theory, the presence of “The Second World” radically changes it all.
Between the elites and masses existing in the various integration
structures within the limits of “The Second World”, there can arise a
model of relations other than the liberal or Marxist analysis forecast.
S. Huntington called it “modernization without Westernization”[6].
The essence of this phenomenon is that, while obtaining a Western
education and mastering Western technologies, the elites of the
periphery countries often act in the following way: they do not
integrate into the global elite, but instead return to their society,
confirm their socialization and collective identity within it, and put
their mastered skills to service for their own countries, thereby not
following the West, and even opposing it. The factor of cultural
identity (often religion) and civilizational affiliation turns out to be
stronger than the universalist algorithm presented in the technology of
modernization and the very medium that begot it.
The process of societies’ stratification
and the elite’s Westernization as described by Wallerstein definitely
takes place, but a different process may also take place –
“modernization without Westernization”. Together with regional
integration without global integration, these processes represent a
tendency which I. Wallerstein himself ignores, but which his analysis
ironically allows one to be able to clearly see and describe. This
becomes a very important element and program thesis for the Multipolar
Theory.
As for the global horizon,
all societies now have to confront most of the theories of
globalization firsthand, and the Multipolar Theory can propose the
following principles.
The true completeness and integrity of
the world is objectively real, but it can only be properly perceived
once one removes the surrounding banality which obscures his pure
understanding of it. Heidegger called this the “authentic existing of
Dasein”[7].
Grasping the world as a whole can be only possible through the
modification of existence, not through the accumulation of ever new
data, expressions, meetings, conversations, information, and knowledge.
According to Heidegger, man is spurred on to study new places and
landscapes in order to escape from genuine existence, and this concept
is personified in the figure of Das Man, i.e. an impersonal and
abstract, yet concrete, living form that finds various substitutes to
replace the true experience of existing. Das Man, having an inauthentic
existence, dissolves the concentration of his own consciousness through
“curiosity” and “gossip”, two of the various forms non-authentic
existence[8].
The simpler that communications in the global world are, the more
senseless they become. The more saturated the information flows are, the
less people are able to reason and decode their meaning. Therefore,
globalization in no way contributes to one acquiring experience of the
whole world, but on the contrary, misleads from it by dispersing the
attention in an infinite series of meaningless puzzles where the parts
are not attributes of the unified whole, i.e. they exist as unrelated
fragments of existence. The global horizon is not reached in
globalization – it is comprehended in a profound existential experience
of a place.
Therefore, different societies do not
collide in the global horizon, but with the challenge of globalism as an
ideology and practice that attacks every society and challenges all
local communities, they could find a common ground in rejecting the
enemy that menaces all peoples and cultures without discrimination. The
Multipolar Theory recognizes the universalism of this challenge, but
holds that it must be repulsed just as universally in order to stave off
a forthcoming catastrophe, disaster, or tragedy.
The horizon of globalism is conceived as
something that must be defeated, overcome, and abolished. Each society
will do it in its own way, but the Multipolar Theory suggests
generalizing, consolidating, and coordinating all the forms of
opposition to the globalization challenge. As global as the challenge of
globalization is, so too must be its rejection, but the structure of
this rejection, so as to be full-fledged, independent, and prospective,
must be multipolar and suggest a clear and distinct project of what
should be put in place of globalization.
§ 3 From a Poison to a Cure
Saddling the Tiger of Globalization: the Multipolar Network
The construction of the Multipolar World
demands the developing of a special attitude to all basic aspects of
the globalization process. We have seen that although Multipolarism
opposes unipolarity and globalization, the question is not simply about
the rejection of all the transformations that surround modernity, but
about selecting the multipolar format for these transformations, to
influence them, and to guide the process to the pattern seen as being
the most desirable and optimal. Therefore, Multipolarism in certain
situations is not so much meant to directly oppose globalization as it
is to recapture the initiative and allow the processes to go along a new trajectory, thereby turning “a poison into a cure” (“to saddle the tiger”[9],
to use a traditional Chinese expression). Such a strategy repeats the
logic of “modernization without Westernization”, but on a more
generalized and systemized level. Some separate societies in a regional
culture borrow Western technologies so as to reinforce themselves and
repulse the pressure of the West at certain times. Multipolarism
suggests comprehending such a strategy as a system that can serve as a
general algorithm for most different non-Western societies.
Let us give some examples of such a reinterpretation of separate aspects of globalism through the multipolar perspective.
Let us take the network and network space
phenomenon. By itself, this phenomenon is not neutral. It represents
the result of a series of gradual transformations in the sociological
understanding of space in the context of “The Sea Power” on the path of
ever greater information medium dilution – from the sea through the air
to the infosphere. Along with it, the network represents a structure
that perceives the presence of relations between the system elements not
in the organic, but in the mechanic, way. The network can be
constructed between separate individual elements that initially are not
connect with each other and have no common collective identity. As it
evolves, the network phenomenon presents the prospect of overcoming
humanity and entering into the post-human age. This is because the
centrality of man becomes ever more and more relative (N. Luhmann, M.
Castells, etc.) in the very functioning of self-organizing systems like
the network. From this point of view, the network represents a reality
that is cardinally “Sea”, Atlantist, and globalist.
In classical geopolitics, we can see
that the positions of the Land and Sea are connected not so much by the
presence of one element or another, but with the sociological, cultural,
philosophical, and only then, strategic conclusions different societies
make from their contact with the Sea. K. Schmitt emphasizes[10]
that in spite of creating a global empire based upon navigation,
Spanish society continued preserving its strictly land-based identity,
which also particularly manifested itself in the social organization of
the colonies and in the difference between the future destinies of Latin
and Anglo-Saxon America. The presence of developed navigation does not
necessarily make a power a sea one in the geopolitical sense of this
term. Moreover, the objective of the Land Power and, in particular, of
the Heartland, is to obtain access to the seas, break the financial
blockade on the part of the thalassocracy, and begin to compete with it
in its own element.
The situation with the network space is
the same. The Multipolar camp needs to master the structure of the
network processes and their technologies, learn the rules and
regularities of network behavior, and then gain a possibility to realize
its objectives and goals in this new element. The network space opens
new possibilities for smaller actors: after all, the locations of a huge
planetary level transnational corporation, a great power, or an
individual minimally mastering programming skills are in no way
different from each other, and in a certain sense, they appear to occur
in similar conditions. The same can be said for social networks and
blogs. Globalization banks that code diffusion into a multitude of
network participants will one way or another install them in a context,
whose basic parameters will be controlled by owners of physical servers,
domain name registrars, providers, and hardware monopolists. But in the
antiglobalist theories by Negri and Hardt, we have seen how
leftist-anarchist theorists suggest coopting this circumstance for their
interests while preparing a “rebellion of multitudes” that is called
for to overthrow the control of the “empire”[11].
Something analogical can also be suggested in the Multipolar prospect,
but the question is not about conducting a chaotic sabotage of the
globalists plans through the use of the “multitudes”, but about
constructing virtual network civilizations tied to a specific
historical and geographical place and possessing a common cultural code.
A virtual civilization can be considered a projection of the
civilization as such in the network medium, assuming that the lines of
force and the identification perceptions that are dominant in a
corresponding cultural medium are consolidated there. This is already
used by different religious, ethnic, and political forces that are in no
way globalist or even antiglobalist, and they coordinate their
activities and propagate their views and ideas with the help of
different instruments of the Internet Network.
National domains and the development of
network communications in local language systems are another form. With
effective operation in this medium, this can contribute to the
reinforcement of the youth’s cultural identity, as they are naturally
predisposed to the allure of new technologies.
The example of the “Chinese Internet”
(where access is legally and physical limited) can, according to the
opinion of some Chinese governmental experts, damage the security of
Chinese society. On the reverse, in the political, social, and moral
fields, this example demonstrates that purely restrictive measures can
also exercise some positive effect for the reinforcement of
Multipolarism.
The global network can turn into a
multipolar one, namely, into an aggregate of intersecting but
independent “virtual continents”. Thus, instead of the singular network,
there will appear many networks, each being a virtual expression of a
specific qualitative space. All together, these continents can be
integrated in a common multipolar network, differentiated and moderated
on the grounds of the multipolar network paradigm. Eventually, the
content of what is in the network will be a reflection of human
imagination structures[12].
If actualizing these structures in a multipolar way (i.e. as those just
making sense in a specific qualitative historical space), it is not
difficult to imagine what the Internet (or its future analogue) could be
in the Multipolar World.
On a practical level, under the present
conditions, a network can already be considered as a means of
consolidating active social groups, personalities, and societies under
the aegis of promoting Multipolarism, i.e. gradual multipolar network
construction.
Network Wars of the Multipolar World
Network wars are one more phenomenon of
the globalization period. One should also be armed with the methodology
of network wars – both in the common theoretical and application aspects
– in constructing the Multipolar World. In this sense, the
Network-centric Principle adapted during the reorganization of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation represents an absolutely justified
decision, addressed to reinforce the Heartland’s positions and increase
the performance of the army that constitutes one of the main elements in
the multipolar configuration.
The Network-centric Principle of warfare
has some technical and principal aspects to it. The equipping of
separate units of the Russian Army with network attributes (tracking
devices, operative two-way communication devices, interactive technical
means, etc.) is a self-evident side of the issue, demanding no special
geopolitical grounds. What is much more important is in considering
another more common aspect of network warfare.
A network war, as it appears from its
theorists’ actions, is constantly waged in all directions – against
enemies, allies, and neutral forces. In the same way, network operations
must be evolved in all directions and on the part of the center (or
some centers) for the Multipolar World construction to succeed. If we
assume that the actor pursuing a network war is not a state, but a
non-state entity targeting the creation of the Multipolar World (like
those that the US network war targets in order to establish the unipolar
world), we will see that waging this war by different poles (e.g.
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.) will create interference and
resonances and multiply the reinforcement and effectiveness of network
strategies. By constructing the Multipolar World, each pole is
interested in reinforcing the other poles, but also in weakening the
hyperpower’s global hegemony. Thus, a network war waged by the
Multipolar World can represent a spontaneous convergence of effort with
structural ramifications that can be extremely effective. The
reinforcement of China is beneficial for Russia, just as the security of
Iran is beneficial for India. The independence of Pakistan from the US
will positively redound upon the situation in Afghanistan and Central
Asia, among other places.
By directing networks, information, and
image flows that are associated with the multipolar idea in each and
every direction, a network war can become extremely effective, as the
securing of the interests of one Multipolar World actor automatically
furthers the interests of another. In this case, coordination must only
occur on the highest level – on the level of the countries’
representatives in the multipolar club (as a rule, these are heads of
states) where the common multipolar paradigm will be exactly
coordinated. Network war processes will bring this common strategy into
life.
The second important part of the Network-centric War theory is in emphasizing the increased sensibility to initial conditions.
These initial factors that affect the end result are the point in which
the possible conflict starts, the position that other participating
countries take up, and the information medium that broadcasts the
conflict’s developments. Therefore, higher priority attention should be
paid to preparing the medium – the local and global one. If the
correlation of forces, a computation of the consequences of the various
steps taken in the information field, and the preliminary preparation of
image presentation are made correctly, this can make a conflict
situation impossible by persuading a potential opponent of the
hopelessness of resistance or armed escalation. This concerns
traditional warfare as well as information wars, where the fight is
waged for influence upon public opinion.
Therefore, the countries declaring their
orientation to Multipolarism can and must actively use the theories and
practices of network-centric operations for their interests. The
theorists of network wars fairly consider them to be a crucial strategic
instrument of waging a war in the Postmodernist conditions.
Multipolarism undertakes the challenge of the Postmodern and begins a
battle for its direction. Network-centric operations represent one of
the most important territories to wage this battle.
Multipolarism and the Dialectics of Chaos
Another example where a strategy of
turning “a poison into a cure” can be found is in the chaos phenomenon.
Chaos ever more frequently figures into modern geopolitical texts[13], as well as in globalization theories. Proponents of the rigid unipolar approach (such as S. Mann[14])
suggest manipulating chaos in favor of “The Core” (i.e., the US).
Antiglobalists and postmodernists welcome chaos in its literal sense –
as anarchy and disorder. Other authors try to see buds of order in the
chaotic reality.
The Multipolar Approach treats the problem of chaos as follows:
First, the mythological concept of
“chaos” as a condition opposing “order” is predominantly a product of
Greek (i.e. European) culture. This opposition is initially based upon
the exclusiveness of order, and subsequently, as philosophy develops and
order is identified with rationality, chaos has entirely turned into a
purely negative concept, a synonym of irrationality, darkness, and
inanity. It is also possible to approach this problem in another way,
however, in a less exclusivist sense, and then chaos will discover
itself to us as an entity not opposing order, but instead preceding its
strained logical expression. Chaos is not nonsense, but a matrix from
where sense is begotten[15].
In Western European culture, chaos is an
unambiguous “evil”, but this is not the case in other cultures.
Multipolarism refuses to consider Western European culture as being
universal, and hence, chaos itself loses its unambiguous negative image,
and the order correlated with it attains a positive image.
Multipolarism does not reason in terms of chaos or order, but it demands
explanations every time – what chaos and what order, and in what sense
does a specific culture hold one or another term? We approximately know
how chaos and order are comprehended by Western culture, but how does
the Chinese one comprehend it, for example? Indeed, the idea of “Tao”
that is crucial for Chinese philosophy (“The Way”) is described in many
texts in terms that strikingly remind one of the descriptions of chaos.
Therefore, the multipolar approach states that the understanding of
chaos and order is relative to civilizations, and the Western conception
is not universal by any means.
Firstly, globalists often understand
“chaos” in the geopolitical sense as being anything that does not
correlate with their perceptions of ordered sociopolitical and economic
structures and that counters the establishment of their subjective
global and “universal” values. In this case, everything that is valuable
for the construction of the Multipolar World, including the insistence
on other forms of identity, consequently bears within itself the seeds
of the Multipolar Order and thus falls within the class of “chaos”. Per
this example, “chaos” supports the construction of the Multipolar World
and is its life-bearing origin.
Finally, chaos, in the manner that it is
understood as being pure disorder or weakly organized spontaneous
processes taking place in a society, can also be considered from the
position of Multipolarism. Whenever a chaotic situation (conflict,
disturbance, collision, etc.) arises in a natural or artificial way, it
is necessary to learn to control it, i.e. master the art of chaos moderation.
Being against ordered structures by their vey nature, chaotic processes
do not lend themselves to a straightforward logic, but it does not mean
they do not have it at all. Chaos does have logic, but it is more
complex and comprehensive than the algorithms of non-chaotic processes.
At the same time, it lends itself to scientific research and it is
actively studied by modern physicists and mathematicians. From the point
of view of geopolitical application, it can well become one of the most
effective instruments for constructing the Multipolar World.
[1] Alain de Benoist. Protiv liberalizma. SPb, 2009.
[2] Dugin A. Protiv modernizacii// Odnako, 2010. №10 (26).
[3] Thurnwald R. Die menschliche Gesellschaft in ihren ethno-soziologischen Grundlagen, 5 B. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931-1934.
[4] Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010
[5] Ibid.
[6] Huntington Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
[7] Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and philosopgiya drugogo nachala. M., 2010.
[8]
Heidegger called globalism with the term “Planeter Idiotism” having in
mind the original Greek meaning of the word idioteς that implies a polis
inhabitant deprived of civil identity, i.e., of affiliation to a phyle,
caste, trade, cult, etc. See Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and philosopgiya drugogo nachala. Op. cit.
[9] Evola J. Cavalcare la tigre. R, 2001.
[10] Schmitt С. Die planetarische Spannung zwischen Ost und West (1959)/Schmittiana – III von prof. Piet Tommissen. Brussel, 1991.
[11] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, 2000..
[12] Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010.
[13] Ramonet I. Géo-politique du chaos. Paris: Galilée, 1997; Idem. Guerres du xxie siècle – Peurs et menaces nouvelles. Paris: Galilée, 2002.
[14] Mann St. R. Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought//Parameters. 1992. Autumn. № 55.
[15] Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit.
Postagens
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário