Abstract
Civilizations are not a novel subject of research.Todaytheyareincreasinglypopularbothinaca demicandpoliticalspheres.State and non-state actors talk as if civilizations were real actors of world politics. The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics. It finds three actual and one possible directions of civilizational research, namely: civilizational dynamic, inter civilizational ethics, politics of civilizations and civilizational politics. The author stresses the importance of nonessentialist approach in civilizational dynamics studies, its leader being Peter Katzenstein. The rest of the article is devoted to cultivating the selected research direction. The author proposes to view civilizations as a strategic reference framework rather than a real actor of world politics. These reference frameworks are constructed on religious value basis and detailed in a shared literature corpus. They are heterogeneous and in a constant state of flux. It can be viewed as a continuum with one pole being a fundamentalist state of civilization and the opposite one - post secular state of civilization. The middle ground is occupied by secular civilization. The clash and dialogue are not among civilizations but rather among different states or social groups within and among civilizations. The most conflictual group is a fundamentalist one, its reference framework is totally determined by religious values. Compromise for such a group is impossible. The most cooperative group is post secular one since it is based on dialogue. The author concludes that dialogue is guaranteed among post secular societies within the Christian civilization. Within and among non-Christian civilizations dialogue is possible but not guaranteed.
Highlights
The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics
The author stresses the importance of nonessentialist approach in civilizational dynamics studies, its leader being Peter Katzenstein
The author proposes to view civilizations as a strategic reference framework rather than a real actor of world politics. These reference frameworks are constructed on religious value basis and detailed in a shared literature corpus
Summary
Московский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) МИД России. Представители государств и негосударственных акторов в своих речах постоянно ссылаются на цивилизации так, как будто те являются реальными акторами мировой политики, а отношения между ними имеют для неё определённые значение. В статье рассматривается современная интеллектуальная карта исследований цивилизаций в теории международных отношений. Далее автор обосновывает преимущества неэссенциалистского направления в исследованиях цивилизационной динамики, лидером которого является П. Продолжая исследование в рамках выбранного подхода, автор обосновывает, что цивилизации в мировой политике существуют скорее как стратегические референтные рамки, а не как непосредственные герои международной политики. Данные референтные рамки создаются на ценностной основе религии и уточняются общим литературным каноном. Что диалог гарантирован только внутри христианской цивилизации (между её постсекулярными сообществами), внутри и между нехристианскими цивилизациями диалог возможен, но не гарантирован.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
