Abstract
In the article an attempt is made to reveal and analyze some key, in the author's opinion, factors underlying the controversial nature of globalization. Having considered some of the most significant consequences of globalization from the point of view of the unity of the modern world, the main attention is focused on the main factors, nature, systemic and structural components of those tendencies and processes that resulted in the opposite tendency to undermine this unity. The author sees the paradox of globalization in the fact that, due to a complex of factors determining the geopolitical picture of the modern world, it has created the conditions for localization, re-nationalization, fragmentation and deconstruction of the modern world. The trend of de-sovereignization of national states is replaced by the trend of their re-sovereignization. The most significant examples in support of this thesis are the processes of disintegration of multinational states and the formation of many new national states, the growing influence of nationalist and separatist movements, organizations, parties that oppose globalism, universalism and transnationalism. One of their manifestations became the phenomenon of building various fences and walls separating peoples, countries and states from each other. On the basis of these and a whole complex of related factors, trends and processes, it was concluded that in the modern world, a single humanity with a complex of values, ideals, and interests common to all nations and states can be imagined, figuratively speaking, from a bird's flight. In reality, the unity of humankind is an abstract, metaphorical concept, which is intended to unite very heterogeneous, contradictory, conflicting, cultural and civilizational circles, peoples, states, communities pursuing different, sometimes opposite goals and interests as a whole. Of course, they have a complex of common fundamental interests, from the protection of which depends the very physical existence of the mankind. The combination of these two seemingly opposing principles forms the basis of the formula “fragmentation in unity, or unity in fragmentation”.
Highlights
It is obvious that in this field of political science in the United States and to a lesser extent in Russia, many works have appeared in which the globalization is viewed from different angles
One cannot deny the fact that globalization and the information revolution have become a factor that contributed to fundamental shifts in the system and infrastructure components of the modern world
It is especially important to take into account the fact that there is a mismatch between the vectors of economic and technological globalization, on the one hand, and political realities, the essence of which is manifested in the resistance of peoples to the tendencies and processes of weakening and even the loss of state sovereignty and national identity, on the other
Summary
It is obvious that in this field of political science in the United States and to a lesser extent in Russia, many works have appeared in which the globalization is viewed from different angles. Pritchard, such a statement of the issue in the treatment of the columnist of The New York Times T.L. Friedman, includes "economic globalization, the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism, socio-cultural convergence, technological innovation and change, liberal internationalism and global governance, and the emergence of a certain type of the so-called "flat world". One cannot deny the fact that globalization and the information revolution have become a factor that contributed to fundamental shifts in the system and infrastructure components of the modern world These shifts are obvious, and there seems to be no point in dwelling on them in any detail. There are tendencies toward erosion of the territorial imperative, state borders, national and state identity It seems that modern mankind, metaphorically speaking, turns into a kind of global communal megalopolis, where the boundaries of the life space of collectives, communities, peoples on the local, subnational, national, supranational levels are steadily shrinking. The question arises: did not the sovereign national state become did not the sovereign national state become property of history?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
