LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

War and the new world order: variants of expected scenarios in the context of the complexity paradigm

stmm. 2024 (2): 56-84

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.02.056

Full text: https://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2024-2/6.pdf

LYUBOV BEVZENKO, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

lbevzenko@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-1937

The situation in the world after the start of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine can be characterized as an ever-increasing chaos, undermining the foundations of the global order that existed in the world before the start of this war. The theme of the inevitable change of the world order becomes one of the main ones in the world narrative space, actualizing the question — what can the new global order be? The paradigm of complexity as a methodological basis for the construction of the latest sociological concepts allows us to propose conceptual schemes and models of social changes that are able to work with the concepts of social chaos, bifurcation and social order. The basis of the proposed forecast of the expected possible scenarios of the development of events is a model of social changes built on the basis of the paradigm of complexity, which asserts the existence of two mechanisms for creating and maintaining social order — organizational and self-organizing. The organizational mechanism is based on human subjectivity, rational thinking, intelligence, classical scientific forecasting models, logic and evidence. Culturally legitimized during the Modern era. Self-organization is based on mythological thinking, irrationality, belief in a suprapersonal force that is the subject of order creation (God, gods, hero, charismatic leader, higher idea, etc.). The culture of Tradition was based on this. According to the chosen approach, it can be argued that the next arrangement can be predicted only in the form of several equally probable options for global social change. It is assumed that these options will be formed from different variations of the combination of organization and self-organization. There are three of them: 1). Hypermodernity, significant strengthening of organizational mechanisms, further marginalization of self-organization. 2). Neo-tradition (integral Tradition), dominance of self-organization, decline of organizational levers of regulation. 3). Tradomodern, a balanced dialectical unity of self-organization and organization. The points of possible growth of each of the options are indicated, which are currently in the margins of the world socio-cultural space, but at bifurcation points, the new always grows from the marginal. The unique example of the self-organization of the Ukrainian Maidans, volunteer and voluntary movement, which is an experience of combining organization and self-organization, reason and faith, which brings new meanings to the European semantic space, is emphasized. It was emphasized that there is no way to predict which option will be implemented. A small random event can decide everything, but knowing such patterns does not exclude the possibility of at least preparing for all the mentioned possibilities, and maybe working for one of them.

Keywords: global world order, chaos of world social space, paradigm of complexity, organization and self-organization as mechanisms of creating a new social order, variability of forecast, options for possible changes

References

  1. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315

  2. Arendt, H. (1979). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: A Harvest Book.

  3. Baumeister, A. (2023) The world order is at a crossroads: the split is deepening. 03.11.23. [In Russian]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtafy_-b0Do

  4. Bevzenko, L. (2015). The concept of myth and game in the crisis discourse of modern sociocultural processes - a socio-self-organizational approach. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 112-130.

  5. Bevzenko, L. (2018). Integrative concept of social tension - methodology, conceptual scheme, pragmatics. Part 1, 2. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 3, 43-74; 4, 73-104.

  6. Bhaskar, R. (2013). A Realist Theory of Science. London: Routledge. Bondarenko, S. (2023). Mythodesign in marketing. Mythodesign as a sociocultural technology of projecting modern myths: visual aspect. [In Ukrainian]. Demiurge: Ideas, Technologies, Design Perspectives, 6(1), 194-205. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203090732

  7. Bosenko, V.O. (1966). Dialectic as a Theory of Development. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Kyiv University Publishing House.

  8. Boulton, J. G., Allen, P.M., Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565252.001.0001

  9. Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

  10. Capra, F. (2023). The Tao of Physics. Study of parallels between modern physics and Eastern philosophy. [In Ukrainian]. PH "KM-Buks".

  11. Charles, S., Lipovetsky, G. (2006). Hypermodern Times. Polity Press.

  12. Cleveland, J. (1994). Complexity theory. Basic concepts and application to systems thinking. Innovation For Communities. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/johncleveland/complexity-theory-basic-concepts

  13. Dobronravova, I.S. (1990). The Formation of Non-Linear Thinking. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Lybid'.

  14. Dobronravova, I.S. (2017). Causality in synergetics: the spontaneous emergence of an active cause. [In Ukrainian]. In: Practical Philosophy of Science (pp. 184-197). Sumy: Universytetska knyha.

  15. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

  16. Ganon, R. (2023). The crisis of the modern world. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Plomin'. Retrieved from: https://nashformat.ua/products/kryza-suchasnogo-svitu-940463?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7OqrBhD9ARIsAK3UXh3Ud7tx-f0bciEG6a4X2TEY1ojkqE6hiN4P-iyaan4RCGrrx_VNh30aAmJXEALw_wcB

  17. Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: a new way to look at organizational change. Administration Quarterly, 29, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/073491490502900305

  18. Haken. H. (1982). Synergetik. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; New York; Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96663-7

  19. Huntington, S.P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  20. Myronenko, T. (2023). Lose income, experience separation, feel worse - and remain happy. Sociologist Volodymyr Paniotto - about how Ukrainians were changed by the war year. [In Ukrainian]. Forbes, 15.03.23. Retrieved from: https://forbes.ua/lifestyle/vtratiti-dokhodi-perezhiti-rozluku-pochuvatis-girshe-i-zalishitis-shchaslivimi-sotsiolog-volodimir-paniotto-pro-te-yak-ukraintsiv-zminiv-rik-viyni-15032023-12333?fbclid=IwAR2Wip8a0ZqfIyWQqDWxzs7U5OKjNemtNEr6OGSZPnuW7Zrvg4AaCKpGcQ8

  21. Navarrete, C., Fryer, T. (2024). Redefining emergence: Making the case for contextual emergence in critical realism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Version of Record online: 30 January 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12414

  22. Porpora, D.V. (2024). Realism and Complexity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 54, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12409

  23. Prigogine, I., Stengers, I. (1984). Оrder out of Chaos. Man's New Dialogue with Nature. London: Heinemann.

  24. Schwab, K. (2015). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. What It Means and How to Respond. Foreign Affairs, December 12. Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/fourth-industrial-revolution

  25. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House.

  26. Tharoor, I. (2023). Europe's far right goes mainstream. The Washington Post, November 27. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/27/europe-far-right-geert-wilders-dutch-election-mainstream/

  27. Turner, J.R., Baker, R.M. (2019). Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems, 7, 4-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004

  28. Waghorn, D. (2023). Are we ready for a world where Ukraine loses its war against Russia? Sky News, December 14. Retrieved from: https://news.sky.com/story/are-we-ready-for-a-world-where-ukraine-loses-its-war-against-russia-13029963

  29. Zlotina, M. (2008). Dialectic. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Parapan.

Received 01.04.2024

War and the new world order: variants of expected scenarios in the context of the complexity paradigm

stmm. 2024 (2): 56-84

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.02.056

Full text: https://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2024-2/6.pdf

LYUBOV BEVZENKO, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

lbevzenko@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-1937

The situation in the world after the start of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine can be characterized as an ever-increasing chaos, undermining the foundations of the global order that existed in the world before the start of this war. The theme of the inevitable change of the world order becomes one of the main ones in the world narrative space, actualizing the question — what can the new global order be? The paradigm of complexity as a methodological basis for the construction of the latest sociological concepts allows us to propose conceptual schemes and models of social changes that are able to work with the concepts of social chaos, bifurcation and social order. The basis of the proposed forecast of the expected possible scenarios of the development of events is a model of social changes built on the basis of the paradigm of complexity, which asserts the existence of two mechanisms for creating and maintaining social order — organizational and self-organizing. The organizational mechanism is based on human subjectivity, rational thinking, intelligence, classical scientific forecasting models, logic and evidence. Culturally legitimized during the Modern era. Self-organization is based on mythological thinking, irrationality, belief in a suprapersonal force that is the subject of order creation (God, gods, hero, charismatic leader, higher idea, etc.). The culture of Tradition was based on this. According to the chosen approach, it can be argued that the next arrangement can be predicted only in the form of several equally probable options for global social change. It is assumed that these options will be formed from different variations of the combination of organization and self-organization. There are three of them: 1). Hypermodernity, significant strengthening of organizational mechanisms, further marginalization of self-organization. 2). Neo-tradition (integral Tradition), dominance of self-organization, decline of organizational levers of regulation. 3). Tradomodern, a balanced dialectical unity of self-organization and organization. The points of possible growth of each of the options are indicated, which are currently in the margins of the world socio-cultural space, but at bifurcation points, the new always grows from the marginal. The unique example of the self-organization of the Ukrainian Maidans, volunteer and voluntary movement, which is an experience of combining organization and self-organization, reason and faith, which brings new meanings to the European semantic space, is emphasized. It was emphasized that there is no way to predict which option will be implemented. A small random event can decide everything, but knowing such patterns does not exclude the possibility of at least preparing for all the mentioned possibilities, and maybe working for one of them.

Keywords: global world order, chaos of world social space, paradigm of complexity, organization and self-organization as mechanisms of creating a new social order, variability of forecast, options for possible changes

References

  1. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315

  2. Arendt, H. (1979). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: A Harvest Book.

  3. Baumeister, A. (2023) The world order is at a crossroads: the split is deepening. 03.11.23. [In Russian]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtafy_-b0Do

  4. Bevzenko, L. (2015). The concept of myth and game in the crisis discourse of modern sociocultural processes - a socio-self-organizational approach. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 112-130.

  5. Bevzenko, L. (2018). Integrative concept of social tension - methodology, conceptual scheme, pragmatics. Part 1, 2. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 3, 43-74; 4, 73-104.

  6. Bhaskar, R. (2013). A Realist Theory of Science. London: Routledge. Bondarenko, S. (2023). Mythodesign in marketing. Mythodesign as a sociocultural technology of projecting modern myths: visual aspect. [In Ukrainian]. Demiurge: Ideas, Technologies, Design Perspectives, 6(1), 194-205. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203090732

  7. Bosenko, V.O. (1966). Dialectic as a Theory of Development. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Kyiv University Publishing House.

  8. Boulton, J. G., Allen, P.M., Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565252.001.0001

  9. Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

  10. Capra, F. (2023). The Tao of Physics. Study of parallels between modern physics and Eastern philosophy. [In Ukrainian]. PH "KM-Buks".

  11. Charles, S., Lipovetsky, G. (2006). Hypermodern Times. Polity Press.

  12. Cleveland, J. (1994). Complexity theory. Basic concepts and application to systems thinking. Innovation For Communities. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/johncleveland/complexity-theory-basic-concepts

  13. Dobronravova, I.S. (1990). The Formation of Non-Linear Thinking. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Lybid'.

  14. Dobronravova, I.S. (2017). Causality in synergetics: the spontaneous emergence of an active cause. [In Ukrainian]. In: Practical Philosophy of Science (pp. 184-197). Sumy: Universytetska knyha.

  15. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

  16. Ganon, R. (2023). The crisis of the modern world. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Plomin'. Retrieved from: https://nashformat.ua/products/kryza-suchasnogo-svitu-940463?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7OqrBhD9ARIsAK3UXh3Ud7tx-f0bciEG6a4X2TEY1ojkqE6hiN4P-iyaan4RCGrrx_VNh30aAmJXEALw_wcB

  17. Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: a new way to look at organizational change. Administration Quarterly, 29, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/073491490502900305

  18. Haken. H. (1982). Synergetik. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; New York; Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96663-7

  19. Huntington, S.P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  20. Myronenko, T. (2023). Lose income, experience separation, feel worse - and remain happy. Sociologist Volodymyr Paniotto - about how Ukrainians were changed by the war year. [In Ukrainian]. Forbes, 15.03.23. Retrieved from: https://forbes.ua/lifestyle/vtratiti-dokhodi-perezhiti-rozluku-pochuvatis-girshe-i-zalishitis-shchaslivimi-sotsiolog-volodimir-paniotto-pro-te-yak-ukraintsiv-zminiv-rik-viyni-15032023-12333?fbclid=IwAR2Wip8a0ZqfIyWQqDWxzs7U5OKjNemtNEr6OGSZPnuW7Zrvg4AaCKpGcQ8

  21. Navarrete, C., Fryer, T. (2024). Redefining emergence: Making the case for contextual emergence in critical realism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Version of Record online: 30 January 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12414

  22. Porpora, D.V. (2024). Realism and Complexity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 54, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12409

  23. Prigogine, I., Stengers, I. (1984). Оrder out of Chaos. Man's New Dialogue with Nature. London: Heinemann.

  24. Schwab, K. (2015). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. What It Means and How to Respond. Foreign Affairs, December 12. Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/fourth-industrial-revolution

  25. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House.

  26. Tharoor, I. (2023). Europe's far right goes mainstream. The Washington Post, November 27. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/27/europe-far-right-geert-wilders-dutch-election-mainstream/

  27. Turner, J.R., Baker, R.M. (2019). Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems, 7, 4-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004

  28. Waghorn, D. (2023). Are we ready for a world where Ukraine loses its war against Russia? Sky News, December 14. Retrieved from: https://news.sky.com/story/are-we-ready-for-a-world-where-ukraine-loses-its-war-against-russia-13029963

  29. Zlotina, M. (2008). Dialectic. [In Russian]. Kyiv: Parapan.

Received 01.04.2024

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }