This phenomenon is usually described in the well-known categories of internationalization of economies and integration of states, i.e. in terms of economic determinism and the concept of world politics as the interaction of sovereign states. Most models of globalization have been created based on periodization, with its characteristic economic determinism. This approach views globalization as an objectively determined, mainly economic, process of the spread and universalization of the Western economic model in its neoliberal version. This created the impression of becoming a global “super-society”12 (A. Zinoviev), the proclamation of the “end of history”13 (F. Fukuyama), and the emergence of a global “Empire”14 (M. Hardt, A. Negri) with a Euro-Atlantic civilization core and several rings of the dependent and subject-less periphery.
In addition, globalization is largely considered based on the concepts of civilizational theories. Thus, these ideas helped the concept of “hybridization” of society, which enjoyed a certain popularity. It suggests that one of the significant characteristics of globalization is the process of cultural, racial, and ethnic mixing, i.e. meticization15. Thus, “hybridization” is the mixing of races and peoples into a single social community, with a common culture. In this case, it should be noted that this concept reduces the emergence of a new social reality to a mechanical superposition, an overlay of already known phenomena and entities. It does not take into account, and does not presuppose, possible qualitative changes in the society as a result of convergence.
Therefore, most of the concepts describing globalization are developed within two main groups of theories. The first is represented by formational models, which base the development of society on the economy. The second group consists of civilizational theories, with their typical focus on the regional peculiarities of human development. At the same time, a significant number of hybrid theories have been created that simultaneously use the methodological basis of these two types of concepts.
As an example, we can cite the theoretical constructs of A.A. Guseinov16. He believes that globalization is the transformation of historically established, quite independent cultural-civilizational and national state forms of social life into a single system that encompasses all humankind. And this new system is inevitably opposed to those forms of collective, which it is designed to remove in favour of some new synthesis, which is so broad as to be universal.
The conflict between the global and the local becomes particularly evident and enters a dramatic confrontation when globalization goes beyond the economy, capturing the cultural, political, and ideological – in the broad sense of the term (world view, mental) – sphere of life. Thus, according to V.S. Stepin, globalization is a choice between two scenarios, which are known as the concept of the “golden billion” and the concept of a “dialogue of civilizations”17.
The concept of the “golden billion” arises from the perception of globalization as the domination, the triumph of the civilization of the West and Western nations, “the end of history” (Fukuyama)18. Everyone else should strive to emulate them under the threat that they will otherwise be doomed to a peripheral or semi-peripheral existence. Accordingly, the future global society is thought of as a similar feudal-hierarchical system with western European civilization in the centre and concentric circles of different levels located around it. The concept of a “global human anthill” as the ultimate and final variant of humanity’s integration within the framework of the Western paradigm was sociologically predicted and depicted in A.A. Zinoviev’s works19.
The idea of a “dialogue of civilizations” as an extremely abstract position, deprived of clearly formulated goals and attachment to social subjects, is formulated in the preface to the Russian translation of F. Braudel’s book The Grammar of Civilizations: “Globalization is developing simultaneously with the emergence of a multipolar world. Civilizations must learn … to accept the existence of other civilizations, to recognize that they will never achieve domination over others, to be ready to see others as equal partners20.” The concept of a “dialogue of civilizations” justly believes that the sociocultural sphere is not a carbon copy of the economy. It is based on the principle of “equality” of civilizations, cultures, and peoples, and sees the ideal global society as “unity in diversity”.
In fact, behind the concept of a “dialogue of civilizations”, there is the desire of the already established global periphery to resist the pressure of the West in terms of the unification of cultures and values and to develop its project of existence in a united world. From this perspective, globalization is a challenge to cultural-civilizational and national identity that applies to all development scenarios, including the concept of a “dialogue of civilizations21.”
Nevertheless, it should be noted that today the process is happening in a slightly different manner: namely, the ideology of the largest community – the people of the Western world, the “golden billion” – is being formed. It is a subjective, group outlook on reality that serves the global confrontation as regards people’s material well-being. And the confrontation within the new, global community inevitably arises due to the growing struggle for natural resources due, in particular, to the exponential growth of the population.
At the same time, the idea of a “dialogue of civilizations” as an ideal and almost conflict-free development, presented as an alternative to the real practices of globalization and the real strategy of globalism, is not, in fact, a real alternative. This position is, at best, more of an ideal tendency, if not wishful thinking.
Moreover, this wish is so abstract that it fails the test not only of social practices but also of the concretization and development of a local applied model of such a “dialogue”.
Behind globalism, there are very real interests and actors involved in global events. At the same time, behind the “universal” abstract idea of a “dialogue of civilizations” we cannot see any substantial economic interests that would outweigh the benefits of globalism for elites, including local elites. Similarly, there are neither actors interested in symmetric, equal dialogue nor subjects capable of ensuring it. Nor is there an arbitrator standing above the fray interested in, and capable of, forcing the participants of globalization who have real economic and other kinds of power to join the “dialogue of civilizations”.
The absence of the actors interested in the implementation of this scenario of globalization development is explained by the fact that the life and death issues important to these actors are being resolved in the course of their interaction. The result of direct interaction between the “wolf” and the “lamb”, devoid of spatial and mechanical barriers, is obvious, regardless of the calls of the weaker side for an equal dialogue. As a result, the idea of a “dialogue of civilizations” is, at best, a form of appeal by the losing side to the mercy of the winners, a form of “incorporation” into the Western model of globalization.
Another form of appeal by local outsiders to the mercy of the leaders of global development is the idea of “preserving civilizational (cultural) diversity”, clearly repeating the slogan of “preserving the biodiversity” of the environment. The slogan of “preservation of diversity” is nothing else but a strategy of preserving