Suchergebnisse

The main purpose of this article is to create a typology of modern society's critical states based on analyzing Russian and foreign studies, as well as the author's own theoretical constructs developed over the last 30 years. I personally consider geopolitical, natural-climatic and manmade catastrophes of global and continental scale to be the main archetypes of critical conditions. After that we have artificial, but virtually indistinguishable critical conditions of society (inner degradation and collapse, mass epidemics and social "diseases" such as alcoholism, drug addiction, corruption and crime). And, finally, critical conditions which emerge when the existing forms of institutional or other social organization have run their course; for example, poverty and other manifestations of an individual or group critically lagging behind society's current pace of development. As a result, the amount of people who are basically excluded from public life begins to multiply. We also have society's rapid shift towards the "digital" age taking its toll. In order to minimize the negative consequences of all sorts of critical conditions, all social agents, regardless of their magnitude and purpose, must be prepared for critical situations arising as part of their everyday routine. In other words, in current conditions the differences between the "norm" and "abnormalities" are gradually becoming ever the more arbitrary. Such an assertion isn't just relativism, but rather a testament to the fact that the current global SBT-system, of which Russia is an essential element, is constantly evolving. Volunteers and civil society in general are indispensable players when it comes to preventing critical conditions at all stages of their development, influence on society and subsequent adaptation of those who suffered as a result of them. As for the "digitalization" of public life, the author insists that "digital" tools were always and will be merely an instrument in the hands of human beings, who must be able to think independently, reflect on the changes occurring in the world and make their own decisions.

Based on Soviet sociologists being able to predict the fall of the USSR in the mid 1980's, the author of this article seeks to understand whether social forecasting is possible in our unstable and constantly changing modern world. Relying on the theoretical work of Russian and Western sociologists conducted in the 2000's, including his own research and his participation in three international projects, the author of this article demonstrates that to this day a dichotomous approach prevails in prognostic studies. Such an approach to analysis is preferred by most Anglo-Saxon scientists who study globalization. The article also examines the theoretical-methodological trends being developed outside the boundaries of the aforementioned dichotomous analysis by researchers from third-world countries. For example, subject to analysis is the heuristic potential of analyzing modern globalization as a self-organizing "movement of the movements", as well as the need for interdisciplinary and metabolic analysis. Special attention is devoted to changes on the micro-level, in other words, to the position and lifestyle of an individual under conditions of fluid modernization. The article is concluded by certain specific considerations on the author's part concerning the type and nature of the theory and methodology, which allow for adequately analyzing and predicting the dynamics of our modern non-equilibrium and mobile world. Analyzed are the methodological contradictions between social and physical sciences in their ideas and approaches when it comes to criteria and methods for predicting the dynamics of the globalized world.

This article is one additional indication that a new realm of multi-sided and trans-disciplinary sociological studies is emerging within the interrelated scope of social, technical and natural sciences. How Russian sociology will respond to this cworld challenge of the new times? Do the sociologists and political scientists well prepared to the modern cold or hot war, to a variety of small and middle-scale wars under conditions of globalization and the development of the IT technologies, on the one hand, and separatism and a tough global struggle for resources and political domination, on the other? Are the new political subjects that have emerged as a result of such wars legitimate? The article presents the authors reflection on these and other critical ˜turning points of the world and Russian sociology and practice.

The notes contain some comments related to the ongoing debates on sociology of globalization concentrated on U. Becks idea of cosmopolitisation and the shaping of cosmopolitan communities. A forthcoming paradigm shift in social sciences;the definition of cosmopolitanism and the establishment of cosmopolitan communities; what is the first phase of cosmopolitisation showed; an idea and possible scenarios of it realization; critics of cosmopolitisation theory concept; cosmopolitanism vs. corporate (or cluster) nationalism; and what is going now and what should be done are main issues in question.Author concluded that: the evolutionary potential of existing sociology is not exhausted; an anthropological shock should be avoided; much more attention should be given to the study of economic and political sources of current disasters; and that local and global sociologists should be much more active in public arena and environmental politics.