Функции этнической культуры в эпоху «нового регионализма» (социально-философский анализ)

Yuliia Yemelianova

doi:10.29038/2306-3971-2019-01-06-12

Автор(и)

Yuliia Yemelianova Східноєвропейський національний університет імені Лесі Українки https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5651-9889

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2019-01-06-12

Ключові слова:

глобализация, регион, глокализация, культура, этносоциокультурная система

Анотація

Анализируются функции этнической культуры в эпоху завершения очередной волны глобализации и начала эпохи мультирегионализма или «нового регионализма». Национальные государства утрачивают ряд своих важных функций, в том числе, социального гаранта и носителя общенациональной социальной перспективы. Обесценивание концепта нации приводит индивидов к актуализации фундаментальной формы солидарности – этнической.

Генерализация концепта культуры в постнеклассической эпистемологии позволяет предложить авторское объяснение механизмов этнокультурной конвергенции и регионализации как глубинный этно-социокультурный процесс. Этническая культура показана генератором ритмов социальной динамики этносов, которые поддерживают ее главную функцию – формирование и сохранение индивидуально-личностной субъектности индивида-этнофора.

Посилання

Andreev, A. (1996). Ethnic revolution and reconstruction of the post-Soviet space. Social sciences and modernity. No1, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.2753/SOR1061-0154350670

Arefieva, G. Kalinin, E., Liuskin M. (2002). Postclassical approach to social and ethnic knowledge. Philosophy and society. No. 1, 16–45. https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2018-01-06-11.

Afanasyeva, L., Glinskaya, L. (2018). Intercultural consolidation as a guarantee of national unity and stability in Ukraine. Sociological Studios, No l (12), 6–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2018-01-06-11.

Akhiezer, A. (1998). Russia: Criticism of historical experience (Sociocultural dynamics of Russia). Novosibirsk: Siberian Chronograph, 600 p.

Beck, U. (2001). What is globalization? The mistakes of globalism are the answers to globalization. Transl. from German. Moscow : Progress Tradition, 304 p.

Burlachuk, V. (2002). Symbol and power: The role of symbolic structures in building a picture of the social world. Kyiv : Institute of Sociology, 266 p.

Giddens, E. (2005). The arrangement of societies: Essays on the theory of structure. Moscow: Academ. project, 528 p.

Grechko, P. (2009). Cultural codes and types of sociality: collectivism, individualism, pluralism. Moscow: Russian political encyclopedia, 440 p.

Yemelyanova, Y. (2012). Ethnicity in socio-cultural reality. Sevastopol: Publishing SevNTU, 456 p.

Kemerov, V. (2012). Society, social, polysubject. Moscow: Academic Project. Peace Foundation, 252 p.

Kuznetsova, А. (2016). The Empirical Representation of the Embodiment of Intercultural Policy on the Example of a Network of European Cities. Sociological Studios. No 2 (9), 6–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2016-02-47-51

Otreshko, N. (2009). Pictures of the social world in modern social theory. Questions of social theory: Scientific almanac. T. III. Sociality and culture in a changing world. Issue 1 (3), 125–140.

Safonov, A., Orlov, A. (2012). Conceptual problems of the theory of ethnos in the context of globalization. ALMA MATER. (Herald of Higher Education). No 2, 17–21.

Sloterdijk, P. (2010). Spheres. Plural spherology. Translation from German K.V. Loschevsky. T. 3., St. Petersburg: Science, 924 p.

Stepin, V. (2009). Classics, non-classics, post-non-classics: criteria for discrimination. Post-non-classics: philosophy, science, culture. St. Petersburg: Mir Publishing House, 249–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.2113

Toffler, O. (1997). Futurokhok. Transl. from English. St. Petersburg: Lan, 464 p.

Hesle, V. (1994). The crisis of individual and collective identity. Questions of philosophy. No 10, 112–123.

Chernysh, N., Rovenchak, O. (2005). Socio-cultural approach in the social sciences of humanities: the exchange of meanings. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing. No 4, 92–103.

Shirokov, G. (2004). Regionalization: new trends in world development at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. New and recent history. No 4, 55–66.

Yakovenko, A. (2011). Archaic meanings as social constructs in the context of globalization. Methodology, theory and practice of sociological analysis of the relevant organization. No 17, 155–160.

Börzel, T. A. (2011). Comparative Regionalism: A New Research Agenda. KFG Working Paper. No 28, 37 p.

Burawoy, M., Verdery, K. (1999). Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change in the PostSocialist World. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 322 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/2697064

Hettne, B. (2005). Beyond the «new» regionalism. New Political Economy. Vol. 10(4). Retrieved September 16, 2018 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563460500344484.

Hettne, B., Soderbaum, F. (2000). Theorizing the Rise of Regionness. New Political Economy. Vol 5(3). Retrieved September 16, 2018 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713687778. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 713687778

Katzenstein, P. J. (2000). Regionalism and Asia. New Political Economy. No 5/3, 353–368. Retrieved September 11, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233052612_Regionalism_and_Asia. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/713687777

Rammer, V. (2016). An analysis of different cultures and their impact on exchange students: A Comparative Study of Austria and Sweden. Retrieved October 23, 2018 from https://www.fh-ooe.at/fileadmin/user_upload/fhooe/ueber-uns/kongresswesen/2016/ccbc/allgemein/docs/fhooe-ccbc2016-B3-B2-rammer-victoria.pdf.