A. YAKOVLEV

Doctor of Historical Sciences

In recent years, humanitarian factors such as culture, religion, and traditions have become increasingly important in analyzing the current development of Eastern countries, while the usual political and economic analysis tools sometimes can no longer help the researcher.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, after the dramatic rise of human technical genius throughout the twentieth century and the equally significant decline of human morality during wars and revolutions, two main approaches to understanding current reality were defined: natural science, which takes into account material and political factors, and humanitarian, which takes into account the spiritual factor in public life.

Until recently, the first approach was obviously the right one and the only one - until in the modern world, phenomena that are inexplicable from this point of view began to appear more and more often.

Why did well-educated and well-off Saudis organize the events of September 11, 2001? Why did British doctors of Indian origin become active members of terrorist groups in England in 2005? Why did Pakistani students rebel against the government in the summer of 2007? In all three cases, the reasons were clearly non-material and non-political. It is clear that people did not rise to open conflict thoughtlessly.

These and similar events have become indicators not only of the limitations of the usual approaches to studying the development of Eastern countries, but also of the obvious end of a large historical period in the development of Eastern countries - the period of modernization.

MODERNIZATION OF THE EASTERN COUNTRIES

The phenomenon of modernization has long been studied in the Oriental literature and has given rise to a special theory. It was considered mainly as a process of bringing a particular society closer to the modern (capitalist, industrial) state, the basic model of which was considered by the experience of Western European countries, primarily the countries of the "first echelon of capitalist development" - England and France, and later - the United States.

Due to the obvious economic and military strength of Western countries and the attractiveness of their way of life, the Western model turned out to be the starting point in the 19th century for the countries of the "second echelon" of capitalism - Germany, Russia and Japan, and then, in the 20th century, for the countries of the East. The process of modernization turned out to be an inevitable way of their development, which was defined as "catching up type of development".

The question of the possibility of an alternative to the Western route remains entirely speculative. Yes, the countries of the East had great potential, had a more ancient and high culture, but the main characteristics of their civilizations did not allow for the formation of a qualitatively different system of social life. Hypothetical assumptions about the possible path of human development in the event of the establishment in the world in the XII - XVI centuries of the hegemony of one of the Eastern civilizations (Arab-Muslim, Indian or Chinese) remain in the realm of fantasy.

Today, it can be stated that the orientation to the Western model of production, consumption and culture has significantly improved the living standards of millions of people in almost all Eastern countries. By the end of the 20th century, economic growth allowed many countries to significantly increase their GDP and average per capita income. An increasing number of people were able to get, if not a" piece of the pie "of the current level of Western prosperity, then at least" crumbs " from this pie.

Nevertheless, at the turn of the century, the problem of normativity of the Western model of capitalist society became more acute. It should be noted that this model was generated by a unique combination of various phenomena in the economic, political, social, ideological and spiritual spheres of Western societies in the XVII-XVIII centuries. The experience of the social development of the Eastern countries over the past two centuries shows that it is impossible to fully implement the Western model in the non-Western world.

In addition, the same experience of modernizing most Eastern societies by the end of the twentieth century showed tangible limits to their growth and development, which entails not only maintaining the gap in the economic and technological levels of the East and West, but also increasing this gap when the Western countries of the "golden billion" pass into a post-industrial state.

The current experience of developing Western European countries within the same model shows striking differences in economic, social and political development caused by both natural and historical circumstances. Analyzing the problems of modernization of non-Western countries and modern Russia, the Russian orientalist A.V. Akimov noted: "On the one hand, almost all elements have analogues in recent history, and the accumulated experience [of the Western model] can be used to solve problems. On the other hand, its uniqueness as a whole can lead to incorrect analogies, incompatible strategies for transforming the country, when each individual action that is reasonable in itself and proven by world experience in combination with another can be destructive for Russia."¹

Now everyone can see the remarkable success of China and India, which are rapidly increasing their GDP, developing modern knowledge-intensive industries and steadily increasing their share in the total volume of world trade. Of course, this is impressive, especially considering the more than billion-strong population of each country. However, the "dragons" of Southeast Asia also showed similar growth rates.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the four Southeast Asian countries-Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia - were able to reach the level of highly developed Western countries in many economic and social indicators due to the state's successful modernization through comprehensive fundamental reforms. The four "tigers", or" dragons", struck the imagination. It turned out that you don't have to be American or European to produce and consume according to the highest world standards. But by the end of the century, the objective limits of such a development model became clear: lack of resources and limited technological base.

TRADITION AND MODERNITY

When studying the period of the formation of capitalism in the East, it is necessary to take into account not only the formation characteristics and phenomena, but also the features that have civilizational significance. This allows us to consider the achievements of the Eastern countries not just as an "incomplete" or "distorted" Western model, to the level that they did not have time or could not reach. By the end of the twentieth century, we can talk about the desire to develop in non-Western societies their own models of capitalism (modern, industrial society), and in some already models of post-capitalism (post-modern, post-industrial) society.

In most Eastern countries, the reforms carried out by the state as a revolution from above or stretching over a century as a reform within the system allow us to more clearly present certain features and characteristics of modernization in a particular country, as well as to highlight in the transition state of society the phenomena of the conflict of tradition and modernity, the confrontation of formational and civilizational elements and at the human level. "It is important to emphasize," noted the Russian sociologist V. I. Pantin, " that in the theory of modernization, despite special attention to the processes of socio-economic and political development, from the very beginning, great importance was attached to the problems of human change during the transition from a traditional society to a modern one, the transformation of its values, attitudes, orientation, and the very way of interacting with society. by other people"². The process of modernization of society, in the end, one way or another, reaches every person. In this regard, the nature and type of reforms are of great importance, in which the balance of tradition and modernity in society is realized, as well as the agreement of the authorities and the people on the price of the initiated transformations is determined.

The original model of capitalist society was formed through several great revolutions. In the future, the reforms became a softer tool for modernization in the hands of the authorities. However, this did not mean eliminating the revolution as a form of violent break with the old system and creating a new one, as we saw in the second half of the twentieth century in various countries. Failure to modernize may well lead to the choice of revolution as a means of developing a non-Western society.

All the more reason to confirm the thesis about the importance of tradition in the implementation of modernization, because loyalty to the basic civilizational foundations of society allows you to preserve its identity, mitigates the difficulties of abrupt changes for the people, and the use of existing historical experience makes it easier for the authorities to carry out modernization. At the same time, no modernization guarantees the complete harmonization of social life, and even more so the happiness of an individual.

New evidence for this emerged at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. Contrary to the expectations of Eastern reformers and their Western partners, even a fully successful process of modernization of the Eastern countries gave rise to new conflicts or strengthened the prerequisites for strengthening the old ones.

The fact is that the limitations of the Western model, the initial one for modernization, became more and more obvious. Moreover, as soon as all the socio-economic content of this model was implemented in one form or another in the Eastern countries, there was a rejection of other components of this model - social, political and cultural. In other words, the East has not simply borrowed to a greater or lesser extent the formational (material and political) content of the Western development experience. Having mastered it, he felt equal with the West and immediately rejected both the condescending Eurocentric view of himself and the West's claims to rule the world. This was an unexpected "payment" to the West for modernization, which did not turn into a complete Westernization of the non-Western world.

The main reasons for this are being clarified. The limited approach to social development that prevailed in Western European countries, as a purely material one, was reflected. It's been there a long time

T. Mohr's ideas about not wasting time making things that you can do without, and spending your life in the vain pursuit of ostentatious and unnecessary excess, are forgotten. The economocentric approach has long defined the entire social life of Western countries, their politics, social relations, culture and morals. The prevailing ideological systems in the West, either denying the Christian values of their civilization, or even fighting them, have forced modern man to constantly and non-stop reducing his life, simplifying it, rejecting the more complex in spiritual life, culture and politics for the sake of the simpler - with the ever-increasing complexity of the material sphere. Progress has brought Western man to the "heights" of refined enjoyment of the world, but it has not told him, and cannot tell him, what life is meant for and for what purpose. As one of the heroes of E. Hemingway said, religion is the opium of the people... But today, the economy is also the opium of the people...

The economocentric approach, which is actually a revolutionary break between the West and tradition (as well as the communist experience of the USSR), ultimately turns out to be unacceptable for the majority of the peoples of the Eastern countries, where the non-Christian, but other spiritual component of their civilizations is much stronger, and they do not want to give it up.

And as soon as these countries managed to get out of the abyss of poverty, backwardness and hunger thanks to the implementation of fundamental socio-economic reforms, they immediately declared their otherness, otherness, and identity in relation to the West. The Western model was seen as exhausted, and a push away from it began. Modernization has created material and socio-cultural conditions for self-identification at a new level. And then it turned out that for countries belonging to Eastern civilizations, the spiritual factor is much more important than the material one. (However, the growing importance of the spiritual factor was discussed in the West and in Russia at the end of the 20th century.)

The claims of the Eastern countries to a more significant role in world affairs gave rise to the fear of the "end of the hegemony of the West", which guided world development from the XVI to XX centuries. In the late 1990s, S. Huntington pointed out a "change of milestones" in world development: after the end of the "cold war", which divided the world into two parts according to the political and, to a lesser extent, socio - economic criteria, the criterion of cultural identification (civilizational identification) becomes decisive. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the growing role and importance of the Eastern countries in the economic, demographic and political development of the world became obvious, and the presence of eastern enclaves in many European countries only strengthens this process.

It is worth pointing out the real complexity of the ongoing process of modernization of non-Western societies, which not only establishes a new system, a new formation, but also affects the civilizational foundations of a particular society, including religion and religious institutions, traditional culture, values and morals, which actively resist such Westernization. The increasing importance of non-economic factors in society can generate inter-civilizational conflicts-both between countries and within the national borders of eastern and Western countries - especially when they are politicized.

At the same time, the experience of modernization of the Eastern countries, where the "revolutions from above" took place, shows that the current crisis phenomena in these countries at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries are not only manifestations of the conflict of civilizations and the threat of growing globalization, the difficulties of transition to a post-industrial state of society, but also an understanding of the impossibility. Crisis phenomena are also caused by an insufficient degree of industrialization and "capitalismism" of non-Western societies, which has become another proof of the natural limitations of radical reforms as a tool for modernization - according to the Western model. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the forecast of S. Huntington: "Countries with Western Christian roots are achieving success in economic development and establishing democracy; the prospects for economic and political development in Orthodox countries are vague; the prospects for Muslim countries are completely bleak"³. And it's not just that this kind of Eurocentric approach has long been shown to be unproductive. It is quite possible that if the development model changes, the prospects of non-Western countries may turn out to be quite successful. They have no reason to despair. In the twenty-first century, they face the possibility of choosing a different model of development that is more consistent with their traditions and corresponds to their place in the world system.

In the twenty - first century, facing the danger of new social conflicts and new challenges, non-Western societies can once again use the tried-and-tested tool of radical transformation-reform-to move to a new quality and state. But, of course, first of all, the authorities, the state, the ruling and ruling strata in a particular country will need to draw up a plan, outline final and intermediate goals, determine their social support and external allies, and lay out a "route" along which society will embark on the path of socio-economic transformation.

A NEW PATH?

After all, the modernization has been completed - what's next? What is the new way?

The choice takes place in the new conditions of a rapidly changing world, in contradictory trends, on the one hand, increasing globalization, literally "pulling together" the countries of the world with common technologies, increasing trade and information flows, and on the other hand, the growing desire of the United States to establish its absolute dominance in the world, which means that other countries are subordinated to the interests of the only superpower.

The choice is not easy: either a proven path of "catch-up development" on the model of the advanced countries of the West, which has already brought considerable results, or a change in the development model, working out your own path

in the face of uncertain prospects.

One of the possible options is to choose a "sustainable development" model, which will require "accelerating the economic modernization of developing countries within the framework of an energy-and resource-saving development model, in the formation of which they should be assisted by the developed world"⁴. The current steady increase in prices for energy and other raw materials creates good prerequisites for such development.

At the same time, a considerable number of Eastern leaders and representatives of Eastern society began to ask themselves: is it not worth determining the goal of the path before choosing a route?

In 2005, the King of Bhutan said that the happiness of the people is more important to him than GDP growth. It is noteworthy that the head of state resolutely changed the priorities of development, putting spiritual goals in the first place, not material ones. Of course, this does not mean abandoning economic development, but a change of orientation means that economic development can not so much determine the development of society as contribute to its development, be its servant, not its master.

It is worth remembering that a quarter of a century ago in Saudi Arabia, "human resource development" was named as the main goal in the five-year socio - economic development plan for 1980-1985, and in the plan for 1990-1995 - "strengthening the unity of society and national security". These were also declarations, but they were based on a different understanding of the meaning of human life and society than in the West.

However, a change in the understanding of meanings occurred, of course, in the West. At the end of the "age of prosperity", a startling discovery occurred there: man is a spiritual being, his impulses and actions are caused not only by material causes, but also by ideas, moods, and memory; man is not just a "walking stomach". American economist J. R. R. Tolkien Stiglitz recognized that "the creation of a market economy is not important in itself, but as a factor in raising the standard of living of the population and providing the basis for sustainable, democratic development that meets the principles of justice"⁵. In other words, the goal of economic development is not "industrialization" or "economic growth", but "democratization" and "justice".

At the same time, not only spiritual, but also quite tangible factors prompted the leaders of various Eastern countries to think about development goals. Just like the "four tigers" earlier, now other modernized countries of the East are faced with a tough approach of the West: "profit first"," the resources of the whole world should serve our prosperity","the key to scientific and technological progress will always be in our hands".

But the fact is that this Western world is no longer so necessary to the Eastern world. The East, thanks to modernization, has gained a certain economic independence and self-sufficiency. Dependence on the West remains, but it is a different level of dependence.

That is why the question of the development goal, its priorities, and the correlation of interests and ideals is raised.

In the early 1960s, the Italian philosopher Yu. Evola pointed out that in Western countries, an understanding of the crisis of the modern world was emerging and people "turned their eyes to the East, because there is still partly preserved that traditional and spiritual way of life, which in the West has long ceased to serve as a basis for the effective organization of various areas of life. Therefore, the question arose about the need to turn to the East in search of certain principles suitable for the renewal and revival of the West." But by this time, Yu stated. Evola, " The East has already entered the path we have laid out, it is increasingly subject to the ideas and influences that have brought us to our present situation... and the remnants of the tradition that it preserves are increasingly losing ground and being pushed to the sidelines. " ⁶

However, the situation has changed over several decades.

It is likely that as a result of solving many burning economic, financial and political problems, there will be an understanding that it is necessary to look not only for solutions to these specific problems, but also for new development goals; it is possible to abandon the ideology of liberalism, which is actually being replaced by social darwinism, and the market as a development guide, free from all social restrictions and moral standards. Is it possible to change the system of goals, values and ideals inherent in the capitalist formation as a whole, that is, our entire world?

It is necessary to recognize the probability of both a negative response, followed by a linear progressive path for the advanced vanguard of post-industrial Western society, and a positive response. "The world is non - linear, that is, the basic laws of the development of inanimate and living nature (from the micro - to macro-world), including social and economic structures, are nonlinear," said the Soviet mathematician Academician A. A. Samarsky. "This means, in particular, that several paths of evolution of a complex object are possible, that is, the future is ambiguously determined by the present (initial conditions), and it cannot be predicted based only on previous experience."⁷

The entry of the modern world into a new quality, the end of the Art Nouveau era in the West, and the expansion of the globalization process have a peculiar effect in the non-Western part of the world. The countries of the East differ in many ways, but what they are relatively united in is the desire for development, sustainable and harmonious development.

¹ Russian reforms and foreign experience of systemic transformations. Issue 1. Moscow, 1997, p. 8.

^{Pantin V. I.} 2 Cycles and waves of modernization as a phenomenon of social development, Moscow, 1997, p. 75.

^{Huntington S.} 3 Clash of Civilizations (translated from English), Moscow, 2003, p. 26.

⁴ "Round table": "The concept of sustainable development in the context of globalization" / / World Economy and International Relations, 2007, N 6, p. 76.

⁵ Voprosy ekonomiki, 1999, No. 7, p. 7.

^{Evola Yu} 6 Osedlat tigra (per. s it.). SPb., 2005, pp. 24-25.

^{Gubarev V.} 7 The White Archipelago of Stalin, Moscow, 2004, p. 174.

Permanent link to this publication: