Polycentrism versus Universalism in the Picture of the Social World

ISSN 1019-3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022, Vol. 92, Suppl. 7, pp. S574–S580. © The Author(s), 2022. This article is an open access publication. Russian Text © The Author(s), 2022, published in Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost’, 2022, No. 5. Global Trends Polycentrism versus Universalism in the Picture of the Social World A. A. Alferov# Institute of Philosophy and Sociopolitical Studies, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia e-mail: Received June 6, 2022; revised August 14, 2022; accepted September 9, 2022 Abstract—The principle of monocentrism in building a picture of the social world is opposed to the principle of polycentrism. Certain trends substantiating the principle of monocentrism, on the one hand, and the principle of polycentrism, on the other, are considered. The justification of monocentrism is universalism—of man, human consciousness, human history. In anthropology, polycentrism is based on the idea of the sociocultural conditioning of man, while in the philosophy of history, it is based on the concept of history as the development of individual isolated cultures or civilizations. The multiplicity of civilizations creates a polycentric picture of the social world. Russia is both a state and a civilization. Russia has attracted adjacent states, primarily in the post-Soviet space, into its civilizational field and has become the core state of Eurasian civilization. However, even in isolation, without adjacent states, the Russian Federation is a civilization. Possible contents of the ideology of Russian civilization are also considered. Keywords: universalism, polycentrism, liberalism, civilization, values, Russia DOI: 10.1134/S1019331622130135 The main question regarding the future world order is whether it will be, as before, monocentric, or if polycentrism will replace monocentrism. The modern world is changing rapidly, but it is still monocentric. The beneficiary of its monocentricity is Western civilization, which strives to maintain its position at all costs. Russia is not satisfied with its position in the current world system: it strives for a multipolar, polycentric world, hoping that it will become one of its poles or centers. The main complaint of the United States and the collective West against Russia is that it is changing the existing world order. Within the framework of this article, the author will characterize some of the most important trends and approaches that justify the monocentrism of the social world, on the one hand, and polycentrism, on the other. UNIVERSALISM AS A RATIONALE FOR MONOCENTRISM To substantiate monocentrism, the concept of universalism is used—that of man, humanity, human consciousness, and human history. “The universalist approach has a solid pedigree: in European thought, # Anatolii Aleksandrovich Alferov, Dr. Sci. (Philos.), is a Professor in the Department of Social Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociopolitical Studies, Southern Federal University. it traces its history back to at least the period of classical Greek philosophy and is clearly connected with the Platonic−Aristotelian understanding of the universality of human nature, rooted in the universality of reason” [Smirnov, 2019, p. 25]. The opposite of universalism is particularism, pluralism, and polycentrism. For polycentrism, significant are ideas about the sociocultural differentiation of the human essence. Under the sign of universalism, Enlightenment ideology was created—a rationalist ideology that appealed to human reason, and this reason was thought of as one, universal. Certain relations between people, a certain state system, certain human rights, etc., were seen by Enlightenment thinkers as reasonable. Sanctified by a single human reason, these specific social institutions were proclaimed universal. Enlightenment thinkers designed their anthropocentric world for an abstract person with a single “human nature” and universal human reason. From such an understanding of man flowed both the unity of humankind and the unity of human history. Liberalism was genetically connected with the Enlightenment ideology since the Enlightenment thinkers proclaimed liberty one of the “natural” human rights. Both the Enlightenment and liberalism were based on the principle of individualism—the priority of the interests of the individual over the interests of society or a social group. Modern liberalism pins its hopes on the globalization tendencies of our time, see- S574 POLYCENTRISM VERSUS UNIVERSALISM ing in them an opportunity to implement its original setting of unifying the world and humankind. VALUE MONISM AND VALUE PLURALISM Although the general setting of liberalism, of course, has a universalist character, thinkers who introduced the idea of the plurality of the human essence worked within its framework. These should include, first, I. Berlin, a famous philosopher, political scientist, and historian of the 20th century. The most important point that Berlin introduced into political and philosophical thought is the doctrine of negative and positive liberty and his concept of value pluralism. Regarding the topic of this article, the latter is of interest. The British thinker considered the values, goals, and ideals that people can strive for and that determine their lives. He insisted on the idea that there is a plurality of ideals and goals that people can seek. Berlin argued that in a number of aspects important for people value pluralism is better than value monism. Monism is associated with intolerance for those who hold different values—intolerance fraught with fanaticism. It can also be used to justify the claims of certain people and nations to control society and the world as a whole. Value pluralism, according to Berlin, is associated with tolerance for people who share other values, with respect for other value systems. However, Berlin argues, the mainstream idea and tradition of Western thought was not pluralism at all but precisely monism, which he characterizes as the central thesis of Western philosophy from Plato to the present day. Concentrating the essence of the intellectual tradition of the West, the British philosopher holds that this tradition is based on three dogmas: (1) there is only one correct answer to any important question (all other answers, being deviations from the truth, turn out to be false); (2) there is a reliable way to get answers to these questions, and the true answers to them, in principle, can be found; (3) the correct answers, if found, must be completely compatible with each other, forming a single harmonious whole: a truth cannot be incompatible with another truth [Berlin, 2013]. When all the answers to the most important moral, social, and political questions are found and people begin to live in accordance with the truths found, a perfect life for people will be established, a perfect society—a golden age will come. Berlin believed that such a unified m (...truncated)