LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

of their Western colleagues. They did it with such eagerness that their work creates an impression that the main occupation of modern Russian thinkers is the interpretation of some individual authors, selected by not entirely clear criteria, translations of their texts and abundant citation; without any attempts to link this knowledge to the here and now. This also applies to the so-called philosophy, and the so-called fundamental sociology. Almost all the institutions created for research in these fields can practically be called not more than translation bureaus and referral services.

      The language of the referred research, perhaps, is much more imaginative and metaphorical than the language of thinkers who tried to comprehend totalitarianism. We are dealing not so much with concepts as with images, not with different methods but with different optics, as the luminaries of social knowledge would say (as John Urry has argued about metaphors of sociology). And this is quite suitable for the society dominated by popular culture with its constantly replicated stereotypical images. This is a fragmented society offering a wide variety of fragmented images in which everyone can find something to their own liking. The intellectuals get the images produced by intellectuals. The former social knowledge, that was almost sacred, has lost its value, along with the historical knowledge. Also it has lost its integrity. Paradoxically, the globalization has not spawned the need neither for a global view of the world, nor in generalizing concepts and strategic studies.

      However, if you look closely, the description of totalitarianism by less than a couple of dozens of authors, are also fragmented. So, there is a temptation to use any of the fragmentary pictures as a generalizing concept. In Russia this is reflected in the fact that, until the new cult figure comes, they just repeat a certain guru statements, no matter how outdated they are.

      Since the beginning of nineties, the Western world had toyed with the simplistic predictions of Francis Fukuyama6. Dreams, Dreams.

      And there was also an interview with John Urry he had given during his visit to Russia in autumn of 2006.7 Borrowed from the language of natural sciences, the words sound convincing: globalization; going beyond the civil society and the nation-state; dissolution of national borders and class distinctions; future abandonment of government as an universal regulator and converting it into a kind of moral authority. His statements are still being quoted. But his predictions never made it beyond wishful thimking. So far, everything is going in the exact opposite direction.

      Let’s recall the other projections of John Urry8. The global citizenship in the global community remains a beautiful dream. The metaphors such as “nomad”, “tramp”, “tourist”, of course refer to different forms of mobility, but why there is no metaphor for “refugee” in the world without borders? It sounds somewhat pathetic to rhapsodize over another brave new world without borders, blood, sweat and tears, brushing aside one serious category of people on the move.

      In fact, why millions of refugees are missing in the general picture of the world of mobility?

      Apparently, because the picture is too glamorous and narcissistic. These sentiments have come about many times before and, as a rule preceded the global upheavals. Suffice it to recall the Enlightenment, crowned with the invention of the guillotine and mass terror and the ecstasy over technical progress, new culture, new comfort and new mobility, which preceded the First World War.

      The picture of universal mobility was brought up for the purpose of psychotherapy, in order to offer the consumer society, which is by nature incapable of reflection, another version of its identity. The refugees’ motivations are fear, survival instinct; a refugee is an evidence of the world’s imperfection and an appeal to compassion. Another thing is the outlook of a tourist in perpetual holiday, motivated only by the desire to have a good time. This world of Universal (extra-, post-) social mobility presents a new utopia, the brave new world that can’t be other than a totalitarian world. Indeed, and not according to Orwell, but rather Huxley9 and Postman10. The atomization of society leads to its disappearance. The social being is destroyed in the process of constant entertainment and perpetual relocation. The exact social knowledge is not required, the demand even in scientific texts is now for models of different reality, glamorous and utopian. The new utopias became the subject of mass production.

      Dreams of citizenship for the animals are beautiful, but hardly consistent against the backdrop of persistent reports of illegal migrants, drowning by the hundreds off the coast of the countries known as the birthplace of European civilization. Providing the coveted citizenship to people of other civilizations and cultures and creating their diasporas in the developed countries does not automatically lead to their integration in the historically formed western societies, which I would call “resident society”, a term I never have come across, so let me be the coiner of it. Obviously, the recognition of the resident society existence contradicts the spirit and meaning of the “sociology beyond society.”

      Reality is always a challenge to those trying to create social knowledge. And the challenges of the present time are not the same as ten years ago, when the globalization and information revolution were universally and enthusiastically welcomed. Those were the hopeful days when people believed that universal mobility would dissolve the perennial problems associated with national peculiarities, ethnic and cultural isolation, and the incompatible civilizations would be reconciled even with societies that have no desire to lose their identity organically formed within their original nation states.

      Have they really found the right word?

      Until Russian attack on Ukraine it seemed that the most accurate term describing the political system in our country was the word neo-totalitarianism.

      As it happens often, a researcher introduces a new term, even substantiates it, but the concept does not catch on and becomes useless as a research tool. This happened to be also the story of neo-totalitarianism. It has been very actively used in the description of the modern information society with its potential for total control, but rarely for the characteristics of the system, which has evolved in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe over the past twenty years.

      Meanwhile, it was precisely for the description of these countries that the concept of “neo-totalitarianism” was proposed. This was done in the second half of the nineties of the last century by the Serbian scholar Zoran Vidojevic in one of his books11. The book, having been abundantly referred to in Russia12, was quickly forgotten. Now the right time has come to bring it back.

      From Vidojevic’s point of view, the post-socialist neo-totalitarianism is a historical innovation: an authoritarian system evolves into a totalitarian mode, but more often it presents itself in a pseudo-democratic (pseudo-parliamentary, pseudo-pluralistic) form. According to Vidojevic, one of the guilty parties in bringing totalitarianism to power was the superficial liberal optimism. In his opinion, the modern superficial liberalism of the past was responsible for the emergence of Fascism and Nazism.

      The forecast of the Serbian scholar about the forming of neo-totalitarian society. is the most applicable to the current period. In the second half of the 90ies he assumed that post-socialist neo-totalitarianism, while avoiding the mass terror, will nevertheless seek to establish full control over the masses. From Vidojevic’s point of view, the transformation of the individual post-socialist societies in the direction of establishing neo-totalitarianism would be the most dangerous and regressive phenomenon. According to him, the totalitarian system cannot be transformed into a democratic one. The belief in the possibility of such a transformation, he argues, has led to the spread of false theory of the transition period, according to which, in the countries of the so-called real socialism a democracy surely must emerge after communist totalitarianism. And, to make it happen, between totalitarian and

Скачать книгу