Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
Youth policy in the age of globalization
Akbar SAFAROV
1
Samarkand State Architectural and Civil Engineering Institute
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received August 2022
Received in revised form
10 September 2022
Accepted 25 October 2022
Available online
15 November 2022
This article discusses modern theoretical aspects of the
concept of globalization and considers the issue of using it as
one of the factors in formation of state youth policy in terms of
cultural assimilation.
2181-
1415/©
2022 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol3-iss5-pp174-179
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
globalization,
politics,
assimilation,
youth,
society,
development.
Globallashuv asrida yoshlar siyosati
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
globallashuv,
siyosat,
assimilyatsiya,
yoshlar,
jamiyat,
rivojlanish.
Ushbu maqolada globallashuv tushunchasining zamonaviy
nazariy jihatlari tadqiq qilinib, madaniy assimilyatsiya nuqtai
nazaridan yoshlarga oid davlat siyosatini shakllantirish
omillaridan biri sifatida undan foydalanish masalasi ko‘rib
chiqiladi.
Молодежная политика в эпоху глобализации
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
глобализация,
политика,
ассимиляция,
молодежь,
общество,
развитие.
В данной статье рассматриваются современные
теоретические аспекты концепции глобализации и вопрос
использования ее как одного из факторов формирования
государственной молодежной политики с точки зрения
культурной ассимиляции.
1
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Samarkand State Architectural and Civil Engineering
Institute, Uzbekistan.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
3 №
5 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
175
INTRODUCTION
Globalization as a multifaceted theoretical construct has controversial moments
already in the fact of its existence. The idea itself is not new at all
–
even Diogenes used
the term cosmopoly
–
that is, societies of the whole world. In sociological science, theory
of globalization began its development already in the 19th century in the works of one of
“
founding fathers
”
of sociology, K. Marx, who understood this term as the process of
integration and unification of economic relations between different countries. However,
the subsequent development of the concepts of globalizations has passed through certain
critical points.
First of all, there was doubt about the existence of globalization as an empirical
phenomenon. The question is simple: isn
’
t globalization another term designed to satisfy
the scientific desire for rationalization, rather than describing an objective phenomenon of
social reality? Shifting this issue to empirical track, the following problem arises: what
percentage of real events is described by the category of globalization? Its solution
requires an answer to the question
–
how to define the boundary between authentic
phenomena and the influence of global culture? In addition, globalization as a meta-
discourse [1. P. 541] is related to fundamental question of the legitimacy of postmodern
social theory [2. PP. 541
–
542]
–
is it possible to describe a modern society, subject to ideals
of postmodernity, through such comprehensive concepts that belong to logic of modernity?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Like the philosophical dilemma of nominalism and realism, the answers depend
rather on subjective worldview of the researcher, since science at present stage of
development cannot offer a sufficiently reliable methodology for processing the volumes of
empirical phenomena described by this term. W. Beck, E. Giddens, J. Ritzer, J. Urry and
many other major authors of modern sociology devoted their works to studying
globalization. Despite this, the questions of definition of term of globalization, the
definition of theoretical boundaries of its applicability are still topical in scientific
discussion; problems of identification and measurement of this phenomenon in empirical
field, as well as its existence in principle. It is explained by macroscopic scale, the variety of
forms of empirical manifestation, the multidimensionality of the essence of this
phenomenon, affecting all social and cultural structures of society [3. P 32]. In our work,
we adhere to the point of view of E. Giddens that now this discussion is rather of historical
interest [4. P. 56], this process objectively exists and it is specific to modern society.
The scientific diversity of points of view, trail of near-scientific populist slogans,
globality and empirical
“
elusiveness
”
have turned the idea of globalization from an
objective scientific theory into subjective worldview of researchers, politicians, and
ordinary people. W. Beck believes that key feature of such view of the world is departure
from logic of container scheme of social structure [5. PP. 47
–
48], which sees society as
subordinate to macrostructure of nation-state. In this picture, the differentiation of
societies is carried out along the borders of national states (for example,
“
German
”
or
“
French
”
society), and social relations are subject to disciplinary influence of state power.
The state, by its power, unifies heterogeneous chaos of local processes, representing for
society a kind of container that forms, among other things, territorial unity [6. P. 49].
Globalization as a worldview opposes such a container logic of perception of
society, blurring territorial boundaries of states in cultural and social terms. In fact, the
state is transformed from superstructure that defines the boundaries of society into just
one of substructures that performs administrative functions in certain territory.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
3 №
5 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
176
Globalization separates national meanings from territorial-state context. A clearer
understanding of this phenomenon requires some clarification of concepts often
associated with globalization in social and political and scientific discourses.
METHODOLOGY & EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
W. Beck points out that globalization should not be confused with globalism
–
ideology of the development of single economic system of mankind [7. P. 202]. Globalism
is a unipolar activity strategy that establishes a model of behaviour of specific economic
entities, while globalization describes the impact of global social and economic and
political process on its objects [8. P. 39]. Globalism, on the other hand, reduces political
and social reality to economic relations, being the basis of various neoliberal trends in
economy [9. P. 23].
The key prerequisite for emergence of globalization is emerging property of
globality of social relations. This means that the area of interest of the largest
communities (states, transnational corporations, virtual communities), as well as the
depth of social relations, covers the entire planet. Moreover, global nature of relations
does not mean the existence of common economic or political centre (the so-called
“
world government
”
). On the contrary, transnational and national-state actors operate in
competitive environment, the world is becoming polycentric and increasingly
multidimensional. The global market was formed without creation of global state, which,
according to J. Urry, led to emergence of era of globally disorganized capitalism [10. P. 5],
in which we now live.
Globalization, unlike globality (state) and globalism (ideology), is a process (to be
more precise, a set of processes) in which local actors interact with transnational ones in
social, political and economic dimensions. W. Beck proposes to measure globalization
through three main indicators: expansion in space; stability over time; density of
transnational communication networks [11. P. 28]. The current state differs from
previous eras in that the levels of all these parameters are orders of magnitude higher
than in the past.
J. Urry considers globalization in a slightly different, more
“
cultural
”
perspective. In
his opinion, this process proceeds in five main directions:
–
globalization of strategies of transnational corporations that go beyond the
boundaries of one state;
–
globalization of images, clearly demonstrated in commercials;
–
globalization of ideologies;
–
globalization of political mobilization, manifested in postulation of a number of
problems as global ones;
–
globalization of stream channels [12. PP. 200
–
201].
The “channel” is understood as a technological canvas (transport network, global
information system, etc.) that arises between two subjects, along which material and
intangible objects move, forming a flow. Going beyond state formations, the flows lead to
reorganization of capitalist communities. The administrative and bureaucratic
foundations of social order are giving way to information and communication ones,
creating the globally disorganized capitalism we have already mentioned above, blurring
traditional boundaries of local and global [13. P. 201].
In his works, J. Urry develops the idea of “gardener state”, which is practically
synonymous with the concept of “container state” presented by W.
Beck. In this
metaphor, the state, through the three branches of government, regulates society like a
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
3 №
5 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
177
garden, and inclusion of an individual in particular society is determined by citizenship.
Sociology is subordinate to the state in the sense that its task is to develop the most
optimal ways of doing
“
gardening
”
[14. P. 202]. Urry, like Beck, notes that globalization
dismantles this logic by moving society beyond the nation-state.
RESULTS
As we can see, Urry
’
s theory links the material and economic dimensions of
globalization with cultural phenomena. Streams within technological channels carry not
only material things, but also non-material symbols and information, producing, first of
all, cultural interaction. Next, we will focus on cultural aspect of globalization as an
objective process of interpenetration of global and local cultures. Here it is necessary to
make some clarifications about the content of concept of
“
global culture
”
.
The culture of Western society, in particular American culture, is often considered
as a global culture [15. P. 499]. This thesis is relative, since global culture is a construct
individually formed here-and-now in every society and, more narrowly, in social group.
For example, most of the youth of the city of Saratov had no contact with the bearers of
American culture, if only because of language barrier. Despite this, in this social group
there is a construct of global culture created through various media.
Thus, the process of globalization among Saratov youth proceeds on the basis of
unique construct of global culture formed at local level. In addition, youth culture is
structured by different cultural styles, each of which is aimed at different reference
group. In other words, in the process of constructing their identity, a young person
chooses only individual elements of global and local cultures. This process of mixing
global and local cultures, forming a unique cultural mix, is commonly called glocalization.
Naturally, there are legitimate questions about whether it is possible to somehow
regulate this process. This issue for human history is far from new.
After the 1930s, social and political discourse of globalization took on negative
tone. First of all, this is due to changes in economic sphere
–
during this period, major
participants in the world economy begin to introduce actively elements of protectionism
into their trade policies. The denial of external influences becomes part of state strategic
response to globalization in all spheres of society.
In cultural dimension of globalization, protectionism is built into very essence of
culture. A conservative response to imported cultural elements, backed up by
institutionalized information blockade, has been and still is the basis of various
authoritarian regimes. However, modern information technologies, the values of
individual freedom and other integral elements of developed society, level out
possibilities of strict institutional control.
Therefore, development of modern social, and, in particular, youth policy of state
requires the use of more developed model of globalization regulation, rather than simple
denial. In our work, as such a model, we use the theory of hybridization proposed by
American researcher of post-Soviet space, Douglas Bloom.
Cultural hybridization of global and local D. Bloom outlined the main provisions of
his concept in the work “National Identity and globalization” [16].
Based on large-scale
empirical study in three major cities of the CIS: Astrakhan, Alma-Ata and Baku, he
substantiates the theory about the structure of the process of cultural globalization in
youth environment. He calls his theoretical model hybridization. Here, globalization is
presented as a process of transferring knowledge and cultural practices that implement it
between global and local cultures. This process is two-way, that is, as elements of global
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
3 №
5 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
178
culture are introduced into local one, and, conversely, local practices become part of
global culture construct. An example is practice of wearing dreadlocks (a hairstyle
consisting of braids intertwined in special way), which came into global culture from
local culture of African peoples.
REFERENCES:
1.
Ритцер Дж. Современные социологические теории. –
СПб: «Питер», 2002. –
С.
688.
2.
Rizaev I.I. The structure of the social system as the basis for the self-organization of
society // Scientific Bulletin of Namangan State University.
–
2019.
–
Т
. 1.
–
№. 7. –
С
. 151
–
156.
3.
Байдаров
Е.У. Глобализация в культурно
-
цивилизационных процессах
современности // Материалы международной научно
-
практической конференции
«Глобализация как этап развития мирового сообщества».
–
Пенза, Сургут, Баку:
«Социосфера»,
2011.
–
С.
154.
4.
Покровский
Н.
В зеркале глобализации // Сумерки глобализации:
настольная книга антиглобалиста. –
М.: АСТ, Ермак, 2004. –
С.
352.
5.
Бек
У. Что такое глобализация? –
М.: Прогресс, Традиция, 2001. –
304 с.
6.
Аликулов
С.А., Ризаев
И.И. Синергетический анализ онтологической
сущности процесса либерализации общества //
Социальные институты в
правовом измерении: теория и практика. –
2022.
–
С. 280–
286.
7.
Ризаев
И.И.
и
др.
Коэволюционное
развитие самоорганизации:
взаимосвязь стабильности и нестабильности в
социальной системе //Человек.
Знак. Техника: II междунар. междисциплинар. молодеж. форум:
[сб. ст.].
–
Текст:
электронный.
–
Текст: электронный.
–
2022.
8.
Сафаров
А.И., Хаккулов
Н.К. Свойственные качества совершенному
человеку в суфизме //
Современная наука как социально
-
политический фактор
развития государства. –
2019.
–
С. 48–
50.
9.
Момджян
К. Об одном многократно упоминаемом процессе // Сумерки
глобализации: настольная книга антиглобалиста. –
М.: АСТ, Ермак, 2004. –
С.
352.
10.
Lash S., Urry J. The end of the organized capitalism.
–
Madison, Wisconsin: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.
–
P. 357.
11.
Усмонов
Ф.Н., Усмонова
Л.Р. Рациональный анализ восточной миниатюры
//
Молодой ученый. –
2016.
–
№. 2. –
С. 987–
991.
12.
Тысячнюк
М.С. Мобильная социология Джона Урри // Журнал
социологии и социальной антропологии. –
2004.
–
№ 4
.
–
Т
. 7.
–
С. 200–
208.
13.
Alikulov S.A., Rizaev I.I. Methodological problems of research of social systems
// Theoretical & Applied Science.
–
2020.
–
№ 2. –
С
. 717
–
720.
14.
Тураев
Б
.
О
.
Фанда
толерантлик
ва
интолерантлик
// Oriental renaissance:
Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences.
–
2022.
–
Т
. 2.
–
№. Special
Issue 23.
–
С
. 41
–
48.
15.
Тураев
Б.О. Информационное свойство пространства и времени //
Естествознание и время. –
1992.
16.
Blum D.W. National identity and globalization: youth, state and society in post-
Soviet Eurasia.
–
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
–
P. 240.
17.
Ризаев
И.И., Муминова
З.О. Профессиональная подготовка личности:
оздоровление и духовное воспитание //
Система менеджмента качества в вузе:
здоровье, образованность, конкурентоспособность. –
2021.
–
С. 264–
268.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
3 №
5 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
179
18.
Haqqulov N.Q. International tolerance in the educational views of Siddiki-Ajzi
// Scientific Bulletin of Namangan State University.
–
2020.
–
Т
. 2.
–
№. 10. –
С
. 262
–
268.
19.
Alikulov X., Haqqulov N.Q.
Духовная
зрелость
и
философское
мышление
зависимость
развития
// Theoretical & Applied Science.
–
2020.
–
№.
4.
–
С. 164–
167.
20.
Husan M. Dialectics of Potentiality and Virtuality in Space and TIME //
European Scholar Journal.
–
2022.
–
Т
. 3.
–
№. 1. –
С
. 40
–
42.
21.
Сафаров
А.И., Ризаев
И.И. Факторы развитие экотуризма в Узбекистане //
Глобальные проблемы модернизации национальной экономики. –
2022.
–
С. 629–
633.
22.
Саматов
Х., Исомиддинов
Й. Система социальной защиты «химсистема
социальной защиты «химойят» как в система общения с людьми по идея Ходжа
Ахрара Валиойят» как в система общения с людьми по идеи Ходжа Ахрара
Валиойят и //
InterConf.
–
2020.
23.
Mardonov R. Humanization and humanitarization of higher education in the
conditions of the information society // Conferencea.
–
2021.
–
С
. 21
–
28.
24.
Yuldasheva Y.D. The role of scientific knowledge in the formation of moral and
ethical values.
