Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue

Civilizations are not a novel subject of research.Todaytheyareincreasinglypopularbothinaca demicandpoliticalspheres.State and non-state actors talk as if civilizations were real actors of world politics. The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics. It finds...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: M. V. Kharkevich
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MGIMO University Press 2015-08-01
Series:Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/413
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832579447611457536
author M. V. Kharkevich
author_facet M. V. Kharkevich
author_sort M. V. Kharkevich
collection DOAJ
description Civilizations are not a novel subject of research.Todaytheyareincreasinglypopularbothinaca demicandpoliticalspheres.State and non-state actors talk as if civilizations were real actors of world politics. The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics. It finds three actual and one possible directions of civilizational research, namely: civilizational dynamic, inter civilizational ethics, politics of civilizations and civilizational politics. The author stresses the importance of nonessentialist approach in civilizational dynamics studies, its leader being Peter Katzenstein. The rest of the article is devoted to cultivating the selected research direction. The author proposes to view civilizations as a strategic reference framework rather than a real actor of world politics. These reference frameworks are constructed on religious value basis and detailed in a shared literature corpus. They are heterogeneous and in a constant state of flux. It can be viewed as a continuum with one pole being a fundamentalist state of civilization and the opposite one - post secular state of civilization. The middle ground is occupied by secular civilization. The clash and dialogue are not among civilizations but rather among different states or social groups within and among civilizations. The most conflictual group is a fundamentalist one, its reference framework is totally determined by religious values. Compromise for such a group is impossible. The most cooperative group is post secular one since it is based on dialogue. The author concludes that dialogue is guaranteed among post secular societies within the Christian civilization. Within and among non-Christian civilizations dialogue is possible but not guaranteed.
format Article
id doaj-art-e8f84a620e114ac38278dbd4f40418c3
institution Kabale University
issn 2071-8160
2541-9099
language English
publishDate 2015-08-01
publisher MGIMO University Press
record_format Article
series Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta
spelling doaj-art-e8f84a620e114ac38278dbd4f40418c32025-01-30T12:16:13ZengMGIMO University PressVestnik MGIMO-Universiteta2071-81602541-90992015-08-0104(43)15916710.24833/2071-8160-2015-4-43-159-167413Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and DialogueM. V. Kharkevich0Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)Civilizations are not a novel subject of research.Todaytheyareincreasinglypopularbothinaca demicandpoliticalspheres.State and non-state actors talk as if civilizations were real actors of world politics. The article outlines the intellectual map of civilizational research in world politics. It finds three actual and one possible directions of civilizational research, namely: civilizational dynamic, inter civilizational ethics, politics of civilizations and civilizational politics. The author stresses the importance of nonessentialist approach in civilizational dynamics studies, its leader being Peter Katzenstein. The rest of the article is devoted to cultivating the selected research direction. The author proposes to view civilizations as a strategic reference framework rather than a real actor of world politics. These reference frameworks are constructed on religious value basis and detailed in a shared literature corpus. They are heterogeneous and in a constant state of flux. It can be viewed as a continuum with one pole being a fundamentalist state of civilization and the opposite one - post secular state of civilization. The middle ground is occupied by secular civilization. The clash and dialogue are not among civilizations but rather among different states or social groups within and among civilizations. The most conflictual group is a fundamentalist one, its reference framework is totally determined by religious values. Compromise for such a group is impossible. The most cooperative group is post secular one since it is based on dialogue. The author concludes that dialogue is guaranteed among post secular societies within the Christian civilization. Within and among non-Christian civilizations dialogue is possible but not guaranteed.https://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/413civilizationfundamentalismsecularismpostsecularismmodernpremodernpostmodern
spellingShingle M. V. Kharkevich
Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta
civilization
fundamentalism
secularism
postsecularism
modern
premodern
postmodern
title Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
title_full Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
title_fullStr Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
title_full_unstemmed Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
title_short Civilizations in World Politics: Reasons for Clash and Dialogue
title_sort civilizations in world politics reasons for clash and dialogue
topic civilization
fundamentalism
secularism
postsecularism
modern
premodern
postmodern
url https://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/413
work_keys_str_mv AT mvkharkevich civilizationsinworldpoliticsreasonsforclashanddialogue