The Transit of Civilization: Methodological and Prognostic Aspects

The article is based on the report “The Transit of Civilizations: Methodological and Prognostic Aspects of Civilizational Competition”. It is devoted to the analysis of methodological and prognostic aspects of diachronic civilizational competition in the process of the current transformation of Modernity into the new historical state, defined as Postmodernity. Methodological and prognostic aspects of this historical transit are analyzed. The general aim of the study is to observe effective strategies for behavior while in situations of complexity, volatility, uncertainty and ambiguity. Different methods of orientation, action and management in post-war period are described and the possibility of their further transformation up to the next epistemological revolution is discussed. There is also an attempt to present certain analytical tools. Civilization is a dynamic concept, a social analogue of evolution. The globalization of modernity is accompanied by post-modern individuation, the antipode of industrial culture and mass society. The process of splitting of political structures, genesis of technical and anthropological complexity, creation of cloud structures – all this distorts the modern World Order. System approach is usually used to study complexities, while view of the future is based on a combination of transdisciplinary analysis, global context and long-term perspective. New methodological approach is produced for replacing the globality with fractality, long-term prognostics with non-linear dynamics, and transdisciplinary generalizations with uniqueness. The article also analyzes the latest generation of methodologies that possibly will allow us to make decisions and effectively act in this complex environment full of wicked situations and processes as well as non-classical approaches, such as the mode of action based on the analysis of deep codes of evolution, the art of non-classical operative, synergetic behavior, phenomen of serendipity etc. Research of the innovative methodological and predictive tools is an imperative for sustainable development, taking into account the upcoming turbulence of the social environment.

1. Aristotel. (1998). Poetics. Ethics. Policy. Rhetoric. Poetics. Categories. Minsk, Literatura, 1391 p. (in Russian). URL: http://philologos.narod.ru/classics/aristotel_poe.htm.

2. Arnol’d V.I. (2005). Dynamics, statistics and projective geometry of galois fields. Moscow, MCNMO, 72 p. (in Russian).

3. Gvishiani D. (1997). The Club of Rome – ​history of creation and development. The Club of Rome. History of Creation, Selected Reports and Speeches, Official Materials. Ed.: D. M. Gvishiani, A. I. Kolchin, E. V. Netesova, A. A. Sejtov. Moscow, URSS, pp. 23–58 (in Russian).

4. Conrad K. (2015). Die beginnende schizophrenie. Moscow, Grifon, 316 p. (in Russian).

5. Lefevr V. (2003). Reflexive management, modeling and morality. Reflexia. Moscow, Kogito-Centr. pp. 454–457 (in Russian).

6. Neklessa A. I. (2015). Civilizational alternatives of Postmodernity. Political science facing the challenges of global and regional development. Russian Political Science: Origins and Perspectives. Ed. O. V. Gaman-Golutvina. Vol. 1. Moscow, Aspect Press, pp. 152–188 (in Russian).

7. Neklessa A. I. (2018). “Islamic State” as a Phenomenon of the State-Organization. INTELROS – ​Intelligent Russia. Special Issue “The Privatization of Future”. Bulletin of the Commission on Social and Cultural Issues of Globalization of the Research Counsel «History of World Culture» at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, pp. 13–24 (in Russian). URL: http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/bknp/3_Privatizaziya_budushzego_2018_w_cover.pdf

8. Neklessa A. I. (2019a). Sinews of War & Nerves of Peace: Hybrid Metamorphosis. Methodological and Prognostic Aspects of the Post-Modernity Co-Existence. Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 149–164 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.04.11

9. Neklessa A. I. (2019b). The geoeconomic formula of the world order. The World Order. Time for Change. A collection of articles. Ed. A. I. Soloviev, O. V. Gaman-Golutvina. Moscow, Aspect Press, pp. 326–341 (in Russian).

10. Polanyi М. (1985). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Moscow, Progress, 344 p. (in Russian).

11. Prigozhin I. (1991). Philosophy of instability. Voprosy Filosofii, no. 6, pp. 46–57 (in Russian).

12. Smith A. (2007). Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Moscow, EKSMO, 1056 р. (in Russian).

13. Tenenbaum B. (2011). The Great Cherchill. Moscow, EKSMO-Jauza, 686 p. (in Russian). URL: https://is.profilib.me/chtenie/43634/boris-tenenbaum-velikiy-cherchill-76.php

14. Grant E. (2006). Science and Religion, 400 BC to AD1550: from Aristotle to Copernicus. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 328 p.

15. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C. et al. (2011). The atlas of economic complexity. mapping paths to prosperity. Cambridge: Puritan Press. URL: https://oec.world/static/pdf/atlas/AtlasOfEconomicComplexity_Part_I.pdf.

16. Khalaji M. (2008). Apocalyptic politics: on the rationality of Iranian policy. Policy Focus, no. 79. Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 42 p.

17. Moroney J., Grissom A., Marquis J. (2007). A capabilities-based strategy for army security cooperation. RAND. Arroyo Center. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG563.html.

18. Rumsfeld D. (2002). NATO Speech. NATO HQ. Press Conference by US Secretary of Defense. 06.06.2002. URL: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm.

19. Salmonowicz S., Ney-Krwawicz M., Górski G., Śląski J. (1999). Polish underground state. ŚZZAK, 239 p.

20. Suskind R. (2006). The one percent doctrine. Simon & Schuster. 367 р.

21. 王永钦. (2015). 制度层面的变革最重要 – ​财新. 2015年12月31日. [Wang Yongqin. (2015). Zhidu cengmian de biange zui zhongyao.] URL: http://opinion.caixin.com/2015-12-31/100894693.html.

22.

23.