CC BY
22
A. Yanitsky,
Dr. Sc. (Philosophy), Professor, Chief Researcher, Institute Sociology of RAS IDEOLOGY AND NETWORK*
The world is exploded with the flow of debates every time after the next terrorist attack, or a conflict with a fatal outcome, which caused the deaths of tens or hundreds of innocent people. But this debate is a posteriori. As a rule, the known issues are discussed at these public venues: who is guilty, who is with whom and against whom, what to do, etc. Discussions are related to global and regional problems mainly (for example, popular TV show "The voting right" on the TVC channel.
The chain of concepts of "idea - the network - a terrorist act" is discussed much less frequently or hardly ever discussed, i.e. the relationship of the ideological substantiation or justification of a particular intervention of one side (power, their alliance, or the radical movement) in other countries' affairs or regions and the specific tools of intervention (military, economic or other). In addition, both the western and the Russian public got used to the fact, that mass surveys explain them all, and the media will tell them how to behave in critical
* This article was prepared with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, grant № 15-03-000-27, the project "Sociology of critical conditions of urban systems theory and practice."
circumstances. Therefore, even the influx of migrants from Africa and the Middle East has been accepted by the residents of Paris and other European cities without enthusiasm, but relatively quiet at first. The townsfolk used to live in the present, without giving much thought for a radical change in the modern world. Sobering came later.
Meanwhile, the ideology and structure of the collective or individual radical social actions are closely related. The idea of achieving a "bright communist future" and other like it are always accompanied by a specific purpose: to destroy the old world up to the ground and not by peaceful means. Social networks as an instrument of destruction have always been widely used, it is sufficient to remember the history of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia in the XIX century. And nowadays, it does not matter what kind of technology is used for this: preachers, missionaries, wanderers, a secret agent or, as today, terrorist network that exists in the guise of peace until a certain moment.
What is a terrorist attack generally? Firstly, it is a pervading risk, because there is no front or rear. Secondly, this risk is predictable or unpredictable generally almost always (For example, "acts of terrorism are expected to", but no one can say when and where exactly). These attacks are carried out by small mobile, or deeply rooted in the local social environment groups or loners. In fact, these attacks are a new form of hidden urban guerrilla warfare. Third, the action is a blow to the people, their habitat, to life-supporting communications. Fourth, multiply growing media effect is meant as a result of these attacks: the terrorists carrying out attack on dozens of people, plunged into panic hundreds and thousands. Fifth, these attacks are effective in the conditions of mass society, where masses of people are accumulated in the terminals and subway stations, stadiums, and concert venues. Sixth, it is "instant war" with a long damaging effect. So far, the response is
either a war or a state of emergency or a mass solidarity action. But today, a mass action (such as "join hands, friends") is a thing of the past. Seventh, mass terror is a war "here and now". Therefore, both the immediate response to it, and the long-term forecasts are needed. But social forecasting as a science has almost disappeared.
Finally, what should be the strategy and tactics of the answer to this challenge? I have not found an answer in the literature available to me. It does not exist because there is no request for such studies in government and society, and therefore there is not their long-term financing. There is an answer to another question yet: are the pinpoint retaliatory strikes possible on a network strategy for terrorist attacks at all? Yes, Russia is actually involved in the fight against the terrorists in Syria. But this means that our country is one of the first candidates for the retaliatory strikes.
A radical or terrorist network does not appear on its own - it is certainly associated with a particular global idea concerning changes of the existing social order, transforming it into a more "fair", or with the imperial idea. In other words, the idea of a fundamental change in the existing social order is usually associated with a situation of personal or national humiliation, with the lack of "living space" and is based on purely religious motives (the idea of the superiority of the religious dogma over all others). Once this mechanism is triggered, it becomes a homing: a growing population, especially young people, requires a larger living space and resources, and it is provided by the growth of military power, scientific and technological development, etc. There is a very fine line between the concept of the natural course of the historical process and the desire to construct, or speed it up, as Karl Marx demonstrated this to the world in his time.
The creators of modern networks of all sizes have always a natural tendency to dominate over the rest, in addition to material
interests, and no matter in what form it manifests itself - the ideological, social or psychological. It just seems that the World Wide Web is a general and exclusive benefit. The question is: who, how, for what purposes uses it. The western social scientists proved long ago, that modern media are easily controlled with just two switches: redirecting the flow of information and reprogramming [Arsenalt, Castells, 2008].
Market expansion and conquest of new audiences (this is also the market) is a very powerful motive of success and no success is achievable without an idea. Therefore, the idea of achieving "common good" (welfare) becomes an instrument of separation according the principle "supporter - stranger" periodically, because this selection is also an instrument for future success and for further territorial expansion.
Now, a few words about the main paradox of globalization. The strength of weakness, as it is called. The technological revolution, creating unthinkable powerful forces of control and self-destruction, has created a person who, acting alone, is able not only to embroil closest allies, but also to destroy all life on the planet. Remember how much trouble has been brought because of the disclosures of E. Snowden, revealed the facts of wiretapping negotiations among the NATO allies by the U.S. secret services.
While a self-governing society of robots remains a fantasy, it turns out that modern educated and technically equipped individual is not only a "center of the universe", but also a major source of pervasive risks to society. I do not get tired of repeating after my western colleagues that the world has entered into a phase of general risk [Beck 1992, 1999; Yanitsky 2000]. On the one hand, this is the risk of accumulation of nuclear and other deadly arsenals in several countries, and on the other - this is a person-monster; and it is a little
man often, but armed with a radical ideology and access to modern technology, he and his network of supporters are potentially extremely dangerous for the rest of the world.
What is the danger of this network? It can blow up the peaceful life of ordinary people and destroy their life support environment at any moment and at any time. This, in turn, can cause emission of harmful substances in the water and the atmosphere from deteriorating health and breaking the rhythm of life and up to bringing injury or death. What is the answer to these challenges of network threat?
Society has thought up means of self-defense already, but none of them can guarantee the absolute protection. The war "there" can not guarantee safety "here," in specific cities and regions of Europe and Russia. Further, those who are "here" have already stocked up shahid belts and other means of attack on civilians (which was well illustrated with the sad experience of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels). Moreover, there is not only the sympathy to terrorists, but also readiness to supply them with weapons always among the local population. Overlapping of channels for delivery of resources or their destruction on-site is an important tool in the fight against terrorism, but the delivery is an essential part of the business of certain countries, which are registered fighting against terrorism formally. Finally, activity of missionaries, especially preachers of radical ideologies, is very difficult to track and especially to stop.
How could ordinary people of Paris know nothing, living next to shahids? They knew, but thought that the trouble would pass them, they were engaged in their own affairs, they were afraid; They knew, but they were their brothers in faith. The state and its security forces have taken extra security measures, but it was the traditional measures: not to gather, not to go to the emergency public events, follow the instructions of the police, etc. And then, you can not stop the life of the big city for
a long time. On the other hand, there is a real risk of a different kind: "get" in the atmosphere of general mistrust and surveillance. This risk is preserved in our country. We still poorly understand that a modern network war is, above all, the war against the inhabitants of large cities. A. Toffler once said that the world is transformed into a large village. This is doubly wrong. First, these cities have remained centers of world politics and economy. Second, the current situation is the result of the release of "energy of decay" from the cities of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, destroyed during the wars against them. [Yanitsky 2003] This "energy" is not only the refugees and forced migrants, but also the expansion of radical ideologies.
Can I keep the privacy and establish a collective defense against online threats at the same time? General principles of the defense are well known. First of all, these are limitation and strict control over all human flows, especially in places of their arrival or transit. Mass check periodically. Then it is control over all forms of rent of residential and non-residential buildings and industrial buildings. This is a special control of the uninhabited premises of any type. Here we are not talking about intelligence network within the terrorist organizations and those who help them or sympathize as it is a function of the special security forces. But the fast and efficient feedback between citizens and the police is absolutely essential. As shown by the first minutes of the terrorist attack in Paris, there was no such interconnection there, or police forces were not oriented. It also requires vigilance from citizens (also called selective): let into the house only familiar people, no casual acquaintances, etc. It is necessary to inform the relevant authorities about suspicious people and objects left behind. So the overall response to terrorist attacks should be asymmetric (war against them "there") and symmetric (network against the network "here") at the same time.
Unlike the U.S., the death penalty is banned in Europe, and it has been a moratorium in Russia. There are appeals for its renewal, but it does not help in this case as shahids are suicide bombers, and an appeal for the total destruction of other faiths is already a real genocide. However, there is a question: if all terrorists are destroyed, how will be studied the deep motives of their behavior? How to prepare the society to this new reality? TV channels are full of movies on criminal offenses; there are channels that speak of universal catastrophe daily (warming, cooling, meteorite strike, etc.). TV channels are filled with fortunetellers and predictors, but only 'breaking news' reports of this existential danger, telling about the destruction of another terrorist group. Social networks replicate the horrors, or help to get rid of the accumulated irritation. TV and social networks should not frighten, but warn and mobilize first and foremost. After all, social networking is a powerful antidote. There was a special application for Twitter in the days of the terrorist attack in Paris in November of last year, which allowed check quickly whether everything was okay with families and friends of the victims.
Terrorism is a global and a local problem at the same time. It is necessary to study its general laws and local circumstances. Veterans of the U.S. intelligence say that the fight should be waged primarily with radical ideology [Gill, Horgan, Deckert 2013]. This is undoubtedly true, but this ideology is constantly reproduced oppression, humiliation, social inequality, the transformation of young people in developing countries into the second-class citizens or just losers. Modern capitalism raises some, belittles and oppresses others, and thus acts as a manufacturer of modern risks. What positive ideology can offer young radicals here and there in this case? And more broadly, what kind of ideology can be opposed to the ideology of suicide, especially if it is caused by religious motives? What is the actual choice of hundreds of
thousands of young people in Africa and the Arab East to live in refugee camps, the ethnic ghettos of large European cities, or to take up arms?
What choice do the Russian youth have from small towns and villages in the crisis? The gap between the TV picture and the real life is growing. Some Russian scientists believe that the youth of today are characterized by a negative identity, abnormal egocentricity, depersonalization, etc. Network reality undermines identity, making it anonymous, creates a quasi-personality ... such identity lacks personal responsibility, as a rule. If a quasi-identity gets lost self-identity, self-sustained and self-understanding, then such person is just a godsend for the preachers of radicalism and terrorism. [Maikova, Bondarev 2015: 23]. The specific of the modern network society is that autonomy and collectivity are two equivalent risk-reduction conditions to undergo a terrorist attack.
The key question is: what ideology can resist the ideology of suicide? And what a network of people can resist to the network of suicide bombers? Is the security of citizens solely the obligation of the state and its security forces, or should a civil society get involved in this matter? Once the latter is true, then what should be the type of civil self-organization? The last question is: what should be the response of civil society to the threat of terrorist attacks? If these attacks are a kind of war declared by terrorism to the rest of the world, the civil society should be ready for it.
Despite the differences of civil societies in Russia and in Europe, there are many similarities between them today. The main thing is relaxed rich minority, confident in their strength, and tension of impoverished majority, preoccupied with daily survival. There is a certain "middle class" between them, which is also in a relaxed state, caused by the influence of the ideology and practice of the consumer
society. Commoners there and here are accustomed to the phenomenon of "cushion wars." However, the mood of the people is changing rapidly with the onset of an emergency. Therefore, civil society must remember that such a civil defense. Self-defense forces can not cope with terrorist attacks without citizens. Do not be afraid of the term "mobilization" - this is just a natural reaction of the organism to any threat from the outside or the inside. There is no front or rear in the network war, not even places that could definitely be considered more or less safe, there is not usual opposition "we - they." Pervading risk of network war should have an adequate response. Network mobilization of local self-defense forces is a modern form of self-organization of civil society.
Sociology of risks and other anti-social processes has progressed over the past half century much, but themes of war and armed conflict remains at the periphery of this science. Modern sociologists consider wars and conflicts as the side effects of the positive dynamics of the globalizing world. These destructive processes are to move into the center of science and interdisciplinary analysis. Terrorism is not only a devastating social effect, but an ideological tool of conquest and adoption of world domination. This fact has not been realized by the representatives of science still. Sociology, like other sciences, studying modern structures and processes in society, are powerless without understanding their ideological overtones.
Finally, the methods of sociology. We are accustomed to public opinion that sociology is mass surveys. They are necessary for self-knowledge in the society, but their significance is not great for developing tools to combat terrorism. Yes, it is extremely dangerous to study these networks "directly", but it is possible to investigate corruption and other antisocial network. It is also necessary to study the experience of journalists and all those who work in the "hot spots". We
should learn the experience of those who work "on the other side." We should study the methods of recruitment and work of sectarian and other private organizations deeper, because these methods are very similar to the criminal. I remind you that the famous Chicago School of urban sociology was largely created by a crime reporter. Terrorism is not a separate discipline, but an urgent ideological and social problem that requires a systemic approach. For example, unemployment, lack of legal means of existence is an incentive to seek illegal / shadow / criminal sources of income. The employer tends to saving the cost of production in the conditions of crisis and critical states of society, converting part of employees in the category of not fully employed, freelancers, "displaced vacationers" and the like, thereby encouraging people to seek illegal sources of income. Finally, there is a fundamental category of dependents or freeloaders in any society.
Literature
1. E. Danilova, A. Scherbinin. 2015. [Positioning of innovation policy in the Russian defense industry in the context of the formation of a national branding strategy]. -Vlast, № 8, pp. 39-43.
2. E. Maykova, Y. Bondarev. 2015. [The future of individual autonomy as a risk: methods of self-defense]. - Vlast, № 8, pp. 22-26.
3. O. Yanitsky. 2003 Sotsiologiya riska. [Risk Sociology] Moscow .: LVS.
4. O. Yanitsky. 2013. Ekologicheskie katastrofy strukturno-funktsionalnyi analiz. [Environmental disasters: structural-functional analysis] - Official site of IS RAN. 2014. Access: http://www.isras.ru/publ.html?id=2794
5. O. Yanitsky. 2015. Kriticheskie sostoyaniya sredy obitaniya [Critical state of living environment]. - Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 5. pp. 145-159.
6. Arsenalt A., Castells M. 2008. Switching Power: Rupert Murdoch and the Global Business of Media Politics. - International Sociology, Vol. 23, No 4. P. 488-513.
7. Beck U. 1992. Risk Society. Toward a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
8. Beck U. 1999. World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. 36. Власть 2016'01
9. Gill P., Horgan J., Deckert P. 2013. Bombing Alone: Tracing the Motivations and Antecedent Behaviors of Lone-Actor Terrorists. - Journal of Forensic Sciences (on-line). Vol. 59. No 2. P. 425-435.
10. Yanitsky O. 2000. Sustainability and Risk: The Case of Russia. - Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 13. No 3. P. 265-277.
"Vlast", Moscow, 2016, № 1, pp. 30-36.
K. Landa,
Dr. Sc. (Political), Professor, RANEPA DAGHESTAN IN THE CASPIAN REGION: EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL PROBLEMS
The Caspian Sea was, in essence, an internal reservoir of the USSR until the Soviet Union collapsed. Only a relatively small segment of the coast (724 km, or 11% of its entire length) and 12% of the area of the southern section of the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran. Geopolitical stability and peace in the whole Caspian region have been retained due to the fact that only two countries were the owners of the Caspian Sea.
"The Caspian region" term was borrowed from foreign political scientists and has been widely used as a scientific and practical concept in recent years. In the global political lexicon the term was used extensively in the last quarter of the century, i.e. with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The new owners of the Caspian Sea have become the country with direct outlet to the sea - Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran. Sometimes those countries which geographical position and policies have a significant effect on the lining of routes of oil and gas pipelines and other transportation lines, as well as in general on the situation in region, are referred to the Caspian region - Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, as well as China, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Thus 1991 can be considered the year of birth of a new major geopolitical space, which is composed of the Caspian littoral states, united by the problems and prospects of development of the largest lake
