16Кузнецов Анатолий Михайлович - доктор исторических наук, профессор кафедры международных отношений Школы региональных и международных исследований ДВФУ. Владивосток, E-mail: kuznecov@ext.dvgu.ru.
МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ НАЦИОНАЛИЗМ, КОСМОПОЛИТИЗМ И НЕКОТОРЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ОБЩЕСТВЕННО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО РАЗВИТИЯ ВОСТОЧНОЙ АЗИИ1
Основная цель представленной статьи заключается в анализе теоретических оснований концепции космополитизма в современной западноевропейской социологии. Необходимость внедрения космополитической социологии была обусловлена стремлением ряда социальных теоретиков улучшить концепт глобализация за счет в него не только экономического, но и более широкого социального и политического контекста. Поставленная цель вызвала критику»контейнерной теории» и значимости нации-государства для предшествующих социологических теорий. В результате был сделан вывод, согласно которому социальная и политическая ситуация в государстве сегодня во многом обусловлена влиянием глобализационных процессов. По этой причине прежние теоретические основания социологии были объявлены методологическим национализмом и было предложено заменить их космополитической социологией. Не случайно в 1990-х гг. наблюдается критическая переоценка концепта общества под влиянием концепций глокализации и»общества риска» У. Бека. Космополитизм в данном случае означал существование, как в космосе (глобальном), так и в полисе (локальном). Кроме того, он характеризовался как внутренняя глобализация, развивающаяся в рамках национальных сообществ. Одним из базовых положений теории У. Бека стал также концепт инаковость. На его основе этот теоретик противопоставил мета-власть глобального гражданского сообщества всем основным концепциям»мейнстрима» науки о международных отношениях. Было отмечено еще одно ошибочное положение, связанное с представлением, что определенное общество может являться моделью для любого другого общества.
К сожалению, несмотря на декларируемое внимание к идее рефлексивного поворота, У. Бек не уделил внимания концепции ориентализма Э. Саида. Этот автор смог проанализировать европейский и американский варианты ориентализма, которые не имели ничего общего с реалиями этого региона и являлись лишь вариантами ориентализма (постколониализма). В силу существования барьера подобного рода мы должны провести сопоставление ситуации Европы с данными других регионов. Дело в том, что здесь складывались различные политические, этнические, социальные и культурные общности. Подобные образования более соответствуют определниям мультикультурализма или нациестроительства, чем нации-государства. Так, регион Восточной Азии примечателен уже в силу своего разнообразия государств. Формирование в литературе специального дискурса»азиатских ценностей» наглядно отражает также специфику обществ этого региона. Значение ценностей такого рода связывается с необходимостью противостоять давлению глобализации. Еще одна примечательная особенность региона заключается в том, что азиатские страны, как никакие другие в мире, соответствуют вестфальским государствам. Следовательно, в силу таких исторических, социально-политических, культурных и экономических обстоятельств отдельных стран и
1 Проект поддержан Научным фондом ДВФУ.
регионов мы имеем дело с разными типами обществ и государств в каждом регионе. Поэтому, как было установлено, критика методологического национализма остается актуальной лишь для западноевропейской социологии.
Ключевые слова: методологический национализм, космополитизм, глобализация, нация-государство, рефлексивный поворот, ориентализм, социологическая антиномия.
Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Professor, Department of the International Relations, School for Regional and International Studies, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok. E-mail: kuznecov@ext.dvgu.ru.
METHODOLOGICAL NATIONALISM, COSMOPOLITISM, AND OTHER PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EASTERN ASIA2
The principal point of this article is an analysis of theoretical frameworks of the cosmopolitan concept in current West European social sciences. The idea of some social theoreticians to improve the globalization concept both in economics as well as in broader social and political contexts was responsible for voicing the need for conceptual revision in cosmopolitan sociology. This aim was realized in critics of the "container theory" and the the importance of the previous sociological theory of the nation state. It was concluded that social and political situation in states depends upon the influence of the globalization processes today. Hence, the previous theoretical frameworks in sociology were declared as the methodological nationalism, and it was proposed to replace them by means of a cosmopolitan sociology. A concept of society became a subject of critical approach in 1990s as a part of the idea ofglocalization' and'society at risk' theory by U. Beck. Cosmopolitism in this way means both living in space (global), and in polis (local). That is why it was characterized as the inner globalization developing within national communities. One of the principals for Beck's theory is the concept of alien. On its base, theoretician opposes'meta-authority of a global civil society' to all the existed concepts ofmainstream science of international relationships'. A point of the mistake in having definite society as being a model to any given society was recognized.
In spite of declared interest in the "reflexive turn" idea, Beck did not pay attention to the orientalism concept by E. Said, who analyzed European and American ideas of the East, and realized that they had nothing in common with the realities of the region forming a kind of orientalism (postcolonialism). Because of this barrier between expectations and observed reality, we have to compare the political situation in Europe and the societies of other regions. It may be concluded that comprehensive political, ethnical, social, and cultural unities form internally. Such formations stay close to the terms of multi-culturalism and nation building, rather than to the one of nation-state. The region of East Asia is remarkable with its countries' unique diversities. The formation of special discourse in modern literature dealing with the issues ofAsian values' is considered as very significant reflection of this region's societies. The very significance of the values is explained as the necessity to form some local foundations to resist the pressures of globalization.
Another remarkable fact is that Asian countries very closely approximate the Westphalia states all over the world. Therefore, due to peculiarities of historical, social-political, cultural, and economical circumstances of East Asian countries, we still have to deal with peculiarities of states and societies in every region. Thus, as it is investigated, the methodological nationalism critics are still relevant to the debates of West European sociology.
Key words: methodological nationalism, cosmopolitism, globalization, nation-state, reflexive turn, orientalism, sociological antinomy
2 The project was supported by the Scientific Fund of FEFU.
Post-modern challenges of the last third of the 20th century made social theorists reconsider some of their previous conceptual ideas. Nevertheless, a concept of society became a subject of critical approach, as globalization problems swept in the 1990s and gave way to the opportunity to reflect on the problem through the emerging ideas of a'global society'. Mass phenomenon of international migration revealed new perspectives for the conceptual approach to the problems of society. In one of his works, British sociologist John Urry established the idea of mobility (especially, intellectual mobility ) to become a subject of re-institutionalized sociology researches, rather than one of the societies [Urry, 2000: 210]. Necessities to recreate the global history of humankind also demanded a redefinition of the concept of society.
As the tendencies differed under an influence of broadly accepted globalization trends, theoretically established expenses of the sociology (including those of the'methodological nationalism') became perfectly clear. Beck was one of the major scientists trying to find a way to avoid the trap [Beck, 2007; 2008; 2009]. His ideas have their coverage in several works of Russian researchers, but the very subject of methodological nationalism deserves the more profound analysis [Kravchenko, 2011; Tsygankov, 2012]. Beck's thesis of reality having been lost in its evaluation and production is the principal clue to comprehend his position. Previous ideas are just answers to the questions, which could be established in some different way. Changes in information-gathering rules, different tools used to gather the information, and different specialists that observe allow the appearance ofother reality' [Beck, 2000:251]. This thesis reflects an author's attitude to the problem of discursive practices. The assumption allows me to suggest that Beck's ideas deserve thorough analysis, given that the discursive approach is being discussed by some Russian scientists. The approach deals with analysis of different texts in order to find and verify their major ideas according to the established problems.
It is considered that in the 1970s a Portuguese scientist Germinio Martins was the first to establish methodological nationalism as the wrong practice of identification between society and the state [Martins, 1974]. Formulation of the question appeared to be very opportune; according to a British sociologist P. Wagner, in terms of reflexive approach, undesirable identification in social theory originated exactly in the 1970s [Wagner, 1994: 30-31]. Another British sociologist,D. Chernilo, who put a special attention to the development of the nation-state social theory, mentioned his famous colleagues E. Giddens and E. Smith as the ones having supported the ideas of Martins. However, according to Chernilo's opinion, the sociologists mentioned above also wanted to overcome the identification of two major concepts in terms of the already existing concepts in sociology. Meanwhile, in the 1990s, Beck radically criticized methodological nationalism and strongly recommended to solve the problem by means of new theoretical approaches [Chernilo, 2007: 8-11]. No wonder that the German author is considered to be one of the leading specialists in a field of the questioning and the reexamination of the established'isms'.
Obviously, Beck is a very active author. In the 1980s, he published several works dedicated to the idea of a'second' modernity and the concept ofsociety at risk', which left behind the principles of the common concept of the nation state. The tragedy of Chernobyl has become a turning point for the author himself. He pictured Chernobyl as an end to'the others' - an end of our cultivated ways to dissociate ourselves from each other [Beck, 2000:5]. Beck explained the consequences of that great tragedy as the onset of qualitative change of modern society. The point is that the reflexive stage of scientific development has produced unsustainable commodities,, social defects, and modern problems produced by humanity, a so-called'second creature of civilization' [Beck, 2000: 236]. Since all these developments were intensified in modern societies, they became characterized as the'societies at risk'. The risk was no longer ignorance, but rather the knowledge, the system of solutions and objective compulsions, which was created by the industrial era [Beck, 2000: 278]. Thus, Beck did not really expect the end history to occur, as F. Fukuyama did.
That understanding was quite enough for Beck to start his analysis of the popular concept of globalization. He was not satisfied with the ubiquitous interpretations, as he marked the common one-dimensional interpretations of the concept as only based on economics. The author himself wanted to present multiple aspects of the concept, in particular one that perceives the formation of trans-national social space[Beck, 2001: 28-29; 55]. Thus, Beck subscribed to the pluralistic, Kantian concept of cosmopolitism: "Cosmopolitism is both living in space, and in polis" [Beck, 2003: 26]. Beck often applied this interpretation to his works [Beck, 2007:65]. To explain it in modern language, one exists both in general (cosmic) space, and in locus of any definite community. Thus, Beck managed to represent a concept of modern world passing through a stage of a'new modernity' and the associated processes. According to the sociologist, globalization is a nonlinear, dynamic process where the global and local contexts exist silmutanously rather than in opposition to each other Beck established the processes of globalization asinterrelated, crossing national boarders and being the reasons behind social and political transformations within national states. By force of such duality, Beck defined the processes as'cosmopolitization' [Beck, 2003:25]. As he developed his ideas further, Beck stipulated that, "Cosmopolitization is the inner globalization developing within national communities" [Beck, 2003: 25]. Moreover, he introduced into debates the theory of reflexive modernization, which takes into account all the side-effects of development and progress [Beck, 2001].
Such dualism of globalization perspectives logically drew Beck to this significant conclusion:'Germany, France, and Italy no longer exist in today's Europe the way they do in imagination of people and on illustrated pages of history books. Because there are no limits, no competence, and no separation of experience any longer. In short, the principal basis of the previous national world means nothing today' [Beck, 2007: 7]. Of course, the conclusion forces us to remember all the predictions of inevitability of chaos and'new feudalism' in the future international order; but, still, Beck observes the whole situation more optimistically. He suggests that cosmopolitan view of the problem means the realization of an alternative order, with allows for political freedom and social and economic justice [Beck, 2007: 15]. According to him, it is the richest members of the society who thrive in a globalized world at the expense of the poorest members. In its contemporary concept, globalization is a tool that promotes the collective ideas of one country, eliminating the relevance of separation between different cultures and societies Meanwhile, the cosmopolitan idea absolutely reflects the universal self-interest of the humanity [Beck, 2007:15]. Well, theses on humanity are rather prevalent, but Beck finds his own to be universally egalitarian:. "Cosmopolitan approach connects respect and dignity, cultural alien and survival of every individual" [Beck, 2007: 15].
Thus, the concept of alien is principal one for Beck. He established five dimensions to identify external and internal differences of the concept. To him, external level of cosmopolitism means:
- To admit a difference of nature;
- To admit a difference of civilizations and types of modernity;
- To admit a difference of the future.
The internal level of cosmopolitism means:
- To admit a difference of object;
- To get over a political influence of linear and scientific rationalization.
As difference always suggests some separation, and the following assertion by Beck is perfectly clear: "Pluralization of boarders is one of the highlights of reflexive modernization" [Beck, 2003: 26]. Recently, the concept of state was firmly connected to the one of the nation; as a result, a'centaur term' appeared - nation-state. Beck could never ignore the reconceptualization of nation and state, so his position is predictable: "In global era states fall into a'trap of nationality" [Beck, 2007: 130].
To balance the'autarchy' of the political institution, Beck suggested the principle of cosmopolitan state. The idea reflects principles of national indifference and defines co-existence
of national identities founded on constitutional loyalty [Beck, 2007: 139]. However, there are many other possibilities for a sociopolitical establishment. According to Beck,'architecture of cosmopolitan union of states could make a way for many regions including those of extreme national and ethnical states to avoid a policy of false alternatives [Beck, 2007: 145].
Consistent denial of political and national self-sufficiency made criticism of methodological nationalism more radical. Beck established main disadvantages of this approach. Firstly, it is a self-willed application of observation and border analysis to a social perspective, though these categories represent social structure and variability of the national approach. Secondly, there are mistakes, misconceptions, and deformations of national and governmental centrism. Thirdly, it is an abstract concept of the nation with no historical background in its base. Fourthly, national-governmental and governmental institutions demand a definite separation of their meanings. New critical theory minds re-governmental political thinking and struggles to find reasons and opportunities for a state to become a cosmopolitan one. Finally, according to the author's opinion, national optics misrepresent the principal question: What are the reasons of legitimacy needed to transform the rules of turning a national modernity into the cosmopolitan one [Beck, 2007: 78-81]?
The last question is the vital one, as globalization results in meta-policy (a policy of policy) and meta-authority. Beck represents cosmopolitism as a challenge to all the existing theories of international relations: "It undermines national theory authority and disparages political monopoly of nation-state in terms of international relations" [Beck, 2008: 38]. The sociologist opposes'meta-authority of a global civil society' to all the existing concepts of'mainstream science of international relationships'. According to Beck, a society strives for protection of human rights as a protection to a self-evident national and governmental structure. The misconception mentioned above results in a popular image of a nation following its fancy within the limits. Human rights directive allows both non-governmental organizations and international citizenship countries to influence the authority and legitimacy within other states [Beck, 2007: 105]. Thus, we discover another aspect of Beck's'difference' - it observes the survival of every man protected by universal human rights. It is a natural phenomenon, as Beck studies the realty of second modernity through the perspective of dualism. Indeed, human rights institution reveals the difference between national and international concepts being replaced with the inner cosmopolitism [Beck, 2008: 47]. Author also emphasizes, "Human rights institution turns national-governmental competent state into a borderless space ofworld inner policy'... with other countries and NGOs interfered with inner policy and structure of other states" [Beck, 2007: 105-106]. Thus, Beck counts on the idea of human rights to provide a man with legitimate and competent discourse of authority and allow limited groups of society to stand for their rights with the support of every other man and woman. Moreover, governmental and non-governmental authorities have all the means to participate in discussions and disputes of the global significance [Beck, 2007: 106].
Since the universal human rights principle is already recognized and accepted widely, the author realizes perfectly well all of the disadvantages of the idea. He describes the possibility of false cosmopolitism as a kind of global adjustment of human rights to a national idea, which has been realized in the United States today. At the same time, the majority of the EU nations carry out a policy of observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It affirms general legal status of human rights for international relations and creates an opportunity to change the national policy criterion in terms of "cosmopolitan regime of inner policy of world citizenship" [Beck, 2007: 106].
The above example about the U.S. developed as a criticism of neo-liberalism.. The reason for the controversy is perfectly evident, as neo-liberal approach establishes a state institution as "a current one; on the contrary, it possesses the possibility of inner transformation, and applies it unilaterally in terms of adjustments to the world's market." [Beck, 2007: 81]. On mentioning his disagreement with the approach, Beck tries to debunk it, as he believes that the influence of neo-liberal regime depends upon success and reduces in some difficult conditions. Today, we
can observe a rise of world crises and risks resulting in global changes and conflicts, so we can consider the future of the egalitarian, cosmopolitan ideas as successful one [Beck, 2007: 122].
However, the author does not support the opponents of neo-liberalism, such as communitarianist principals and its myths. Instead, Beck argues the demand for social relations to be performed firstly, for "the policy to become available in terms of national, ethnic, and territorial limits" [Beck, 2007: 75]. According to the author, communitarianism "mixes up the absence of power of decisions or collective actions, and political influence of the danger" [Beck, 2007: 75]. Having proven the groundlessness of his opponents' fundamental statements, the author represents this modest conclusion: "In other words, cosmopolitism is the next great idea to change settled questions of nationalism, socialism, communism, and neo-liberalism. The idea of cosmopolitism is able to transform something impossible into the possible one - a new humanity managed to survive XXI century with no barbarian attitude at all" [Beck, 2007: 15].
To confirm his ideas, Beck established a concept of cosmopolitan realism. The main advantage of the realism is its ability to be "specified and determined on various inner-political levels for different historical and geo-political constellations, global and local ones; moreover, it is appropriate for many regions of the world - Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America". Beck also outlines the variability and inequality of the actors, as not all of the members of transnational civil society meet the demands of this community or manage to represent it properly. In addition, actors radically differ in terms of resources, power, available information, and decision making organizations. The author's conclusion is that "transnational policy is a policy of policracy - it is pluralistic, rather controversial, and informational-sub political" [Beck, 2007: 166]. Beck also reconsiders the conceptual processes of cosmopolitism and anti-cosmopolitism. These processes are explained with "the consequences of inner cosmopolite reality on progress" [Beck, 2008: 74]. Beck is ready to face some difficulties of the cosmopolitism development processes, because not all the world's population is cosmopolitan now. Nevertheless, it is not a huge problem, as the supporters of another approach make many mistakes analyzing current circumstances. For example, a national mistake is the result of the complex reality of the co-existence of different states. The vital question of the criticism of methodological nationalism is also explained with the necessity to overcome a Universalists' mistake, which is a connection between the concepts of national-territorial and the general universal. In other words, a point of the mistake is of "the definite society" being a model to any given society structure. Thus, basic characteristics of universal society could be provided with the analysis of that society. According to Beck, Carl Marx could not avoid the mistake, as he established his ideas based on the analysis of British capitalism. Max Weber overestimated an importance of Prussian bureaucracy as well. However, a supporter of cosmopolitism realizes that a principle ofnational one as the universal one' does not work [Beck, 2008: 29].
Beck's conception experienced some modifications later. The author divided his principal concept in two major parts. The first part deals with philosophical and nominative cosmopolitism (Habermas, Held) based on the theory of worldwide citizenship. The second part describes new relativistic cosmopolitism as a tool to criticize methodological nationalism. Beck proclaims the XXI century to become an era of cosmopolitism, and fights for methodological cosmopolitism and cosmopolite sociology. Observing previous experience of scientific development, Beck represents sociology as a concept framed by nationalistic paradigm. In spite of comparative research being held with the nationalistic paradigm as the basis, a great perspective for the development still exists: "Of course, Talcott Parsons adopted a comparative sociological approach and was a student of European social thought, but his sociological interest and approach was American" [Beck, 2007: 286]. Nothing has radically changed, because even international sociology represented by Wallerstein still obeys to a power of methodological nationalism. Unfortunately, the approach does not take into account that difference between national and international sociology no longer exists [Beck, 2007: 286]. New risks and challenges - Chernobyl, 9/11 - made author raise the problem of contemporary mixed cosmopolitism., In this respect, one has to learn cosmopolite mixture of global sociology and
new cosmopolite critical theory as the tools to resist repressive idealism on determination of national perspectives in policy, researches, and theory.
As these global circumstances continue to increase, Beck makes rather tough conclusions:
As prisoners of methodological nationalism, we do not understand Europeanization; we do not understand the new global meta-power game. We do not understand that the nation-state legitimacy of social inequalities is being challenged to its core by universalized human rights; we do not understand the'global generation' and its transnational fragments, and so on. This is because we are captured by zombie categories; sociology is threatening to become a zombie science, a museum piece of antiquated ideas [Beck, 2007: 287].
Beck applies'zombie category' in many sociological contexts of his work; it brings him back to the problems of society at risk. According to the author,'...principal tools of modernity, as science, business, and policy once guaranteed the rationality and security, appear to be in confrontation, and their apparatus is no longer available, as fundamental principles of modernity do not support general blessings'. Now, these tools are the source of risks, rather than an instrument to prevent the risk. Beck affirms that the being itself absolutely depends upon these circumstances:
As a consequence, everyday life in world risk society is characterized by a new variant of individualization. The individual must cope with the uncertainty of the global world by him- or herself. Here individualization is the default outcome of a failure of expert systems to manage risks. Neither science, nor the politics in power, nor the mass media, nor business, nor the law or even the military are in a position to define or control risks rationally [Beck, 2007: 289].
Thus, the image of an individual resisting the governmental power and fighting against it is no longer surprising in some cases.. "Thus[Beck's] theory ofreflexive or second modernity' is about the unintended consequences and challenges of the success of modernity. It is about more modernity and the crises it produces, but not about post-modernity" [Beck, 2007: 289]. Therefore, contrary to all the opinions, we observe a crisis of risks rather than enjoy a postmodern period now. This state of the present is called the'reality of globalized modern' [Beck, Beck - Gersheim, 2009: 26].
Nevertheless, Beck and his co-author have to reconsider the issue, as they realize: "The social sciences, however, are still more or less in thrall to'methodological nationalism', unable to see border crossing interactions, interconnectedness and intercommunication" [Beck, BeckGersheim, 2009: 26]. That is why they put their hopes on a global generation and formation of the global identity, in particular. Along with A. Appadurai, scientists suggest that subsequent generations will expectglobal equality in the world. "Everywhere in the world more and more people look at their own lives through the optic of possible ways of life, presented by the mass media in every conceivable way. That means: today, imagination has become a social practice; in countless variants it is the engine for the shaping of the social life of many people in many different societies". That is why every regular man is under the influence of the realities and opportunities of a world society [Beck, Beck-Gersheim, 2009: 28].
Beck's conceptions provoked many critical comments. His opponents argue that an entire cut of methodological nationalism principle- as classic comparative sociology theory and structural approach- has already discussed the issue of global inequality. Beck's adversary notices that specific world policies contribute to conflicts and force, rather than sympathy and collaboration [Martell, 2009: 254-255]. Moreover, Beck was reproached to lack definite arguments in his statements and conclusions. In addition, the role of the U.S. and the West in the present time was considered as an institution against cosmopolitism conception [Martell, 2009: 271].
Nonetheless, the idea to resist methodological nationalism drew the attention of many people. A. Wimmer and N. Glick Schiller also disapprove of the'idea of a state/nation/society to be natural social and political forms of modern world' [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 301]. The authors demonstrated three major variants of practical realization of the methodological nationalism principle. They performed three major directions of the methodological nationalism realization practice:
- Ignorance (the majority of theorists);
- Naturalization (empiricists);
- Territorial limitedness (political scientists). [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 308].
A pernicious influence of the naturalization of the nation-state was studied in terms of political economy of the Marxist tradition, world-system concept of Wallerstein, and principle of methodological individualism apart from the largest social communities [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 303]. Comparison of different concepts and approaches allowed authors to support the idea of the present differences between Anglo-Saxon and European scientific traditions. They discuss the migration factor as the main proof of methodological nationalism failure [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 304]. The deconstruction of the nation-state concept became the perfect basis for that conclusion.
Wimmer and Glick Schiller characterize'container theory' of society with skepticism, as it describes a state as a container for the nation. They are inclined to separate the nation and the state as two parallel concepts. Moreover, they suggested transforming the concepts, as basic ideas of contemporary state and national theories that appeared from practice and ideology of colonial governing [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 308]. Thus, an idea of virtual (imaginative) character of many nations appeared just in time. The point is that many nations are composed of variety of ethnic communities, but their roles are undermined significantly. Anthropology of ethnic communities in terms of modern and industrial nation -states characterized them as culturally different from the majority of the population because of their historical and migratory backgrounds. It did not view these differences as a result of successive politicization of ethnicity in a context of the very development of nation-state. Thus, anthropology has just reproduced and naturalized an approach of the government of the nation-state [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 305-306]. That is why thebuilding of a multi-ethnic nation is a basic condition for proper development of an economy or capital in many of today's states [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 305].
One of the major disadvantages ofcontainer theory' provided by Wimmer and Glick Schiller is that many scientists describe'container-society' as purely cultural, political, economic, and social dimensions of societies., In this respect, they do not take into consideration the intricate connections between these dimensions. "Major theoretical debates evolved around the relative weight of those dimensions in structuring the entire social fabric- Parsonians voting for culture, while Marxists favoring economy - and whether society determined individual actions or the other way round, with social structures emerging from individual agency" [Wimmer, Glick Schiller, 2002: 307]. Well, it is time to get rid of all the disadvantages mentioned above.
Nevertheless, the'trap of methodological nationalism' is still a subject of arguments in foreign literature. Trans-limitedness, mass migrations, cosmopolitism, and ideas of general history demand to get out ofthetrap' as soon as possible. For the afore-mentioned factors, the nationstate is possible only in terms of one of the social contexts. Authors are intended to overcome container methodology, as they believe in the end of globalist debates of the 1990s, and definite
issues of conceptual relations between society, nation-state, and space as relevant today[Amelina, Faist, Glick Schiller, Nergiz, 2012: 3]. They are more likely to study global or cosmopolitan culture, which are subject of hybrid reformations, as its leading representatives (Appadurai, Bhabha, and Hannertz) do [Amelina, Faist, Glick Schiller, Nergiz, 2012: 6]. The next item in this positive list belongs to trans-boundary researches that reject the world as a space that divides nations into territories. This approach comprehends a world as a trans-national space, a post-colonial and cosmopolitan entity. The authors also emphasize the very important idea of reflexive turn, given the impressive spectrum of global ideas and their impact on the modern world. Reflexive turn means the difference between reflexive theory and reflexive state. The reflexive state means that the reasoning of subjects and the interpretations of research has influence the nature of the results of any particular experiment [Amelina, Faist, Glick Schiller, Nergiz, 2012:].
Thus, it is necessary to reject the idea of methodological nationalism, as it obtains a wide recognition in international sociology in terms of the growth of the globalization concept. However, newly observed tendencies of actualization of different local phenomenon made way to the newest trend of'glocalization' [Robertson, 1992]. An ambivalence of development tendencies in modern world led to the concepts of nation-state', zombie-categories (Beck), and fetish (Chernylo). The social science research community was strongly recommended to escape from the trap ofmethodological nationalism' and reject the over-use of this form of social-political organization. The concept ofcosmopolitism' along with the ones ofreflexive modernization','reflexive globalization', and'inner globalization' became the new standards of sociological approach to understanding the vastly modern world. However, on supporting the critics over methodological nationalism, it is foremost necessary to outline some controversial points of the alternative discourse.
I want to address my principal reproach to foreign colleagues, as they could not overcome their own national limitedness in criticizing universalization of the nation-state. Indeed, "sociology as a special social practice is a result of definite historical conditions for industrial capitalism to appear in West Europe and North America" [Urry, 2000: 10]. However, arguments over a methodological nationalism do possess a practical importance, as they reveal a careless attitude of our American colleagues to the problem. Just like Beck and his adherents, Urry also complained of American ignorance over the subject of the nation-state [Urry, 2000: 7]. Multinational group of researches made a critique of methodological nationalism; among them are Germans, Englishmen, and Portuguese. Thus, we can confirm that methodological nationalism is mostly a problem of West European sociology. Serious differences between the Old and the New Worlds posited by Harvard sociologist Glazer contributes to the conclusion that methodological nationalism is applicable to the Old World model of social structure. Glazer proved that Europe deals with'national federations' and America performs'melting and assimilating communities of immigrants' [Glazer, 1983: 27]. Thus, there is no surprise that American and Canadian scholars are more concerned with the problems of multi-culturalism and collective identities, rather than the nation-state concept.
The idea of the universal (global) concept based on'national reality' gave way to the development of the principle of methodological nationalism in social sciences. Russian social scientists have vastly examined this tendency. For example, Zdravomislov explained sociological antinomy with the contradictions between global idea of united social theory and national (local) cultural content of any particular community [Zdravomislov, 2008: 7]. Titarenko also overestimated the development of his social theory in the same manner [Titarenko, 2011: 22]. Russian specialists paid active attention to suggestions of the voices in the international sociological congresses to put an end to the Western-centric sociology and make way for sociologies from Asia, Africa, and Latin America [Yadov, 2012]. They contended that an axis of civilized contradiction separates Western and non-Western theories, including ones of the Russian Federation [Kirdina, 2008: 27].
This rather controversial methodological concept is not the result of incompetence or carelessness of social theoreticians; it is perfectly in line with other tendencies of social significance. In spite of all the references to reflexive turn, some of our foreign colleagues do not emphasize the importance of the concept and fail to utilize potential to solve the problem it poses.. Of course, critical theory discusses the society as a form of alienated consciousness [Delanty, 2009]. Beck admitted that'dialectical imagination is a central characteristic of cosmopolitan perspective. It means cultural and rational contradictions in terms of human life ofthe internationalized another' " [Beck, 2003: 25-26]. However, it seems that these sociologists have never fully utilized the major concept of orientalism, established by American researcher, E. Said. This renowned sociologist analyzed European and American ideas of the East, and realized that they had nothing in common with the realities of the region forming a kind of orientalism. Said established a variant of discourse supported by organizations, dictionaries, science, imagination, doctrines, and even colonial bureaucracy and style of governing., In his understanding of Orientalism, Said considered it as a model of Western domination over the East perpetuated by a popularized discourse of the exotic East [Said, 1978: 2]. In other words, in trying to comprehend the ways of the East, the West failed to overcome its own biases influenced by the social, political, and cultural realities of the Old World, therefore creating a mythical interpretation of the different region. Said also succeeded to influence the future discourse of English, American, and French orientalism. His ideas developed alongside the the concept of post-colonialism (Abdel-Malek, Bhabha, Spivak, Fenon, etc). The general theory regarded post-colonialism ".as multiple political, economic, cultural and philosophical responses to colonialism from its inauguration to the present day ..." [Hiddleston 2009, p. 1].
Today, the concerns of European scientist about methodological nationalism are perfectly evident - the nation-state concept is still a prerogative of Western Europe. This is why European sociologists had to get rid of their delusions about the relevance of the nation-state in the context of modern reality and the world beyond European borders., In fairness, they are making the first step to coming to this understanding, as they no longer consider the nation-state as the perfect model of social and political structure. However, now they have to realize that their observations of the problem are still influenced by the West European model of perception. Not for nothing, Beck believes in universal human rights and supports a rather controversial practice of humanitarian investments. However, a British sociologist has to admit: "French sociological tradition tends to holism and/or collectivism, according to Durkheim; structuralism and so-called post-structuralism are the principal manifestations of the tradition" [Wagner, 2000:116]. Thus, intellectuals of Asia, Africa, and Latin America could have their own opinions about the human rights problem, cosmopolitism, and other popular concepts of the Western-centric model of sociological perception. Anyway, it is evident, that the issue of methodological nationalism is just a tip of the iceberg. Theorists of the post-modern period bolstered this conception. However, all the epistemological problems and principles demand for the profound examination of the principle. Indeed, the principle of methodological nationalism is based on controversial issues of theoretical character.
As it was demonstrated, thedevelopment of the methodological nationalism principle relies upon the processes of mass migration. However, the subject of migration reveals significant disadvantages of methodological nationalism and the concept of cosmopolitism. It is explained by underestimation of the ethnic phenomenon in contemporary societies. It is an important observation, and Beck was aware of its significance; he tried to prove that "methodological nationalism was based on the establishment both of the national and ethnical reasons" [Beck, 2007: 162]. Nevertheless, the denial of the nation-state and the idea of the connection between the global and the local, enabled Beck to spare space for an ethnic component in his conceptualization. He writes that "an ideal unity of nation, state, democracy, and people failed with the globalization of national territories. However, globalization and ethnical identity do not exclude, but include each other" [Beck, 2007: 340-341]. The role of the ethnic concept is still under discussion, but its reference to the shaping of identity is remarkable.
The point is that there are two different interpretations of the ethnic phenomenon. The first one was established in the beginning of the 20th century by Russian ethnography and deals with the theory of ethnos. The second one appeared in the1960s in English socio-cultural anthropology circles and deals with the concepts of ethnicity and identity. The analysis of methodological approach of foreign models of sociological study reflected on their practice of methodological individualism and constructivism. Russian theories of ethnos perfectly correspond to the principle of sociological rationalism and primordialism. In the light of the differences between Old and New Worlds demonstrated by Glazer, it is easy to establish a connection between the existing theories of ethnos and ethnicity and different social-political contexts. Russian tradition reflects the peculiarities of historically formed multi-ethnic countries.America itself is comprised of immigrant communities from a variety of countries, which givethe nation a truly multi-ethnic identity.. Speaking of alternative versions of the theory, we should also consider the ethnos theory of S. Shirokogoroff, which integrates principal approaches to the problem of ethnicity. The Russian social scientist was the first to study ethnos as a process in which ethnical communities are involved in shaping the social makeup of a society. According to his definition, ethnic community is characterized as "more or less similar cultural complexes, speaking the same language, believing into a common origin, possessing group consciousness, and practicing endogamy. This is a definition which corresponds to our definition of ethnical unit"; it is also "a state of balance between centripetal and centrifugal processes" [Shirokogoroff, 1935: 14]. Evidently, uselessness of discussions over the problems of ethnos and ethnicity concepts is explained with the lack of criteria for evaluating ethnic communities and other unities as'new social groups'. The gap resulted in the over-complex development of the ethnicity concept, which was discussed both as a character feature of ethnic communities and also as an indicator of diversity of any groups, including ones of social and'ethno-cultural' character. Meanwhile, an establishment of stable ethnic community in terms of endogamy and psycho-mental complex theories performed by Shirokogoroff eliminates any misunderstanding. It is necessary to realize the connection between a definite ethnic community and the territory the community occupies (other variant of primordialism). For social scientists, the coexistence of different ethnic communities, societies, and migrant diasporas means the necessity not only for cultural and political outlining of adequate policy measures that take these facts into account but also the long-term effects of the ethnic dimension of the reality of the very particular country.
On studying the issues of conceptual definition of society, it is necessary to pay attention to the increasing role of modern cultural factors. In the light of these social changes, the Frankfurt School of Social Philosophy and Cultural Studies offered to "study a culture as a tool of ideological influence and hegemony, where cultural forms help to define the way of thinking and behavior forcing individuals to admit social conditions of capitalist countries" [Kellner]. As a result, according to a German researcher V. Kashuba, culture transforms into the'other side of the society'... Thus, social analysis is a cultural analysis at the same time" [Kashuba, 2001: 57]. This theory results in another definition of culture: "culture is a society united with the same life style" [Ternborn, 2001: 59]. Such cultural expansion into the social sphere is remarkable in explaining the contemporary society.
Increasing significance of the ethnic factor, profound cultural differentiation, and new political transformations have radically changed the structure of contemporary societies. As a result of these transformations, a new political, ethnical, social, and cultural unities have emerged. Such formations stay close to the terms of multi-culturalism and nation building, rather than to the one of the nation-state. Thus, sociology along with the other fields of social-humanitarian knowledge face the'challenge of complexity' demanded by the vastly changing social landscape that demands new answers to vary different types of questions.. New definitions of society as'a quickly developing complexity' prove that the challenge to reexamine outdated models has been accepted. Inter-disciplinary synthesis is also clear, as it represents another effective strategy [Urry, 2003; Kravchenko, 2012]. An inter-disciplinary approach, however,
does not deny the necessity of social research and its further development and typology. Only in that very case, it is possible to avoid mistakes of informational transference from one society to another. This disadvantage is typical for any West European social science field.
To define the perspectives of cosmopolitism, it is necessary to apply it in terms of different countries- Asian countries, for instance. A. Delanty and Baong He completed a work dedicated to the analysis of the origins of normative trans-nationalism in Europe and Asia. They emphasized that "limitation of cosmopolitism by European specificity is revealed both in Asian neglect to cosmopolitism practices, and in reduction of the importance of cosmopolitan approach as it is" [Delanty, Baong He, 2008: 324]. According to the authors, the formation of global principles of justice and the emergence of additional issues confronted by modern societies became the basis for the spread of cosmopolitism. Thus, many social scientists make the conclusion that the "principle challenge of the present time is the necessity of a dialogue between different cultures and civilizations". Still, as reflexive inclination has appeared, therefore the current discourse has to follow its principal course - to speak about cosmopolitism is to estimate changes in one's personal perception by collaborating with different cultures in terms of global significance [Delanty, Baong He, 2008: 324].
Delanty and Baong emphasize the emergence of multiple cosmopolitan projects all over the world initiated by individuals, organizations, and social activists. The multiplicity plays a great role in Asian research, as the continent differs from Europe,both civilization-wise and culturally. Moreover, as Delanty and Baong suggest, Asian countries do not have a tradition in providing for their civil society, since they have not undergone complete democratization of their respective countries [Delanty, Baong He, 2008:]. At the same time, the authors believe that cosmopolitan tendencies are indeed profound in the Asian society. The concept flourishes in the ideas of general love of the ancient Chinese philosopher, Mo Di, in contemporary experiments with multi-culturalism in Asia, and in the forgiveness of the debt that many African countries owed to Asia. Thus, the authors conclude that cosmopolitism is the antithesis of nationalism and is a great foundation for the union of Europe and Asia [Delanty, Baong He, 2008].
Despite this conclusion,, we should not be limited by our perceptions of the concept of cosmopolitism only. To overcome Western methodological nationalism, we have to come to know and understand the true realities of the world beyond the borders of Old Europe. Unfortunately, the demand still possesses rather recommendational character. Some aspects of the discourse of Oriental Studies may provide useful information about the realities of non-Western world, for instance, East Asia.
The East Asian region is extraordinary with its multitude of diversities. One of the general classifications characterizes these states as big or small ones, and effective or non-effective. Some of them are regarded as free (Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand), partly free (Hong-Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore), and not free (China, Cambodia, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam) [Kim, 2000: 13]. Before any contacts with the West, Eastern Asia had a long history of a unique and thriving civilization (Confucian, Buddhist,Taoist etc). During its development, special variants of its sociol-political structure were formed. Still, unlike the European experience, the formation ofcentralized states had been realized far earlier there. The powerful Chinese Empire allowed the cultural unity in the region [Asia in the 21st Century..., 1997]. Entry of Eastern Asia into the contemporary era saw it be tranformed the active intervention of the West, reduction of China's authority, and upraising of Japan.
A direct threat from Western countries provoked some social-political activists from China, Korea, and Japan to accept the European model of social cohesion and governance in the second half of the 19th century. Fukazawa Yukichi of Meiji Japan, for instance, took a pro-Western position, advocating "dissociation from Asia" and the adaptation of the principles of Western civilization."Many Chinese and Korean leaders took a similar stance" [Gi-Wood Shin, 2007: 14]. At the same time, the discussion of the differences between the West and the East started. The end of the century witnessed a remarkable change of the previous pan-European adherence for pan-Asian priorities. The reason is that'modernization' influenced mainly economy and policy of
the region. At the same time, culture managed to protect its traditions, but continued to influence mostly economic and political reformations. Moreover, there exists an opinion, that culture of Eastern Asia still played a significant role in the preservation of tradition. "While all Asian countries operated in a modern economic structure, they still present many traditional values and ideas" [Compton, 2000: 5]. The formation of special discourse in modern literature dealing with the issues ofAsian values' of history and culture, is considered as further support of the methodological nationalism theory. The very significance of the values is explained with the necessity to form some local foundations to resist the pressure of globalization [Kim, 2000]. However, Eastern Asia still has quite a few problems with its international relations with other countries.[Rozman, 2004].
The majority of social scientists and politicians of Eastern Asia demonstrate a very definite attitude to the importance of the state (nation-state) and its basic principles. "Their recent deliberation from colonial or quasi-colonial rule; their relatively weak position in the international system still dominated by the West; the many internal and international challenges to their ongoing nation and state-building projects; and the fact that among the countries in the world it is the Asian countries that most closely approximate the Westphalia state" [Alagappa, 2003: 86-87]. The widespread Westphalian character of Eastern Asia strictly resonates with the concepts of methodological nationalism, since the importance of the state is not rejected, but widely accepted. "The nation state is the fundamental building block of domestic and international politics. The power and influence of countries rest not just on material power (economic and military) but also on ideational power and legitimacy of the nation-state" [Alagappa, 2012: 1]. It is quite natural that the concepts of nation and nation building are regarded in the same way. "There can be no contemporary state without a nation. Nation and state have become fused such that the only legitimate contemporary political unit is the nationstate" [Alagappa, 2012: 5]. Such Asian adherence to methodological nationalism is rather expected, as contemporary Western ideas of human rights are firmly connected to the reconsideration of state sovereignty and practice of humanitarian interventions. As national interests in the region still dominate, Western researchers have to admit: "Some government elites from Singapore and Malaysia opposed (for example, in foreign affairs) the Western understanding of democracy and human rights that they felt was to be imposed upon their states". Principal argument here is one of the decomposition of the West: "... they pointed at the increasing moral decay of Western countries, exemplified by growing public apathy and rising crime rates" [Timmermann, 2008: 4]. However, Eastern-Asian intellectuals also apply a social argument to this anti-Western sentiment. "They thought that in Asia, limited individualism and strong work and savings ethics, as well as taking responsibility for one's personal life through focusing on the family, led to the development successes of the 1980s and early 1990s" [Timmermann, 2008: 4]. Indeed, Western specialists try to keep an interest in Eastern social transformations that keep some traditions the same [Chinese Society., 2010]. Social relations still depend upon clan/family (blood) relationships. This is precisely why Eastern Asian countries are regarded as the representatives of strong collectivistic principles [Dumont, 1983]. Thus, we comprehend another fact. "According to these governing elites, socio-economic rights had priority, and political and civil rights had to wait until their societies were ready for them. Western, mainly American, reproaches were regarded as either interference in their national affairs, envy of their development successes or attempts to substitute former colonial imperialism with new values imperialism" [Timmermann, 2008: 5]. That is why contemporary situation of Eastern Asia cannot share in the optimism of Beck, who views the 21st century to be an era of universal cosmopolitan values.
Thus, the analysis of the methodological nationalism problem allows for the acceptance that there is a predominant movement to move away from it and establish cosmopolitanism as the principal theory of examination among West European social scientists. In fact, American specialists, like P. Bereger, mostly preoccupy themselves with the subject of global culture in a definite way: "There is an emerging global culture, and it is indeed heavily American in origin
and content" [Berger, 2002: 2]. In Eastern Asia, the problem of the Westphalian state with its aspirations for sovereignty and national building is stilla prevalent issue. In terms of modern perceptions based on the principles of orientalism, post-colonialism, and ethnos, we may assume that the covered difficulties will create more serious reasons than just those of different opinions within the schools of social science. These reasons are due to peculiarities of historical, sociopolitical, cultural, and economical circumstances of respective countries and their regions. Thus, taking into account the complexity and the demands of understanding each county as a case-study, we have to research intra-societal peculiarities along with each society's relations to other societies. The result of the research will serve as the true basis for verification of various external and internal hypotheses and ideas. Until the research is done, the recommendation for Eastern Asia to move away from the attachment to the significance of the nation-state is just a variant of methodological nationalism. Instead, the very goal of objective research is to influence the social science arena to make further recommendations for how to solve social problems on the global scale.
REFERENCES
Beck U. Obshestvo risca. Na puti k drugomu modernu. Moskva. Progress-traditsia. 2000
Beck U. Chto takoe globalizatsia? Oshibli globalizatsii-otvety na globalizatsiu. Moskva. Progress-traditsia. 2001
Beck U. Vlast' I ee opponenty v epokhu globalizatsii. Novaya vsemirno-politicheskaya economiya. Moskva. Progress-traditsia. 2007
Beck U. Kosmopoliticheskoe mirovozzrenie. Moskva. Tsentr issledovanij postindustrial'nogo obtshestva. Moskva. 2008
Vagner P. Vsled za "opravdaniem": repertuar otsenki I sotsiologiya sovremennosti. Zournal Sotsiologii I Sotsial'noj Antropologii. 2000. Vol. 3. N 3.
Zdravomyslov A.G. K voprosu o kul'ture sotsiologicheskogo myshleniya. Sotsiologocheskie issledovaniya. 2008. N 5.
Kashuba V. Dilemma etnologii XX veka: "kul'tura- kluchevoe slovo". Ab Imperio. 2001.
N 3.
Kirdina S.G. Sovremennye sotsiologicheskie teorii" aktual'no li protivostoyanie? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2008. N 8.
Kravchenko S.A. U. Beck: sotsiologicheskoe voobrazhenie, adekvatnoe rephleksivnomu modernu. Sotsiologocheskie issledovaniya. 2011. N 8.
Kravchenko S.A. Slozhnyj sotsium: vostrebovannost povorotov v sotsiologii. Sotsiologocheskie issledovaniya. 2012. N 5.
Ternborn G. Multikul'turnye obshestva. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. 2001. T. N 1.
Titarenko L.G. Natsional'noe I nadnatsional'noe v sotsiologii. Sotsiologocheskie issledovaniya. 2011. N 1.
Tsygankov P.A. Beck U. Preodolevaya "metodologicheskii natsionalism" - iz besedy P.A. tsygankova s U. Beckom. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12. Politicheskie nauki. 2012. N 5/
Yadov V.A. kakim mne viditsa budutshee sotsiologii. Sotsiologocheskie issledovaniya. 2012. N 4.
Alagappa M. Constructing Security Order in Asia: Conceptions and issues // Asian Security Order. Instrumental and Normative Features. M. Alagappa (ed.). Stanford. Stanford University Press. 2003.
Alagappa M. Nation Making in Asia: From Ethnic to Civic Nations? Kuala Lumpur. Institute of Strategic and International Studies. 2012.
Amelina A., Faist T., Glick Schiller N., Nergiz D. Methodological Predicaments of Cross Border Studies // Beyond the Methodological Nationalism. Nationalism Research Methodologies
for Cross Border Studies, ed. by A. Amelina, D. Nergiz, T. Faist, N. Glick Schiller. NY.L. Routledge. 2012.
Asia in the 21st Century. Economics, Socio-political, Diplomatic Issues. Chow P.C., Chow G.C. (eds). Singapore. World Scientific. 1997.
Beck U. The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails // Theory. Culture. Society. 2007. Vol. 24. N 7-8.
Beck U., Beck-Gersheim E. Global Generation and the Trap of Methodological Nationalism for a Cosmopolitan Turn in the Sociology of Youth and Generation // European Sociological Review. 2009. Vol. 25. № 1.
Berger P. Introduction. The Cultural Dynamics of Globalization // Many Globalizations. Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World. P. Berger, S. Huntington (eds). NY. Oxford University Press. 2002.
Chernilo D. A Social Theory of Nation State. The Political Forms of Modernity beyond Methodological Nationalism. NY. Routledge. 2007. 184 p.
Chinese Society. Change, conflict and resistance. E. Perry, M. Selden (eds). Routledge.
2010
Compton R.W. East Asian Democratization: Impact of Globalization, Culture and Economy. Westport. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2000.
Delanty G. The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
Delanty G., Baong He. Cosmopolitan Perspectives on European and Asian Transnationalism // International Sociology. 2008. Vol. 23. N 3.
Dumont L. Essais sur l'individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l'idéologie moderne. Paris, Esprit/Seuil. 1983.
Gi-Wood Shin. Introduction. Regionalism and Nationalism in Northeast Asia. Cross Currents: Regionalism and nationalism in Northeast Asia. Gi-Wook Shin, D.C. Sneider (eds). Shorenstein APARC. 2007.
Glazer N. Ethnic Dilemma 1964-1982. Cambridge.: Mass. Harvard University Press.
1983.
Hiddleston J. Understanding Postcolonialism. Stocksfoeld. Acmen. 2009. Kellner D. Cultural studies and philosophy: an intervention http://www. Gsis.ucla.edu/kellner/kelner.html дата обращения 16.01. 2011
Kim S. East Asia and Globalization: Challenges and Responses // East Asia and Globalization. Kim S. (ed.) Oxford. Rowman & Littlefield. 2000.
Martell L. Global Inequality: Human Rights and Power: A Critique of Ulrich's Beck Cosmopolitanism // Critical Sociology. 2009. Vol. 35. N 2.
McLennan G. Sociology, Eurocentrism and Postcolonial Theory // European Journal of Social Theory. 2003. Vol. 6. N 1.
Martins G. Time and theory in sociology / Approaches to Sociology. An introduction to major trends in British sociology, ed. by J. Rex. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1974.
Robertson R. Globalisation: Social Theory and Global Culture. L. Sage Publications.
1992
Rozman G. Northeast Asia's Stunted Regionalism. Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalization. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2004а. 412 p. Said E. Oientalism. NY. Vintage books. 1978.
Schirokogoroff S.M. Psychomental Complex of the Tungus. L.: Kegan Paul, Trench,Trubner & Co. 1935.
Timmermann M. Introduction. Institutionalizing Northeast Asia: Challenges and Opportunities // Institutionalizing Northeast Asia: Regional Steps towards Global Covernance. M. Timmermann, J. Tsuchiyama (eds). Tokyo. United Nations University. 2008.
Urry J. Sociology Beyond Society: Mobilities for Twenty-First Century. L.,NY. Routledge. 2000.
Urry J. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Wan H.Y. Harnessing Globalization: A Review of East Asian case Histories. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing. 2006. 275 p.
Wimmer A. Glick Schiller N. Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation statebuilding, migration and the social sciences // Global Networks. 2002. Vol. 2. Issue 4.
Wagner P. A sociology of modernity: Liberty and discipline. L.NY.: Routledge. 1994.
