CC BY
171
So, social network services finally developed as non-state actors like multinational corporations which can clearly understand their interests and possible strategies in events like the Arab Spring. The role of social networks in the social and political transformations is neither monopolistic or dominant among other means of communication. According to this , consideration of social networking as a possible threat or challenge to the international and national security is unreasonable and would be a classic example of a false problem.
We must carefully examine the experience of development and progress of implementation of integrated Internet security and user identity such as Identity Ecosystem. This project, being developed by the U.S. now, is a promising example of an integrated approach to the problem of identification. Given the scarcity of normative and conceptual framework, which is currently at its disposal in this field in Ukraine it should be successfully to learn and adapt the experience of the U.S. authorities to overcome the current limited approach and skepticism to American initiatives in this area.
Developing decisions for such projects requires active participation and priority associations, businesses and horizontal vertical networks of public authorities at various levels. Also, for understanding the importance of these principles a clear power boost from the expert community is required.
Social networking services can serve the interests of national and international security in areas not related to the tasks of international security or military issues.
Currently the interaction of the state with the online community is developing slowly.
Delaying the political decisions in this sphere threatens the effectiveness and conservation of the existing governmental issues - including those of its agencies in charge of national security. The expert community here has to take the initiative and inform government agencies of the need to adapt to the new reality that has changed under the influence of ICT -and including social networking services.
Keywords: virtual communities, international security, national security, information and communication technologies, social networking, social media
УДК 321.015:316.46
O. V. Telpis
MODERN THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DURING GLOBALIZATION
В статье автор описывает основные тендеции развития современного мира. Делается акцент на глобализации и развитии информационных технологий что приводит к активному повышению актуальности комуникационной сферы. Изучение современных международных отношений влечет за собой изучение дискурса о них -что есть основным постулатом теории конструктивизма.
Ключевые слова: глобализация, международные отношения, дискурс, дискурс политического лидера, политика, конструктивизм.
The world exists as a self-organizing political space mainstreaming innovative potential of personalized business and institutional power, a special area of human activity associated with power relations, government and political system, those institutions, principles, rules, etc., which are designed to ensure community of people implementing their joint will, interests and needs.
Impact of civilization factor on the modern system of international relations is growing. New world order is formed, and due to fundamental changes and political world, increases the
need for a deeper study of political processes, including processes of political decisionmaking, processes of distribution and perception of information, and the role of the individual, the leader in these processes. International system is more dynamic, more centered information, an plays important role in its functioning with the publicity aspect of computerization, the formation of the desired image of a particular object, event, etc.
The main trends of the modern world the majority of political scientists define globalization. Currently, globalization comprehensively covers all areas of present time. It is one of the most heavily exploited in the research process and promotes social and communication dimension. The evolution of international relations characterizing connected with one another trend of global governance and the formation of a global civil society. The growing influence of international institutions intertwining of domestic and foreign policy, the role of the state, which varies as a political actor - all this leads to increased cohesion, globalization of the world. The development of globalization promotes the formation of political networks that bring together public institutions and civil society, the emergence of global economy, general culture, universal values and common identity. [1]
During the twentieth century occurred grows influence of the transformation of scientific and theoretical knowledge to empirical, productive force of society, which ultimately proved extra-high practical value of core of the theory. However, as a scientific discipline theory of international relations began to develop rapidly until the early twentieth century. Active debate on key issues of international relations has been going on for centuries in a row, serving as an unmistakable indicator of the relevance of research in this area, as for the social and human sciences there is a meaningful and convincing evidence of the importance of an issue than a big debate about it.
One of the first who made the new processes analyzed, there were liberal views, which we believe is still relevant. The main actors are not states, and persons who come into a relationship with each other by means of its minimal or even against his will. So we can say that under this concept a political leader is an actor, main actor of international relations by analyzing and studying the study of international relations. [2]
In other contemporary theories of trans-nationalism single isolated aspect of international relationships, comparing their extensive and multi-layered web of connections linking the many and varied participants in international interactions - multinational corporations, transnational social movements, non-governmental organizations, financial group in the essence of international communication and discourse.
When discourse is considered to be socially constructed organization of language and certain principles according to which reality is represented and classified into various periods of time. This is the meaning of "discourse" was first performed by E. Benveniste, contrasting discours, i.e. the language associated with the device, and «récit», we are not associated with it. [3] Also it is defined as the unity of language directly and external factors affecting the characteristics of the language. For example, literary discourse and political discourse - to send messages using various verbal and non-verbal communication means different [4].
Discourse can act in language verbal form, writing as written text communication that combine verbal and nonverbal components. Units of discourse are specific statements that operate in the real historical, social and cultural conditions, and in its content and structure reflect the temporal aspect, interactions between partners, which create this type of discourse. As well as space in which it takes place, meaning that they create uses, reproduces or transforms. Note that to distinguish between the concept of discourse and rhetoric as rhetoric as part of the discourse its lexically distinctive part. [5] In our opinion discourse combines the aspects of rhetoric and who is this rhetoric with all the historical and social background, antropologic communicator and archetypal.
The study of the phenomena of the discourse of the political leader is based on the theory of constructivism in international relations. Among the scientific concepts of international
relations the latest concept is postmodernists', one of the areas which is the theory of constructivism, which we believe is relevant for the analysis of contemporary international relations. Postmodernist discourse is a form of thinking processes of cultural creation in the area of cultural practices and theorizing late XX - early XXI century. Speaking extending it was the period of modernism. This trend gradually absorbs and reinvents a huge number of features of earlier cultural traditions. Vast field of pluralism ideas is emerging, as well as academic positions, comparing different cultural values that are essential to understanding the reality that is constantly changing. Postmodernism owes its appearance to the development of new technical means of mass communication - TV, video, Internet.
Major modernist theories related to political realism and neorealism of their objectivity and national interests and structural determinism, with neoliberalism, which draws attention to the objective interests of international actors pushing for cooperation and interdependence. For these theories conflict is a natural phenomenon - an objective reality. In terms of postmodernists, international relations are not determined by objective factors and subjective features of its member's peculiarities of their perception, values, information sharing, and so on.
Philosophical foundations of postmodernism is the idea of french post-structuralism and post-freydism on deconstruction, such as Zh.Derida, [6] Zh.Bodriyar, [7] Zh.Lakan, Zh.Delez, F.Hvatari [8], and the concept of italian semiotics U.Eko [9], and american neopragmatism of R.Rorti [10].
Postmodernism is in its infancy. Its main provisions are not always clearly defined or communicated. Radicalism in the critique of postmodern theory represents it as another myth. We believe the value of postmodernism is fixing relativity and variability of modern political circumstances influence of ideologies, identities and education, as well as fixing the active flow of information influence their design and moderation on the processes of world politics. [11].
One of the basic tenets of constructivism is that at the heart of international politics are social reasons. This does not mean that constructivism does not account material factors, but at the fore front of all social factors and the structure and expectations of their understanding of other countries, norms, rules and institutions that shape the identity and interests is the bifurcation point in conflicts and so on. Another important aspect of this theory is that the identities of international actors is not constant, but is formed in a social setting. Also known expression of A. Wendt "anarchy - the result of perception" is the slogan of constructivism. Consequently, international relations are considered postmodernists as a result of the interaction of human factors, which play a crucial role, often distorted perception, various errors and bias, with both social and scientific origins. And in turn, affects the perception of discourse, which is the object of perception in the field of international relations. [12]
Representing the state of the constructivist position has ternary structure which, in turn, includes the national identity, status and role. There is the concept of " self- government", the term " we " and of " them" in the light of emerging identity and the state itself , in relation to other states and other countries respectively. The result of the process of knowledge construction is the image of the state, which reflects precisely the subject of knowledge representation of the national identity, status and role of countries that do not necessarily coincide with its objective characteristics in these three areas of positioning. It should be noted that each of the components of the image can be characterized by positive, negative or ambivalent coloration. [13]
Also interesting is the postmodern critical theory, founded by R.Koks. Under this approach, there is a discourse that shapes the elite, the bourgeoisie, so-called "authoritative discourse". Intelligent people is a social superstructure translates this discourse is its carrier. By Robert Cox thought there must be antihegemonic discourse, the so-called "counter-hegemonic" which is to refute an opinion on world domination and hegemony of the
bourgeoisie, broadcast and share their information concept. Critical theory stems from neomarksizm, but not repelled by his materialistic version, but from the idealistic version in the spirit of A. Gramsci, as a relatively autonomous basis superstructure that can actively influence it. [14]
Rear hegemonic power in international relations theory is a combination of the forces in all currently existing civilizations who are aware of the current hegemony as unacceptable and not satisfying the interests of the peoples and societies. The core of the counter-hegemonic unit should be progressive intellectuals that represent the major civilizations that pretend to be full poles, what is the current hegemony of them a priori they strictly denied: Eurasian, Chinese, Latin American, Islamic, Indian. It may be representatives of the intellectual circles that are aware of Western civilization ( American and European ) as local and regional, and prefer to limit their spread area of historical limits. [15]
Representatives of the critical theory of international relations of Gramsci repelled from the definition of " hegemony " as "order, based on domination, which is not perceived as such by those who are experiencing it for yourself ." In other words, hegemony is the rule, claiming to be "no rule". R.Koks analyzes how the power structure, and to them he includes global or national capitalist elite building discourse in international relations in order to provide the appearance of "objectivity" and "neutrality" their "scientific" analysis, but in fact there are only so to consolidate their class and power interests. In this he is close to classical Marxism. Simultaneously, R. Cox points out that all the dominant theory in international relations is not purely theoretical developments that have set themselves the task of "obtaining objective scientific truth" but "theory, created ad hoc to solve specific problems." Accordingly, these theories are an ode to the goal - the establishment and consolidation of the hegemony of the capitalist class. Cox basic idea is as follows: international relations are not as they appear in the theories of international relations, and such - which they do theorists [16,17].
Critical theory in international relations can be activated almost entirely for denunciation of Western hegemony. Without a clear understanding of the hegemonic nature of the current system of international relations and its essential unipolarity can not be justified by the need for an alternative. "In our program the phrase" - with the terms of this theoretical right direction and right. Since the current communication policy is almost replaced soybeans real policy action. That is, if the event is not covered in the media, as already noted, the events do not exist. An essential reagent is broadcast alert, and usually , the message may be slightly modified to correct for the perception of the recipient and the current form of the translator , or even designed with outer visual accompaniment sticking to aims to maximize impact. This is the active form of suggestion.
According to the Ashley model, any international relations is the ratio of governance that exist in the system of international relations actors who are members of discourse. This theory explores the hierarchical aspect posts by extrapolating its morphological hierarchy in the manipulative level, the level of perception on the subconscious impact of the imposition of the appropriate hierarchy. Robert Ashley is focused on postmodernist philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Heidegger M., insists that in the area of international relations was brought basic idea of postmodern epistemology: the subject and the object does not exist separately and independently, and it is intrinsically temperature ' connected to each other in the totality of the historical world. Accordingly, in international relations there is a radical new actor. This is not a couple of subject/object, but that is between them and the causes and both of them in historical and social context. Comprehending reality, a person creates it and with it himself. Out of this process there is no reality.Power relations were the subject of study in international relations are not alone, and there being projected hierarchical system of discourse, where the will to power coincides with the will to knowledge.
R.Eshli systematically deconstructs the classical theory and concepts of international relations. Thus, the "international anarchy" is known to them not simply as a statement of the
actual state of affairs in the field of international relations, but as a blind valorization of order and sovereignty, that is artificial and workshop agenda and the legitimate of power within the state. [18]. These twin concepts like anarchy / order unity / difference, identity / differential -are hidden moral character and reflect the values, inherent in the supposedly neutral analysts. [19]
If we look at this theory in the context of a political leader , the individual to whom appeal realistic concept is not just as incompetent figure in the arena of international relations , but constituted as such, which leads directly to usurp his competence governmental instances and servicing power intellectuals that arrogate to themselves that the possession than deny everything else. Thus, the very concept of the individual leader is, according to postmodernists, a form of discrimination and deliberate tool tightening effect on the mass of the international relations in particular.
Knowledge, postmodernists emphasize international relations can not be objective and neutral. And exposing the person to whom and why are certain other theories , is a unique and extremely useful tool for deconstructing the sphere of international relations in a wide variety of theoretical publications. [20]
Postmodernist trends in international relations theory in its appeal issues all the way to the importance of the analysis of discourse as a manifestation and outcome of international communications and as a special process in international relations and in particular the medium of discourse - a political leader.
In today's information society, politics and information - is interrelated phenomena that affect each other in the process of social control. At the same time, and political structures affect the information, the degree of openness , the processes of transmission and perception, the nature of the transfer of the audience. Now thanks to technological development discourse political leader, information flows generated by a political leader is quickly accessible throughout the civilized world, so they must be formed correctly to achieve their goals in full. One should focus not only on the quality and content of information messages, and as a person who generates the information publicly.
The question arises in discourse is most urgent aspect of contemporary international relations with their informational and integrative dynamics. Modern political leaders are active participants in information communication space. They broadcast the position of his country through his discourse not only in the official international meetings at the highest level, and there is a need and trend modeling discourse in active political leader in the worldwide web. The study of discourse as a representative of a political leader of a country is one of the most important aspects of modern scientific policy analysis and requires special attention.
References:
1. Хабермас Ю. Первым почуять важное [Електронний ресурс] / Ю. Хабермас // Неприкосновенный запас. - 2006. - № 3 (47). - Режим доступу: http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2006/47/ha2-pr.html. - Дата обращения:12.09.2013.
2. Rosenau J. Le touriste et le terroriste ou les deux externes du continuum transnational / J. Rosenau // Etudes internationales. - Juin 1979.
3. Émile Benveniste [Електронний ресурс] // Problèmes de linguistique générale. -Режим доступу: http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/problemes-de-linguistique-generale-ii/
4. Киселев И. Ю. Динамика образа государства в международных отношениях / И. Ю. Киселев, А. Г.Смирнова. - СПб., 2006.
5. Киселев И.Ю. Проблема образа государства в международных отношениях: конструктивистская парадигма [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу: http://www.politex.info/content/view/367/30/ - Дата обращения: 15.09.2013.
6. Derrida J. Du droit a la philosophie / Derrida J. - Paris, 1990.
7. Baudrillard J. Le systeme des objets / Baudrillard J. - Paris, 1982.
8. Deleuze G. Capitalisme et schizophrenic / G. Deleuze, F. Guattary // L'Anti-Oeudipe. -Paris, 1972. - P. 130.
9. Eco U. Name roses / U3ko. - M., 1989.
10. Rorty R. Accidents, irony, solidarity / R.Rorty. - M., 1996.
11. 4enira П. Риторика / П. 4enira // Украшська мова : енцикл. - К. : Украшська енцикл., 2000.
12. Демьянков В. З. Текст и дискурс как термины и как слова обыденного языка /В. З. Демьянков // Язык, культура, общество: материалы IV Междунар. науч. конф., м. Москва, 27-30 сент. 2007 г. : пленарные доклады / Моск. ин-т иностранных языков : Рос. акад. лингвистических наук : Ин-т языкознания РАН : Научный журнал «Вопросы филологии». - М., 2007. - С. 86-95.
13. Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.) J. Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives. - London, UK: Routledge, 2010.
14. Дугин А.Г. Теория многополярного мира [Електронний ресурс] / А. Г. Дугин. - Режим доступу: http://bit.ly/137kqHz
15. Киселев И.Ю. Проблема образа государства в международных отношениях: конструктивистская парадигма [Електронний ресурс] / И. Ю. Киселев. - Режим доступу: http://www.politex.info/content/view/367/30/ (дата обращения: 15.09.2013)
16. Dyugin А. The realism theory in the international relations [Електронний ресурс] // Dyugin А.Lecture. - Режим доступу: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_7Wqhz8xs]
17. Дугин А.Г. Теория многополярного мира / А. Г. Дугин. - Режим доступу: [http://bit.ly/137kqHz]
18. Ashley R. The Powers of Anarchy: Theory, Sovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life / R.Ashley // Derian D. (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations. -London : MacMillan, 1995.
19. Ashley R. The Eye of Power: The Politics of World Modeling / R.Ashley // International Organization. -1983. - Vol. 37, No. 3 Summer. - С. 495-535.
20. Darian Der J. (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations. London: MacMillan, 1995.
Стаття надшшла до редакцп 12.04. 2013.
O. V. Telpis
MODERN THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DURING
GLOBALIZATION
The author describes the main trends and developments of the modern world. Emphasis on globalization and development of information technology that leads to an active increase of the relevance of Communication sector. The study of international relations entails the study of discourse about them - which is a basic tenet of the theory of constructivism.
Key words: globalization, international relations, discourse, discourse of the political leader, politics, constructivism.
