CC BY
14
Raushan Sartayeva,
Ph. D. (Philosophy), Institute of Philosophy, Politics and Religion,
Kazakhstan
SPECIFIC FEATURES AND PROBLEMS OF SOCIO-CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF KAZAKHSTAN
One of the major tasks facing modern society on our planet is that of survival of state formations, ethnic groups and individuals. This task is doubly important for such states as Kazakhstan, which is still in the process of state and national construction. Our country has faced, and is still facing, several tasks to tackle simultaneously, which the most advanced countries had much more time for solving. Today globalization compacts and speeds up developments, thus complicating the tasks of state construction. The "new world order" also renders the process more difficult, regardless of what project is going to be implemented within the framework of this "order" - neoconservative or multilateral suggesting the even distribution of competence between the United States and its allies, in conjunction with the project of "greater democracy."
As to the problem of state structures, there is a more difficult situation, as many researchers and experts admit. First of all, it is noted that the resource potential of a state decreases, which cannot be said about the tasks facing it. Moreover, the survival of a state, which, according to an apt remark of Nikolai Berdiayev, exists not for making life a paradise, but for not turning it into a hell, depends on how its citizens are consolidated, and on how its political and social system is optimized and is managed. This is why in the conditions of the lower resource potential of states the problems of a dialogue of cultures, types of rationality, institutionalized fixation of common foundations in the cultures of the biggest ethnic groups of Kazakhstan - Kazakhs and
Russians - and the problems of consolidation and formation of new identity and the new basic system of values seem very important.
Dialogue of Cultures in Kazakhstan as
an Effective Instrument of State Construction
In the modern world in the conditions of globalization the need for mutual responsibility of citizens of a state is very great. Most countries proclaim the protection and support of national culture and cultural heritage a priority direction of their domestic policy. Culture is regarded as an effective instrument of national construction, as a means to achieve such crucial strategic aims as national unity and national identity. The well-known American political analyst of Polish origin Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in one of his works that cultural supremacy was an underestimated aspect of the American global might. But this concerns the United States as a superpower. In the situation of our poly-ethnic state, in our view, attention should be paid to the ethnic component of the problem of culture.
After the October revolution of 1917 historical justice has been restored by the legal establishment of Kazakhstan's borders within the USSR.
After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. our country has found itself in a unique historical situation, when there was the need for the legal confirmation of events post factum. We had to solve the problem of our own state construction. One of the major acts in this sphere was work on and adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 1993.
As is known, in the 20th century the geopolitical map of the world changed greatly: many new states came into being, which gained independence as a result of the national-liberation struggle, "velvet revolutions," disintegration of certain states, etc. The list of these new
states included our state twenty years ago. Since then sovereignty (from the legal point of view) has acquired real features, namely, the form of state structure was chosen by our people - presidential republic. New bodies of legislative, judicial, and executive power were formed. However, the process of sovereignization will become real if the specific features of Kazakhstan's cultural development are taken into account and the paradigm of its own development, including cultural development, is correctly created. Evidently, the institution of a state is not only a means of protecting the natural-material resources for maintaining the normal life of its people. It is also a means of preserving cultural identity, that is, full-fledged cultural development for the peoples who have gained the opportunity to build a separate state of their own.
As to Kazakhstan, it has also been drawn in the world process of transferring cultures from the local level to the integrated one. Of course, along with general specific features of this process, there have been specificities of its own in Kazakhstan. This process began in the 19th century and has been passing through several stages to this day. The first stage was connected with the development of the new means of communications and was rather difficult for Kazakh culture, inasmuch as it had entered in a broad contact with western culture through Russian culture. This was reflected, first and foremost, in Kazakh poetry of the 19th century, which was called "zar-zaman" -"poetry of grief."
The second stage connected with the U.S.S.R. was characterized by both negative and positive traits. First, the established borders of Kazakhstan within the structure of the U.S.S.R., which became the state borders of sovereign Kazakhstan. Secondly, a policy was pursued in the changing world aimed at supporting national cultures. Best representatives of Russian culture took part in the implementation of
this policy in Kazakhstan. However, along with this, Kazakhstan had been turned into a place of exile of not only individual persons, but whole peoples. This is why the problem of interrelations of cultures is especially important for Kazakhstan.
This problem remains one of the most crucial during the third, post-Soviet, stage. Kazakhstan remains a poly-ethnic state in which cultures of many different peoples exist and interact. Along with fears that the original features of the peoples inhabiting Kazakhstan can be lost (including the Kazakhs themselves), there are positive aspects in the interaction of these cultures. As is known, human history knows of examples of the emergence of brilliant cultures with a maximally great number of the components forming them, provided these cultures are open and ready to interact and borrow.
The problems of cultural development in post-Soviet states (and, of course, in Kazakhstan) have acquired a special character. In Europe various supra-national alliances are set up, whereas the post-Soviet states build national state models, on the one hand, and on the other, they have to adapt themselves to the conditions of globalization, which requires a high level of economic, scientific and educational development. It is necessary to note that integration tendencies have emerged in the post-Soviet area recently.
We have already mentioned that at present the globalization processes provoke waves of nationalism everywhere, on the one hand, and on the other, increase the role of people's joint efforts in resolving various tasks. This is why in such poly-ethnic countries as Kazakhstan, where the indigenous ethnos is not the biggest numerically, a model of multiculturalism, which is today subjected to criticism from all sides, has no alternative in poly-ethnic communities, in our view. This model should be characterized, above all, by the polyphony of the cultures of
the peoples whose representatives now live on the territory of modern Kazakhstan.
Speaking of the polyphony of cultures, it should be noted that the beautiful sounds of cultures are only possible, in our view, when the community of destiny is properly perceived, which boils down not only to the past and present joint experience, but also to the common aim, that is, the well-being of each person irrespective of his or her nationality.
Perception of the community of destiny will be promoted by the unifying idea, such as the idea of civil society, the Kazakh national idea, the Eurasian idea, and the idea of "ecological revival." I think that at the present stage the idea of universal human values has the greatest potential, which is connected with modern socio-cultural realities of Kazakhstan.
In the present-day world each person refers himself or herself to a definite type of culture, and this is very important because any culture is based on a cognitive attitude to the world. As many researchers assert, each culture "thinks" in its own way, has "its own mentality," which determines its originality and its attitude to other cultures. In other words, each culture has a special type of rationality. The concept of cultural-historical types by N. Danilevsky and O. Spengler's premises on the morphology of culture have pinpointed the problem of a big difference of the types of rationality which form the foundation of different cultures. If cultures cannot be brought together and compared, then it will only be possible to perceive the rationality of another culture trough complete renunciation of one's own culture. This is a very serious and difficult question, and for resolving it the term 'dialogue of cultures" has been introduced. In order to organize and promote such dialogue in our country it will be necessary to investigate the general foundations in the cultures of the Kazakh and Russian
ethnic groups. For this purpose it will be necessary, first and foremost, to investigate the types of rationality forming the foundation of these cultures. The type of rationality is determined by a cognitive attitude to the world which forms the basic values of culture, which are largely similar among Kazakhs and Russians. It would be expedient to regard these values in the context of universal strategy of research, that is, to reveal what is identical, or points of coincidence. It should be noted that the term "rationality" is used in this investigation (just as in many other investigations) as a characteristic of mental and practical actions of man, which does not coincide with the "ideal" perception of rationality. The timeliness of the subject of rationality in this aspect and in the context of the specificities of the modern civilizatory development becomes immeasurably greater. The theme of rationality presents problems of all basic spheres of modern philosophical thinking. The timeliness of this theme is also conditioned by understanding the need to return to it the role of a major cultural value based on perception of the sense bearing of not only human actions and soul's intentions, but also natural phenomena taken in their unity.
Common Grounds in Cultures of the Main Culture-
Forming Ethnic Groups in Kazakhstan
In the modern world the individual has many identities, the most important of which is ethnic identity as one of the forms of social identity. The concept of ethnos presupposes the existence of homogeneous functional and static characteristics which distinguish this group from other groups having different parameters of the same characteristics. There is no generally accepted definition of ethnos, but the most widespread is "ethnos is an ethnosocial organism," or "biosocial organism." In our view, the latter is more correct.
In order to reveal common foundations in the cultures of the Russian and Kazakh ethnic groups it is necessary to examine the concept of "community" in the Russian and Kazakh ethnosocial organization. The Kazakh historian Zh. Artybayev justly believes that ethnosocial organization is a community connected by ties of genealogical, economic, territorial and political relations. Nomadic society is based on various types of connections expressed in the mutual relations and behavior of people, as well as in a series of invisible knots of an integration character. The most essential forms of these connections are ethnic ones, whose pivot is family and sub-ethnic, economic, social, political, administrative and cultural relations.
The concept of "community" has been introduced in scientific parlance by our economists in the early 20th century in connection with the study of the specific features of land tenure of Kazakh people. At the time researchers invariably emphasized the direct connection between economic activity and the family. Certain researchers claim that in the Russian ethnosocial organization community is regarded, above all, as an economic unit, and in Kazakh - as ethnic one.
In our view, the most important aspect is that community in both ethnosocial organizations is a collective of life, which played a major role in the history of both ethnic groups.
Kazakhstan's culture today is represented by the cultures of the two biggest ethnic groups inhabiting our republic - Kazakh and Russian. Not one of them is dominating The Kazakh language is spoken by half the republic's population. And the Russian language spoken by another half is not the national language of Kazakhstan.
Thus, the cultures of the two biggest ethnic groups in our republic form a single whole. These two ethnic groups have values, which seem similar to us: predominance of spiritual-ethical foundations over material ones; collective forms of labor democracy (community,
team); orientation to reasonable sufficiency and self-restraint; ideal of righteous labor; idea of the Earth and Nature as the gift of God to all living beings.
The affinity of civilizatory values of the two basic culture-forming ethnic groups of Kazakhstan can be a good resource for joint progress of our people at present and in the future.
The above-said allows us to make the conclusion that there are no "cultural splits" in Kazakhstan. And it should be noted that the potential of cultural dialogue in Kazakhstan in the conditions of the incomplete transition period in our republic's history largely depends on the responsibility of the political and economic elites for the vector of spiritual and cultural development and the formation of the basic values of society.
Problems of Consolidation and Formation
of New Identity in Kazakhstan
In the modern world the state remains, as before, the main guarantor of the social rights and security of its citizens. But challenges and demands of the development of modern civilization (anthropogenic singularity, problems of the "post-human being", "new world order") contribute to a decrease of the resource potential of a state in the sphere of ensuring its main functions. The sphere of ensuring the social rights and guarantees of social security has a great conflict potential. And fewer possibilities of the state in this sphere (due to the above-mentioned factors) make it ever more vulnerable. This is why the survival of states and individuals living in them is a very important task.
The state construction of our republic and consolidation of its citizens become more complex and depend, in our view, on the following factors: ethnic, social ad confessional heterogeneity of the
population; socio-economic situation of the population; independence and passionarity of the population and its energy; the role of the elites as producers of society's basic values; formation of new basic values.
Kazakhstan is a poly-ethnic state, just as many states of the world. The socio-economic well-being of its population is a very important factor influencing the consolidation of society and state construction. Transition to market relations has contributed to the stratification of society, and globalization has enhanced the division into "subjects and "objects" of globalization at the level of states and at the level of individuals.
One of the main factors determining the socio-economic well-being of the population is the problem of the distribution of social wealth in state construction and consolidation of society. This is why the responsibility of the elites for the preservation and development of democratic institutions is growing in these conditions.
The next major factor influencing state construction and society's consolidation is the emergence of conditions for the formation of new identity after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. Identity should be regarded not as a feature initially inherent in the individual, but as a feature formed in the process of social; interaction.
After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. social relations in all post-Soviet republics have changed, and conditions have emerged for the formation of new identity. In Kazakhstan the formation process of new identity has not taken place so far, but its variants in the form of the "Kazakhstan nation," or "Kazakh nation" cause serious arguments among researchers and the general public.
New approaches to the problem are also necessary for Russia, which should combine the principle of civic nation with the concept of group identity.
The problems of nationalism are examined in the context of the formation problems of national identity. There are two forms of nationalism - civil (France) and ethnic (Israel, Germany). In the conditions of Kazakhstan civil nationalism presupposes recognition of the existence of the "Kazakhstan nation," which does not exist in reality. But what does exist is the Kazakh nation and national minorities which are citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Accordingly, ethnic nationalism presupposes recognition of the Kazakh nation. Nationalism is regarded as the inevitable objective phenomenon, a product of postindustrial society. Not long ago our President used for the first time the term "Kazakhstan nation," which is connected, in our view, with the tasks of uniting the Kazakhstan people in the conditions of the need for solving a whole range of modernization tasks.
A new system of basic values, new ethics of responsibility and unity should become the important foundation of consolidation of all citizens of Kazakhstan. The problems of the socio-cultural progress of our country include the crucial problem of a dialogue of cultures and socio-cultural consolidation. Another aspect of socio-cultural consolidation - national - is connected with the process of the formation of new identity in Kazakhstan. Of course, the formation process of new identity demands that representatives of the ethnic groups living in Kazakhstan give part of their resource to the country they live in. It is important to reach consensus in how big this "part" be, however, it is necessary to reach an agreement.
The systematic, well-substantiated and scientifically-based solution of the problems of socio-cultural development will help successfully solve a whole range of modernization tasks vital for our republic.
"Voprosy filosofii," Moscow, 2013, No 3, pp. 58-67.
