Geopolitical and World-System Factors in the Dynamics of Modern Societies: A Research of Structural Differences
Research Article
-
Anna Anatol’evna Izgarskaya
Institute of Philosophy and Law, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
aizgarskaya@gmail.com
Elibrary Author_id 112723How to CiteIzgarskaya A.A. Geopolitical and World-System Factors in the Dynamics of Modern Societies: A Research of Structural Differences. Vlast’ (The Authority). 2022. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 14-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v30i4.9117
Abstract
Ideas about the structural differences in the models of development of modern societies take place in the content of geopolitical theories and the world-system approach. The article is devoted to identifying these differences and developing a unified theoretical toolkit that allows exploring the complex structure of multiple modern societies. The synthesis of the key concepts of the theory of geopolitical dynamics (bigger territorial size – smaller territorial size, interior position – «marchland» position) and the world-system approach (core, semi-periphery, periphery) formed the basis of the typology of spaces of social relations. The twelve types reflect the basic interconnections of external and internal factors in the dynamics of modern states and societies under their jurisdiction, as well as the structural advantages/disadvantages of their existence. The article provides examples of states and societies associated with different types. The author argues that states of different types have different development strategies and perform different roles in the stages of the hegemony cycle of the world-system. The role of the hegemon of the world system, as a rule, plays the state of the core with a «marchland» position, capable of supporting financial and territorial expansion at the global level for a long time. The «marchland» position of the hegemon turns into a central position as the territory of influence expands. The role of the «challenger» – a state that is able to offer a new form of world order play the states that are similar in characteristics to the type of «semi-periphery with a territorial advantage and a central position in the system». As a conclusion, the author notes that typology can give significant results in the study of modern processes in Russia and the societies of the post-Soviet space.Keywords:world-system approach; geopolitical theory; dynamics of societies; territory of influence; cycles of world-system hegemonyReferences
Arrigi Dzh. 2006. Dolgii dvadtsatyi vek: den'gi, vlast' i istoki nashego vremeni. M.: Territoriya budushchego. 472 s. (RUS.)
Bezrukov L.A. 2006. Kontinental'no-okeanicheskaya dikhotomiya v mezhdunarodnom i regional'nom razvitii: avtoref. dis. … d.geogr.n. Irkutsk. 51 s. (RUS.)
Vallerstain I. 2015. Mir-sistema Moderna. T. I. Kapitalisticheskoe sel'skoe khozyaistvo i istoki evropeiskogo mira-ekonomiki v XVI veke. M.: Russkii fond sodeistviya obrazovaniyu i nauke. 552 s. (RUS.)
Dugin A.G. 2007. Geopolitika postmoderna. SPb: Amfora. 384 s. (RUS.)
Dudin M.N. 2022. Protestnye nastroeniya i uroven' zhizni naseleniya Rossii: kratkii empiricheskii analiz. – Vlast'. T. 30. № 1. S. 9-16. (RUS.)
Izgarskaya A.A. 2002. Rekonstruktsiya geopoliticheskikh kontseptsii. –Makrodinamika: zakonomernosti geopoliticheskikh, sotsial'nykh i kul'turnykh izmenenii. Novosibirsk: Nauka. S. 5-158. (RUS.)
Kollinz R. 2000. Predskazanie v makrosotsiologii: sluchai Sovetskogo kollapsa. – Vremya mira: al'manakh sovremennykh issledovanii po teoreticheskoi istorii, makrosotsiologii, geopolitike, analizu mirovykh sistem i tsivilizatsii. Vyp. 1. Istoricheskaya makrosotsiologiya v XX veke (pod red. N.S. Rozova). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo NGU. S. 234-278. (RUS.)
Kollinz R. 2015. Makroistoriya: Ocherki sotsiologii bol'shoi dlitel'nosti. M.: URSS; LENAND. 504 s. (RUS.)
Rattsel' F. 1906. Zemlya i zhizn'. Sravnitel'noe zemlevedenie. SPb: Izd-vo aktsionernogo obshchestva Brokgauz – Efron. T. 2. 661 s. (RUS.)
Skochpol T. 2017. Gosudarstva i sotsial'nye revolyutsii. Sravnitel'nyi analiz Frantsii, Rossii i Kitaya (per. s angl. M. Moiseeva). M.: Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara. 552 s. (RUS.)
Tsymburskii V.L. 1993. Ostrov Rossiya. Perspektivy rossiiskoi politiki. – Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 5. S. 6-23. (RUS.)
Tsymburskii V.L. 1997. «Ot velikogo ostrova Rossii» (k prasimvolu rossiiskoi tsivilizatsii). – Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 6. S. 34-56. (RUS.)
Alesina A., Spolaore E. 2003. The Size of Nations. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press. 262 p.
Arrighi G. 1990. The Developmentalist Illusion: a Reconceptualization of the Semiperiphery. – Semiperipheral States in the World-economy (ed. by W.G. Martin, I. Wallerstein). N.Y.: American Sociological Association; Greenwood Press. P. 11-44.
Boulding K. 1962. Conflict and Defense. N.Y.: Harper and Row. 349 p.
Helbig R. 2015. NATO-Mongolia Relations: Limited in Scope, but with Room to Grow. – NATO Defense College. № 116. P. 1-13.
Kennedy P. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500–2000. N.Y.: A Division of Random House. 368 p.
Luttwak E.N. 2009. The Grand Strategy of Byzantine Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 498 p.
Sachs J. 1998. International Economics: Unlocking the Mysteries of Globalization. – Foreign Policy. Spring. Vol. 110. P. 97-111.
Sachs J., Mellinger A.D., Gallup J.L. 2001. The Geography of Poverty and Wealth. – Scientific American. Vol. 284. No. 3. P. 70-75.
Stinchcombe A.L. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 320 p.
Svante E.C. 2001. Small Nations and Great Powers: a Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. London: Routledge. 490 p.
Uprety K. 2006. The Transit Regime for Landlocked States: International Low and Development Perspectives. Washington: The World Bank. 205 p.ArticleReceived: 24.08.2022
Citation FormatsOther cite formats:
APAIzgarskaya, A. A. (2022). Geopolitical and World-System Factors in the Dynamics of Modern Societies: A Research of Structural Differences. Vlast’ (The Authority), 30(4), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v30i4.9117IssueSectionTHE MAIN TOPIC
Following the submission of the manuscript to the Publisher, the author binds oneself not to publish it somewhere else without permission of the Publisher.
