Translated material
Dialogue of values
A couple of days ago, namely, on May 26, an intellectual event ended, quite significant not only for Moscow and Russia, but also for the world as a whole. A large number of experts covered by world glory were gathered in the walls of the GU-VSE in order to discuss the issues of the dialectical interaction of the two seemingly distant spheres of human life-economy and culture was called the event simply, but with the taste of “Samuel Huntington’s memory symposium: culture, cultural changes and economic development”.
In favor of the fact that the event is of great importance, in addition to a large number of eminent foreign guests, and the fact that it was visited by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev testifies. Having met with the participants of the symposium, he, emphasizing the importance of the topic that scientists discussed in this forum, said that it is necessary to approach economic problems, based not on “ naked economic pragmatism, but to study the relationship between culture, morality and economic development <...> now, after we all underwent in 2009 during the financial crisis, it becomes completely completely becomes completely. The global relationship is obvious between all these phenomena in the modern world and the need for a broader approach to economic problems, not based only on naked economic pragmatism . ”
I must say that this is the second similar symposium on the “topic”. The first took place during the lifetime and active participation of Huntington himself in 1999 and was called "the cultural values and progress of mankind." It is characteristic and noteworthy that the participants, if in their speeches, what the ideas of the already deceased corhafi of Western social thought, then not later (the “clash of civilization”, obsessed with his teeth ”), and those thoughts, thanks to which he gained the glory of a serious political scientist in the 1970s, namely his reading of the theory of modernization and its influence on the political order in the undergoing changes in the undergoing changes in the undergoing changes societies.
Among the guests of the current event was not only the current president of Russia, but also the former heads of various states, the winners of Nobel Prizes, politicians, scientists, and theologians. It is especially necessary to distinguish the political sociologist Ronald Inglehardt, the theologian Michael Novak, who is less known in Russia, thanks to his book, which was translated into Russian, “The Inadvertent consequences” of the social theorist of Dipak Lala (soon their interviews will appear on the “Russian Journal”), as well as the coordinator of the current assembly of Yevgeny Yasin and the film director Andrei Konchalovsky, who is, who is It is becoming more and more famous for its achievements in the field of political journalism.
On this, probably, the actual section should be completed and proceed to the estimates of the event itself. Each of the participants in the symposium made his own report, fitting into the framework that were outlined by the organizers of the event. One of those who were expected with special impatience was Ronald Inglehardt, who read the report “Cultural changes have important consequences”. This researcher is almost unfamiliar in Russia, although it is he who is one of the creators of the world sociological project “World Value Survey”. However, to say that I did not hear anything about Inglhardt in our country at all would mean shouting with my soul. In 1997, the magazine "Polis" published a translation of his articles about values in rapidly changing societies with the simple name "postmodern: changing values and changing societies." If someone who is familiar with his works of the 1970s would have met this report, would understand that this political scientist does not say anything new. All that he began to talk about in the 1970s, Inglehardt repeats today , representing our attention, only new sociological data. We also agree that the name of the report is not just banal, but represents the thesis with which it is simply impossible to argue and which is self -evident.
In his speech, the speaker, the author of a huge number of books, argued, in particular, that “values are a key factor in culture”; He also said that in sociological studies it is necessary to study not only the values of democratic and prosperous countries, but also undemocratic and poor, otherwise, which values are not obvious to Western democracies, will not be clear. We agree that these postulates do not require evidence.
It was further approved that during the transition from an industrial society to a post -industrial society, a tremendous change in the structure of dominant values occurs: values of self -expression are replaced by survival values. Definitely, the values of self -expression are characteristic of the developed countries of the West and, if we compare them, then, sorry for the pun, are much more valuable. About the same thought sounded in the report of Valery Chirkov, who, comparing the attitude of the inhabitants of the two countries - Canada and Russia - (though why they, with the exception of subjective reasons, were not called others - if only “climatic conditions”) said that the inhabitants of Canada live better than in Russia, and therefore feel psychologically more comfortable. I can’t say whether other theses that were alternative to this approach sounded in other reports, but the main idea of the speakers is clear.
If you like, I will give another example. When Yevgeny Yasin in his replica, which sounded as a reaction to a report on the rating of the values of the Western sociologist Richard Nisbett, said that the United States violated the conditions of the game, in words promoting economic responsibility, but in fact, abandoning this principle, and asked that the speaker was thinking about this, the speaker answered: “ I have a different approach ” to what was discussed. So the main idea of Western scientists is clear: all values are valuable, but the values inherent in Western democracies are more valuable. (Although it must be admitted that Nisbett at the end of his report announced that there will be no unified system of values in the future, but there will be several competing systems. However, it is clear that any conclusions can be removed from such a parcel).
When Valery Chirkov began to regret that in Russia people do not live in Canada, Andrei Konchalovsky already answered him: “ I have the feeling that I am at a meeting of doctors, where everyone in unison is repeated, that of two people is healthy and the second is sick. The fact that the patient is sick is bad, and it would be good for him to recover. However, no one says how to cure him . ” “ I ask ,” said Konchalovsky. - How to treat it? ". To this, Chirkov replied that no one could know this, and the one who finds out will receive the Nobel Prize.
So from the reports a rather sad impression is created. However, this does not mean that the event itself was poorly, or that its holding was unnecessary. Just the opposite. It’s good that such symposias are organized. After all, only thanks to them you can see what language Western experts speak in, and the fact that this language is very different from Russian. What was the subject of acute discussions in Western political science in the middle of the twentieth century was now nullified.
Political scientists conduct quantitative studies on values based on values and serve this under the sauce of scientific analysis and serious theoretical calculations. In this sense, the reproach of Dipak Lala Ronald Inglehardt is more than fair. Disagreeing with the approach of the latter, Lal said that in addition to the values that Inglehardt is discussing, there are global values, cosmological values that do not fit into the framework of any calculations. That is, value is not at all what is amenable to measurement; The operationalized concept is no longer the concept of what it was originally.
However, this reproach was left without attention. As a result, Inglhardt could not even think that “national pride” as such and “national pride”, driven into the questionnaire and quantitatively processed are completely different things. Moreover, he began to argue when Lal mentioned the phrase “global values”, that both nations and civilization can also be a unit of analysis ... Dipak Lal replied that it is impossible to approach the tools of economic analysis to more complex cultural phenomena, that sociologists should not advise politicians, how to do the same during decision -making. The co -racer of Inglehardt began to object to this, who said that in fact they studied not only material values, but also spiritual ones. And this passage clearly testified to the elementary misunderstanding of Lala's logic.