Scientific life. Congresses, conferences, and symposia

On December 5-7, 2005, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences hosted the conference "The Social Image of the East and Comparative Studies", dedicated to the memory of the prominent Russian orientalist Alexey Ivanovich Levkovsky (1924-1985). The conference was organized by the Department of Comparative Theoretical Research of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Employees of the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, other scientific and educational institutions, and students of A. I. Levkovsky took part in its work.

In 2005, the 20th anniversary of the death of A. I. Levkovsky was celebrated. In this regard, the purpose of the conference was to pay tribute to the memory of this remarkable scientist, to evaluate his contribution to Russian Oriental studies.

Since Levkovsky's death, the country and the world have undergone dramatic changes. An important task of scientists is to understand the changes experienced by Eastern society in the context of globalization, the deployment of scientific and technological progress and other processes taking place in the world. At the same time, the analysis of these problems should be interdisciplinary, multi-factorial, and take into account not only economic, social, but also socio-cultural factors.,

page 156

ethno-confessional and political factors. Of course, only certain facets of these complex processes could be discussed at the conference.

All social and economic processes in any country are now unfolding in the force field of globalization. The process of globalization has rather ambiguous consequences and leads to the aggravation of economic, social, and ethno - confessional contradictions.

Significant changes took place in the region we studied - in the East: there was a breakthrough, a sharp acceleration in the economic development of not only new industrial countries with relatively small populations, but also the "heavyweights", the largest countries in the world by population-China and India, the first of which became the "world workshop", and the second took one place. one of the leading positions in the information technology and software market.

As a result of the collapse of the socialist system, and then the USSR, the post-socialist countries entered the path of market reforms. Issues of comparative studies of processes in post-socialist and Eastern countries were covered at the conference.

Sociology of the modern East is a relatively young science, including in Russia, where it originated in the last third of the 19th century. According to R. G. Landa (IB RAS), who opened the conference, a well-known American sociologist of Russian origin, Pitirim Sorokin, was one of the first non-orientalists to recognize the greatness of Ibn Khaldun as the founder of the sociology of nomadic and civilized societies.

It should be noted that in Western Europe, among the first works on the problems of sociology, one can mention the collection "exempla", edifying examples, written by the Dominican theologian and encyclopedist Thomas of Cantimpre (also called Thomas of Brabant) around 1254- "The universal good of bees", in which he analyzes the functioning of human society, comparing it with the bee beehive (which was discussed in detail in the chapter "On Bees" in his 20-volume encyclopedia of Nature) [Dictionnaire..., 2002, p. 1392].

Even before the revolution, the works of Russian sociologists were characterized by the absence of the Eurocentrism that was typical of Western studies of problems of Eastern society, "the Eurocentric arrogance that permeated geoculture for at least two centuries" (Wallerstein, 2003, pp. 249-250). The desire to contrast the West and the East, Eurocentrism, and now we can even talk about "Americanocentrism", which is often hidden under the guise of globalism, persists in Western science even at the end of the XX century, for example, in the theory of the" conflict of civilizations " by S. Huntington. However, he himself contrasts not only the West and the East, but also Western and Orthodox civilizations. French sociologist Emmanuel Todd, who has criticized Huntington's views, says that there is a fundamental cultural conflict between the United States, where " society developed due to the immigration of an already literate population to land fertile for agricultural development," and the countries of Western Europe, Japan, and the entire Old World, where "societies were formed in the first place." as a result of the hard work of many generations of poor peasants." These societies "preserve in a kind of genetic code an instinctive understanding of the essence of the category of economic equilibrium" 1, which was the basis of different approaches in the United States and in the Old World to work and economy, which are of great civilizational significance [Todd, 2004, p. 201]. However, and the views of F. Fukuyama's ideas about the universalization of liberal democracy and the formation of a homogeneous world, about the "end of history", which also go in the direction of globalism, raise serious objections. Obviously, we should take into account the multiculturalism and uniqueness of all societies, and not put globalism or Eurocentrism at the forefront, bringing all countries to the same denominator. And the works of A. I. Levkovsky played an important role in understanding the uniqueness of Eastern societies, their essential difference from Western societies.

A significant part of the conference presentations was devoted to the analysis of A. I. Levkovsky's theoretical views and his theory of multi-structure.

R. G. Landa (IB RAS) in his report "A. I. Levkovsky and the Sociology of the East" reviewed the history of Russian sociology of the modern East. He described the works of the first Russian sociologists L. I. Mechnikov and M. M. Kovalevsky. R. G. Landa noted that the most important question in the sociology of the East is what should prevail in the relations of the West with it, a fruitful dialogue or a destructive confrontation. Analysis of social processes

1 Here it is appropriate to recall the "genome of the East", a category proposed by A. M. Petrov and which became the topic of a conference in April 2004 at IMEMO RAS.

page 157

In the East, Western scientists were often hindered by the colonialist approach, in the USSR-by the desire to adapt Eastern realities to European models, and in the post - Perestroika period-by the desire to oppose "world civilization", i.e. the West, to "unlimited despotism" in the East.

R. G. Landa emphasized that in the 1960s and 1970s, Russian Oriental studies achieved considerable success in studying Eastern society, and many dogmas and postulates were undermined - about one-line development, the avant-garde role of the working class, the constant reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie, Eurocentrism, the petty bourgeoisie in the European sense of this term, the dominance of the class struggle in relation to international relations and interreligious. Russian Oriental studies is responsible for developing ideas about the progressive role of nationalism in certain conditions, the role of the intelligentsia and the middle strata as an independent social force. As R. G. Landa emphasized, what was developed in the 1960s and 1980s can and should serve as a basis for serious scientific progress, rather than for precocious and short-lived sensations.

R. G. Landa noted: "In the development of Oriental sociology and political economy in our country, a major role belongs to A. I. Levkovsky, who was the first or one of the first to draw attention to the presence of special features and phenomena inherent only in the East, unique patterns and original structures", to the specific "pluralism of socio-economic development of the East". The basis of the transition of Eastern society, as A. I. Levkovsky wrote, is "multi-structure - an unusual combination of individual ways of life, a quantitative ratio of the components of individual ways of life" [Levkovsky, 1970, p. 9; Levkovsky, 1978(2), p. 20]. His opponents asked him whether there is a multi-structure in Europe. A. I. Levkovsky usually answered that in Western societies, multi-structure is something secondary, a certain "contamination" of the main dominant formation, and for Eastern societies it is a fundamental, essential characteristic. He noted an extremely long, protracted transition period and a huge incompleteness in replacing previous types of production, which show amazing survivability and adaptability. Fernand Braudel spoke of " the resistance of culture to attempts to destroy it." Culture originated in the East earlier than in the West, so there are especially many strata there. Multiculturalism is associated with multiclassness and social diversity. There is a clash of heterogeneous class coalitions, there are no class-to-class schemes, and in the East, a coalition of classes confronts another coalition.

R. G. Landa also touched upon the history of the concept of "multi-layered". In the 1960s, the works of Russian scientists spoke about the socio-formational heterogeneity of the East. Thus, V. N. Nikiforov wrote about a mixed formation, a combination of the communal-slave system, the Asian mode of production, and slave-feudal structures; all these combinations are special cases of multi-structure. The Asian mode of production is a combination of feudal and feudal-patriarchal despotism, feudal slavery and patriarchal community. L. I. Reisner spoke about a synthesized or heterogeneous structure, N. A. Simonia - about homogeneous structures and synthesized structures. Some scientists have noted the polymorphism of Eastern society. Nevertheless, R. G. Landa emphasized that A. I. Levkovsky's contribution to substantiating the postulate that "the socio-formational (and other) heterogeneity of Eastern society, its multi-structure is its main, fundamentally important feature" is indisputable.

Often, the "multi-laymen" were accused (and continue to be accused) of the static nature of their theory, which supposedly only states the fragmentary nature of Eastern society, while ignoring its movement and development mechanisms. A. I. Levkovsky's approach to this question, especially in his recent works, was quite dialectical. "A multi-layered economy," he noted in 1985, " is characterized by a significant disintegration of its constituent parts. However, it happens that the degree of disintegration is exaggerated and even absolutized in the sense that insurmountable gaps are drawn between ways of life and their combinations. In real life, in the evolution of a transitional society, the disunity of ways of life, of course, does not disappear, but ultimately there is a growing tendency to involve an increasing number of social segments in the overall process of reproduction and to intensify this process... The transitional society is moving, changing, being rebuilt, and elements of the "formation breakthrough " are multiplying" [Bourgeoisie..., 1985, p. 9].

V. G. Rastiannikov (IB RAS) in the report "A. I. Levkovsky as a scientist" described the "milestones", in his words, the work of A. I. Levkovsky. Already the 1956 book " Some especially-

page 158

The History of the development of capitalism in India" was a significant contribution to Russian indology, it gave an idea of the directions of development of capitalism in colonial society on the example of India. The second work on capitalism in India (the monograph "Peculiarities of the development of capitalism in India", 1963) laid the foundations for the research approach that he later implemented in his theory of multi-structure. In this monograph, Alexey Ivanovich clarified some questions of the theory based on the Indian material, in particular the question of the division of capital as a function and capital as property. The system of managing agencies studied by A. I. Levkovsky on the example of India is a system of capital that relies directly on power, on monopoly in the system of implementation, on a system of other, non-purely capitalist levers, through which and through which it establishes dominance over capital-property.

The second stage in the scientific activity of A. I. Levkovsky is connected with his studies of socio-economic processes taking place in the East and, more broadly, in the "third world" as a whole. This man with such diverse scientific interests was not limited to India. He developed an algorithm for studying multicomplexity. A. I. Levkovsky acted as an excellent polemicist, as a theorist of the super-regional level. He was a brilliant organizer of science, an informal leader who really led the research process, attracted people who respected him as a scientist, as a Person. The theory of multiculturalism is a systematic approach, a vision of all socio-economic processes in the "third world". A. I. Levkovsky was a real generator of scientific ideas. The theory of multiculturalism became the central idea of the collective research "Foreign East and Modernity". A. I. Levkovsky's system was characterized by an approach that assumed the use of an additional determinant - a political factor-along with the concept of "production relations", which made the scientist's concept holistic.

Under the leadership of A. I. Levkovsky, a series of collections and collective monographs on the problems of social structures and classes was published, and his introductory articles to them represent a complete conceptualization of the problem under consideration. The collective monograph "The Social Image of the East" (1990) is a generalizing work that continues the research of A. I. Levkovsky. The socio-economic aspect of the dynamics of the development of the East, to the study of which A. I. Levkovsky made a great contribution, is in demand, it is organic to the direction of research that we adhere to as multi-specialists, said V. G. Rastyannikov.

A. M. Petrov (IB RAS) considered the origins of the theory of multiplicity. The socio-formational heterogeneity of the East - multi-structure, he stressed-was discussed in such works as" Centuries of Unequal Struggle "(1967) and" On a New Path " (1968), written by the Russian researcher V. I. Pavlov. At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928, it was said that more than two-thirds of humanity lives in colonial and dependent countries with heterogeneous social relations, unequal ways of life, and that in China "there is a motley economy" [VI Congress of the Comintern..., 1929-1930, p. 368]. The question of the heterogeneity of the socio-economic structure of Asian countries arose in connection with the polemical struggle that was waged at the Congress against L. D. Trotsky, who regarded China as a country no different from any other capitalist country.

The conference also addressed the topic of discussions in Soviet Oriental studies about multiculturalism in the 1970s and 1980s. Note that these discussions were often very fierce, they were conducted using administrative resources, given the position held by one of the participants in the discussion - R. A. Ulyanovsk. A. I. Levkovsky himself called his polemic in the press with R. A. Ulyanovsk "correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky".

R. G. Landa noted that V. G. Rastiannikov, V. V. Krylov, N. A. Simonia, and G. K. Shirokov worked on the problems of socio-economic development of the East. Various concepts of Soviet social scientists-Orientalists ("multiculturalism", "duality", "synthesis of traditional and modern", "dependent development" , etc.) can be considered not so much different models as fixations of various aspects of Eastern society, although the concepts listed above are essentially different, they represent the current appearance of the East in different ways and, hence, its history, at least new and recent. However, let us repeat that multiculturalism is the basis on which all other concepts are built, including those that criticize or even reject it in the heat of controversy [Landa, 1990, p.36-37].

page 159

V. G. Rastiannikov , an active and passionate participant in past discussions, admitted that he did not share all the views and approaches of A. I. Levkovsky. In his opinion, the two areas that Levkovsky worked on - the public sector and state capitalism in developing countries and the problem of the petty bourgeoisie on a much larger scale than in the "third world" alone - were controversial. V. G. Rastiannikov believes that the diversity of both forms of capitalism and its stages would be more accurately expressed through the concept of "multi-stage capitalism". However, this point of view of V. G. Rastiannikov did not prevent him from appreciating the contribution of A. I. Levkovsky to science. V. G. Rastiannikov summed up the results of past discussions: "Today we can say that the clash of views on the issues of multiculturalism was a boon for science, for Russian Oriental studies. We have moved away from the position that in Oriental science there is one truth, and "everything else is false." Socio-economic Oriental studies, like any other branch of scientific knowledge, is a spectrum of directions, ideas, and this is the basis of its development, only in a complex of varieties can it represent a holistic unity."

N. A. Dlin, V. N. Ulyakhin, N. N. Tsvetkova, and A.V. Kiva also spoke at the conference about the significance of the problems developed by A. I. Levkovsky today, taking into account the colossal changes that have taken place in the world in the context of globalization, the collapse of the USSR, and the transition of post-socialist countries to market reforms. IV RAS).

N. A. Dlin in his report "Alexey Ivanovich Levkovsky and our time" noted that the analysis of early forms of capitalism in developing countries in the works of A. I. Levkovsky still remains very relevant for post-Soviet states, where it is often the early capitalist forms of capitalism that develop in the form of multi-stage leasing with a huge number of intermediaries, with primitive forms of lending, with N. A. Dlin came to the conclusion that the processes that are now taking place in the transitional post-socialist countries and their specifics are probably more understandable to Orientalists than to representatives of other branches of socio-humanitarian science, and it is Orientalists who could make a significant contribution to choosing the most effective model socio-economic development of Russia.

V. N. Ulyakhin noted that in the work of A. I. Levkovsky there is a connection of times, the ability to recognize the contours of the future. In his early works on India, A. I. Levkovsky was the first to identify the main features that would determine the development of the national economy in the future. He emphasized that the development of industrial methods of production took place in India earlier than the formation of local capitalist relations. Hence, the lack of maturity of local capitalism in socio-economic terms. At the same time, already in the 1950s, prerequisites were created for India's active participation in international economic relations, in what is now called globalization. V. N. Ulyakhin gave interesting information: Fortune magazine in its December 2005 issue reported that R. Aumann was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2005 and T. Schelling for his work on multistructural conflict and cooperation at the individual and macro-economic levels in relations between the United States and the former USSR; they were the basis of US policy during the Cold War. In their analysis of multistructural interaction, they use game theory. Traditional inter-layering can be considered as non-cooperative games in which participants have both common and opposite interests.

N. N. Tsvetkova noted that the whole life of A. I. Levkovsky was Overcoming a serious physical illness (the feat of "St. Alexy the Multi-Stoner") (he can be compared with Nikolai Ostrovsky or with the English mathematician S. Hawking, about whom much has been written recently).

In the 1970s, the Institute of Oriental Studies employed a galaxy of brilliant scientists, many of them in the Department of General Problems of Modern Development in Asia and North Africa. A. I. Levkovsky, L. I. Reisner, R. G. Landa, V. G. Rastiannikov, N. A. Simonia, G. F. Kim compiled the monograph " Foreign East and modernity." G. K. Shirokov and V. A. Yashkin dealt with the same problems of socio-economic development of the Eastern countries during this period. There were frequent discussions, sometimes violent. And today, subsequent generations of Orientalists call them their Teachers. Now the concept of multi-layout has become a textbook, it is

page 160

it is included in university curricula. However, it is a shame that, as a rule, there are no references to the works of both A. I. Levkovsky and his opponents in discussions.

A. I. Levkovsky's contribution to science, however, is not limited to a single multi-layered approach. The development of many problems, including those in the collections of the "Way of Life and Class" series published under the leadership of A. I. Levkovsky, can be used today for comparative studies of developing countries and Russia: large capital and monopolies, foreign capital and foreign entrepreneurship, the non-factory proletariat, the lower strata of the city, problems of pauperism and lumpenism, declassified social structures, etc. layers. All these problems and categories are present in the modern socio-economic reality of Russia and the post-Soviet space.

Many provisions that are important for understanding modern realities are contained in one of the last monographs of A. I. Levkovsky " The Petty bourgeoisie - the image and fate of the class "(1978). Speaking about the United States, A. I. Levkovsky mentions the petty-bourgeois nature of the entire American way of life with its cowboy enterprise. Important (and, unfortunately, not only purely theoretical) are the statements of A. I. Levkovsky about fascism: "the unbalanced petty bourgeois strongly swung the pendulum, and sentimentalism was replaced by cruelty, spinelessness - by the rage of a maniac, solitude-by collective demonstrations and orgies of stormtroopers", about nationalism: "the petty bourgeoisie is the guardian and storehouse of all the people national, but everything without much discrimination; here is both the great and the beautiful... here is the base and disgusting (obscurantism, superstition, fanaticism, narrowness)" [Levkovsky, 1978(1), pp. 24, 71, 78]. A. I. Levkovsky argued that the concept of petty-bourgeoisness is much broader than the concept of the petty bourgeoisie. A. I. Levkovsky was one of the first to write about such a popular topic in Russian literature today, like the middle class: the "new middle classes" are white-collar workers, the "old middle classes" are small producers.

A.V. Kiva (IB RAS) proposed his own scheme of multi-structure in modern Russia. After shock therapy in Russia, we can talk about such ways as the natural-economic way. State-owned enterprises lost their working capital, natural exchange between enterprises increased, and non-payments increased. We can also talk about the structure of criminal capital; what is unique is that it did not arise on the periphery of business, not in such areas as drug trafficking, prostitution, gambling, but in banking and industrial production as a result of the redistribution of state property. At the same time, criminal business and the structure of the shadow economy are not the same thing. There are also such structures as financial pyramid capitalism, corrupt or bureaucratic capital, Russian private financial speculative capital, foreign financial capital that operated in the country on the basis of GKO - OFZ financial pyramids, and foreign entrepreneurial capital. In addition, there are subsistence and small-scale commodity farms, collective farms in the city and countryside, small-and medium-sized capitalist farms, large national and "comprador" capital, state capitalism, private-state capitalism, and mixed-type enterprises.

Note that from a political and economic point of view, the interesting scheme of A. V. Kiva seems controversial, since the way of life is a type of production relations, there is a confusion of the concepts of "way of life" and "capital"; in addition, usually the ways of life were not distinguished by industry principle. Nevertheless, this scheme successfully reflects some facets of modern reality. And then it is appropriate to consider multiculturalism not as a dogma, but as a tool for analyzing society. It is obvious that defining the model of multiculturalism that exists in Russia is a very difficult task that still needs to be solved.

A.V. Kiva's speech led to a lively discussion not only on such issues as defining the ways of life that exist in Russia, but also on the problem of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

R. G. Landa noted that bureaucratic capital and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie everywhere, as the experience of the Eastern countries shows, create a tendency to stagnation. This capital makes a profit at no extra cost. Power creates wealth, and this union of wealth and power - bureaucratic capital-does not seek change, since development is associated with risk. The tendency of bureaucratic capital is to keep things as they are, sit still, and thrive. Private capital cannot afford it, and competition does not allow it. A pure bureaucrat can't afford it either, and they may be dismissed for inefficiency. The symbiosis of power and wealth-bureaucratic capital-is disastrous for development. Criminal, bureaucratic-

page 161

However, the Comprador bourgeoisie is pathologically stealing, because it is afraid that its time is very short.

L. F. Pakhomova (IB RAS) pointed out that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is a transitional form. Previously, in Indonesia, the share of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the elite was high. In Indonesia, the economic crisis hit it particularly hard, there was a regrouping of forces. Of the 200 conglomerates associated with the Suharto Presidential Palace, many have gone bust. Some members of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie dropped out of the ruling elite. The percentage of military personnel in the elite has decreased. The role of the Parliament has been strengthened.

Alexander Novichkov (RUDN University) stated that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie does not play a role in a normal market economy. Progress in the development of a market economy has generated a social consensus in Western European countries. In many European countries, there is a mixed economy; capital and business are shared with society, income is redistributed - this is the Swedish experience.

Note that the refutation of A. I. Novichkov's statements was already contained in its very formulation, because the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is a category inherent not in a normal, i.e., developed, market economy, but in a transitional economy.

An important place at the conference was occupied by the consideration of various aspects in the development of Eastern society, not only purely social problems, but also economic, socio-cultural and ethno-confessional problems. Among the problems raised at the conference, and not always stated as the main topic of reports, it is necessary to highlight a cluster of problems of globalization and immigration related to globalization.

V. T. Rastiannikov pointed out in his report: "A new central idea that has emerged in recent years is globalization. Each country will represent a cell in a global matrix dominated by those who are an adequate agent for borderless capital. How to interpret multiculturalism and the transition of society in the context of globalization is an important area of research."

З. I. Levin (IB RAS) in his report "Personality in the context of globalization" proposed an interesting scheme for dividing individuals into three categories depending on their place and role in the process of globalization: outsiders, autochthons in the active zone of globalization, and cosmopolitans. From the point of view of Z. I. Levin, outsiders are objects of globalization, experience its indirect impact, and are held captive by traditions. Many of them tend to view globalization as a universal evil. There is a radicalization of their consciousness. In the mentality of autochthonous people who are in the active zone of globalization, national and transnational consciousness coexist. They remain under the rule of one country, but are subject to the rules of a multinational corporation. The cosmopolitan is a product of globalization. The possibilities of transnational territorial movement form a certain average personality type, which theoretically has a wide range of social connections. However, the cosmopolitan lacks the conditions for the formation of personality-a permanent social environment and stable sociality.

Levin's scheme aroused interest and became the subject of discussion. A.V. Akimov (IB RAS) spoke about the enormous impact of both the media and the Internet on the world's population.

It should be noted that already in the early 1980s, when the word "globalization" was not yet in use, the Chilean sociologist O. Sunkel said that all classes and strata in both developed and developing countries are divided into groups that are integrated into the TNC system and remain outside this system. The latter represent the vast majority of the population in developing countries. The incomes of those "not integrated into globalization" are falling, the situation is getting worse, which is especially noticeable due to the demonstration effect, which increases due to advertising and mass media [Transnational Enterprises..., 1980, p.65-67].

There are many challenges associated with globalization. Globalization and Islam, the role of the international direct investment movement in globalization, the problem of integrating countries into the globalization process - these aspects of globalization were touched upon by the conference participants in their speeches.

R. M. Sharipova (Institute of Islamic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) spoke about socio-cultural problems related to Islam and globalization. According to her, Islamic education is seen as a kind of shield protecting the Muslim world from the negative processes of globalization that are gaining momentum. Islamic countries are concerned about how to preserve their identity, culture and civilization, and counteract the homogenization (gradual loss) generated by modern globalization.-

page 162

countries, peoples, and cultures of their specific features, and the erasure of national features) and hegemonization - the transformation of the United States into a world leader and monopolist.

N. A. Dlin said that in the context of globalization, each of the post-socialist countries needs to fit into the market world community. At the same time, the chosen development model should suit not only the elite, but also society, whose interests are opposite or, in any case, difficult to match.

V. N. Ulyakhin noted that the changing position of developing countries in the world capitalist economy generates opposite trends under the influence of scientific and technological progress, global organization, on the one hand, and multiculturalism, on the other. When choosing a technology initiative, the center has to focus on the ability of the periphery to perceive this impact.

N. N. Tsvetkova touched upon the problem of foreign private capital and foreign entrepreneurship in the context of globalization. The international movement of foreign direct investment (FDI) has grown enormously, its inflow to all countries of the world in 2000 reached its peak - $ 1270.7 billion, in 2004 it amounted to $ 648.1 billion. In 2004, developing countries accounted for 36.0% of all global FDI inflows. 63.3% of these investments in 2004 went to the countries of South, South-East and East Asia, which indicates a huge increase in the role of these countries in the international direct investment movement (in 1967, their share was 13.5%), an increase in their share of direct investment in the world. roles in the global economy 2 . Since the 1990s, Russia has become a country that accepts FDI, and it is possible to speak about the emergence of a foreign business structure in it.

At one time, the collections of the "Way of Life and Class" series, published under the scientific supervision of A. I. Levkovsky, analyzed various classes and social strata in the East.

L. F. Pakhomova, as if complementing this analysis, considered the problem of the Southeast Asian countries ' elites on the example of the models of Singapore and Brunei. In Singapore, the elite is looking for talented people with innovative abilities. A team of like-minded people is being created. The best school leavers are sent to study at the most prestigious educational institutions in the world at public expense. In Singapore, the principle of meritocracy applies to the formation of the elite in the selection of personnel. Brunei has been ruled by the Balkiah family, the oldest ruling monarchy, for more than 400 years. The Sultan is the commander - in-chief, his brother is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For the Singapore elite, the key word is "trust"; for the Brunei elite, "calmness"; they govern the country based on traditional principles combined with the basics of Islam.

Traditionally, an important place in the analysis of social problems in the East was occupied by the problem of urbanization-consideration of the types of the eastern city. Z. N. Galich (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in her speech "Colonial cities in the East - time and spatial boundaries" paid attention to the problems of urban-sociological historiography. She described various concepts of urbanization (Sh. Eisenstadt, W. Armstrong, P. Buquet, K. Geertz, T. J. McGee, F. Hauser, B. Hoselitz, G. Scheberg, M. Castells). In the 1980s and 1990s, she noted, a global - historical approach was developed that takes into account not only formationality or civilizationality and culture, but also the type of time (cyclical, linear, cyclical-wave, etc.), sociality, relationship with nature, the relationship of object and subject in the process of action, and other factors.

The problem of cities in the East has become a subject of discussion.

B. N. Gashev (IB RAS) noticed that cities change in shape. Technoparks are becoming the most characteristic. This is the plan for the development of the Greater Middle East and the creation of industrial zones. In 14 suburbs of Cairo, there are such zones where the textile industry is developing.

R. G. Landa gave a vivid image that characterizes the multi-layered nature of a modern city in the East: a Bedouin in a burnous grazing a goat at a multi-story building in which the authorities provided him with an apartment.

Among the social problems in the East, in the post-Soviet space, and in the West, the problems of immigrants have become particularly acute. Do immigrants integrate into the host country's society, do they strive to do so and remain excluded, or do they try to maintain their isolation?

2 Calculated from the following data: www.unctad.org./wir.com

page 163

З. I. Levin in his report argued that the conditions for the formation of the identity of immigrants are significantly different from autochthons. The host country's culture dominates. Adaptation does not go without problems. Immigrants and descendants of immigrants feel their disadvantage in the context of social inequality.

R. G. Landa expressed his point of view, arguing with Z. I. Levin. Second-and even third-generation immigrants largely retain the culture of their fathers and grandfathers. Some parts of Birmingham and Nottingham are more like Muslim settlements; when immigrants from Asia and Africa became numerous, they began to settle separately from the indigenous population. Immigrant communities in Europe do not perceive the values of the host country very well; now, for example, Turks in Paris continue to watch mostly Turkish television programs using satellite television.

O. P. Bibikova (IB RAS) focused on the problems that arise in connection with immigration. The example of France shows that Chinese immigrants do not seek to integrate into the host country. In Paris, the Chinese try to get most of their income from tourism from the PRC. They fly to the French capital on Chinese airlines, Chinese buses are waiting for them, they live in Chinese hotels and eat Chinese food. The income of the host country, France, from this tourism is small.

L. A. Birchanskaya (IB RAS) made a report on immigration and problems of the Russian-speaking population in neighboring countries. After the collapse of the USSR, 25 million Russians remained in these countries. The problem of Russian minorities in the post-Soviet countries has become one of the most painful. Russian-speaking minorities living in these countries also feel a connection with Russia. Out of 25 million ethnic Russians, 3.3 million people came to Russia. In addition, there are 4.2 million immigrants from the CIS, mostly illegal, in Russia. Russia, a country with a low population density, is forced to attract immigrants. The influx of legal immigrants can help boost economic growth.

Among the issues of development of the post-Soviet countries discussed at the conference were the problems of market reforms.

I. V. Deryugina (IB RAS) in the report "Land reform in Kazakhstan: history and modernity" described briefly the history of land relations in Kazakhstan. The turning point was in 1995, when a course was taken to develop market relations in agriculture. From 1991 to 2002, the share of agricultural enterprises in the agricultural sector of Kazakhstan decreased from 99.8% to 59.3%, the share of peasant farms increased from 0.1% to 37.4%, and the share of private subsidiary farms and collective gardening - from 0.1% to 3.3%. These figures show how much further Kazakhstan has progressed on the path of reforming the agricultural sector than Russia. In Russia, by 2000, agricultural enterprises accounted for 83%.8% of land, 6.6% for peasant (farm) farms, 5.4% for private subsidiary farms, including collective gardening. To date, land reform in Kazakhstan has passed a certain stage, and a multi-structured agricultural economy has been formed in the country.

G. A. Kochukova (Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in her report "Russia-Kazakhstan in a market economy" positively assessed the experience of reforms in Kazakhstan, which from the very beginning were carried out more purposefully and systematically than in Russia.

Along with social and economic problems, the conference focused on ethno-confessional problems, which are very important in social processes. At one time, the books "Foreign East and Modernity" and "Social Image of the East" analyzed the role of religion in the countries of the East. The problem of Islam and the Islamist movement in the countries of the East (and not only) is very topical.

A. I. Kuprin (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) considered the socio-economic and socio-cultural factors in the development of the Islamist movement in Tunisia. He gave a brief overview of the history of this movement in Tunisia, described its social base. A. I. Kuprin paid great attention to the analysis of the views of the main ideologists of the Islamist movement, Rashid Ghannouchi and Abd al-Fattah Murou, touching upon the interaction of Western and Eastern cultures. Ghannouchi, at a conference at the Los Angeles Islamic Center in early January 1989, called on US Muslims to assimilate the achievements of this country, the culture of the American nation, its language, and history. He stressed that Islamic and Western values can be compatible. Gannouchi would like to free himself from the hegemony of Western culture and from the Western way of life, to build a modern state. -

page 164

a modern Islamic society that, however, could learn a lot from Western culture without getting lost in it.

R. M. Sharipova in her speech "Islamic concepts of education in the context of globalization" pointed out that Islamic concepts of education are based on the idea of reviving the civilizing mission of Islam, their features - the primacy of the spiritual principle, faith and its key role in the educational process, the emphasis on the spiritual and educational functions of education, on the formation of the young generation with an Islamic a worldview that simultaneously has up-to-date knowledge. The Islamic model of education is considered as a means of spiritual and intellectual emancipation of the individual, as a guarantee of preserving Muslim culture and identity, i.e., as an opportunity to create an atmosphere that promotes the strengthening of Islam and blocks the path of demoralizing ideas coming from the West.

I. A. Vorobyova (IV RAS) in her report "The Patriarchate of Constantinople and its place in the Orthodox world" highlighted the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from its inception to the present day, focusing on its key points. Today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has dioceses in Turkey, Greece, North and South America, Western Europe and Australia, and the number of parishioners is more than 3.5 million.

B. N. Gashev (IB RAS), A. M. Medvedeva (MAI), P. F. Novikov shared their memories of A. I. Levkovsky as a scientist and a person.

In conclusion, Tsvetkova noted that the conference was an interesting polyphonic concert - the reports covered a wide range of issues, including globalization, Islam and Islamist movements, problems of immigrants, market reforms in the post-Soviet space. An interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of problems of socio-economic and political development of the modern East was traditional for the works of the Department of General Problems of Modern Development of Asian and African countries and remains very relevant. It can be said that the subject of the conference was not only the role of A. I. Levkovsky's theory of multiculturalism in the sociology of the East and in the analysis of socio-economic processes in the East, but also attempts to analyze multiculturalism in the context of globalization. In addition, Russian Orientalists, as N. A. Dlin aptly noted, " can, perhaps, more quickly than representatives of other spheres of socio-humanitarian science, understand the essence of the social processes that are really going on in the transitional post-socialist countries." And, as V. G.'s speech showed, According to Rastiannikov, the various, in the past, seemingly irreconcilable points of view of the "golden elite" of our Orientalists - economists and sociologists - were actually a bright palette of colors, a set of different approaches that can reflect different aspects of the life of Eastern society.

list of literature

Bourgeoisie and Social Evolution of the East, Moscow, 1985.

Wallerstein I. After liberalism. Moscow, 2003.

Foreign East and modernity. In 3 volumes, Moscow: Chief Editor. east. lit-ry, 1980.

Landa R. G. Sotsial'naya struktura i politicheskaya borba: mnogokladnaya model ' [Social structure and Political Struggle: a multi-layered model].

Levkovsky A. I. The Third World in the modern world (some problems of socio-economic development of multi-layered states). Moscow, 1970.

Levkovsky A. I. Melkaya bourzhuaziya: oblik i sudby klassa [The Petty Bourgeoisie: the Image and Fate of the class]. east. litry, 1978(1).

Levkovsky A. I. Social structure of developing countries (problems of a multi-layered, transitional society). Moscow: Mysl Publ., 1978(2).

Todd E. Posle Imperii [After the Empire], Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2004.

VI Congress of the Comintern, Verbatim report. Issue 4. Revolutionary movement in colonial and semi-colonial countries. Moscow-Leningrad, 1929-1930.

Dictionnaire du Moyen Age. P.: PUF, 2002.

Transnational Enterprises: their Impact on Third World Societies and Cultures. Boulder (Col.), 1980.

Permanent link to this publication: