Imitation or modernization? Experience of inorganic modernization

Mukhamedzhanova Nuriya Mansurovna ORCID: 0000-0002-6847-2173 Doctor of Cultural Studies Professor; Department of Philosophy, Culturology and Sociology; Orenburg State University 460018, Russia, Orenburg region, Orenburg, Prospekt Pobedy str., 18, office 20806 nuriyam@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Orlova Elena Valentinovna PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Philosophy, Cultural Studies and Sociology; Orenburg State University 460018, Russia, Orenburg region, Orenburg, Pobedy Ave., 18, office 20806 orle-@mail.ru

Introduction

The philosophical and scientific literature analyzing the specifics of Russian modernization increasingly emphasizes the imitative nature of Russian modernization, in particular its most important aspect, such as democratization. At the same time, the very concept of "imitation" has purely negative connotations, is considered as a fake, a simulacrum, etc. ^{[1; 2]}. Let's turn to the content of this concept, as it is interpreted in various sources. So, in the Dictionary of the Russian language S. I. Ozhegov's concept of "imitating" is interpreted as "reproducing with possible accuracy, imitating someone or something", and "imitation" is "faking something" ^{[3, p. 213]}. However, even these dictionary definitions indicate the ambiguity of the very concept of "imitation": first, it means an exact reproduction of something devoid of any negative meaning, i.e. copying an object, someone's activity, etc.; secondly, it can mean direct, outright deception, i.e. a fake. In the latter case, the concept acquires a purely negative meaning.

Let's turn to the first, positive meaning of the concept of "imitation". In traditional society, imitation was considered as a way of mastering any activity. M. K. Petrov calls this method of mastering the skills of professional activity a professionally named sociocode, thanks to which traditional society could accumulate huge amounts of socially useful knowledge. This is a method of social coding, in which the main function of translating knowledge was carried out by the family or foster parents, which allowed young people to assimilate knowledge according to the principle of "do as I do" ^[4]. The main role in the student's work was played by imitation: he learned by repeating after the master. However, according to R. Sennett, such an experience of endless repetition is not a routine that numbs the mind, it allows the master to improve, since "the development of any skill goes from a primitive reproduction of the procedure to a complete understanding of how to use the acquired skills" ^{[5, p. 68; 6, p. 152-153; 7, p. 127]}. In the workshop, under the guidance of the master, the student assimilated applied implicit knowledge and turned it into a habit. This knowledge consisted of thousands of imperceptible everyday movements, which eventually formed the practice. When such a master died, all his techniques, decisions and insights died with him, because he could no longer make implicit knowledge explicit, formulated and recorded. That is why for more than three hundred years, manufacturers of musical instruments have been trying unsuccessfully to find out the secrets of Stradivari or Guarneri violins, which died together with the masters who made them ^{[5, pp. 88-89; 8, p. 50-66; 9; 10, p. 15]}.

It should be noted that Renaissance thinkers distinguished between the concepts of "copying" and "imitation". Thus, the word "imitatio" meant creative reproduction, and "relatio" meant copying ^{[11, p. 22]}. The famous Italian thinker C. Salutati, in one of his letters, explaining his appeal to Cicero's style, writes to his addressee: "You know that I know the custom of our illustrious Cicero and that I like to use my own words. But it's one thing to repeat and another to imitate. For in imitation there is something peculiar to the imitator himself, and not everything from the one whom we imitate; repetition usually copies completely the one whom we repeat" ^{[11, p. 232]}. Imitation meant the ability to transform into the original, to assimilate its spirit and style, to convey individual characteristics. It is in this genre of imitation that the poetic works of many Russian poets were created: Pushkin, Lermontov, etc. Thus, the concept of "imitation" meant not just copying, but a creative rethinking of someone's activity.

In this positive sense, the concept of "imitation" is used today in various spheres of society: in education, in art, in the field of applied technological knowledge, in economics, medicine, etc. Thus, in pedagogy and psychology, imitation is a widespread and actively used educational tool, as well as a method of group identification ^[12]; in the technological sphere, it is the creation of a model of an object or process for the purposes of learning, research, forecasting. In the theory of communication, imitation, imitation is one of the types of communicative activity, an object is a subjective attitude when an individual acting as an object of activity repeats, copies the features of speech, style of clothing, behavior of another person ^{[13; 14; 15]}. Thus, imitation is a necessary aspect of social life, contributing to the development and use of socially useful knowledge.

Imitation in modern modernization processes

However, in most modern studies devoted to the processes of modernization of Russian society, the concept of "imitation" is used, as a rule, in its negative meaning, when it is interpreted as a simulacrum, forgery, virtual reality, deception, etc. For example, A. A. Zinoviev defines this concept in this way: "Imitation is the conscious action of people to create imitation objects, which, according to the plan of these people, should be perceived by some people as original objects. This is done as an imitation, as a fake, for deception, for show, to create visibility, etc. In human history, this is a widespread, familiar, common phenomenon. It is an integral element of the theatrical aspect of human life. We can talk about the degree of imitation of a particular human association as a whole, its individual events, actions of the authorities, parties, etc." ^{[1, p. 322]}. According to the philosopher, imitation was highly characteristic of Soviet Russia with its ostentation, creating the appearance of success, demonstrating the achievements of the socialist way of life, etc. In the post-Soviet period, imitation becomes a deep feature of the social organization of Russia, both of the whole society and its individual elements.

Analyzing this definition, it is necessary to note the following features of the interpretation of this concept: 1) imitation is a conscious action of people (in relation to society – its elite, authorities); 2) this action is carried out with the aim of deceiving the population, society, group, i.e. any human association in a particular country. In this case, imitation is a fake, a simulacrum, an appearance, a "disguise" of real social degradation; 3) one of the striking features of the modernization processes in Russia and other post-Soviet states is imitation democracy, which retains the basic features of an authoritarian regime.

The concept of "imitation" is also negatively interpreted in the work of T. A. Shalyugina: "Imitation acts as a set of socio-cultural practices, social technologies and communicative and rhetorical strategies of subjects of social action aimed at symbolizing and replacing social reality with its simplified similarity – imitation (simulative) reality by saturating sociality with simulative (illusory) images" ^{[2, pp. 89-90]}. This author also emphasizes that 1) imitation is a purposeful, conscious influence of the political elite of society on mass consciousness and behavior; 2) the degree of imitation of society is determined, first of all, by the interests of the ruling power, as well as the degree of socio-political uncertainty of society and the specific socio-cultural environment ^{[2, p. 90]}; 3) the main purpose of social imitation is the symbolic legitimization of the ruling power in society, maintaining social order by manipulating the consciousness of the masses.

From the author's point of view, modern post-Soviet Russia is characterized by excessive imitation, which manifests itself at all levels of the social system: imitation of democracy, constitutional system, party-political competition, modernization, etc. ^{[2, pp. 219-233]}. Modern modernization in Russia is a simulacrum, which, despite its external similarity to a real phenomenon, has nothing in common with it ^{[2, p. 235]}. It is obvious that by "real phenomenon" the author means Western societies, which over the past three centuries have acted as a model for non-Western countries that have embarked on the path of modernization.

Although the author argues that imitation strategies are conditioned by the cultural and historical context, a specific socio-cultural environment ^{[2, pp. 49, 90]}, an unambiguous answer is given to the question of the nature of imitation: imitation is a conscious and purposeful influence on the masses of the ruling elite, carried out in the interests of the government itself. The question naturally arises: Why have imitation practices turned out to be so widespread in the space of post-Soviet states, including Russia? Can post-Soviet modernization be considered a deliberate deception of the Russian population by the current government? In this sense, is Russia a unique phenomenon in the history of modernization on a global scale? What are the reasons for the active spread of imitation practices in modern modernizing societies? To answer these questions, let's turn to the experience of modernization in other, mostly non-Western, countries of the world.

One of the main problems of the modern world, since the XVI century, is the problem of asynchrony of development of different countries, associated with the active development of the West, its promotion to the leaders of world development and the formation of a unipolar world. Scientists interpret the origins of the Western type of culture, which is unique in nature, in different ways: if M. Weber names Protestant ethics as the source of Western modernization, which led to the rationalization of all spheres of public life, then modern authors such as A. S. Panarin, V. S. Stepin, V. I. Tolstykh, etc., link the development of the West first of all, with the ancient heritage, namely with the development of rational logical thinking; with the emergence of Judeo-Christian monotheism, which created the socio-cultural prerequisites for an instrumental attitude to the world; with the formation on this basis of an autonomous personality, free from the dictates of the collective ^{[16, pp. 75-77]}.

This type of modernization, based on internal sources of development, is called organic, endogenous modernization in the theory of modernization. The active development and expansion of the West throughout the world is becoming a challenge to non-Western countries that lacked the cultural prerequisites for such development. In conditions of "time scarcity", non-Western societies were forced to modernize in order to overcome the backlog and protect their independence. In this case, modernization was of an inorganic nature, and the main problem of modernization was the adaptation of foreign cultural innovations to the primordial tradition of their own culture. However, in different countries, this process took place in different ways, depending on both the methods of modernization used by the country's leadership and the socio-cultural specifics of the population.

In modern socio-philosophical science, there are many typologies of modernization, developed on various grounds ^[17]. Let's consider this problem in the context of those meanings of the concept of "imitation" that were highlighted above. In the early stages of history, modernization was understood as copying the experience of Western countries, which acted as a role model for those countries that embarked on the path of modernization. In this case, modernization was understood as Westernization (Europeanization, Westernization, according to A. A. Zinoviev), that is, a complete and consistent copying of the entire Western society: its political system, economic model, culture and personality. And freedom was declared a key indicator of the modernization of society, which was considered as the main prerequisite for social development. Therefore, the elites of societies striving to catch up with the West begin reforms in the country with a change in attitude to freedom, with the democratization of society. However, as a rule, such changes fall on unprepared ground and cause a lot of problems.

One of the main problems of such modernization is the problem of the asynchrony of the development of various spheres of public life, "when society is "removed from its anchors" and rushes towards the desired, but ... unpredictable future" ^{[16, p. 78]}. As the historical experience of inorganic modernizations shows, the highest rates and rhythms of development are characteristic of the political sphere, which during the period of reforms primarily becomes the object of social engineering and which outstrips transformations in other spheres of public life: institutional and managerial, socio-economic, scientific and technical, etc. But the slowest pace is the change of the deep, "nuclear" elements of culture associated with stable ideas, archetypes and images of mass consciousness, with the national mentality. Therefore, the borrowing of forms of organization of socio-political life that are alien to the primordial tradition often leads to the fact that the old, traditional content familiar to the people is invested in them. For example, in the East, the highest positions in the state, as hundreds of years ago, are replaced by the principle of traditional inheritance, as it happened in India, Lebanon, Pakistan, as well as in modern post-Soviet countries. It is precisely this filling of new forms with old content that is perceived by society as an imitation of social modernization, which means that it can lead to discrediting the very idea of modernizing society and weakening its social base. And more than a dozen years must pass before the "form" subordinates the content, is filled with a new meaning, as it is happening today in Muslim Turkey.

In our opinion, this was exactly the experience of modernization in imperial Russia, starting from the era of Peter I. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the position of T. A. Shalyugina, who proves that even then imitations in the Russian Empire "manifested themselves in the following invariants: a) autocracy as a "paternal concern"; b) imitation of progress along the European path; c) indoctrination; d) the symbolic and ceremonial policy of the autocracy; e) the presentation of power through the formation of its positive image" ^{[2, p. 90]}. It is difficult to agree with this position, because 1) the invariants named by the author represent features characteristic in general for all traditional societies with their sacralization of power, focus on religious and mythological values, collectivism and lack of a dedicated personality, strict ideological control, etc. ^{[17, p. 11]}; 2) all these "invariants" belong to the sphere of culture, which It persists even during the period of active modernization due to the inertia of culture, the impossibility of rapid adaptation of cultural tradition to changes in other spheres of public life, that is, they are caused by the asynchrony of the development of different spheres of society.

It is precisely the asynchrony of the development of different spheres of public life that generates "rollbacks" in the implementation of reforms, which provide the necessary time lag for synchronizing processes in various spheres of public life. As the Russian researchers V. I. Pantin and V. V. Lapkin write, the evolution of various "subsystems of society cannot be linear and progressive, since it is associated with internal contradictions, conflicts, political exhaustion and a new accumulation of forces and resources for further progressive development. Therefore, the evolution of society as a whole has a pronounced nonlinear, pulsating, cyclic-wave character" ^{[18, pp. 121-122]}. In this case, the emergence of "kickbacks" and "counter-reforms" is not an anomaly inherent only in Russian society, but a mechanism for the development of all socio-cultural systems.

In addition, as V. I. Pantin and V. V. Lapkin note, the democratic regime in a modernizing country cannot be stable and durable at a low level of its economic development. Referring to the work of Western researchers, the authors write that if the country's "per capita income does not exceed $ 1,500 (at the current exchange rate), the democratic regime on average had an expected "life expectancy" of no more than eight years. With an income of $1,500 to $3,000, he could survive for an average of 18 years. Only with an average per capita income of over $6,000 does democracy become truly viable" ^{[18, p. 121]}. Thus, for the establishment and stable functioning of democratic institutions in a modernizing country, it is necessary to have a serious resource provision, namely, a sufficiently high level of economic development and a stable democratic tradition ^{[19, p. 173]}.

The desire of the elites, in the absence of socio-cultural prerequisites for democratic development, to accelerate the process of modernization through democratization, firstly, leads to a dangerous destabilization of public life due to the destruction of traditional mechanisms for ensuring social order. Secondly, the desire of the elites to overcome these chaotic, entropic processes, the need to choose between freedom and order ^{[20, p. 173-174; 21]} causes a revival of authoritarian tendencies in society and a "rollback" from democratic reforms ^{[22, p. 12]}. And finally, the impossibility of real democratization in society leads to imitation of democratic institutions while preserving their traditional essence, as mentioned above.

Therefore, the introduction of democratic institutions into an inherently traditional society can only be carried out gradually as economic, social, cultural, etc. prerequisites are formed in society, as happened in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other Southeast Asian countries. It is impossible to create in ten years what has been created in European cultures for centuries. The desire of political elites in conditions of "time shortage" to accelerate this process leads either to imitation of Western European "models", or to a serious destabilization of the entire public life.

It is noteworthy that A. A. Zinoviev, who considers imitation to be a deliberate deception by the ruling power of the country's population, indirectly names the reasons for the failure of post-Soviet modernization, which the philosopher sees in violation of the "law of conformity of a social organization to the human material of the country, its historical heritage, its natural and geopolitical conditions. They began to impose a Westernist organization alien to the country. The latter is not suitable for any peoples and any conditions of their existence. The experience of history has shown that for most non-Western peoples it brings enslavement and death" ^{[1, p. 321]}.

Thus, the reason for the emergence of imitation is not always the evil will or stupidity of the ruling elite of society, but ignoring the law of conformity of the introduced innovations with the cultural characteristics of the country, its "human material", as well as the desire of the elites to accelerate the modernization process by forcing the democratization of society.

Therefore, the ruling elites, who understand the complexity of modernization processes in traditional culture and control the modernization process, seek to slow down the time of political innovations in order to allow society and the economy to adapt to the changes taking place. It was along this path of creative interpretation of other people's experience that the reformers of socialist China followed at the end of the 20th century. Realizing that in conditions of low economic development and the absence of a democratic tradition, the Western model of democracy is unattainable for the country, they focused not on the Western "model", but on the result, the only possible one in these conditions. The modernization process in China began with changes in economic relations, reforms in agriculture and industry, which significantly improved the well-being of Chinese citizens and, as a result, support for reforms by the country's population. At that time, democratic freedoms were impossible in a country with a billion people, most of whom were illiterate, and the political culture of the majority was very low. Thus, political reform was limited in nature and subordinated to economic reform. The restriction of democratic freedoms was a condition for maintaining political stability in the country, without which economic reform was impossible. However, today's successes in China's development suggest that, eventually, the country will come to a stable democracy when the necessary socio-cultural prerequisites are created for this ^{[22, p. 13]}.

That is why today hardly any of the researchers will say that in China, which demonstrates significant achievements in various spheres of public life, modernization is imitative. The modernization strategy chosen taking into account the real state of the economy and the cultural and historical specifics of their country allowed the Chinese leadership to avoid these problems.

Conclusion

Thus, the analysis of the stated problem allows us to draw some conclusions regarding both imitation processes in public life and modernization strategies of different countries of the world at the present stage.

Imitation is not always a deliberate, purposeful deception by the state authorities of the gullible population of the country. It arises due to the asynchrony of the development of various spheres of public life: political, economic, socio-cultural. In the absence of democratic traditions, the formation of a modern type of culture is not a one–step process of transition from one value system to another, but a complex contradictory process associated with various conflicts, "setbacks" in development. Therefore, inorganic modernization should be gradual, "catching up" in nature, since it should take into account the peculiarities of the culture of a modernizing society, the rhythms and rates of dynamics of various spheres of the socio-cultural system and adjust modernization strategies as the properties of this environment change.

As a result of the creative interpretation of modernization strategies in China and other Southeast Asian countries, the West is losing its status as a cultural "model", the status of an object of imitation, which non-Western countries have followed for several centuries. Each country chooses its own path of modernization, taking into account the peculiarities of its own culture and socio-economic conditions of existence. The diversity of social development strategies at the turn of the century leads to the fact that the concept of "modernization" and "modern society" lose their conceptual certainty and are reduced to one indisputable truth: each country chooses its own path of development, using the achievements of other countries and relying on its own cultural tradition.

In addition, at the present stage, Western European civilization itself, controlled by the "deep state" of financial elites, is gradually becoming an imitation of the "ideal model of democracy." Today, Western civilization is experiencing a systemic crisis that covers various spheres of public life, but its most striking manifestation, in our opinion, are crisis processes in the spiritual and moral sphere of society, which increasingly discredit the West as a model in the eyes of the entire world community.