Ədəbiyyat:
1. Azərbaycan tarixi, Yeddi cilddə, IV cild, Bakı, 2007.
2. Azərbaycan tarixi (ən qədim zamanlardan XX əsrədək), Z.M.Bünyadovun və
Y.B.Yusifovun redaktəsilə, Azərbaycan Dövlət Nəşriyyatı, Bakı-1994.
3. Mehmedzade M.B. «Azərbaycan dövləti», «Odlu Yurd» dərgisi, yıl:3,
sayı:3(38), Istanbul, 28 Mayıs 1931.
4. Mehmedzade M.B. Millət və dövlət, «Odlu Yurd» dergisi, sayı: 5, temmuz,
Istanbul, 1931.
5. Mehmedzade M. B., «Devlet oluş günümüz», «Qurtuluş» dergisi, yıl: 2, sayı: 7-
8, Berlin, 1935.
Таир Байрамов
ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ ЦЕННОСТНОЙ ОРИЕНТАЦИИ
НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА XIX-XXI ВВ.
В ОПТИКЕ ТИПОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ МОДЕЛИ П.СОРОКИНА
Все виды азербайджанского искусства и все сферы культуры в XIX-
XX веках пронизывает последовательно усиливающаяся светская,
чувственная тенденция к «обмирщению» художественной культуры
(10). Художественно-религиозная целостность не выдерживает
натиска
этих
тенденций
уже
в
XVII-XVIII
веках,
а
«десимволизирующий XIX век» (формулировка Ю.Лотмана) пытается
разрушить ее культурную интегральность. Для нисходящей линии
развития в этнокультурной динамике характерно критическое
680
отношение
к
традициям,
которое
может
переходить
в
последовательное отрицание тех или иных составляющих своей
этнокультурной традиции. В этом контексте следует рассматривать
некоторые антиклерикальные идеи азербайджанских просветителей
XIX века (критика Физули у М.Ф,Ахундова, критика мусульманской
обрядности у Сабира и Дж. Мамедкулизаде). Азербайджанская
эстетическая и этическая мысль XIX века в лице ее лучших
представителей, мыслителей-гуманистов М.Ф.Ахундова, Гасан-бека
Зардаби и др. последовательно проводила в жизнь идею вестернизации
всех областей азербайджанской культуры (1). В то время как в
западноевропейской философии и эстетике обозначилась тенденция
критики идей научно-технического прогресса и «цивилизаторства»
(Ф.Ницше, О.Шпенглер), отечественная общественно-политическая и
эстетическая мысль приветствовала все блага западной цивилизации
(1, с. 152-209).
Параллельно, в Азербайджане вплоть до кровавых событий 1917 г. и
1920 г., и даже позже развилась и по сей день возрождается исламская
«идеациональная» культура.
Европеизация и частичная русификация азербайджанской культуры в
XIX веке способствовала глубокому изменению системы этико-
эстетических ценностей. Но начало этому процессу было положено
задолго до присоединения Азербайджана к России, когда в XVII-XVIII
веках в результате пассионарного спада (2) преобладающей стала
система
ценностей
переходной
культуры
«идеалистически-
чувственного» типа, в которой наибольшей ценностью обладает,
согласно Сорокину, индивидуум и его возвышенные чувства (как в
романтизме). Эстетический идеал, прекрасное носят в такой системе
ценностей идеально-чувственный характер (8, 9). В системе же
эстетических ценностей идеациональной культуры прекрасное,
эстетический идеал связывается преимущественно с трансцендентной
реальностью и имеют абстрактный, сверхчувственный характер (8, 9).
Как у Физули «Его красота – распространенное объяснение сжатой
речи, в красоте своей Он лишен сходства со всем тем, что не Он» (4, с.
523).
Изменения ценностной ориентации культуры и искусства, изменения
«цвета времени», прекрасно прослеживаются на примере истории
азербайджанской поэзии. М.Физули в поэму «Бангу баде» («Гашиш и
вино») писал об указанных веществах в чисто метафизическом,
символическом контексте суфийской философской поэзии (4). Но уже
у М.Ш.Вазеха вино приобретает более материальный характер:
681
«Уменье пить не всем дано/ Уменье пить – искусство!». И, наконец,
А.А.Вахид доводит эту чувственную тенденцию до логического конца:
«Женщины и вино должны быть реальными, а не метафорическими!»
(Internet/kultura.az).
Одна из актуальных проблем национальной философии искусства,
эстетики, культурологии и искусствоведения: Азербайджан и Запад,
азербайджанское искусство в контексте европейской и мировой
культуры, в контексте этнокультурных и художественных процессов
XIX-XXI веков.
«Европейская культура сегодня – это не только культура романо-
германского суперэтноса. Европейская культура на рубеже нового
тысячелетия объединяет многие этносы на всех континентах земного
шара.
Европейская
модель
общественного
устройства,
демократические институты, присущие этой системе этические и
эстетические
ценности
изменили
этнические
поведенческие
стереотипы всех этно-культурных систем, входящих в мировое
сообщество» (3). Сейчас все многообразие этнокультур преобразуется
в новую системную целостность – культуру информационного
общества с ее нанотехнологиями м Интернетом.
«Европейская модель светской культуры в Азербайджане не была
навязана «сверху» царским указом, а была подготовлена как
предшествующей этнокультурной историей азербайджанцев, так и
просветительской деятельностью и творчеством М.Ф.Ахундова,
А.Бакиханова, М.Казымбека, М.А.Сабира, Г.Зардаби, А.Гусейнзаде.
утверждению и развитию европейской цивилизации в Азербайджане
способствовала деятельность азербайджанских меценатов З. Тагиева,
Нагиева, Мухтарова, российских архитекторов Плошко, Скуревича,
Гославского, Эйхлера, сформировавших европейских архитектурный
облик Баку. Заметную роль в институциализации азербайджанской
культуры по европейскому образцу сыграло Российское (позже
Советское) государство» (3).
«Азербайджанское «западничество» еще в социально-политической и
этико-эстетической мысли XIX века заявило о себе как о реальной
силе, способной преобразовать азербайджанское общество. А уже в
начале
прошлого
столетия
прозападная
ориентация
стала
доминирующей в среде национальной интеллигенции. Несколько
позже, в советское время, в эпоху хрущевской «оттепели» и особенно
в период «застоя» азербайджанское «западничество» стало формой
этносоциального протеста, стремлением к самоидентификации, к
собственной
этнической
самобытности
через
осознание
и
682
демонстрацию своей инаковости, непохожести на «простых советских
людей» с их «совковой» ментальностью» ( 3). Все это не могло не
отразиться на развитии искусства. Более того, именно художественная
культура явилась той областью, где только и можно было реализовать
себя как представителя самобытной этнокультуры в условиях
тоталитарного советского режима с меньшей степенью риска (по
крайней мере, после смерти Сталина), ссылаясь на то, что искусство
советского Азербайджана может быть «национальным по форме». На
мой взгляд, с точки зрения теории Л. Гумилева, Азербайджан с 1960 г.
и по сей день находится в фазе «этнической регенерации», связанной с
национальным подъемом и деятельностью общенационального Лидера
Гейдара Алиева.
Прозападная
ориентация
эстетических
вкусов
бакинской
художественной интеллигенции удивительным образом и во многих
отношениях гармонично вписалась в систему традиционных
эстетических ценностей, породив подлинные шедевры искусства,
созданные на основе глубокого синтеза восточных и западных
традиций: джаз-мугам В.Мустафазаде, поэзию В.Самедоглы,
экспрессионизм Р.Бабаева и Д.Мирджавадова, абстрактную станковую
миниатюру Э.Асланова. Каким образом удалось синтезировать
художественные стилевые формы джаза, абстракционизма и
экспрессионизма с национальной художественной традицией? В 60-е
годы в американском джазе появилось направление (М.Дэвис,
Д.Колтрейн, Х.Хэнкок, А.Джамал и др.), в котором доминирующей
стала импровизация на ладовой основе, т.е. на основе повторяющихся
мелодико-ритмических оборотов. В 70-е годы. ладовый джаз и джаз-
рок выдвинулись в число основных стилевых направлений. А в
азербайджанском мугаме импровизация традиционно строилась на
ладовой, круговой цепочной структуре. Джаз и мугам были рождены
для того, чтобы когда-нибудь встретиться, прежде всего, в творчестве
гениального В.Мустафазаде на оживленном перекрестке диалога
культур, каким является Азербайджан. Сходная картина – с
традициями экспрессионизма и абстракционизма. Еще В.Зуммер писал
о традиции «экспрессионизма» в азербайджанской миниатюре
тебризской школы (7). В абстрактной концентрической символике
ислама – истоки современной азербайджанской абстрактной живописи
и
графики
( 2).
Очевидно
влияние
западно-европейского
постимпрессионизма – Ван Гога и пуантилистов – на изобразительный
язык С. Бахлулзаде. С. Бахлулзаде не скрывал приверженности к
традиции постимпрессионистической живописи (М.Наджафов) (3), за
683
что его подчас сурово критиковали.
Когда мы говорим, что западная культура оказала колоссальное
влияние на Азербайджан, следует понимать, что речь здесь идет о
культуре преимущественно чувственного типа. Массовая культура
современного
постиндустриального
общества
–
поздняя
разновидность культуры чувственного типа.
Очень
часто
современную
массовую
культуру
резко
противопоставляют классическому искусству Запада, не учитывая
того обстоятельства, что сенсорный голод, визуально-эстетический
гедонизм ренессансной и современной культур – типологически
сходные явления. В этом смысле и противоположность массовой и
элитарной культур уже не кажется абсолютной.
В то же время, уже в начале ХХ в. в западной элитарной визуальной
культуре модернизма явственно обозначилась античувственная
тенденция. Чувственной культуре в сфере изобразительного искусства
соответствует «визуальный» стиль. Этот визуальный стиль был
отвергнут модернизмом, отказавшимся копировать действительность.
П.Сорокин писал о модернистских течениях: «Они не являются
визуальными, потому что не стремятся изобразить объект так, как он
предстает нашим глазам. Кубистская или футуристская картина не
передает чисто зрительного впечатления от объекта. Замечание
Пикассо, что он пытается «заменить визуальную реальность
концептуальной справедливо и применительно к большинству
«модернистов» (9, с. 123). Модернизм – это протест против
чувственной культуры. П.Сорокин и Н.Бердяев считали модернизм не
всегда удачной попыткой возрождения средневековой духовной
культуры.
Интересно с этой точки зрения взглянуть на историю азербайджанской
станковой живописи ХХ века. С середины 30-х по 60-е гг. ХХ века в
азербайджанской живописи безраздельно господствовал визуальный
стиль. Но вот, уже в 60-е гг. и особенно в 70-е, в творчестве Ашрафа
Мурада, Д.Мирджавадова, Р.Бабаева, К.Ахмедова и др. возникла
тенденция, прямо противоположная визуальному стилю советского
реализма. Эта тенденция, характеризуется духовными исканиями,
психологизмом и поисками этноидентичности нашего искусства,
обращением к национальным традициям. Такое искусство Питирим
Сорокин считал либо «идеалистическим» (гармония между визуально-
чувственным и духовно-идеациональным), либо «смешанным» (когда
ведутся поиски такой гармонии, но она не достигается).
Сейчас интересные поиски как в области содержания (неосуфийский
684
концептуализм
А.Садыхзаде,
концептуализм
«YARAT»
неогностический дискурс Т.Даими), так и в области формы
(продолжатель лучших традиций авангарда ХХ в. А.Садыхзаде со
своим неповторимым индивидуальным стилем (6), Л.Алиева со
своими «идеалистическими», т.е. духовно-чувственными работами в
рамках
«визуального
стиля»,
И.Эльдарова
с
«девушками,
выбирающими нефтяников», Ф.Ахмед со своим ковровым
«деконструктивизмом» (термин Дерриды), ведутся современными
азербайджанскими художниками, в том числе участниками
объединения «YARAT».
В искусстве же Южного Азербайджана и Ирана, с начала XIX века,
вплоть до 1925 года преобладал «идеалистически-визуальный» т.н.
«каджарский стиль» (6). А в современном искусстве Южного
Азербайджана, нашей диаспоры, а также Ирана, ведутся поиски как в
области
реализма,
так
и
в
области
модернистского,
постмодернистского
и
«постсовременного
исламского
«теологического» дискурсов (6).
Литература:
1.Абдуллаева Р.Г. Проблема художественного стиля в информационной
культуре. – Баку, Элм, 2003.
2.Байрамов Т.Р., Искендеров С.Н. Традиция и художественный процесс. –
Баку: Элм, 2002.
3.Байрамов Т.Р., Искендеров С.Н. Культура и этнос // Центральная Азия и
Кавказ. – Швеция, № 1(7), 2000, с. 212-224.
4.Бертельс Е.Э. Низами и Физули. – М.: Наука, 1964.
5.Гумилев Л.Н. Этногенез и биосфера Земли. – М.: «Мишель и Ко», 1993.
6.Мирза Г.А. (Каджар). Творческий процесс и индивидуальный стиль
художника в азербайджанской станковой живописи(послед. четверть ХХ в.) –
Баку, 2004.
7.Саламзаде Э.А. Искусствознание Азербайджана. ХХ век. – Баку: Элм, 2001.
8.Сорокин П. Социальная и культурная динамика: Исследование изменений в
больших системах искусства, истины, этики, права и общественных
отношений. Пер с англ. – СПб: РХНИ, 2000.
9.Сорокин П. Человек. Цивилизация. Общество. – М.: Политиздат, 1992.
10.Сумбатзаде А.С. Азербайджанцы: этногенез и формирование народа. –
Баку: Элм, 1990.
685
Zhang Ping
UNCERTAINTY OF EXISTENCE IN CURRENT SOCIETY: A NEW
DISCUSSION ON RISK AND SECURITY (1)
The living state of mankind itself is the eternal theme of philosophical
research. Human beings have developed from ancient wilderness to
modernization today, more comfortable, more convenient and affluent, and
are highly closely linked by globalization. However, what changes have
been taken place to the people's subjective evaluation and feelings about
life? The author thinks, there is more uncertainty in life in an industrial
society than in an agricultural one. Life is more dynamic in the industrial
society because of many more accidents and societal interactions. And in
the past ten years, philosophical research has discussed the uncertainty state
of the people in current society.
1. Uncertainty: The loss of certainty in the people‘s existence in current
society.
Although uncertainty is one of the subjective feelings. From the perspective
of people's mental state, there are indeed many obvious manifestations of
uncertainty. Concretely, it means:
First, substitutability: in the period of farming civilization, the division of
labor between men and women in the family is the most important, and that
is difficult to be replaced. But in the period of the industrial civilization,
people's substitutability in employment has been increasing. The finer the
division of labor, the more likely people are to be replaced.
Second, high liquidity: the development of modern science and technology
and the development of transportation system both make people's residence
and employment no longer limited to a certain space. The radius of
residence space is expanded, the changes of occupation are very
convenient. So people can seek employment and residence all over the
world, that is, human mobility has greatly improved, simultaneously the
sense of belonging has weakened.
Third, intensification of differentiation and inequality: the differentiation of
the mass – not only income, status, but also residential areas, so-called
taste, lifestyle etc. Due to the background of social capital, wealth and
education, the difference between people is getting bigger and bigger. For
the majority of the lower classes of society, the feeling of deprivation is
getting stronger and stronger, which means the loss of opportunity, value
and controlling over themselves and lives .
Fourth, anxiety of choosing: in an era of changing, more and more
686
information and choices make people unable to adapt. It seems that
everything is possible, but fact is that the probability of success has not
increased. It is more and more difficult to make choices – in the past era,
people rarely need to choose, just following their parents to learn to work,
and that was enough. Now the situation is completely different, people are
very difficult to face the choice.
In short, from the perspective of the satisfaction of people' lives, the
spiritual and psychological life of current society is actually deteriorating.
People are generally helpless and deprived of their defeat, and the mental
and psychological consequences appear. And the pain caused by
uncertainty is obviously bigger than ever.
The people‘s existence in current society is called unfounded existential,
because they lost the roots of the native land. It is no longer the same as the
past , following the rhythm of the seasons, clearly life planning, fixed
lifestyle and even familiar neighbor... Current people from birth to death,
are busy with studying, job hunting, childbearing etc, there are so many
unknown things in the process, which was not in the past. On the contrary,
everyone faces many changes in their lives, including emotional betrayal or
separation, including occupational replacement, including the depreciation
of capital value and so on. At the same time, self-identity and the senses of
belonging for the people will be further easily lost. These existential
dilemmas will not disappear because of the increase of knowledge and
rationality, nor will they be weakened by the accumulation of wealth. In the
process, current people are more and more conscious about the loss of
certainty and the self-worth. How to adapt to, how to think and how to
ease? That is the anxiety dilemma for the current peoples‘ existence.
The thinkers have provided two theories that have profoundly inspired
about this. That is Giddens' modernity theory and Baker's theory of risk
society. These theories profoundly understand the reality of current people's
life, reveal the risk nature of modern society, and introduce the eye-catching
problem: security and risk .
Giddens proposed the concept of modernity that deeply touches on the
uncertainty at the individual level in modern society. In his grand
"reflection" framework, the first thing to explain is "the loss of traditional
control, the remodeling of daily life, and the individual being forced to
choose among diversity"(2). Giddens' book ―Modernity and Self-Identity”,
is full of discussions about social individuals who are ―isolated in
isolation‖. He also explores the changes in interpersonal relationships and
intimacy in personal life. In the study of modernity, Giddens included
safety as one of the ontological problems of current people. There are two
687
important safety propositions in Giddens's ideology. First, on a personal
level, Giddens believes that the ontological security of current people has
been severely damaged. He pointed out that "human life requires a certain
degree of ontological security and trust, and the basic mechanism by which
this feeling can be realized is a common practice in people's lives." Today's
society characterized by modernity undermines this "convention". The
existence uncertainty replaces experience and tradition, and threatens the
ontological security of people (3). Second, at the level of society as a
whole, Giddens analyzed the failure of social security mechanisms. He
pointed out that "the future society has become an insecure society." "Social
security mechanisms are under an eternal pressure. At the same time,
people's high expectations, excessive sensitivity, confusion and rumors
played important role in the failure of the mechanism" (4).
From a certain perspective the analysis of modern uncertainty crisis, the
theory of risk society and the theory of modernity can be said to be the
congenial. ―Risk‖ is the concept systematically proposed by the famous
German sociologist Baker who believes it is the core concepts to understand
the modern society. In his discussion of “Risk Society”, Baker analyzed that
people's insecurity comes from the ―remodeling‖ or ―dissolution‖ of social
structure. Baker pointed out that risk is an important feature of our time. In
this context, "modernity‖ breaks away from and reshapes the existing social
structure and dispels the most basic certainty characteristics of people's life
behaviors – including social classes and families. Patterns, gender identity,
marriage, parent-child relationships, and occupations, these ―loss of
traditional parameters‖ lead to rising insecurity (5).
We can see that both modernity theory and risk society theory sharply point
out one of the core characteristics of current society – the widespread risk.
"Risk has become the basic feature of modern society", "Risk is an
inevitable part of our lives, and everyone faces an almost unpredictable risk
of uncertainty‖ (6). That is, risk constitutes the most severe impact on the
security of current people. The cost of security is generally rising, and
human society faces an unprecedented high level of uncertainty. No matter
what kind of means is used, it seems that they cannot give current people a
complete sense of security. In the face of such a reality, past security
research needs to rethink its research perspective. ―The interpretation of
security has lost its authenticity in a global risk society‖ (7).
Undoubtedly, uncertainty constitutes the existential anxiety of current
people. It also prompts us to think about two closely related issues – risk
and safety. And those both have changed significantly with the transition of
social structure.
688
2. Risk: Individualization and differentiation.
The word "risk" in Chinese is synthesized by two words: wind and danger.
In ancient times, fishermen prayed definitely each time before going out to
sea, praying for the gods to bless themselves to return safely with full load.
In the long-term fishing, they deeply understood what were the
unpredictable dangers that the ―wind‖ brought to them. They realized that,
for the fishing life, ―wind‖ meant ―risk‖.
The term "risk" in contemporary languages has greatly surpassed the
narrow meaning of ―at risk‖, and that means ―possibility of danger and loss
‖. After more than two hundred years of deduction and changing, the word
"risk" is gradually deepened with the complexity and profoundness of
human activities, and has been given a broader and deeper meaning in the
fields of philosophy, economics, sociology, statistics and even culture and
art. It has also become a very frequent word in people's lives.
Researchers have recognized that risk is a concept with high subjective
cognition, and the phenomena and problems in the subjective cognitive
cannot be separated from the microscopic perspective. The individualist
methodology in philosophical research provides us with a good analytical
perspective. Studying risks from an individual perspective, it analyzes the
dividual differences in risk, to promote accurately predicting risks, and
effectively managing risks.
Obviously, significant social risks, no matter which category, first appears
in an individual, small-scale form, so the study of social risks must be based
on the analysis of individual risks. Individual perspectives are an integral
part of the entire risk research. Giddens‘s modernity theory also profoundly
touched the risk issue at the individual level in current society. Giddens's
exposition of "ontological security" and "existential anxiety" of current
people is also started from the individual perspective, and then to the
institutional and cultural level. In short, paying attention to the individual's
analytical perspective helps us to distinguish risk differentiation, and that is
very meaningful.
(1) Difference in risk distribution. In modern society, everyone is facing
risks. However, in real life, the risk is not ―Everyone is equal‖, and the
actual distribution of social risks is obviously different. About this issue,
early researchers stated: "The risk distribution always attaches to the class
model, but in an upside down way: wealth gathers in the upper layers, and
risk concentrates in the lower layers of society. In this regard, risk further
solidifies social class. Poverty can lead to a large number of unfortunate
risks. On the contrary, income, power and education can purchase security
and risk-free privileges‖ (8).
689
The uneven distribution of risks in various groups of society is significant
and widespread. This difference in distribution is prominently manifested in
two ways. First, the difference in risk distribution is group difference,
which is associated with class differences. In social life, the lower classes of
society bear more social risks. They are more likely to ingest toxic foods,
inferior water and air, and are more likely to be threatened by
unemployment and occupational diseases. They are forced to accept high-
risk surroundings. Second, the difference in risk distribution is often
reflected in the degree of risk damage. For example, the socially privileged
class, by virtue of its wealth and power, can purchase relative security or
risk aversion privileges (including safer housing and high insurance, etc.),
and to minimize the damage of the same risk situation. In particular, it is
important to note that the privileged class can even find ways to pass on
risks, while for the lower classes of society it is difficult to abstain the high-
risk from the beginning to the end.
The above points reveal to us that ―risk becomes the essential another unfair
problems of current society‖, we should pay more attention to the fact that
there is differential distribution of risk and that it deepens social
differentiation and social injustice. This new injustice has emerged in the
context of the weakening of traditional risk management (such as the
planned economic system and unit system in China), and the modern risk
governance has not yet been perfected, facing the more complicated
situation in China. Our research needs a micro-perspective, analyzing not
only the differences in risk distribution, but also discriminating the degree
of damage for the different people under the same risk situation.
(2) Differences in risk tolerance. The differences in perceptions of risks
among different groups of people are also extremely enormous. Usually
presented that the vulnerable groups of people have poor cognitive ability,
and the groups with high social status have relatively strong cognitive
ability. Preliminary studies have shown that the factors influencing risk
cognition are: urban and rural factors, education, family income, social trust
(including the trust in government and experts, etc.), as well as personal
experience (9). And the difference in risk tolerance is also very important.
Western scholars have done a lot of research on the difference in risk
tolerance. Some scholars pointed out that risk-taking is closely related to
people's perception of risk, personal ability and demand, and personal
―ignorance‖ (10). Obviously, the frequency, intensity and scope of risks
directly influence the risk tolerance of social individuals. Therefore, the
difference in risk tolerance of different individuals is a subject that needs to
be compared and carefully studied.
690
For risk tolerance, Baker believes that it is closely related to the ―cultural
definitions‖ and the ―standard of living‖. ―Baker said, in risk society, we
had to ask ourselves the question: How did we want to live?‖ (11). Baker
thinks that the standard of living has at least two aspects. One is the high
limit of people's expectations for life, and the other is the lowest level that
can be borne. These two standards are far removed due to different cultural
backgrounds and social political and economic conditions. Under certain
social conditions, the differences in risk tolerance of the individuals can be
compared through effective measurements. Quantitative analysis will be
useful here. Based on these measured data, we can roughly divide the risk
tolerance of the individuals into five levels, namely, high stronger risk
tolerance, stronger risk tolerance, general risk tolerance, weak risk tolerance
and low risk tolerance. These five levels of risk tolerance, consulting with
the risk types faced by different individuals, can clearly show the risk
predicament of different people.
(3) Differences in
response to
risks. ―There are no regulations for
people in the risk trap, but there is a completely opposite reflection –
silence and panic turmoil often alternates suddenly and extremely‖ (12).
Western scholars are also ahead in this regard. Through a face-to-face
interview with 134 residents in the UK and Australia, the researchers
concluded that the response to risk is clearly influenced by age, gender,
occupation, and ethnicity (13). However, some researchers opposed that
gender as an influential factor. When they examined the ―comparison of
different decision makers in a composite environment, the impact of gender
on decision-making is not straightforward, because the impact of the
―decision support system‖ is contradictory and uncertain (14). And
Luhmann's research showed that whether a person is a member of an
organization determined how people
responded to
risk (15). There are also
studies that point out: facing with the different risks, people depend on
experts in varying degrees. For example, in the environmental crisis,
agricultural workers and farmers will be more likely to follow the advice of
experts. Some scholars who analyzed the social status and geographical
area, make a distinction in
the
peoples‘
response to
risks.
Here, from the perspective of the peoples‘
reaction behavior
in
risks, it can
be divided into rational coping behavior and irrational coping behavior;
from the scope and scale of the reaction, it can be divided into individual
reaction and group reaction. In summary, peoples‘
reaction styles in risks
can be divided into four categories, namely, the individual's rational
reaction behavior, the individual's irrational reaction behavior, the group's
rational reaction behavior, and the group's irrational reaction behavior. The
691
so-called group rational response behavior, such as using the best means to
express appeals and solve problems. The group's irrational reaction
behavior, such as riots, looting, etc., leads to huge social costs.
The impact factors of the differences response in risk are strongly consistent
with the elements listed above. Among them, the individual's social status
and personality psychological characteristics are relatively constant, and the
individual's cognitive level is a more flexible variable and also an important
factor that can directly act on behavior, that is a problem to which should be
paid special attention. When a person has a certain understanding and
psychological preparation for the risks, it means that his risk tolerance
enhances and correspondingly the possibility of rationally reaction behavior
increases.
3. Security: human security, individual security and new features in
current society.
(1) Human security: ―people-centered‖.
The idea of "people-centered" first appeared in the famous theory of
"Human Motivation Theory" published by humanistic psychologist Maslow
in 1943. In this book, Maslow completely elaborated conception on the
human needs that has been widely quoted so far. Maslow believes that
safety is one of the most basic needs of human beings, and it occupies the
second place. In his theory of demand ladder, safety needs to be ranked
after material needs. For human security, Maslow describes it as ―protecting
itself from injury, avoiding unemployment and losing property‖. Today,
Maslow‘s view of human-centered perspectives remains important.
In the early 1970s, the ―Rome Club‖ embarked on a research project on
―human dilemma‖ and began to explore such things as ―poverty in the rich,
degradation of the environment, loss of confidence in the existing system,
insecurity in employment, excessive urbanization, and so on‖. Since then,
"Worldwide problems" such as the rejection of traditional values, inflation,
and the chaos of financial and economic order became widely known. In
1982, Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues
published a ―Common Security Report‖, proposing alternative ways of
thinking about peace and security issues, highlighting the concept of
―common security‖. The report proposed to commit to a world where
―everyone lives in dignity and peace‖. This kind of ideology has aroused
strong repercussions from all the countries in the 1990s, when the Cold War
ended. In 1994, the United Nations Human Development Report officially
proposed the concept of ―human security‖.
The Human Development Report emphasizes that the purpose of security is
to achieve real security, not just to maintain national security. The report
692
used a special chapter to declare the need to replace the antiquated security
concept that focused on the security of state power. It pointed out that
―human security‖ can be defined in two ways. On the one hand, it means
that people can avoid long-term hunger and disease, and on the other hand
it means that people's daily life patterns are also protected from destruction
(16). For the concept of ―human security‖, Dr. Hack, who was the special
adviser to the Administrator of the United Nations Development Program,
said that ―human security‖, which referred to ―not only the security of the
country but also the safety of the people, and the safety of individuals at
home and in the workplace‖, and that ―real personal security can obtain
through development" (17).
(2) Individual security: perspectives and issues.
Proposing human security is a big step forward in understanding of
security. But we need to go further. Regarding security, the perspective of
the individual is particularly important. That means, first, security must be
people-centered, and the peoples‘ demands are the essence and core of
security. Second, security is interdependent and symbiotic. No matter
strong or weak a country is, no matter rich or poor people are, they are
plagued by security problems. The various parts of human security are
interdependent. Wherever a certain area is threatened, all countries may be
involved now. Third, national security is as important as personal security,
and national security is not completely separated from personal security.
Only by attaching importance to individual safety, can we achieve overall
human security. Fourth, security should not be obtained by force or
confrontation, on the contrary, cooperation and development is a more
effective means of ensuring security.
Based on human security, we are soberly aware that security must be
ultimately implemented for people. This became a wide-ranging consensus
after the 1990s. It opposes the traditional security focused on the national
perspective, in spite of its precious value is still remarkable today.
Regrettably, there are not many researches thinking about new
understanding of security. Moreover, due to the influence of various
complicated factors in the international community, the human security has
been affirmed and appreciated by many parties at meetings and discussions
at the level of the United Nations and some international organizations. In
practice, in today's reality, interest, disputes are becoming more and more
serious. In this, the idea of "Everyone is equal, dignified, and decent living"
is almost utopia. Despite that, re-recognition of security is a breakthrough.
It puts the ontology of security concern on people, emphasizing that the
essence of security needs to be reflected in every specific and individual. In
693
the past, the security was established and emphasized at the national level.
The core points are that security has multiple levels – at the national level
and at the group level. Those cannot be the sole focus of security. The
security at the individual level is equivalent to the above two. In other
words, security research must return to the people itself. It is foreseeable
that for safety research individual will become an important direction.
(3) New features of security in current society.
These new features are as follows: First, the uncertainty in security
obviously enhanced. The challenges and risks in current society come from
all aspects, and the sources of danger are often not unique and uncertain,
and the absolute guarantee of security does not exist. In a word, the security
uncertainty of current society is unmatched by traditional society. The so-
called security is relatively speaking. This is determined by the risk nature
of current society.
Second, the destructive factors of security, the first source, come from the
structure of society itself, scilicet they are the consequences of traditional
deconstruction. It is increasingly diffuse ―deconstruction‖ that generates
pressure and impact, and the certainty and security is more difficult to
obtain. Third, the opposite of security changes, it is no longer danger, but
risk. In current society, risk replaces danger as the opposite of security.
Security uncertainty replaces certainty and that is a permanent problem
which plagues people. Thus crisis in current security is fundamental and
fatal. People's daily lives have also been greatly affected. Fourth, risk
existential has become socially normal, that is, the non-safe state is
universal. People's perceptions and expectations of security need to be re-
adjusted and adapted. Fifth, what is security is very different among
different individuals. The same problem poses different crises for different
individuals because they have different capabilities and resources to ensure
their own security. And that has not been covered in previous security
research – individual differences, and thus individual security will become a
new topic of security research.
So security research must be critical and reflective, to adjust the analytical
perspective, try new methods such as surveys and statistical analysis, and
open up new areas. To this end, we must attach importance to the analysis
of risk issues in current social lives, focus on risk instead of danger to
deepen the analysis of security and its uncertainty. At the same time, we
must pay attention to individuals perspective, pay attention to specific
issues, emphasize microscopic perspective intervention. Moreover, micro-
study should be an important part of security research; it needs to introduce
empirical methods, and collect the real materials in social life, so that the
694
security research is on a more solid data foundation. The risk warning
indicators, the measurement of residents' safety and the construction of
social security indicators are all very useful attempts. In short, current
security research need to be evolved from a single, tangible, isolated,
national-level analysis to a comprehensive, intangible, interconnected,
multi-level analysis.
Based on the above discussion, in the current social life, the uncertainty of
people's existence has increased significantly, and the changes and
uncontrollable things in people's life have increased significantly. This has
brought psychological pressure and spiritual consequences.
The potential problems and the accidents are very numerous in the life of
current society, and that lead to crises. So risk is considered to be the
essential feature of current society. The risk is closely linked to uncertainty.
Studying the nature of current society requires serious and in-depth analysis
of these risks. Different types of risks mean different consequences for each
person. Therefore, it is very important to emphasize the individual
differences of risks. It includes the differential distribution of risks and the
differences in affordability and differences in risk response. It is necessary
to recognize these issues before they can be controlled.
At the same time, risks in current social life also occupy the opposite of
security. It is not only the danger that affects people's sense of security, but
more of that comes from the risks, and we must value the individual
perspective of safety. And that is very different from the past when they
only focused on security at the national level. We need to pay attention to
the individual security issues, and pay attention to the new features of the
security in current society, different from the past. Thus, we have a
preliminary understanding of the relationship between uncertainty and risk,
risk and safety, safety and certainty. This is an important aspect of
improving our social management and improving the quality of people's
lives.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |