Value system and global migration flows

What man will take upon himself the attempt to “refute scientifically” the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. For instance, the sentence, “resist no evil”, or the image of turning the other cheek? And yet it is clear, that, in mundane perspective, this is an ethics of undignified conduct, one has to choose between religious dignity which this ethics confers and the dignity of manly conduct which preaches something quite different… According to our ultimate standpoint, the one is the devil and the other the God, and the individual has to decide which is God for him and which is the devil.

Max Weber. Science as a Vocation.

Western intelligence communities have been unable to map the decision-making process within al-Qaeda.
R. Paz. Report on al-Qaeda’s ideology.
To be able to orientate in a space and control our movement in that space[1] we rely on our personal, individual system of values, which we collate with the value system of the dominant subculture that we identify ourselves with, the society we consider ourselves to be part of and with the world that is distinguishable, seen and perceived from the given personal, social, subcultural, ethno national perspective.
The world, both internal and external, is individuals’ objective, but the world is aimed at the individual as well.
Recognizing familiar signals in spontaneously affecting information flow, perceiving some part of those unknown signals, one has to react to them, leaving the existing, but not perceived signals out of one’s knowledge and feelings[2].
Obviously, every individual perceives things differently, i.e. initially the worldview that is reflected in human consciousness and perception of the world[3] differs from one individual to another, and to a considerable degree from personality to personality.
Primarily, the received signals are transformed in accordance with peculiarities of individual perception, afterwards they are being reflected in human consciousness, and only then the signals are being evaluated, classified and put in their own position in the individual’s system of perception of world having an impact on interrelation mechanisms between individual’s personal “I” and the world.
However, for more or less objective analysis of possible models and varieties of above mentioned interrelation, it is important to define some of the key concepts, such as value, base value, value system, and how the content of these concepts alters if considered from a standpoint of an individual, a social group, an ethnos, a society, a region and the world.
A newly emerging culture usually evolves around the base value. This base value is the foundation and the “leaven” of the newly shaping system of values. Moreover and most importantly it also is the mechanism of demolishing the preceding one and transferring the elements of the old system into the new one through selecting and adjusting the re-conseptualized elements and creating new hierarchy of ties within the system.
At the outset of the creation of the base value is the individual, who after accepting it based on his own considerations, externalizes and objectifies it throughout his lifetime, since the value, as stated by Visheslavtsev cannot be viewed as an unambiguous, clearly comprehended command, or imperative. The value is always a mere modality from possibility to reality[4].
According to Max Weber, the value is what is significative, we are oriented towards it during our life, and we are taking it into consideration. Like Kant’s categories of space and time, Weber’s value enables an individual to reorganise the chaos (unordered time and space) into Cosmos (ordered time and space). Base value, in our opinion, is not only the centre value for a system, but the one that generates other values of that system. The base value is predetermining the existing forms of cultural norms or standards and structurally expressed elements which help to bring those norms to life in a given system[5]. The values and cultural norms which are either elaborated or adapted to the needs of that culture, are determining not only the extent of its adaptation to the contemporary civilizational system, but the whole logic of its further evolution. The society, that is simultaneously forming and consuming those values and cultural norms through civilizational products, which are either created or demanded in it, is creating appropriate system of adaptation. Education, teaching of skills and abilities are constituents of that adaptation system.
The education is intended to:
1. Adapt the individual to conditions of life
2. Focus the individual on the creative attitude toward the life by equipping him with appropriate methods of learning, necessary knowledge, skills and abilities.
3. Form and reinforce base value, which helps the individual to evaluate facts and processes.
It would be natural to conclude that since the educational system is transmitting the values and cultural norms accepted by a given society, they should be more or less identical on personal, social group, subcultural levels. But the question is more challenging as on each level we are dealing with unique, different from the others physical characteristics, experience, predispositions, upbringing which contain certain parts of consuetude (customs, elements of grassroots culture, etc.).
Opinions, perceptions, and eventually the knowledge of a separate individual, that are characterized as a value or a cultural norm (about a specific process or phenomenon), is always very detailed (the level of detail depends on specificities of an individual). This means that a particular individual is always capable of breaking down his understandings into as much detail as his abilities would allow. At the same time the quality and the quantity of characteristics and properties that different individuals use to describe their attitude towards the same value or cultural norm can significantly differ (see the publications on results of study on MZ twins).
These understandings, knowledge and opinions are precisely what help the individual to decide “who is God and who is Devil”.
According to M. Weber an individual always faces the necessity to make a decision, the righteousness of which cannot be scientifically proven. Raymond Aron notes that science of culture is “constructing and understanding systems of human choice”. M. Weber marks that “understanding of cultural reality is always the understanding from specific, particular point of view.”
But whatever one chooses he chooses between his own God and his own Devil. For one the custom of pre-Islamic Arabic tribes burying new-born girls would be an evil, for the other – an economically sound cultural norm, i.e. good.
For one beauty is synonymous with good, for the other – with evil. Furthermore, the properties and qualities that one assigns to the notion of «beauty», can have no meaning for the others, and thus, pass unnoticed and irrelevant.
For someone twin towers in New York are symbolizing greatness and strength of the nation, i.e. Value, but for the other one – devil’s power, i.e. Anti Value.
All valuations are consciously or unconsciously based on a choice pinpointed by values regardless of whether this valuations are derivatives of ordinary, ideologized issues or exploratory approach. Even a mere value judgement similar to I like it – I don’t like it, good – bad, is not only based on a certain, actual for a given consciousness value, but on a detailed description of the features of the evaluated object. If we were to imagine that the description of the properties of a value that serve to shape attitude towards the evaluated object as a small box, then on the level of individual consciousness this box would be completely full.
In particular, the subjective human knowledge of well-known world elements is causing the people to talk about the same object defining it based on their own attitude toward it: by comparing the definitions of the same object it is easy to come to a conclusion that these definitions are equal[6].
In other words, the process of assigning the sign that signifies the object, with a meaning that is actual for a particular person, often simultaneously implies the process of placing it in the hierarchy of values of that particular individual, who constantly elaborates and updates it.
Carnap’s well-known example: “Chicago is large is a proposition” seems to have no evaluative shade of meaning, however, if we refer to the characteristics of the speaker’s personality this proposition acquires the evaluative element, for instance if the speaker is an urbanized person or adherent of urban culture. The evaluative element assumes an opposition, e.g. city (with positive sign) – village (with negative sign). In this case the proposition acquires the following form: It is good that Chicago is a city. If we eelaborate this idea further the statement will look like: It is good that Chicago is a large American city with developed infrastructure, polyethnic and multiconfessional population, variety of opportunities in the fields of human self-realization and recreation, with wonderful architecture, social security system, healthcare etc. In other words, by expressing an evaluative propositions about the object, which is actual for him and being not capable to exhaust all his potentialities of possible descriptive features and characteristics, the person is getting ability to work out his attitude toward the object in details.
1
Obviously, the values that are essential for people assigned to the same social group inside the same society, of approximately the same age, the similar upbringing and educational background, are being similarly described. The differences are in specific, peculiar, i.e. individual characteristics.
In other words, the content of the box, which contains descriptions of properties of a value accepted by the members of a given social group, is slightly lesser than on an individual level, because those properties that can be assigned only to a specific individual are already not included on the level of a social group. The content of the box is essentially different from the box which is filled to the same extent, but with different descriptions and characteristics for the same value of the same society’s different social group. There is a considerable amount of examples which are supporting this proposition.
Here are some of them:
Obviously, the understanding of women’s beauty among young managers in Yerevan (capital) differs in a considerable degree from the same understanding among middle-aged shepherds in Aragatsotn (remote rural area). It is also obvious, that the understanding of state sovereignty among gastarbeiters working in construction in Russia differs from the same understanding among Armenian language and literature teachers living in Armenia.
2
The dispute about women’s beauty between Mimino movie heroes Buba Kikabidze (Georgian actor) and Frunzik Mkrtchyan (Armenian actor) is very typical. Despite the fact that Armenians and Georgians are geographical neighbours living next to each other for centuries and are in a constant process of intensive cultural interrelation and interaction, they differ from each other in a considerable degree while defining important, significant understandings, phenomenon, processes that need to be evaluated. Yet, they have significantly more in common, than, for instance, Georgians (or Armenians) have with Norwegians, Malayans or Peruvians. As it was mentioned above two individuals differ from each other (appearance, physical and intellectual peculiarities, etc.), i.e. they differ from each other by anthropological parameters, which are peculiar only for the individual. Likewise, two ethnicities differ from each other by characteristics that are peculiar for the ethnos (language, culture, religion, etc.) The societies based on one ethnicity or the ones which have one dominant ethnicity are frequently identified with that ethnicity and are characterised by its peculiarities and characteristics.
However, even the societies which are characterised as multicultural, which have different ethnic and confessional groups differ from the other multicultural and multiconfessional society in the neighbour country by its attitude toward the values and cultural norms on account of specific social mosaic originality.
Thereby, coming back to our box filled by properties and characteristics of values and cultural norms, we find it filled only by features and characteristics specific, peculiar to that ethnic group/society and common for the majority of ethnic group/society members. The box is missing the features and characteristics which existed on social group level and eliminated on ethnic group/society level.
3
To avoid unnecessary reiteration, we have to leave out the regional level and move to the common to all mankind or world level (obviously, the Chinese, the Korean and the Japanese have more in common in their attitude toward values and cultural norms, than, for instance, the same ethnicities/societies and the Belgians, the Swiss, the Dutch. The box is filled only by few features and characteristics common on regional level).
Thus, on this level the box is completely empty, but the names of the values or cultural norms such as Kindness, Thrift, Generosity, Beauty etc., are written. These boxes lack any properties, characteristics, qualities, specific peculiarities, only names and titles. In other words, the only thing left on this level is the positive or negative sign[7]. The meaning of the sign remains, as well.
If we conduct the above mentioned operation in a reverse order, i.e. top to bottom, the sign will acquire meanings, which will differ from each other like the morning star differs from evening star, getting new meanings from level to level, obtaining features, characteristics, qualities, specific peculiarities which were removed while rising from level to level.

4

Above mentioned schemata-models are very useful when analysing different sociocultural and political processes in the society. But they are not taking into account the changes, which are going on in contemporary informational civilizational system, which is characterized by completely new level and speed of globalization processes, which cause unhindered migration of people, values, cultural norms etc.
Although it seems there is an outward lack of structure in the interactions between different value systems, which are stimulated by contemporary migration processes, still these interactions are happening based on reasonable rules, founded by such factors as the level of social and economic development in different countries, existence of well-ordered labour market, the level of social safety and healthcare, quality and accessibility of education, protection of ethnic and confessional minority rights, providing basic human rights, political and military power of the state.
Obviously, every country has its own centre of attraction for migrants. Usually these centres are either the capitals or other large cities, which attract not only the residents from other regions of the same country, but, the citizens of neighbouring countries as well.
The regional centres of attraction for migration processes are being distinguished. For the region, where Armenia is situated the centre of attraction for migration processes is Russia. Moscow plays the same role within Russia.
For the population of countries on Southern and South-Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea as well areas to the South and East from the Mediterranean – the centre for migration processes is the South of EU.
In some cases regional centres of attraction for migration processes can play the role of global centres (United States of America, European Union, Canada, Australia). Possibly, Russia can become a centre of attraction for global migration processes as well.
How do the migration processes occur, how do the contemporary globaliaztion processes influence the countries and societies?Apparentely, the answer to this question can give us possibility to formulate the problems linked to determining conditions for mutually beneficial and smooth adaptation of values and cultural norms.
At the same time, this question itself leads us to yet another key problem- the altering essence of the form, idea and functions of the state.
Does the theory on clash of civilizations relate to the real political processes, which are occurring in contemporary world or it is an efficient advertising-branding (mythological) system that is imposed on the global community and is giving rise to such mythologemes as global terror, incompatibility of civilizations, etc.? How does the state react to the problems that are caused by unprecedented global migration processes? What are the interrelations between national states, their national interests and these processes and do they change their character in accordance with these processes? During last 25 years more than once the questions of the essence of the state and the idea of statehood itself were put up for discussion.
The relevance of this problem becomes especially obvious primarily in the light of serious changes of the global political, economic, humanitarian situation. Secondly, because of problems that the societies of newly independent countries, which are on the stage of state formation, are facing.
Obviously, the discussion on future prospects of the ideas, forms and structure of the state that first occured in the field of ideological struggle, after “Cold War”, gradually acquired a more serious gnoseological character. The emergence of an unprecedented in world history situation, prompted one of the many Great Powers that have not lost their status to “step out” and become a Super Power, which is trying to accomplish the so called monopolar control over the world, while the other Great Powers together with all the states that have history and tradition to a greater or lesser extent are opposing this process. Studies and analysis of scholars raise new questions linked to possible modifications of this civilizational product, e.g. the state. There is a variety of definitions and characteristics of the state, but almost all philosophical and sociological schools are stating its core essence as follows: the state is the main institution of political system, which owns sole right to create laws that are mandatory for the whole population of the country, ensures the implementation of those laws, sets and performs foreign and domestic policies, collects taxes etc. It has the right to create special state bodies, with the help of which it is fulfilling responsibilities (or, using another definition, its’ obligations to society). A state has a sole right to employ violence.
This definition however is completely useless from the point of view of the problem under consideration.
A state, which emerged thousand years before this as a civilizational structure, for solving complicated adaptation problems, has to develop, undergo modification, and even change its essence.
Traditional Greek poleis and Ancient Eastern city-states, the absolute incarnation models of despotism- Parthian and Pharaonic kingdoms and the Roman Empire that emerged from the gradually shaping quasi-state structures, have long become mere memories, conceding first to different types of medieval state formations and, afterwars to bourgeois parliamentary monarchies and republics.
It should be emphasized, that during all above mentioned periods the state structures from preceding historical periods continued their existence, but in constant rivalry and struggle between states were condemned to decay and gradually surrender their positions.
As it seems state emerged in the historical period when tribal regulators of relations in community and intercommunity levels were unable to ensure preservation and observance of prohibiting taboo (or commandment) accepted and acknowledged as obligatory for every member of tribal community.
Due to inventions it became possible to provide means of livelihood for members of considerably larger groups that was necessary for reproducing the traditional society on the same basis, quantity of information, corresponding skills and means of information transmission: in this case not only transition to written system of information transmission which usually coincide with state emergence or is a precondition for state emergence, but transportation and communication facilities as well.
This new reality was capable to unify larger communities based on common economic system rather than connected by blood-ties; the governing and controlling of this communities was in need of significantly more perfect, complete tools and mechanisms than the ones used for organizing the life and regulating the relations within a tribal community.
Cohesion and solidarity based on blood-ties now are being ensured by worshiping common gods, mutual languages or varieties of koine, that rest on rapidly improving writing system, emerge on the basis of local languages and dialects, (it is essential to transmit and reproduce sacred texts precisely, and to serve the needs of state while performing its functions), an ordinary right is the main source for forming more complicated juridical systems, which can already be defined as state systems. All this is happening as a resault of altering/changing base values: secular is being replaced by transcendental, ancestor worship by worshipping the God or gods.
The opportunities of people and groups to interact and collaborate with each other increased and became more diverse as a consequence of seafaring, land transportation development, improvement of communication facilities. This fact was expressed in two main forms– conquest of lands and trade. Both of this forms required more complete methods and governing skills. Completely new tasks that had been put forward required modification and evolution of the state system which was obliged to become more and more complicated. At the same time new fields of human activity came under state governance and regulation, became more multiversion and multitype.
Processes of strengthening state power and making governing system more complicated occur simultaneously, but at different speed. The accumulation of strength is stimulating and logically leading to expansion. Diversity of expansion forms does not change the essence of its objective – seize and control more material resources, that are of vital importance for a given historical period e.g. gold, silver, copper, iron ore, coal, fertile fields, pasture, water sources etc..
However, the motto “The only true god is mine”, which is illustrating the expansion of value system, apparently, become relevant and important, even more then the striving for material resources.
Usually the speed of governance system evolution is less than the speed of undertaken expansion. Although, it can be based on various reasons the main one is the insuperable force of persistence of human thinking, which force him to resist and oppose the perception of the reality and as a consequence of value system change altered criteria of processes and phenomena evaluation which are new and qualitatively different from the preceding ones.
Henceforth, the process of weakening the state launches; in case of empires this is the process of decay and collapse.
Interestingly, at least twice (in fact – more frequently) the same story repeated itself: by strengthening and enlarging their possessions of land, the city-states overstepted their bounds concentrating the large amount of wealth. According to F. Braudel, the “territorial states”[8], substantially – empires were fighting for that wealth.
The defeat of city-states in Apennine Peninsula made thinkers of that period (Machiavelli, Guicciardini and others) to justify the idea of state evolution as an inviolable integrity whose destiny is inseparably connected with its inhabitant’s destiny[9]. This idea placed peculiar and imperative responsibility on the ruler. During this period and in this universe emerged the formula of ragione di stato, which since its emergence is explaining and justifying the actions of statesmen. The man who created this formula – Cardinal Giovanno Della Casa, is already forgotten. Now this formula relates to another cardinal’s name i.e. the man who created absolute monarchy in France, who turned the principle of raison d’etat into the absolute and from that standpoint he carried out his policy during Thirty Years’ War (for instance, by rejected the principle of choosing the allies based on religious views, he supported the rulers of protestant German states during their struggle against catholic Empire of Habsburg).
French Revolution changed the value on which the state was resting and in which it was anchored by declaring former subjects of king citizens of the state. This was the first step toward a nation-state.
French Revolution caused unprecedented political activity of masses, which previously neither had the right to have an impact on the processes of choosing the state governance form nor to have an influence on authorities’ decisions. Soon, the political and social activity was rapidly popularized in Europe. The ideas of French revolution had different expressions in different countries – from spreading of literacy and striving to acquire political and social knowledge to all contemporary forms of protest except for online forms. The strange combination of 18th century French philosophical, social thought and revolutionary idealism, which was expressed in national ideal, for a long period defined not only the tendency of Europe’s development, but those changes that had to undergo in the state system in connection with or without connection to the “Freedom, equality, brotherhood” mythologem.
The emergence of “nation-states” caused the emergence of international relations system in terms of this notion was realized during 20th century to present days.[10]
From this point onwards, that in Eurocentric historiography is traditionally linked to creating Westphalian system, occurs a situation, which H. Kissinger describes the following way: “Whenever the entities constituting international system change their character, a period of turmoil inevitably follows? The Thirty Years’ War was in large part about the transition from feudal societies based on tradition and claims of universality to the modern state system based on raison d’etat. The wars of the French Revolution marked the transition to the nation state defined by common language and culture. The wars of twentieth century were caused by the disintegration of Hubsburg and Ottoman Empires, the challenge to the dominance of Europe and the end of colonialism. In each transition, what had been taken for granted suddenly became anachronistic: multinational states in the nineteenth century, colonialism in the twentieth”.
After Cold war constituents of international system changed their character, which means that a state form should undergo serious changes. Researchers and politicians who are declaring the end of nation-state era, are resting on the reality that in contemporary world system global role can be played only by coalitions and alliances, who, by consolidating their resources, are able to propose competitive globalization projects.[11]
It should be noted that for subjects that are launching or trying to launch such projects Helsinki commandments[12] are not obligatory, as they are being guided by other values which paradoxically coincide with old, well-known and well-understood principle of raison d’etat. The national states which are included in these unions are trying to increase their resources by means of unified resources of coalition, broaden goals which result from their national interests.
However, there is a hidden trap that city-states had always fallen into[13]: their own, peculiar interests integrated into framework of common interest, which caused them to obtain completely different form and sense in their final expression.
Apparently, the population of France and the Netherlands felt this danger on the eve of referendum on European Constitution; the Britons, who were living in conditions of “splended isolation” politics for centuries, have the same feeling as well.
Globalization project of Confucian-communist China i.e. to spread the true civilization in barbarian world, was put into practice by means of and based on the value system which has passed the test of time, human resources and fantastic ability to transform cultural norms into civilizational structures. Chinatowns are becoming neither Amercanized, nor Europeanized, but turn small parts of American, European and other cities into “Chinese parts”. And this is sufficient for the success of Chinese globalization project, which rests on the principle of modernizing its essence seriously reconsidering and rethinking it without fundamentally changing it.
Russia, as the cessionary and “myth assignee” of Soviet Union after hard transition period is trying to shape its own competitive project, that’s why at one moment she is using the concept of Eurasia, which, of course, moves her away from European political scene and political culture (Russia was the part of European political life during the whole period of its existance), the next moment tries to go over American project or declares itself integral part of European civilization. Beyond doubt, after going through hardships, Russia will define the most competitve project that will correspond to the level of national interest understanding at the moment of its acceptance. Although slogans like “sovereign democracy”, “liberal empire” are not projects and are of temporary nature, they shape the intension of this great country.
National states, which are excluded from the existing gobalization projects, have to narrow the scope of their national interests’ application points. As they do not have enough potential for launching their own globalization project they have to submit to the demands of the project which in a given period of time has an influence over them, and have to yield up considerable part of sovereignty and even discharge functions peculiar to bodies of local self government.
Here are possible way outs:
a/ creating own project, which could be adapted to most correspondent project from the existing ones. This variant can be named Cooperation;
b/ adapt to other’s project, without having own project. This variant can be named Using (without taking into consideration national interests);
c/ rejecting the adaptation. As a rule rejecting does not provide any result, but creats dangerous illusions. This variant can be characterised as Estrangement.
This analysis intended to demostrate the posibilities of state forms transformation outside scope of contemporary mythology, deliberately excluding the theory of clash of civilizations’ terminology and resting on old and always relevant principle of raison d’etat.
The fact that USA was the only state to emerge due to principle of interests’ consolidation of initially 13 states, and later involved other states forming its proto-coalition, is justifying objections to Z. Brzezinski’s statement that USA is the only state in contemporary world actively withstanding integration with other community’s interests and consequently defending its sovereignty. However, it is more significant that USA by trying to defend interests of its kernel (proto-coalition), in this phase of its development has to leave more global communities, often oppose them[14].
At the same time all this kind of efforts contradict spirit of contemporary time, as they are linked to border regime toughening and violation of main civil rights. Free migration of people, financial capital, goods and as a consequence – values and cultural norms, set problems rather connected with rethinking state functions with all its attributes, than thoughning application rules of outdated laws and norms.
Unlike preceding periods, when the existence of a “foreigner” in local culture, i.e. the one who speaks a different language, who has different traditions, knowledge, in other words the one who has different values and cultural norms, was something not usual, in contemporary world this is becoming common even in societies of periphery countries.
Thereafter, if during preceding periods interactions between cultures were exercised through exchange of civilizational products[15], which were material symbols of imported mythologemes that were expressing cultural norms and values, nowadays migrants by becoming the memebers of the societyies which are granting them citizenship, have opportunity directly implement the system of a given culture with their own cultural norms and values. They create within the society their own subculture, with value system which differs from their maternal value system and from the value system of the culture they should adapt.
From our point of view classical model of interrelations, interactions and adaptation suppose civilizational product (in its material expression) brought by civilizational-information flow “fall” in the field of civilizational structure, which is in charge оf producing the civilizational product of other culture. This process requires overcoming various filters – either corresponding to demands of the whole culture or particular subculture, demand or competitiveness[16]. Imported product affects civilizational structure of the culture. The latter, influences the field of cultural norms, and eventually, transforming or rethinking of cultural norms causes the change in value system. This, on one hand, ensures evolution of a given culture and society, on the other hand (in case if filters were insufficient, i.e. value system does not correspond with the spirit of the time, inner adaptation mechanisms of the culture are not enough adapted or are not strong enough) –can destroy the base value, which will cause collapse of the particular form of the culture.

5

However, contemporary migration processes completely alter the functioning of this model. Physical presence of bearers of cultural norms and values peculiar for other culture, in the system of culture that has admitted them, naturally, suppose not only presence of civilizational structures and products, cultural norms and values, but also the presence of the base value in particular fields of new culture. In contemporary states the value system accepted by society is fixed in constitutions and laws. Obvious conflict of values is being expressed either by breaking the laws of the society, which has admitted former migrants or by an aspiration for changing laws, i.e. making use of opportunities, which are provided to citizens by laws. At the same time, unwritten law which includes elements of ordinary law, traditions, customes, traditional ways of solving problems and vexed questions, extends its sphere of influence, which causes narrowing the spheres of application of written law; conflict of values is the reason for this and the conflict of civilizational structures is the consequence.
Under the existing conditions of mixed and various, different in sense and meaning base values of numerious subcultures, the application field of unwritten law which is regulating the social and state issues has tendency to enlarge and control the application fields of written law. This is an evidence of constant and unending competition and struggle between value systems.
What should the state look like, what should be its functions under these new conditions? The ideal variant would be when Written and Unwritten laws coincide, thus there is no conflict and contradiction between them. Apparently, Archbishop of Canterbury, who declared the nessecity to include some norms of shariah in British law codes was guided by such understandings. Afterwards he was badly critisized for that statement despite the fact that Muhammad is second popular name given to new-borns in British Islands. From the methodological standpoint archbishop, of course, was wrong.
However, the way toward rapprochement of Written and Unwritten laws is obvious. If not resolving conflicts, then rapprochement and withdrawal from conflicts is possible through improvement of adaptation potential of the society, through modifying educational system, flexible methods of teaching. All these should be accompanied by efforts of the society to improve and invariable follow the written law. This, on one hand, provides inculcation of tolerant attitude toward alien values, which, however, are neither marginal nor alternative, they just coexist in one culture, on the other hand filter out and remove all elements of alien value system, which claims being alternative.
The second variant – Unwritten law completely obeys Written law – can be put into practice only in totalitarian society; some countries with strong authoritarian government also try to put these models into practice. What are the consequences of these attempts – history has already shown more than once.

6
However, this problem has another important aspect. The history of humanity can be interpreted as a process, which is aimed at liberation from restrictions applied by categories of time and space. Development of technology providing safe movement and reliable communication pushes the humanity forward. This, in contemporary world, creates unprecedented opportunities for information exchange, and as a consequence exchange of values and cultural norms, senses and meanings between individuals, social groups, societies, ethnic groups, regions. The essential need in this exchange makes borders more transparent and easy to cross, which is being opposed by responsibilities of the state to control the borders.
Here are some well-known examples: during global, world, European and other beauty contests the winners, according to my peculiar and specific point of view, are not always the most beautiful women representing a different race. Schumann’s piano works are being best played by young Chinese pianist with an unpronounceable name. Practically in all countries criminals, who had committed similar crimes, are being punished similarly; and this again, can contradict my own (individual) understanding of crime and punishment. Contemporary football does not relate to its homeland-England anymore, now it’s a widely spread game associated with Germans and Brazilians. Jeans are worn both in Afghanistan and in Alaska. And, finally, world brands are losing their national affiliation while adapting to new network world order.
In all abovementioned levels, differences are becoming more and more insignificant, and their quantity decreases. Due to this fact content of the notion of “value” enlarges, approximates to understanding of this notion on individual level, but never completely reaches that level. This means increasing the quantity of perceptible meanings.
Thus, not “Blood and soil”, but “Culture and language; multiculturalism and polylingualism will ensure the identity of Person in near future.
And to conclude:
1. The efforts aimed to explain deviations from generally accepted values using national peculiarities or specific mentality, are practically incapable of being accomplished.
2. None of the countries, none of the societies has the exclusive right to be sole bearer of a universal value system.

[1] The author is apologising for lack of some nuances while translating from the language of methodology. Descriptive notions of below mentioned schemata-models and usage of some classic science terms can cause presentive perception of this terms.
[2]Reactions to signals that have influence on individual can be both conscious and unconscious. For instance, the feeling of shame that one has in particular situation or when doing particular activity is his natural reaction indicating that he did something blameful. “Narrated by Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, the Prophet, may Allah honour Him and grant Him peace, said “Faith (Belief) consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts), and shame is a part of faith”.
[3] «Worldview: not only an individual perceives the world, but the world perceives an individual».
[4] Visheslavtsev B.P. The Ethics of Transfigured Eros: Problems of the Law and Grace, M., 1994, p. 99(in Russian)
[5] “Now if you had studied the dynamics of history instead, you would realize that the logic of legalism alternates with the logic of force in a pattern dependent on the characteristics of the culture. Each culture evokes its own basic logic.” (Robert A. Heinlein. Between planets).

[6]G. Frege has noted that, the discovery that the rising sun is not new every morning, but always the same, was one of the most fertile astronomical discoveries.
[7] G. Frege has noted in his “Sense and Reference”, “The referent of “evening star” would be the same as that of “morning star”, but not the sense. It is clear from the context that the “sign” and “name” I have here understood any designation representing a proper name, whose referent is thus a definite object (this word taken in the widest range), but no concept and no relation, which shall be discussed further in another article. The designation of single object can also consist of several words on other signs. For brevity, let every such designation be called a proper name. The sense of proper name is grasped by everybody who is sufficiently familiar with the language or totality of designation to which it belongs, but this serves to illuminate only a single aspect of the referent, supposing it to exist. Comprehensive knowledge of the referent would require us to be able to say immediately whether every given sense belongs to it. To such knowledge we never attain. The regular connection between a sign, its sense and its referent is of such a kind that to the sign there corresponds a definite sense and to that in turn a definite referent, while to a given referent (an object) there does not belong only a single sign. The same sense has different expressions in different languages or even in a same language”.
[8] F. Braudel used this term trying to avoid using the term “national”.
[9] Before this period the defeat of a king or a prince meant only the defeat or weakening of a given dynasty, and the fate of king’s subjects, practically, didn’t matter.
[10] It should be noted, that the changes that had happened in the end of 20th century had and are having significant impact on altering the perception of the notion of “system of international relations” during this transition period.
[11] In this case it would be appropriate to cite F. Braudel: “It was becoming clear that only the rival of the city-state, the territorial state, rich in land and manpower, would in future be able to meet the expense of modern warfare; it could maintain paid armies and afford costly artillery; it was soon to indulge in the added extravagance of full-scale naval wars.And its advance was long to be irreversible”.
[12] The principle, which was already stated in 18th century, was finally fixed during 20th century. According to it in addition to already accepted restrictions relating to individuals, but the control over which was assigned to the state (“don’t murder”, “don’t steal”, “don’t commit adultery”, etc.), restrictions relating to the state were added. For instance, state does not have the right to restrict the freedom of movement of person, the right of self-determination, which does not relate to the principle of national state, but universality is fixed.
[13] In global world, during the period of global processes, the city-states, apparently, can be compared with nation-states by involvement in the system of international relations, influence on the outside world etc., in other words by intension to outside.
[14] However, the struggle for ruling the world extremely strained relations between coalitions. This fact will inevitably weaken all of them without exceptions. In this case either the Orwellian scenario will be brought to life, or, which is more likely to happen, the period of “city-states” i.e. national states, will come back again.
[15] There was a time, when the phrase “Jazz, jeans and Coca-Cola destroyed the Soviet Union” was popular.
[16] Hardly contemporary classical music CDs will be demanded among Taliban members of Afghanistan; and the filter, axiomatically, is the value system of this subculture.

“Artzif” philosophical journal, 2008 pp. 118-134


Powered by WordPress. Хорошие темы для WP, просто Drupal, CMF WordPress русский.