“I believe that the conceptual symbolism of the social revolution on the scale of human development has largely ended its mandate, as a way of radical change and increasing the permissiveness of a new model of social evolution in the economic, social and political spectrum, in the desired sense. There is no possible confusion (intentionally or not) between the various forms of revolutionary movements (if they really exist in different parts of the world) and the concept of social revolution, since we find its representative paradigms in the French and Russian revolutions.
The geopolitical and geostrategic divergences in the contemporary world that can manifest themselves in various coordinates (conflicts, conflicting interests, local wars, etc.) are not subsumed to social revolutions, even if there is a certain temptation to introduce them in the power games in various parts of the world, by relating them (in particular) to the perception of the collective mind.”/1/
After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1990s, undisguised enthusiasm gripped millions. Historical, economic, social and political predictability has collapsed into a well-organized disorganization, revealed by the subsequent evolution of events in this part of the world. In what direction were our new hopes evolving? The Cold War was over, the communist ideology had suffered a severe blow, but it had not exhausted its foundations. The horn of abundance for crowd psychology was found in the USA, Western Europe, Canada, etc. Let’s remember the parable of the Apple and Newton. We expected it to turn red, like a bathtub, after which the bag of abundance will be found immediately…
In 1991, G. Bush sr. announced the reference vector of global evolution, NWO. Future events seemed to take shape in a global geopolitical position. The only (military, economic) power in the world, USA, repositioned its coordinates as a world leader.
H. Kissinger noted: „Traditional American idealism must be combined with a modest assessment of contemporary realities to reveal a usable definition of American interests.”
Globalization emerged as something subsidiary in this new context (NWO). Theoretical approaches, contextual analyzes, points of view, involvement of various social actors have increased exponentially in supporting the phenomenon. I do not want to develop a conceptual analysis of globalization. * Globalization, like many other concepts, „suffers” through its temporal indeterminacy. We can identify its beginnings with some circumspection, but the final predictability of the temporal area enters an atypical sinusoid. Are we referring to the year 2100? Maybe later on… People’s expectations will be passed down from generation to generation. There are connotations, customs, values, and social perceptions, always different.
Because we face common physiological and safety needs, different access to natural resources, a population explosion, visible changes in the environment, a multitude of cultures and values, it is necessary to access step by step visible elements/less visible included in what we generically call globalization. As a complex phenomenon, globalization will include various socio-economic dimensions, including self-imposed ones. The events are ongoing. „To be or not to be” (William Shakespeare).
I repeat the observations. They are important and defining for my theoretical approach.
• Globalization ensures slow, somewhat predictable changes from a top-down perspective (reference social processes are paramount in relation to people’s social needs).
• If there will be a finality in the process of globalization, will the existence of a single decision-maker be accepted sine qua non?
• Will the hypothetical completion of globalization determine the end of the periodization of human history, in the parameters known today?
• Is there, at the level of sociological imagination, any convergent socio-economic model after globalization?
• What is the role of geopolitics in this huge development of social phenomena and processes?
• Will globalization require a levelling of the collective mind and individual consciences?
The social phenomena and processes generated by globalization are complex, diverse and require a hierarchy. Flip the pyramid! The phenomena and social processes generated come from „up and down” (not from God).
So, globalization and the related pyramid.
Beyond their spatial representation, the two pyramids „share” some common circumstances. Maslow’s pyramid is based on the fundamental physiological needs that must ensure the survival of the more than seven billion inhabitants of the planet. The distribution and provision of these needs are unequal on a global level, generating: poverty, illiteracy, precarious health conditions, legal/illegal international migration, human trafficking, etc.
Globalization perceived as a sum of specific processes and social phenomena, includes the components of the concept, but also some specific segments: the needs of European integration, the needs of regionalization in various parts of the world, national needs, institutional needs, narrative needs. Globalization is a historical process, temporarily indeterminate. Globalization does not merge with the NWO, which is the prerogative of global power (or great powers). Globalization in various forms of pragmatic manifestation will include the entire planet. Its „social pressure” is from top to bottom, sometimes imperceptible, slow, tacitly accepted and/or vice versa. It is achieved through a process of social translation. There is also certainty in a somewhat broader context of the globalization approach at the beginning of the third millennium: “The standardization of the globe, under the auspices of the information revolution and financial globalization, takes on the aspect of a law that is all the more exclusive, as it seems that there is no darker perspective for a country nowadays than to be excluded from this planetary dynamic.” / 4/
1. V. Radovan, Social changes and the twilight of social revolutions, https://asociatia-zamolxe.ro/social-changes-and-the-twilight-of-social-revolutions/
3. A. Giddens, Sociologie, Editura ALL, 2001, p. 465
4. S. Bessis, Occidentul și ceilalți, Editura Runa, 2004, p.154