1. Globalization

Though the term «globalization» is widely used nowadays, it has not been clearly defined yet. Usually it implies general problems touching the world on the whole as well as the consequences of integration processes in the form of formation of united/global world market, free movement of goods and services, and also propagation of information. Information revolution and even the birth in near future of man of a new quality and, a new global community form - mega-society, mega-culture, super-ethnos have become common topics.

In our opinion globalization, the Internet and other latest means of communication can contribute to the manifestation of the best or worst, lofty or vile sides of human nature. But they are not capable of giving birth to a new kind of man, that is, the man who is beyond any contemporary major and leading ethnos or, as we should assume, the ethnoses with a millenniums old history and culture. Therefore the hopes of some intellectuals for cultural integration, i.e. formation of a single(world) culture and even «convergence» of ethnoses (nations and peoples) in the future into a certain super-ethnos or a «mega-society» seem quite problematic.

We read the following in one reputable scientific edition: «The notion «civilization» reflects powerful integrative capability and force, universalisation trend permitting creation of a certain superunity, large scale community on the basis of a certain sociocultural paradigm» (New Philosophical Encyclopedia. Moscow, volume 4, 2001, p. 333). It is also acknowledged that «ambivalent condition of modern world civilization implies (in the sense of terms and content) its splitting into two «branches» - the East and the West, each with its specific «genotype» and own logic of development, the interaction between two types of society - traditional and man-made can be achieved through interosculation of achievements and values of traditional and man-made civilizations (ibid, p.334).

It may be assumed, the culture (civilization) of both the East and West has its specific genotype in the proper sense of this term and internal (other conditions being equal) logic of development. Thus it will be at least premature to speak about the possibility of creating certain large scale community on the basis of a given socio-cultural paradigm in the observable (and even distant) future. We can talk only about interaction of cultures (creative or destructive) but not about their interosculation,  i.e. trend towards integration at least when discussing the cultures of the East and West.

The reasons explaining why homogenizing of cultures of the East and West, their integration and unification are impossible in the observable future, in our opinion, are worth mentioning. The questions pertaining to Functional brain asymmetry and the distinctive features of ethnic cultures are meant here. These issues are effectively covered in detail in the article «Interhemispheric Brain Asymmetry and Culture Integration Issue» by V.S. Rotenberg and V.V. Arshavskiy published in «Philosophy Issues» journal (1984, No. 4, p. 78 - 86).

Speaking about globalization and the possibility of integration of cultures, the authors insist that the integration (unification) of cultures though being desirable is difficult to implement: it requires mutual understanding between people brought up in different cultures, meanwhile such mutual understanding is «difficult to achieve» (same source) if, we dare add, it can be achieved at all. Opinions are frequent according to which the integration of very different cultures such as the cultures of the West and the East (the Islamic world, China, India , etc.) is out of the question. Thus, Al-Janabi, an Iraqi scholar, noted at the Third International Symposium devoted to «Dialogue between Civilizations: East – West» which took place in Moscow (April, 1997) that «mutual understanding between the East and West and especially the Western-Eastern sincrisis of ideas and beliefs were ruled out for both genetic and essential reasons... A dialogue between the Western and Eastern  cultures is not so unthinkable as it cannot be implemented in reality due to drastic heterogeneity in the fundamentals of civilization; only business and virtually position-based relationships are possible with the realization and preservation of their heterogeneity and fatally unavoidable antinomity» (Anikeyeva, Semushkin. Dialogue of Civilizations // Philosophy Issues, 1998, No. 2, p. 177).

M.T. Stepanyants, a Russian scholar in Eastern sciences, has agreed that the axiom of parallelism between the civilization attributes of the East and West hampers a productive dialogue between them with regard to a notion such as «justice», for example, the content of which fails to match in Western mentality and in traditional Chinese and Hindu societies (see p. 175 in the same paper). N.S. Kibareva, the Dean of the Russian University of Friendship of Peoples (RUDN) noted that in studying global issues regard should be paid to the fact of cultural diversity and polyarchism (multiple world policy centres) both «in the world as a whole and between the East and West» (see p. 177 in the same source).

We shall add that pointing to the reinforcement of international ties, especially economic ones, the proponents of globalization, firstly, exaggerate too much the role of economic factor in international relations and, secondly, lose sight of contradictory nature of globalization: promoting co-operation between peoples and increasing common elements (mostly, information and technological phenomena) globalization at the same time causes tension and conflicts owing to economic and political interests, ideological (overall value) preferences and priorities.

The genetic factor that determines to a significant degree inter-cultural differences, including the way of thinking, is inter-hemispheric (brain) asymmetry. It is established that the logical and verbal reflection of the world, as well as reading and counting is related to the function (activity) of the left cerebral hemisphere. Operating images, spatial orientation, differentiation of musical tones, melodies and non-verbal sounds, recognition of complex objects (for example, human faces), as well as the development of dreams are determined by the activity of the right hemisphere.

Each of the kinds of thinking has its advantages and limitations. Logical-verbal (logical-sign) thinking as discrete, analytical and abstract thinking performs a number of successive operations, supports consistent analysis of subjects and phenomena by a definite number of attributes. The consistent model of the world built by logical-sign thinking and expressed in words and other conventional signs is a necessary condition for social communication, definitive relationships between society members, and the identification of cause and consequence relationships between things and phenomena. However, the aforementioned kind of thinking chooses just some of the attributes, links and relationships in the world of things and processes making poorer the world that it reflects and its objective picture.

Unlike the verbal-sign (logical) kind of thinking, the image kind of thinking ensures comprehension of the world in its entirety, and it does so simultaneously and synthetically. In other words, the image kind of thinking related to the function of the right hemisphere allows to «capture» immediately, fully and entirely the multiple properties of objects, links between them, to identify multiple sides and relations in the world of things and phenomena. This possibility forms the basis of intuition and the creative process.

However, the image-based thinking to a lesser extent than notion-based thinking reacts to contradictions in judgement and to consistency of thoughts in the course of judgement.

Naturally, the two hemispheres are not isolated from each other being linked by their functions. Each of them contributes its own specific features into operation of the brain as a whole. It means that, apart from other things, the logical type of thinking comprises certain elements of the image-based thinking and vice versa, the image-based kind of thinking comprises elements of the logical thinking. It is clear that the «specific content» of this or another kind of thinking is different for different people same as for different ethnoses. More precisely, all kinds of thinking are present in each ethnos (nation), but one of them dominates, that is this or another kind of vision statistically dominates to a certain degree among individuals belonging to a particular ethnos.

2. Kinds of thinking and cultural identity

Speaking about the distinctive features of interhemispheric asymmetry and, in fact, about identity of ethnic cultures, the authors (V.S. Rotenberg and V.V. Arshavskiy) refer to Makoto Kikuchi, a Japanese scholar, who, not being a specialist in cerebral sciences and, perhaps, having no idea about the functional asymmetry of the brain, paid attention to «a fundamental difference in the nature of thinking of the Japanese, on the one side, and representatives of the Western civilization, on the other side» in his paper under the title of «Creativity and Ways of Thinking The Japanese Style» (Kikuchi M. Creativity and Ways of Thinking: The Japanese Style // Physics Today, 1981, p. 42 - 51.). The author showed that «the Japanese are not prone to using definitive formulas such a "yes" or "no" in the course of both business and domestic communication. Rigid differentiation between "white" and "black" is not typical of their culture, they are very sensitive to all tinges of light, the whole spectrum, be it comprehension of nature or relationships between people... As for the English language, he (Kikuchi - F.K.) writes, expression in letters, focus on logic, linear structure are typical of it, and it is particularly convenient for science. The Japanese language is more appropriate for poetry, it expresses content with the use of similarities, is focused on feelings» (V.S. Rotenberg and V.V. Arshavskiy, the same source, p. 83 ).

It follows from here that the image-based thinking, which the Japanese possess, is related to increased activity of the right hemisphere thinking. It also means that «As regards creative potential, the Japanese, evidently, exceed Europeans and Americans on the average, and such potential capabilities are embodied with brilliance in some kinds of art (poetry, painting). But Kikuchi draws attention to the fact that as regards exact sciences, creative capabilities are not embodied with as much brilliance as it could be expected» (ibid). Kikuchi accounts for this circumstance by the fact that as compared with the Western society, the Japanese society is psychologically homogeneous. Individualism and independent thinking are not developed well enough in the Japanese society

Japan is one the few countries of the world which achieved tremendous progress in almost all industries by purchasing Western technological projects and making some improvements in them, particularly in the electronic technology and electronic industries, as well as in the automotive and ship-building industries.

Globalism poses no danger to Japan. Following the precept «Japanese spirit. Western technology», this country managed to preserve its ethnic identity in the conditions of general unifying processes. The same can be said about other countries of the Southeast Asia which stick to the principal: «Think globally, act locally».

In our opinion the example of Japan shows that though globalization brings about interaction and mutual enrichment of ethnic cultures, it however does not and cannot remove the diversity of cultures, i.e. unify them on the basis of a «certain socio-cultural paradigm». It is understandable: the ethnic feelings and tendencies to preserve ethnic originality are deeply embedded in the consciousness of each people. Moreover, the mentality of ethnoses and their culture in large measure, as has already been mentioned, are determined by inter-hemispheric (brain) functional asymmetry. In fact, despite all unity of the human race, general cultural values and orientations there are however fundamental prerequisites for preserving the originality and identity of ethnic cultures, especially among large ethnoses and leading civilizations.

In view of the above, certain ideas of S. Huntington stated in his sensational article «The Clash of Civilization» (1993) and the book «The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order» (N.Y., 1996; both works published in Russian), seem rather debatable. According to one of the basic ideas of the author the nucleus of each civilization (culture) is formed by religion, and religious believes are most strongly embedded in the consciousness of peoples. From here follows the supposition of  S. Huntington that the next world war, if it happens, will be the war of civilizations, mainly on religious grounds. In our opinion if the war happens, it will be ethnic one. In fact, the overwhelming majority of current local clashes, military actions and tensions are of ethnic nature. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain the growing tendencies (for example, in the country of Basks, Nagorny Karabakh, Abkhasia, Chechnya, Kurdistan and other regions) to ethnic isolation and separatism against the background of world unifying economic and political processes, formation of world communication-system, joint efforts for environmental protection etc.

In our opinion, the world historic (including civilization) process is characterized by two opposite but equal in rights tendencies: to overall contact of cultures on the one hand and to their ethnic and cultural preservation on the other hand (the latter in the conditions of democratic regimes does not propose ethnic separatism and at any rate weakens tendencies to it). The unity of diversity and the diversity of unity compose the dialectics (the unity of opposites) of life and existence. And therefore the idea about formation of a single (world) culture, super ethnos or «megasociety» in the observable future, not to speak about current globalization (mostly economic) processes, seems to be an illusion, utopia, wishful thinking .