/View.info/ In Western political science, there are several similar terms that confuse the context of the formation of a multipolar world order. In addition to multipolarity, the words multipolarity and multilateralism are used. However, if we deconstruct them, it will become apparent that they have another meaning.
With multipolarity, everything is more or less clear, although, again, in the West initially, when they understood polarity, they started from a geographical definition, and since there are only two poles on Earth – North and South, this carried certain connotations.
In the age of the Cold War and bipolarity, it even emphasized a certain naturalness of the existence of two poles. However, if we take a different starting position, then there may be many more poles.
Based on Martin Heidegger’s explanation in his Parmenides, we conclude that poles can be as much as peoples, and here there is some connection with the concept of Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, where Dasein is proposed as the basis for the design of goal-setting in time and space that unfolds in political processes.
When we turn to multipolarity, it immediately becomes obvious that we are talking about some ideological construction. The ending -ism (multipolarism) refers us to various theoretical and practical political models from communism and Marxism to liberalism and fascism. Therefore, multipolarity appears as a kind of umbrella concept, although as such the ideology of “multipolarism” or “multipolarity” does not exist.
There are different visions of the formation of a multipolar global political system. From one perspective, states act as poles; from another point of view they may be associations and unions; from a third point of view – civilizations (sometimes coinciding with countries, as in the case of Russia, India and China).
However, the term multipolarity itself can serve as a kind of landmark, a beacon that stimulates the further development of the practical aspects of multipolarity.
In the case of multilateralism, we face a completely different approach in international relations. This is a model proposed by the United States during the Barack Obama administration as an additional incentive for Washington’s hegemony.
Only the US leadership in this format is not so obvious. It’s sort of like the “nudge” method of social behaviorism proposed by Cass Sunstein (also served in the Obama White House administration).
The title of one of his books, The Illusion of Choice, perfectly demonstrates the principle of multilateralism. Other countries have the illusion of diverse and multilateral relationships, but all of them (in politics, economics, logistics, etc.) are woven into a global system controlled by one actor – the United States.
The UN also often focuses on multilateralism and a number of specialized agencies work on this principle. At the same time, as in the case of Internet regulation, attempts by one side to increase the number of votes at the expense of conditional entities, that is, private companies that supposedly also have the right to participate in the development of new standards, are evident. Thus, the US is trying to use this tool to maintain its dominance.
But even among supporters of multipolarity and critics of US hegemony, one can sometimes hear the use of this term. And that creates confusion.
Therefore, both adequate revision and a carefully considered use of the terminological apparatus are necessary. In developing a new approach to international relations (especially when it comes to a non-Western theory of international relations), the remnants associated with parasitic globalism must be cut away.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#Multipolarity #multilateral #relations #View #Info
