The author of the term “geoculture” is Immanuel Wallerstein. The concept of geoculture is considered by him in the context of his world-system concept and related global geopolitical and geo-economic problems. He defines this concept as a cultural way of organizing world space. In it, the scientist distinguishes societies that are part of the civilization core of the existing world, societies that are on the periphery, as well as societies that occupy positions, the so-called semi-periphery. Geoculture is considered as a synonym for the cultural pressure of the industrial center of the capitalist world-system on its agrarian periphery – in particular, pressure that ensured the legitimacy of the global world order through the introduction of a global modernization plan for national development. Geoculture, as understood by I. Wallerstein and his followers, can thus be interpreted as the continuing cultural influence of the former metropolitan colonies on their ex-colonies. However, Wallerstein ignores the fact, which seemed quite obvious to Fernand Brodel, one of the founders of the world-system theory, that civilization is not identical to the world-economy, and therefore there is not one civilization in the world. Braudel proceeded from the premise that any community, which at some time was a separate geo-economics, in the next centuries, even integrating into a large geo-economic space, preserves the potential of a special civilization and a separate identity. Wallerstein, on the other hand, announced that in today’s world there are as many civilizations as there are peace-economies in it, that is one. Therefore, geoculture, in his opinion, is also one – planetary, whereas the past of peoples does not affect their current position in the world system. If Wallerstein took into account the fundamentally different approach of his teacher, he should also recognize the possibility of an alternative point of view according to which geocultures in the world can be much larger.
In our opinion, the more accurate, adequate definition of geoculture is given by the well-known researcher V. Tsymbursky. He proposes to interpret geoculture as a method of political design and political operation based on the mobilization of certain cultural signs that allow the subject to differently distinguish “his” and “other’s” in the world. “Political design and operation”, in his opinion, is clearly closer to politics than to culture, even if with the prefix “geo”. V. Tsymbursky believes that in the geocultural design of space, it is a question of geopolitics, which is being built on cultural grounds and criteria, that is, On the differentiation of cultural “own” and culturally “alien”, not political “friends” and “enemies” according to K. Schmitt, namely, culturally “their own” and culturally “alien”, who assimilate certain values and do not assimilate them. Geo-cultural subjectivity has, in the opinion of V. Tsymbursky, those states that are able to choose their own “own” and distinguish them from “outsiders”, as well as implement political projects based on such distinctions. In the end, every civilization, every civilizational community has its own geoculture, its own technique of geocultural design.
Geoculture denotes the continuing socio-cultural linkage of the former colonial metropolises with the territories formerly owned by them, and represents in modern conditions the cultural basis of the entire dominant capitalist world-system.
Geocultural ties, “stitching” the industrial (and now – evolving into a post-industrial) world with the so-called. Third world “are an important factor in the policy of naturalization of” developed countries “, one of the criteria that allows them to distinguish between” their “,” almost-their own “and” strangers “in the outside world. Geoculture is one of the forms of “cultural representation of space”, in some ways complementary to the so-called. “Civilizational” (Toynbee-Huntington) approach, but in some way representing him an alternative. Geoculture can be viewed as a form of representation of political realities through “spatial images”, as a product of image-geographical interpretations. Geocultural spaces form communities of people, ethnic worlds, united primarily by a common culture and language. Geoculture is a way of geopolitical design, operation and expansion, based on cultural grounds and criteria, i.e. On the distinction between “culturally” and “culturally” foreigners. “Geoculture as a symbolic capital ensures the continuity of geopolitics and geo-economics. An analysis of such a capacious concept as geoculture requires the differentiation of related terms and definitions:
1. Geocultural space is a system of sustainable cultural realities and representations formed on a certain territory as a result of coexistence, intertwining, interaction, confrontation of different faiths, cultural traditions and norms, value orientations, deep psychological structures of perception and functioning of world pictures. Culture in this case becomes interesting as a product of image-geographical interpretations.
2. Geoculture of development is a historical form of cultural pressure in order to provide modernization programs. Geoculture of development is the dominant concept of 1945-70, which is the ideological justification for the invariably existing inequality between the center of wealth (domination) and the periphery of poverty (catching up development). The international program of catching-up development proved useless for most countries of the world, which led the world system, according to Wallerstein, into the “current impasse”.
3. The geocultural alternative is one of the forms of “cultural representation of space”, in some ways complementing the “civilizational” approach (Toynbee-Huntington), but in some ways it represents an alternative. In principle, in a different sense, a geocultural alternative is used within the discourse of modern political Islam. The geocultural alternative is really an alternative basis (ontological order) and an alternative project of a just global world order promoted by Islam on the basis of Sharia.
4. Geocultural communities – the remaining sociocultural links of the former metropolitan countries with the territories formerly owned by them. Geocultural communities, as a rule (though not exclusively), are based on preserving the language of the metropolis in their former possessions (dominions, colonies, limes, etc.) as an official state (second state language), the language of education or the language of the cultural and / or Business elite. The geocultural community is stronger, the higher was the educational potential of the metropolis in the period of the existence of the colonial system.
5. Geocultural ties – what “sews” the industrial (currently – evolving into the post-industrial) world with the so-called. Third world. Geocultural ties are an important factor in the policy of naturalization of “developed countries,” one of the criteria that allows them to distinguish between “their”, “almost-their own” and “strangers” in the outside world.
6. Geo-cultural periphery – a space that is a renewable source of a demographic resource (immigration flow) that meets the specified characteristics – qualifying, educational, sex-age, but, primarily, linguistic and cultural. The strengthening of the geocultural periphery for the states “demographic recipients” is of fundamental importance and constitutes part of their geostrategic planning.
7. Geocultural images – according to D. Zamyatin, as mentioned above, the system of the most powerful, bright and large-scale geospatial signs, symbols, characteristics, describing the features of the development and functioning of certain cultures and / or civilizations in a global context. Geocultural images are mainly related to exogenous formations, i.e. Border, formed at the junction of adjacent geographic images. So, for example, in the formation of the geocultural image of Russia took part geographical images of Eastern Europe, Eurasia, the Black Sea region, the Baltic and the Caucasus.
So why is the geocultural method so important right now? As it was already said, now, when the paradigm of postmodernity is spreading deeper into the world, politics is changing, turning into post-politics. What does this mean? The fact that the tendencies of the erosion of the contours and the scale of the event are intensifying, there is a failure in the classical logical strategies of thinking. This means that any “direct”, “tough” political actions can be, with the help of modern tools, filed differently, perverted, or generally silent.
The factor of globalization played its role, lowering the significance of the factor of borders and boundary. Now the war is being waged not so much for territory, as for the consciousness of the people. The Russian world is there – where is a Russian man speaking, seeing and thinking in Russian. Culture is the matrix of the people, the ethnos, the way of its self-expression. If we want to achieve the establishment of the hegemony of our people and our country as a pole, one of the many poles of a multipolar world of the future, we must carefully develop and introduce a geocultural method into practice. This is what Gennady Nikolaevich Nuryshev says.
The geopolitical strategy of Russia, which claims to be a geocivilizational pole, should be based on the cultural genotype of Russian civilization, the rich cultural heritage of the peoples of our country. If the people of the geopolitical method are the political nation, then the geocultural method emphasizes the ethnos, its cultural component.
Also, there is another reason why we should pay attention to culture. Although our hopes for Trump as the killer of the global “Swamp” have not been justified, yet in one our analysts are right – more globalization in the form in which it existed earlier will not continue. The emphasis shifts to other forces that will continue to kill Sacred, but on a different front. These forces are the forces of modern technologies that are distorting the human being, virtual reality and transhumanism. This same idea is confirmed by the famous Russian economist Valentin Katasonov in his article written at the death of Rockefeller. “Most likely, financial and economic globalization will not continue in its previous form. Not only people but also institutions of the globalization epoch descend from the scene. I mean the Wall Street banks, the main shareholders of the Fed. Of course, they can be formally preserved, even under the previous signs: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, State Street, Wells Fargo, etc. However, the methods of their work will change; Most likely, they will have new owners.
It is about the nomination of a new clan, which I provisionally call the “Silicon Valley”. These are representatives of high-tech, focused on creating a digital world with the help of information and computer technology (ICT). An important part of this digital world is digital money, digital banks. Wall Street banks today are not ready for the decisive changes dictated by the “digital revolution”. Impudent and aggressive guys from Silicon Valley call traditional banks “dinosaurs of the twentieth century” and are going to take their place under the sun. Financial and economic globalization is already in the past. The next act of world drama is the construction of a global electronic concentration camp. And for people from Silicon Valley, David Rockefeller is a dinosaur of the twentieth century. The dinosaur did its work and quietly went into oblivion. The greedy dinosaurs of financial capitalism and financial globalization are being replaced by even greedy and aggressive jackals of the digital world. ” It is worth to look at the high popularity of any information, one way or another related to such topics, to make sure that this is indeed so. All the cultural experience accumulated by artists for many years can very often look antistate and anti-national. But in fact, in this experience, reflected in art, there is a huge power aimed at reviving the spirit of Sacral, the sacred freedom enjoyed by artists. And now, with the appearance of such a force that is aimed at the destruction and enslavement of the human soul – modern technologies, we are called upon to direct our entire spiritual experience against ultramaterial evil, in order to preserve the soul in a primordial, God-like form.