Gasan Guseinov examines an example of an early anti-globalist “nativist” [pochvennicheskii] reaction to the internationalization of culture, or early multiculturalism. Using the book My Dagestan, translated into Russian by Vladimir Soloukhin, as well as the latter’s own writing, he analyzes the formation of Soviet postcolonial discourse.
The aim of the article is to clarify some tendencies of how EU’s external policy is formed. Using the postcolonial approach, the authors illuminate the influence of history on the system of international relations, in particular on the normative influence today. Using the 2016 EU's Global Strategy as an example, the authors demonstrate the specificity of the EU's policy that is aimed at the maintenance of its normative leadership in wider Europe. Brussels accords particular attention to the role of Russia in this agenda, which on the one hand allows speaking about Russia as an independent actor but on the other hand certifies that the perception of Russia as a recipient of international norms (and not as an agent of these norms) is still firmly established in the EU.
The aim of the article is to reveal new concepts and models, systems of argumentation, rethinking of main categories, orientation to new social disciplines and self-reflection in different directions of the world history in the 21st century.
In the 1990s world history relying on the achievements of global and postcolonial studies has been radically transformed and, after several decades of existence in the backyards of historical science, has regained its leading position. Studies conducted in the framework of world history have established new directions that are the result of critical and postmodern revolutions in philosophy (postcolonial criticism, first of all) and rely on a number of concepts and approaches developed in the course of anthropological, linguistic and cultural twists and turns.
Firstly, we mean global and transnational history, offering ways to construct a universal non-Eurocentric world. Secondly, world history, analyzing interactions between world systems and local civilizations (cultural transfer), and complex networks of mutual influences of various historical phenomena. Third, the international history of the formation and development of various international institutions. Fourth, the Big history, which claims not only to encompass "the whole world", but also "all the time", that is, a time beyond the social - "time of the Earth."
The attention of historians is switched to the study of social trajectories, cultural exchanges, multiple identities; there is a fundamental rejection of dualistic oppositions (Europe / third world, metropoly / colony, center / periphery, city / village, modernization / tradition). All variants of the "new world history" are alliances of history with different disciplines, up to the attempts at integration with biology, geology, and cosmology.
The next transformation of the historical science in the 2000s and especially in the last decade is unusually favorable precisely for the development of world history. Firstly, it is the renewed need for broad contexts and large narratives. Secondly, the "spatial turn" in the social sciences and in historiography in particular. Thirdly, the awakened interest of historians in the metaphysics of time and the idea of multitemporality.