intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2015.13.2.41.5intertrends-848Research ArticleАНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИЗМЫANALYTICAL PRISMSНаука и инновации в теориях международных отношенийScience and Innovations in International Relations TheoriesГолубевДенисGolubevDenis

Голубев Денис Сергеевич – кандидат политических наук, доцент Кафедры американских исследований Факультета международных отношений Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета

Санкт-Петербург

Dr Denis Golubev – Associate Professor of International Affairs, Saint Petersburg State University

St. Petersburg, 199034

denis.golubev@yahoo.comСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg State UniversityRussian Federation2015100920251326680Copyright © Голубев Д., 20252025Голубев Д.Golubev D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/848

В статье освещается роль технологических инноваций в теоретическом осмыслении международных отношений. С учетом возросшего значения науки и технологии в ускорении мирового развития, определение их влияния на эволюцию глобальной системы представляется оправданным. Автор рассматривает многообразие подходов к этому вопросу в рамках классических и современных международно-политических теорий и парадигм. Цель статьи – установление причин концептуальной недостаточности традиционных научных школ в понимании роли науки и инноваций для развития международных отношений как системного явления в социально-политической жизни общества и государства, а также выявление более перспективных теоретических подходов. Автор прослеживает концептуальную уязвимость научного инструментария, предлагаемого реалистской (в силу ее узко инструментального подхода) и либерально-идеалистической (в силу ее линейного технологического детерминизма) традициями, а также социальным конструктивизмом (в силу его социально-культурного детерминизма), для изучения той системной роли, которую наука и технологии играют в глобальных политических трансформациях. Если сторонники реализма видят в научно-технологическом развитии один из источников международно-политического могущества государств, вовлеченных в силовую конкуренцию, то либералы и неолибералы представляют его как основание системных инноваций – появления новых участников и сюжетов в международной жизни. Напротив, конструктивисты обращают внимание на социально обусловленный характер технологического развития, подчиненность инновационного процесса существующим нормам и ценностям их создателей. Само по себе значение научных инноваций индетерминированно, оно приобретает смысл только в системном контексте. Автор отмечает, что комплексный анализ взаимовлияния науки и технологий и социально-политических систем – объект изучения специальной междисциплинарной предметной области, получившей название «исследования общества, науки и технологии». В то же время в работах ее представителей международно-политическая тематика остается периферийной. С учетом недостаточного уровня теоретической концептуализации взаимосвязи науки, технологий и международных отношений в последней части статьи оцениваются перспективы более плодотворного осмысления проблемы, связанные с расширением существующего междисциплинарного исследовательского поля и развитием «теории сложности» («теории сложных систем») в ее преломлении к изучению глобальных процессов.

The article addresses the role of technological innovations in the theoretical discourse on international relations. The role of science and technology in global development is forever increasing, and it is important to reflect its impact on political interactions. The author examines multiple approaches to this issue by traditional and current political theories and paradigms. He seeks to determine the degree of conceptual sufficiency or insufficiency of established academic approaches for understanding the role of science and innovation in international relations as a systemic social and political phenomenon. It also seeks to disclose more promising theoretical frameworks. The author argues that realist and liberal paradigms (due to their technological determinism), as well as social constructivism (due to its social and cultural determinism), are conceptually fragile for understanding the systemic role that science and technology play in global political transformations. While realists study the effect of scientific and technological development on the distribution of capabilities among actors, liberals identify it as a source of systemic innovations, leading to the rise of new types of actors and themes in international politics. On the contrary, constructivists focus on the socially defined nature of technological development and its dependence on existing norms and on the values of their creators. The importance of scientific innovations is undetermined. The author also presents the findings of the Science, Technology and Society studies, which emerged as an interdisciplinary field of research of interrelations between social systems. However, the agenda of international politics remains on the sidelines of this research program. Due to the gaps in the previous theoretical frameworks, the author outlines prospects for more prolific consideration of the problem through further development of the interdisciplinary research field and the complexity theory as applied to international processes.

наукаинновациитехнологииполитический реализмлиберализмсоциальный конструктивизмтеория сложностиsciencetechnologyinternational relations theoriespolitical realismliberalismconstructivismcomplexity theoryReferencesБогатуров А.Д. Лидерство и децентрализация в международной системе // Международные процессы. 2006. Т. 4. № 12. С. 5–15.Adler E. (1986). Ideological “Guerrillas” and the Quest for Technological Autonomy: Brazil’s DomesticЗиновьева Е.С., Казанцев А.А. Сложность мировой политики: к вопросу о новой методологии анализа // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2015. № 4. С. 58–67.Computer Industry. International Organization. No. 40: 675–705. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300027314Крутских А.В., Зиновьева Е.С. Новое лицо мировой политики // Международные процессы. 2014. Т. 12. № 36–37. С. 20–32.Adler E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations. No. 3: 319–363. DOI: 10.1177/1354066197003003003 Angell N. (1912). The Great Illusion. N.Y.: Arno. 335 p.Фукуяма Ф. Конец истории и последний человек. М.: АСТ. 2007. 588 с.Aron R. (1959). La Soci t industrielle et la Guerre. Paris. 408 p.Adler E. Ideological “Guerrillas” and the Quest for Technological Autonomy: Brazil’s Domestic Computer Industry // International Organization. 1986. № 40. P. 675–705. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300027314Aron R. (1966). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. N.Y.: Double Day. 820 p.Adler E. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics // European Journal of International Relations. 1997. № 3. P. 319–363. DOI: 10.1177/1354066197003003003Axelrod R. M. (1997). The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 258 p.Angell N. The Great Illusion. N.Y.: Arno. 1912. 335 p.Bogaturov A.D. (2006). Liderstvo I detsentralizatsiya v mezhdunarodnoy susteme [Leadership and Decent ralization in the International Syatem]. Mezhdunarodniye protsessi [International Trends]. Vol. 4. No. 12: 5–15.Aron R. La Soci t industrielle et la Guerre. Paris. 1959. 408 p.Bousquet A., Curtis S. (2011). Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 24. No. 1: 43–62.Aron R. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. N.Y.: Double Day. 1966. 820 p.Castells M. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Part 1: The Rise of Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 556 p.Axelrod R.M. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration.Cutler R.M. (2002). Complexity Science and Knowledge Creation in International Relations Theory. In: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS Publishers for UNESCO. 27 p. Available at: http://www.robertcutler.org/download/pdf/en02eolx.pdf (accessed: 10.11.2013)Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1997. 258 p.Deudney D. (1993). Dividing Realism: Structural Realism versus Security Materialism on Nuclear Security and Proliferation. Security Studies. Vol. 2. No. 3/4: 8–36. DOI: 10.1080/09636419309347518Bousquet A., Curtis S. Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2011. Vol. 24. № 1. P. 43–62.Duedney D. (1995). Nuclear Weapons and the Waning of the Real-State. Daedalus. Vol. 124. No. 2: 209–231. Fukuyama F. (2007). Konets istorii I poslidnii chelovek [The End of History and the Last Man]. M.: AST. 588 p.Castells M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Part 1: The Rise of Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 2000. 556 p.Gilpin R. (1975). U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation. N.Y.: Basic Books. 291 p.Cutler R.M. Complexity Science and Knowledge Creation in International Relations Theory // Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS Publishers for UNESCO. 2002. 27 p. URL: http://www.robertcutler.org/download/pdf/en02eolx.pdf (дата обращения: 10.11.2013)Gilpin R. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. N.J.: Princeton University Press. 472 p.Deudney D. Dividing Realism: Structural Realism versus Security Materialism on Nuclear Security andGilpin R. (2002). The Challenge of Global Capitalism. N.Y.: Princeton University Press. 408 p.Proliferation // Security Studies. 1993. Vol. 2. № 3/4. P. 8–36. DOI: 10.1080/09636419309347518Held D., McGrew A., Goldblatt D., Perraton A. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. 540 p.Duedney D. Nuclear Weapons and the Waning of the Real-State // Daedalus. 1995. Vol. 124. № 2. P. 209–231.Harrison N.E. (ed.) (2006). Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. N.Y.: State University of New York Press. 220 p.Gilpin R. The Challenge of Global Capitalism. N.Y.: Princeton University Press. 2002. 408 p.Herrera G.L. (2006). Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change. Albany: State University of New York Press. 265 p.Gilpin R. The Political Economy of International Relations. N.J.:Princeton University Press. 1987. 472 p.Hughes T.P. (1987). The Evolution of Large Technological Systems. In: Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. W. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press: 52–81.Gilpin R. U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation. N.Y.: Basic Books. 1975. 291 p.Hughes T.P. (1980). The Order of the Technological World. History of Technology. Vol. 5: 1–16.Harrison N.E. (ed.) Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. N.Y.: State University of New York Press. 2006. 220 p.Jones B. (2000). The World Turned Upside Down? Globalization and the Future of the State. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press. 314 p.Held D., McGrew A., Goldblatt D., Perraton A. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1999. 540 p.Kavalski E. (2007). The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory: Notes on the Application of Complexity Theory to the Study of International Life. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 20. No. 3: 435–454. DOI: 10.1080/09557570701574154Herrera G.L. Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2006. 265 p.Keohane R., Nye J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 261 p.Hughes T.P. The Evolution of Large Technological Systems / Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology // W. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press. 1987. P. 52–81.Keohane R., Nye J. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 148 p.Hughes T.P. The Order of the Technological World // History of Technology. 1980. Vol. 5. P. 1–16.Krutskih A.V., Zinovieva E.S. (2014). Novoye litso mirovoy politiki [The New Face of World Politics] – Mezhdunarodniye protsessi [International Trends]. Vol. 12. No. 36–37: 20–32.Jones B. The World Turned Upside Down? Globalization and the Future of the State. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press. 2000. 314 p.Morgenthau H. (1961). Western Values and Total War. Commentary. No. 32: 277–297.Kavalski E. The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory: Notes on the Application of Complexity Theory to the Study of International Life // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2007. Vol. 20. № 3. P. 435–454. DOI: 10.1080/09557570701574154Ohmae K. (1995). The Rise of the Region State. Foreign Affairs. No. 72: 78–87.Keohane R., Nye J. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown & Coю 1977. 261 p.Palan R., Abbott J., Deans P. (1996). State Strategies in the Global Political Economy. London: Pinter. 311 p.Keohane R., Nye J. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1971. 148 p.Rosecrance R. (1986). The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. N.Y.: Basic Books. 268 p.Morgenthau H. Western Values and Total War // Commentary. 1961. № 32. P. 277–297.Rosecrance R. (1999). The Rise of the Virtual State: Wealth and Power in the Coming Century. N.Y.: Basic Books. 287 p.Ohmae K. The Rise of the Region State // Foreign Affairs. 1995. № 72. P. 78–87.Rosenau J. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 504 p.Palan R., Abbott J., Deans P. State Strategies in the Global Political Economy. London: Pinter, 1996. 311 p.Rosenau J. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 467 p.Rosecrance R. The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. N.Y.: Basic Books. 1986. 268 p.Rosenau J. (2003). Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 456 p.Rosecrance R. The Rise of the Virtual State: Wealth and Power in the Coming Century. N.Y.: Basic Books. 1999. 287 p.Ruggie J. (1975). International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends. International Organization. No. 29: 557–583. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300031696Rosenau J. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. 467 p.Shaw M. (2000). Theory of the Global State: Globality as Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 316 p.Rosenau J. Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 2003. 456 p.Strange S. (1994). States and Markets. London: Pinter. 266 p.Rosenau J. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1990. 504 p.Strange S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 235 p.Ruggie J. International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends // International Organization. 1975. № 29. P. 557–583. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300031696Waltz K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. MA: Addison-Wesley. 256 p.Shaw M. Theory of the Global State: Globality as Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 316 p.Weiss L. (1998). The Myth of the Powerless State. N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 256 p.Strange S. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. 235 p.Wendt A. (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security. No. 20: 71–81. DOI:Strange S. States and Markets. London: Pinter. 1994. 266 p.2307/2539217Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. MA: Addison-Wesley. 1979. 256 p.Wendt A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 447 p.Weiss L. The Myth of the Powerless State. N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 1998. 256 p.Zinovieva E.S., Kazantsev A.A. (2015). Slozhnost’ mirovoy politiki: k voprosu o novoy metodologii analiza [Complexity of World Politics: On the Issue of New Analytical Methodology]. Mirovaya ekonomika I mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations]. No. 4: 58–67.Wendt A. Constructing International Politics // International Security. 1995. № 20. P. 71–81. DOI:Wendt A. Constructing International Politics // International Security. 1995. № 20. P. 71–81. DOI:2307/25392172307/2539217Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. 447 p.Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. 447 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.