Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур
Given article describes a development of a methodology of world geopolitics research with the use of contemporary geopolitical paradigms based on the work of expert groups in definition of the examined objects, development the set of evaluation criteria, and quantative estimation of the cultural dif...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"
2009
|
| Online Zugang: | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/107849 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | System research and information technologies |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
System research and information technologies| _version_ | 1867334308523409408 |
|---|---|
| author | Zgurovsky, М. Pasichny, А. |
| author_facet | Zgurovsky, М. Pasichny, А. |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "М. Zgurovsky",
"institution": null
},
{
"author": "А. Pasichny",
"institution": null
}
] |
| author_sort | Zgurovsky, М. |
| baseUrl_str | http://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2018-04-06T12:34:45Z |
| description | Given article describes a development of a methodology of world geopolitics research with the use of contemporary geopolitical paradigms based on the work of expert groups in definition of the examined objects, development the set of evaluation criteria, and quantative estimation of the cultural differences of different objects. Current research was based on hypothesis of S. Hantington about the "clash of civilizations". |
| first_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:22:34Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
© M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny, 2009
18 ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2
УДК 316.722+303.224.43
MODELLING OF THE CIVILIZATIONS' BREAK LINES
IN CONTEXT OF THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
M. ZGUROVSKY, A. PASICHNY
Given article describes a development of a methodology of world geopolitics re-
search with the use of contemporary geopolitical paradigms based on the work of
expert groups in definition of the examined objects, development the set of evalua-
tion criteria, and quantative estimation of the cultural differences of different ob-
jects. Current research was based on hypothesis of S. Hantington about the “clash of
civilizations”.
INTRODUCTION
Discovering the mankind's development laws and their subsequent studying has
always been interesting for scientists, both from qualitative and quantitative
points of view. Already after the Second World War in RAND Corporation
(USA) these problems were studied with the use of the game theory [1] and strat-
egy of world conflicts [2]. Jay Forrester [3] and Denis Meadows [4] continued the
research of global processes on the basis of world dynamics models created at
request of the Club of Rome in the early seventies.
It is worth mentioning, that at that time theories, basically, were directed at
modelling and prognosticating of the bipolar world. But within the last 20 years
approaches to the description of the world system dynamics have been substan-
tially reconsidered, proceeding from the new geopolitical situation in the world.
They also have been essentially improved due to the development of mathemati-
cal methods of system and scenario analysis [5] and technological calculation
means. The volume of global statistics increased, which allowed to develop inte-
grated indicators of a sustainable development and system threats for the particu-
lar countries and world regions [6, 7, 15].
GEOPOLITICAL MODELS OF THE MODERN WORLD
After the end of bipolar world era and as a result of globalisation processes, there
appeared the necessity of formation of new paradigms which would most pre-
cisely reflect the existent situation in the world. As a result, at the beginning of
nineties, there were formed 5 basic world cultures models, singled out in geopo-
litical aspect (fig. 1):
a. Model “Euphoria and harmony uniting world”
(The concept of a uniform terrestrial civilization)
Supporters of this theory led by Francis Fukuyama and his well-known essay
“The end of history and the last man” [8] considered that communism crash
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 19
would lead to domination of the western institutes of liberal democracy and free
markets all over the world. And all the remained conflicts would be insignificant
and would not be of ideological character. Several years after the fall of the Berlin
wall, with an increase of the number and scope of regional conflicts, it became
clear that this model little coincides with the political reality.
b. Model “Two worlds: we and them” (or “West and the rest”)
This model is known as «West against East», or «the rich north against the poor
south», «the faithful against sceptics», and so forth. The model is very simple and
does not describe any real conflicts in the world and fundamental distinctions be-
tween cultures and groups of countries. More detailed global data analysis that
has been made recently resulted that a phenomenon of bipolarity and inequality
gap is highly contextualized [9] therefore it cannot be used as a global model.
c. Model “Approximately 192 states”
In this model the assumption is made, that all states would practice exclusively
pragmatic policy, would maximize their own power, search the balance of forces,
and so forth. The majority of states, to certain extent, do it actively, but this model
neglects cultural indications of alliances which is very essential. On the other
hand, S. Huntington [10] shows that according to this "ideal" theory of forces'
balance, the Western Europe should have united with Soviet Union in a fight
against powerful, especially after the Second World War, United States. On the
contrary, the West European governments, supposing that the Soviet Union was a
threat for their way of life, concluded the alliance with the USA and generated
NATO. According to Huntington, the states-nations will remain the basic players
in the world politics. So, this model is useful, but it does not explain the devel-
oped distinctions between the international systems during the cold war and after
its end, as the states have always pursued their own interests.
d. Model “Evident chaos”
This model envisages [11] that states and nations would lose their importance and
eventually start to “diffuse” and even disappear. The power would be chaotically
captured by small geographical subjects or even separate individuals. Racial, eth-
nic and religious conflicts would amplify, the weapons of mass destruction would
be extended, and terrorism would increase in frequency and scale. The power of
transnational corporations and mafia organizations would also increase. The
Internet would become the most powerful authority in the XXI century, business
elite in cyber-space would become an essential player on the world scene. The
Uniform
civilization
West
and the rest
Approximately
192 states
Evident chaos Clash of
civilizations
Fig. 1. Geopolitical world models, which appeared after the end of the Cold War
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 20
world with the unified state would be impossible, and international regulating
tools, first of all the UN, would disappear. Huntington recognizes that this “anar-
chy” model adequately reflects the real current processes to large extent, but it has
no prospect from the point of view of relative importance of tendencies and the
prognosis of various conflicts' development.
e. Model “Clash of civilizations”
Due to the shortcomings of all the aforementioned paradigms, S. Huntington of-
fered one more concept of the subsequent world interaction, which is based on the
civilization approach. In his work [12] Huntington defined 8 basic civilizations:
Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic, Latin American and Afri-
can, and showed, that the subsequent world conflicts would be based not on the
ideological opposition, but on the cultural distinctions between these civilizations.
DEFINITION OF THE RESEARCH TARGET ON THE BASIS OF EXPANDED
CIVILIZATION APPROACH
It should be noted, that civilization approach has already been repeatedly used
both in historical researches [13], and in the world dynamics modelling [14]. Tak-
ing into consideration the fact that we are, first of all, interested in the cultural
context of system dynamics and influence of cultural distinctions on the course of
world conflicts, the concept of Huntington became a base of the subsequent mod-
elling of distinctions between civilizations.
Research objective of this section is the quantitative and qualitative analysis
of distinctions between world cultures on the basis of carrying out expert estima-
tion of pair distinctions between civilizations according to Huntington [10] by the
criteria defined by experts within the limits of the conducted modelling.
During the carrying out of the above-mentioned modelling we will execute
the following stages:
a. Make specifications of the civilization distribution, suggested by S. Hant-
ington.
b. Develop a system of criteria for the estimation of cultural distinctions be-
tween civilizations.
c. Develop and perform expert estimation of the cultural distinctions.
d. Process the estimation data and calculate values of “breaks” between civi-
lizations.
SPECIFICATION OF THE CIVILIZATION DISTRIBUTION AND COUNTRIES'
CLUSTERING ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA OF BELONGING TO
CIVILIZATIONS
In order to avoid the subsequent ambiguous interpretation, let us give definition of
the term “civilization”, which will be used in this research: civilization — human
community, which during the certain period of time (process of origin, develop-
ment, destruction or civilization transformation) has stable features in the socio-
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 21
political organisation, economy and culture (science, technologies, art, etc.),
common cultural wealth, ideals, mentality and world-view [14].
Procedure of clustering (association of civilizations' relative criteria in
groups) will be conducted on the basis of use of the expert estimation method.
With that end, let us generate and organise work of several expert groups. The
first expert group carried out the collective discussion of the offered list of civi-
lizations and distribution of countries between them. This expert group included
specialists — international affairs experts with global vision of geopolitical proc-
esses in the world. Formation of the civilization list (clusters) was conducted by
the way of achieving compromise between historical and mental signs of their
cultures and attempts to identify the most powerful cultural features of each civi-
lization.
As a result, 192 countries (UN members) have been grouped in 12 civiliza-
tions, shown in fig. 2 and [15].
Using all the previous calculations of remoteness degrees of the world coun-
tries from the set of global threats, let us define average values of this remoteness
degree (Table 1) for groups of countries, united on the basis of common culture
(according to the specified civilization distribution of countries, suggested by S.
Huntington [10]).
From the degrees of remoteness from set of global threats of civilizations
given in table 1 we see, that most «successful» from the point of view of safety is
the Japanese civilization, on the second place by this indicator is Western-North
American, on the third — Western-European, on the fourth and fifth accordingly
— Slavic-West Catholic and Slavic-East Orthodox, on the sixth — Muslim-
Malayan, on the seventh — Latin American, on the eighth — Confucian, on the
ninth and tenth accordingly — the Muslim-Arabic and Muslim-Turkic civiliza-
tions, on the eleventh — Hindu, and eventually on the twelfth — African.
Fig. 2. Map of countries' distribution by civilizations
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 22
T a b l e 1 . Remoteness degrees of civilizations from the set of global threats
Civilization / Threats
Se
cu
ri
ty
r
at
in
g
D
eg
re
e
of
r
em
ot
en
es
s
fr
om
th
e
se
t o
f g
lo
ba
l t
hr
ea
ts
En
er
ge
tic
se
cu
rit
y
in
de
x
M
is
ba
la
nc
e
be
tw
ee
n
bi
os
ph
er
e
an
d
pe
op
le
's
ne
ce
ss
iti
es
In
eq
ua
lit
y
(G
IN
I i
nd
ex
)
C
or
ru
pt
io
n
pe
rc
ep
tio
n
A
cc
es
s t
o
th
e
dr
in
ki
ng
w
at
er
C
O
2
em
is
si
on
s
C
hi
ld
re
n'
s m
or
ta
lit
y
V
ul
ne
ra
bi
lit
y
to
c
at
as
tro
ph
es
St
at
e
in
st
ab
ili
ty
V
ul
ne
ra
bi
lit
y
to
g
lo
ba
l i
ll-
ne
ss
es
1. Western-North American
Canada, USA 2 0,613 0,419 0,679 0,633 0,795 1,000 0,323 0,974 0,999 0,960 0,742
2. Western-European
Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Ire-
land, Spain, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ger-
many, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, the United
Kingdom, Finland, France,
Switzerland, Sweden
3 0,598 0,156 0,489 0,672 0,747 0,981 0,679 0,975 0,999 0,957 0,703
3. Confucian
Vietnam, China, Mongolia,
Republic Korea, Thailand
8 0,408 0,068 0,124 0,629 0,350 0,830 0,853 0,903 0,962 0,712 0,562
4. Japanese
Japan 1 0,644 0,012 0,394 0,751 0,750 1,000 0,670 0,984 0,995 1,000 0,815
5. Muslim-Arabic
Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Egypt,
Yemen, Pakistan, Tajikistan,
Tunis
9 0,364 0,110 0,065 0,670 0,280 0,830 0,929 0,772 0,979 0,495 0,500
6. Muslim-Turkic
Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakh-
stan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmeni-
stan, Turkey, Uzbekistan
10 0,343 0,159 0,091 0,690 0,243 0,837 0,825 0,744 0,996 0,617 0,409
7. Muslim-Malayan
Indonesia, Malaysia 6 0,438 0,151 0,140 0,583 0,370 0,880 0,847 0,904 0,998 0,740 0,588
8. Hindu
India, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri
Lanka
11 0,336 0,242 0,049 0,617 0,280 0,740 0,983 0,695 0,991 0,430 0,513
9. Slavic-East Orthodox
Belarus, Bulgaria, Greece,
Georgia, Moldova, the Russian
Federation, Ukraine
5 0,463 0,124 0,141 0,665 0,314 0,951 0,804 0,927 0,998 0,783 0,461
10. Slavic-West Catholic
Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia,
Croatia, the Czech republic
4 0,563 0,034 0,275 0,714 0,500 1,000 0,737 0,976 1,000 0,944 0,622
11. Latin American
Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Guatemala, Haiti, Dominican
republic, Ecuador, Fur-tree El
Salvador, Colombia, the River
Kosta, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama
7 0,425 0,168 0,137 0,477 0,306 0,880 0,931 0,856 0,979 0,691 0,634
12. African
Cameroon, Nigeria, Southern
African Republic, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
12 0,215 0,273 0,060 0,502 0,288 0,682 0,920 0,420 0,999 0,360 0,271
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 23
FORMATION OF CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATION OF CULTURAL
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS
To identify cultural distinctions between civilizations one should select a consid-
erable number of criteria. At the same time, from the practical point of view, it is
necessary to adhere to the reasonable compromise in the criteria quantity, their
aggregated descriptiveness and universality. It is necessary to give each expert an
opportunity to clearly differentiate distinctions between civilizations under con-
sideration.
At the first stage those characteristics which are informative for research
have been defined:
1. Faith: religions, views and erudition.
2. Changes: development, perfection, modernization and progress.
3. Conflicts: wars, terrorism, genocide, civil oppositions.
4. Freedoms: independence, democracy, rights and obligations, citizenship.
5. Identification: nation, nationality, ethnos, clan, group; religion; assimila-
tion and adaptation.
6. Judgments: good and evil; morality, responsibility; traditionalism, po-
liteness and intelligence.
7. Knowledge: scientific character and wisdom.
8. Nature: ecology, biosphere, sustainable development.
9. Policy: ideology and liberality, conservatism and neo-conservatism, fun-
damentalism, moderation and radicalism, “left” and “right”.
10. Society components: gender, family, castes and clans.
Following the results of the second expert group work, in which there were
experts in sociology, culturology and international relations, 8 basic criteria were
formulated, which most fully characterize cultural distinctions between civiliza-
tions, according to the experts' point of view:
1. Value of human life.
Range: “Human life is worthless”—“Human life is the highest value”.
2. Personal freedom inside society.
Degree of moving freedom, freedom of utterances, private life, etc.
3. Status of woman in a society.
Range: “Full domination of male”—“Gender parity”—“Full domination of
female”.
4. Degree of religion penetration into public life.
Range: “Religious and church institutions do not influence people's life at
all”—“Religious and church institutions greatly influence people's life”.
5. Ethnic uniformity.
Degree of interethnic relations' tolerance inside civilization.
6. Openness or closeness to other cultures (civilizations).
Degree of the civilization's openness or closeness.
7. Traditionalism in culture and thinking (conservatism).
Disposition to changes in traditions and ways of thinking.
8. Radicalism in political life.
Stability (constancy) of political life and speed of political courses' change.
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 24
EXPERT ESTIMATION OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
CIVILIZATIONS
After formation of the final list of civilizations and set of estimation criteria (that
is getting the first part of expert information - conceptually-notional), there ap-
peared the necessity to specify the expert estimation procedure (getting the esti-
mated expert information).
It is a question of considerable complexity, as experts have no possibility to
give absolutely exact estimations of certain characteristics. Moreover, an attempt
to make use of the existing methods of pair comparisons for getting cardinal esti-
mations (methods of “line”, Saati and so on) was also unsuccessful owing to the
fact that estimations of countries' cultural distinctions by some criteria are not
subject to ordering. That is the order relation on these estimations' subspaces is
impossible to maintain, even in case of partial order achievement since transitivity
property is not carried out:
jijik civcivcivcivRjiCcivk ≺:),(,,, ¬∃∀∈∃ ,
where C — set of civilizations, which has been defined at the previous state;
kR — relation in CC× .
But for each criterion experts can estimate the distance between correspond-
ing values for each pair of civilizations:
]1;0[:),(,,, RCCcivcivdjiCcivk jik →×∃∀∈∀ .
For convenience of distances' estimation, experts used Miller's scale [5],
given in table 2.
T a b l e 2 . Miller's scale
Qualitative difference estimation Quantitative estimation Distance range
Practically have no differences 1 [0; 0.1]
Very little differences 2 [0.1; 0.25]
Little differences 3 [0.25; 0.4]
Middle differences 4 [0.4; 0.6]
Big differences 5 [0.6; 0.75]
Very big differences 6 [0.75; 0.9]
Complete opposites 7 [0.9; 1]
Then the expert estimation will be as following: →×CCcivcivd jik :),(
]7;1[Z→ . By imposing additional limits (that are quite sensible) to the experts’
estimations ),(),(),( zydyxdzxd kkk +≤ (“triangle inequality”), we obtain met-
ric ),( yxdk (properties 0),( =xxdk and ),(),( xydyxd kk = will be thus evi-
dent) and set C becomes metric space.
The result of i -expert estimation will be a set ),...,,...,,( 821
i
k
iiii xxxxX = ,
where each criterion k has a corresponding matrix:
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 25
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=
0),(
),(0
),(),(
),(),(
1
1
1
111
civcivd
civcivd
civcivdcivcivd
civcivdcivcivd
x
mk
mk
mmkmk
mkk
i
k .
To this matrix the following triangular matrix corresponds:
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=
00
),(0
~
1 mk
i
k
civcivd
x .
On the basis of the matrix structure, which actually should be a result of each
expert's swork and using the afore-mentioned criteria of cultural distinctions be-
tween civilizations and countries classification into civilizations the following
questionnaire was developed (table 3).
T a b l e 3 . Questionnaire for the expert estimation of distances between civiliza-
tions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
W
es
te
rn
-N
or
th
A
m
er
ic
an
W
es
te
rn
-E
ur
op
ea
n
C
on
fu
ci
an
Ja
pa
ne
se
M
us
lim
-A
ra
bi
c
M
us
lim
-T
ur
ki
c
M
us
lim
-M
al
ay
an
H
in
du
Sl
av
ic
-E
as
t o
rth
od
ox
Sl
av
ic
-W
es
t C
at
ho
lic
La
tin
A
m
er
ic
an
A
fr
ic
an
1 Western-North American 0
2 Western-European 0
3 Confucian 0
4 Japanese 0
5 Muslim-Arabic 0
6 Muslim-Turkic 0
7 Muslim-Malayan 0
8 Hindu 0
9 Slavic-East Orthodox 0
10 Slavic-West Catholic 0
11 Latin American 0
12 African 0
For carrying out expert estimation of cultural distinctions between twelve
civilizations on the basis of the above-stated eight criteria, the third group of 14
experts was created. These experts had experience in the international activity in
countries' groups from the above-formed civilizations. Experts estimated cultural
distinctions between civilizations (“breaks”/”distances”) for each criterion, as-
signing quantitative values to these breaks, with use of estimations' system from
the Miller's scale (table 2).
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 26
Thus, after paired estimation of distances between 12=m civilizations by
8=k criteria for 14=n experts, we obtained general estimations’ spectrum
mnkm
Z
)1(
2
1
]7;1[
−
.
PROCESSING EXPERT ESTIMATION DATA AND ANALYSIS OF
MODELLING RESULTS
An error of expert estimation results was defined according to the following for-
mula:
058,0
)5,2(2
3
=
−
≈
n
ε
from which it follows, that the estimation error is approximately 6 %.
After performance of normalisation procedure (reduction of data to a range
]1;0[ ) we will get estimations' spectrum
mnkm
R
)1(
2
1
]1;0[
−
. For the subsequent data
analysis we will pass from individual experts' estimations to a group estimation:
∑
=
=
n
s
s
s
ii cxx
1
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎝
⎛ −= )1(
2
1,...,2,1 mmki ,
where sc — factors of experts’ competence, which are normalised ⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=∑
=
1
1
n
s
sc .
With the use of obtained estimation data, factors of experts' competence
were defined on the basis of the following recurrent procedure:
∑
=
−=
n
s
t
sis
t
i cxx
1
1 ⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎝
⎛ −= )1(
2
1,...,2,1 mkmi ,
∑ ∑
−
= =
=
)1(
2
1
1 1
mmk
i
n
s
t
iis
t xxλ ( )...,2,1=t ,
∑
−
=
=
1(
2
1
1
1
mmk
i
t
iist
t
s xxc
λ
, ∑
=
=
n
s
t
sc
1
1 ( ).,...,2,1 ns =
Calculation begins with 1=t . Initial values of factors are assumed to be
identical and equal
n
cs
10 = . Using competence factors of the first approximation,
it is possible to repeat the whole process of calculations and get the second ap-
proximations 222 ,, si cx λ .
According to [16], this procedure converges under condition of nonnegative
definiteness and indecomposability of matrices XXB ′= , where isxX = . Non-
negative matrices' definiteness in this case is obvious. As far as indecomposability
is concerned, nonfulfilment of this property would mean that experts and objects
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 27
(civilizations × criteria) fall into independent groups, and each expert group esti-
mates its separate group of objects. As it contradicts both the format of the con-
ducted estimation and to the obtained data, the indecomposability property is pro-
vided. Consequently, algorithm convergence takes place.
Competence factors' vector, obtained with the help of the presented iterative
procedure, coincides with matrix eigenvector, which reflects its biggest eigen-
value. Factors of experts' competence, calculated with the help of the above de-
scribed recurrent procedure, are presented in fig. 3.
The detailed calculated group estimations are presented in [15]. On the basis
of these estimations' definition, by the presented 8 criteria profiles of distinctions
between civilizations were formed, “convergences” and “breaks” between them
were defined, characterized by vector ),...,,( 821 xxxx = .
It also allowed making reverse estimation of a system effectiveness of the
suggested criteria and experts' work efficiency characterized by the statistical data
given in table 4.
T a b l e 4 . Statistical characteristics of estimations by various criteria
Criteria Characteristics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
][XE 0,589 0,643 0,596 0,590 0,631 0,619 0,624 0,611
][XD 0,055 0,053 0,052 0,054 0,050 0,049 0,054 0,040
Average criteria correlation among themselves made up 89 %. High correla-
tion value testifies the possible presence of 2 factors:
a) there is the interdependence of characteristics taken as the principle
criteria. This factor can be eliminated through the specification of criteria system
by carrying out future researches with attraction of the factorial analysis toolkit;
b) insufficient quality of experts' recognition of characteristics, which were
subject to estimation, which can be eliminated by attracting specialised experts to
estimation of the corresponding criteria groups.
Fig. 3. Experts' competence factors
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0,075 0,101 0,033 0,070 0,060 0,073 0,074 0,073 0,067 0,068 0,063 0,076 0,094 0,073
Competence factor
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 28
Let us execute clustering of the calculated distances with the help of k-
means method, having put clusters' number 3=n . The clustering results are given
in table 5.
T a b l e 5 . Clustered distances between civilizations (number of clusters 3=n )
W
es
te
rn
-N
or
th
A
m
er
ic
an
W
es
te
rn
-E
ur
op
ea
n
C
on
fu
ci
an
Ja
pa
ne
se
M
us
lim
-A
ra
bi
c
M
us
lim
-T
ur
ki
c
M
us
lim
-M
al
ay
an
H
in
du
Sl
av
ic
-E
as
t O
rth
od
ox
Sl
av
ic
-W
es
t C
at
ho
lic
La
tin
A
m
er
ic
an
A
fr
ic
an
3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 Western-North American
3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 Western-European
1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 Confucian
2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Japanese
1 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 Muslim-Arabic
1 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 Muslim-Turkic
1 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 Muslim-Malayan
1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 Hindu
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 Slavic-East Orthodox
3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 Slavic-West Catholic
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Latin American
1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 African
The greatest distances fell into the first cluster, they actually correspond to
breaks between civilizations, to the second cluster — average distances, to the
third cluster — the shortest distances corresponding to civilizations' approaching.
The important result of research is the definition of quantitative breaks' indi-
cators. As sets of vectors ),...,,( 821 xxxx = , characterizing “breaks” between t
and j civilizations according to all eight criteria are already defined, we will pass
to definition of aggregation function:
),...,,()( 821 xxxuXu =
by which a set of group estimations by various criteria is brought into accord to
general distance, which will be an integral indicator of distinctions between two
civilizations. Having chosen the additive form of this integral indicator, we will
obtain the following form of function u :
∑
=
=
k
h
h
ijhij xxu
1
)( ω , ( )12,...,2,1, =ji ,
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 29
where hω — weight of h criterion.
Assuming that
8
11
==
ktω , we will get matrix D of general breaks between
civilizations (table 6) which consists of 12 vectors:
⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=
+
−
i
ii
ii
i
i
x
x
x
x
d
,12
,1
,1
,1
0 , ( )121 ,...,,..., dddD i= ,
where vector i corresponds to the breaks of civilization i .
T a b l e 6 . Matrix of the general breaks between civilizations
W
es
te
rn
-N
or
th
A
m
er
ic
an
W
es
te
rn
-E
ur
op
ea
n
C
on
fu
ci
an
Ja
pa
ne
se
M
us
lim
-A
ra
bi
c
M
us
lim
-T
ur
ki
c
M
us
lim
-M
al
ay
an
H
in
du
Sl
av
ic
-E
as
t I
O
rth
od
ox
Sl
av
ic
-W
es
t C
at
ho
lic
La
tin
A
m
er
ic
an
A
fr
ic
an
0 0 0,7 0,65 0,96 0,92 0,89 0,78 0,55 0,33 0,56 0,85 Western-North
American
0 0 0,7 0,64 0,94 0,93 0,89 0,78 0,48 0,25 0,55 0,85 Western-European
0,7 0,7 0 0,17 0,52 0,52 0,51 0,4 0,64 0,7 0,62 0,66 Confucian
0,65 0,64 0,17 0 0,59 0,58 0,57 0,5 0,66 0,68 0,66 0,75 Japanese
0,96 0,94 0,52 0,59 0 0,1 0,12 0,41 0,74 0,86 0,68 0,55 Muslim-Arabic
0,92 0,93 0,52 0,58 0,1 0 0,15 0,41 0,77 0,85 0,66 0,59 Muslim-Turkic
0,89 0,89 0,51 0,57 0,12 0,15 0 0,34 0,76 0,86 0,65 0,58 Muslim-Malayan
0,78 0,78 0,4 0,5 0,41 0,41 0,34 0 0,72 0,79 0,63 0,63 Hindu
0,55 0,48 0,64 0,66 0,74 0,77 0,76 0,72 0 0,37 0,52 0,79 Slavic-East Orthodox
0,33 0,25 0,7 0,68 0,86 0,85 0,86 0,79 0,37 0 0,5 0,84 Slavic-West Catholic
0,56 0,55 0,62 0,66 0,68 0,66 0,65 0,63 0,52 0,5 0 0,61 Latin American
0,85 0,85 0,66 0,75 0,55 0,59 0,58 0,63 0,79 0,84 0,61 0 African
The closing stage of the given research is the definition of norm in space of
breaks' vectors, allowing to estimate the size of a "break", that is to calculate
quantitative value of cumulative differences of the given civilization from the rest
of the world. The choice of aggregation norm to significant extent influences ade-
quacy of end results of the developed model, that is very important at reception of
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 30
integral estimation [16, 17]. In this connection the decision was accepted to
choose norm from the following family of Gyolder's norms ( p
i
p
ip
xx ∑= ,
)1≥p :
a. 1-norm (“Manhattan” norm) ∑=
i
ixx 1 ;
b. 2-norm (“Euclid” norm) ∑=
i
ixx 2
2 ;
c. ∞-norm (“Chebyshev” norm) ixx max=∞ .
It is known, that these norms are equivalent on finitely-measured vector
space nR . Proceeding from the physical content (for example if there is a conflict
at least with one civilization, then it significantly influences the common civiliza-
tion' position in the world) we will take the ∞-norm (“Chebyshev” norm), which
will allow to consider adequately all components of breaks' vectors and is the
least by modulus ( )12 xxx ≤≤∞ .
The calculated values of cumulative differences of civilizations from the rest
of the world are presented in fig. 4.
Actually cumulative differences of a separately taken civilization from the
other world characterize, on the one hand its propensity to conflicts with other
civilizations, and on the other hand — its attractiveness for the other civilizations.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE OBTAINED RESULTS
The obtained results show the existing cultural distinctions between different civi-
lizations. Potential conflicts may take place between civilizations, first of all
along the break lines, quantitative values of which are the biggest. And on the
Fig. 4. Cumulative differences of civilizations from the rest of the world
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 31
contrary: potential civilizations' associations can take place along the break lines,
quantitative values of which are the least. Using results of distances' clustering,
numerical values of the common breaks between civilizations and cumulative
civilizations' distinctions, we shall construct the list of possible associations and
conflicts between world cultures.
Let us calculate civilizations' predispositions tii ,...,1 to alliance …,(
1iu Ap
),
ti
A… , by putting values of these predispositions inverse to the maximal dis-
tances between civilizations, which are in this block:
)],([max1),...,(
1 baiiu civcivdAAp
t
−= , baiiba t ≠∈ ,,...,, 1 .
Let us similarly define predispositions of civilizations to confrontations:
)],([min),...,(
1 baiic civcivdAAp
t
= , baiiba t ≠∈ ,,...,, 1 .
Probable alliance and conflict civilizations' areas are given in tables 7 and 8,
accordingly.
T a b l e 7 . Predisposition of civilizations to alliances
# Block name and participating civilizations )(Apu
1.
Western block
Western-North American, Western-European
1
2.
Muslim block
Muslim-Arabic, Muslim-Turkic, Muslim-Malayan
0,85
3.
Confucian-Japanese block
Confucian, Japanese
0,83
4.
West-Catholic block
Western-North American, Western-European, Slavic-West Catholic
0,67
5.
Malayan-Hinduistic block
Muslim-Malayan and Hindu
0,66
6.
Slav block
Slavic-East Orthodox, Slavic-West Catholic
0,63
We see that the Western block possesses the greatest predisposition to asso-
ciation inside itself. High enough predisposition to internal association is ob-
served in the Muslim block, the Confucian-Japanese block, at Malayan-Hinduistic
block, and at the same time Slavs' internal association is hardly probable. Asso-
ciation of Western-North American, Western-European, Slavic-West Catholic
civilizations under the factor of uniform Catholic religion is probable enough.
As far as oppositions are considered, the greatest propensity towards them
have Western and Muslim civilizations' blocks. Western and Slavic blocks have
big breaks with Islamic, Hinduistic and African civilizations. It is necessary to
note the existing propensity of the Catholic block to opposition with Confucian
civilization. This opposition is now observed not only in a cultures context, but
also in a context of economy. Propensity to opposition between African and Hin-
duistic civilizations can be explained by the current strong influence of such phe-
nomena, as racism and segregation.
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 32
T a b l e 8 . Predisposition of civilizations to confrontations
# Confrontation name and participating civilizations )(Apc
1. Muslim and West
1) Western-North American, Western-European
2) Muslim-Arabic, Muslim-Turkic, Muslim-Malayan
0,89
2. Africa and West
1) Western-North American, Western-European
2) African
0,85
3. Slav and Africa
1) Slavic-East Orthodox, Slavic-West Catholic
2) African
0,79
4. West and Hinduism
1) Western-North American, Western-European
2) Hindu
0,78
5. Africa and Japan
1) Japanese
2) African
0,75
6. Muslim and Slav
1) Muslim-Arabic, Muslim-Turkic, Muslim-Malayan
2) Slavic-Eastorthodoxal, Slavic-Westcatholic
0,74
7. Slav and Hinduism
1) Slavic-East Orthodox, Slavic-West Catholic
2) Hindu
0,72
8. Muslim and West
1) Western-North American, Western-European
2) Muslim-Arabic, Muslim-Turkic, Muslim-Malayan
0,7
It is worth mentioning, that the most neutral civilization was found to be the
Latin American, the manifestation of which is also its minimal cumulative differ-
ence from other civilizations, which is equal to 0,68 (fig. 4). It is least threatened
by the oppositions with other civilizations. Further by these parameters there are
countries of the Far East — Confucian (0,7) and Japanese (0,75) civilizations,
then Slavic-East Orthodox and Hinduistic civilizations (both 0,79). The countries
of Western (North American — 0,96, European — 0,94) and Muslim (Arabian —
0,96, Turkic — 0,93, Malayan — 0,89) blocks have the greatest propensity to op-
positions. This value is also big enough for the Slavic-West Catholic civilization
(0,86).
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed approach and criteria system for the estimation of the cultural dis-
tinctions between civilizations can be used in the analysis of any geopolitical
situation. In particular, quantitative values of civilizations' cultural distinctions
according to separate criteria can be used for prognosticating formation of various
associations and world countries' alliances (military, trading, religious, and so
forth). Also it is possible to use the results in behavior and development model-
ling of the separate world countries. For example, it is possible to use indeclin-
ability to oppositions of the Latin American civilization at performance of the
SWOT-analysis of Brazil and scenario creation of its economic growth.
Modelling of the civilizations' break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2009, № 2 33
But it should be noted that, to get high quality results of studying this class
of systems it is necessary to attract a lot of highly skilled experts possessing a
wide vision of geopolitical processes. In addition, experts in particular panels
should be involved - economy, culture, security, etc.
The obtained results substantially coincide with the modern situation in the
world and enable us to speak about the adequacy of the constructed model at the
first approximation. The subsequent researches are possible in several directions,
in particular:
• the model's modification considering countries' clustering with the use of
indistinct clusters;
• use of various estimation techniques, that most fully correspond to the re-
search objective in one modelling;
• accounting of historical dynamics, in particular, the history of world con-
frontations;
• creation of simulation models for the prognosis of dynamics of civiliza-
tions development;
• comparison of various models and estimation of their adequacy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully thank the experts A. Gorobets, Yu. Danik, A. Dzeban’, P.
Zhovnirenko, I. Zastava, D. Kolesnuk, I. Kresina, N. Podalyak, A. Poltoratsky, A.
Postupny, A. Poukh, M. Taran, A. Tolpiga, V. Fesenko, V. Shilov. We also thank
the rector of Diplomatic Academy at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Boris
Gumenyuk, professor of the academy Alexandr Sosnin and students of the acad-
emy Elena Diak, Tatiana Kulik, Roman Fedoniuk who worked with the experts
and considerably improved the evaluation forms which were offered to the group
of experts.
REFERENCES
1. John D. Williams. The Complete Strategist: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games
of Strategy. — McGraw-Hill: Revised edition, 1965. — 268 p.
2. Thomas C. Schelling. The Strategy of Conflict. — Harvard University Press,
1980. — 373 p.
3. Jay W. Forrester. World Dynamics. — Cambridge, Mass.: Productivity Press; 2nd
edition, 1971. — 141 p.
4. Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Berners III.
The Limits To Growth. — Universe Books, 1972. — 205 p.
5. Zgurovsky M.Z., Pankratova N.D. System Analysis: Theory and Applications. —
Springer, 2007. — 448 p.
6. Monty G. Marshall and Jack Goldstone. Global Report on Conflict, Governance and
State Fragility 2007, Foreign Policy Bulletin (2007), 17: 3–21 Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
7. James D. Davidson, William Rees-Mogg. The Sovereign Individual. — Touchstone,
1997. — 416 p.
8. Francis Fukuyama. The End of History and the Last Man. — Free Press, 1992. —
448 p.
M. Zgurovsky, A. Pasichny
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2009, № 2 34
9. Hans Rosling. New insights on poverty and life around the world — TED Talks,
2007. — http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights
_on_poverty.html.
10. Samuel Huntington. The Clash of the Civilizations and the Remaking of World Or-
der. — Simon & Schuster; 1 edition, 1998. — 368 p.
11. David Wilkinson. Civilizations as Networks: Trade, War, Diplomacy, Command-
Control-States-systems Bonded by Influence, Alliance, and War relations. —
Complexity. — 2003. — 8, № 1. — P. 82–86.
12. Хантингтон С. Столкновение цивилизаций? // Полис. — 1994. — № 1. —
С. 33–48.
13. Arnold J. Toynbee. A Study of History. — Oxford University Press, 1987, 640 p.
(Vol. I–VI) & 432 p. (Vol. VII-X).
14. Макаренко А.С. Модели общественных явлений и сценарные подходы в приня-
тии решений // Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології. —
2003.— № 3. — C. 127–142.
15. Zgurovsky M.Z., Gvishiani A.D. Sustainable Development Global Simulation: Qual-
ity of Life and Security of World Population (2005-2007/2008). — Kyiv: Pub-
lishing House “Polytekhnika”, 2008. — 338 p.
16. Sieracki J.M.. Greedy Adaptive Discrimination: Signal component analysis by si-
multaneous matching pursuits with application to ECoG signature detection. —
PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 2002.
17. Загоруйко Н.Г. Прикладные методы анализа данных и знаний. — Новосибирск:
Изд-во Ин-та математики, 1999. — C. 36–61.
Поступила 12.12.2008
From the Editorial Board: the article corresponds completely to submitted manu-
script.
|
| id | journaliasakpiua-article-107849 |
| institution | System research and information technologies |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:22:34Z |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publisher | The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | journaliasakpiua/54/007010554b12e850c15bda87efeffa54.pdf |
| spelling | journaliasakpiua-article-1078492018-04-06T12:34:45Z Modelling of the civilizations’ break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences Моделирование линий разлома цивилизаций в контексте фундментальных отличий их культур Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур Zgurovsky, М. Pasichny, А. Given article describes a development of a methodology of world geopolitics research with the use of contemporary geopolitical paradigms based on the work of expert groups in definition of the examined objects, development the set of evaluation criteria, and quantative estimation of the cultural differences of different objects. Current research was based on hypothesis of S. Hantington about the "clash of civilizations". Описаны разработки методологий исследования мировой геополитики с использованием современных геополитических парадигм на базе работы групп экспертов для определения исследуемых объектов; построения набора критериев оценивания и проведения количественного оценивания различий культур разных объектов. Данное исследование основано на гипотезе С. Хантингтона про "столкновение цивилизаций". Описано розробки методологій дослідження світової геополітики з використанням сучасних геополітичних парадигм на основі роботи груп експертів для визначення об’єктів, що досліджуються; побудови набору критеріїв для оцінювання та проведення кількісного оцінювання різниць культур різних об’єктів. Дане дослідження базуэться на гіпотезі С. Хантингтона про "зіткнення цивілізацій". The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" 2009-06-19 Article Article application/pdf https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/107849 System research and information technologies; No. 2 (2009); 18-34 Системные исследования и информационные технологии; № 2 (2009); 18-34 Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології; № 2 (2009); 18-34 2308-8893 1681-6048 en https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/107849/102795 Copyright (c) 2021 System research and information technologies |
| spellingShingle | Zgurovsky, М. Pasichny, А. Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title | Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title_alt | Modelling of the civilizations’ break lines in context of their fundamental cultural differences Моделирование линий разлома цивилизаций в контексте фундментальных отличий их культур |
| title_full | Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title_fullStr | Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title_full_unstemmed | Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title_short | Моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| title_sort | моделювання ліній розлому цивілізацій в контексті фундаментальних відмінностей їх культур |
| url | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/107849 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zgurovskym modellingofthecivilizationsbreaklinesincontextoftheirfundamentalculturaldifferences AT pasichnya modellingofthecivilizationsbreaklinesincontextoftheirfundamentalculturaldifferences AT zgurovskym modelirovanielinijrazlomacivilizacijvkontekstefundmentalʹnyhotličijihkulʹtur AT pasichnya modelirovanielinijrazlomacivilizacijvkontekstefundmentalʹnyhotličijihkulʹtur AT zgurovskym modelûvannâlíníjrozlomucivílízacíjvkontekstífundamentalʹnihvídmínnostejíhkulʹtur AT pasichnya modelûvannâlíníjrozlomucivílízacíjvkontekstífundamentalʹnihvídmínnostejíhkulʹtur |