These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
  
  
  STUDY 12. SECURITY AND POSTMODERN SOCIETY
  
  
  Characteristics and specifics from the point of view of security, as well as security-related dimensions and manifestations of the Postmodern Society, which replaces the Modern Society, are systematized.
  
  The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of the aspects and problems of security in postmodern society:
  Николай Слатински. Сигурността – животът на Мрежата. София: Военно издателство, 2014.
   [Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – zhivotut na Mrezhata. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2014].
  Nikolay Slatinski. Security – the Life of the Network. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2014 (in Bulgarian)
  
  When analyzing processes on the global (the world), continental (Europe), regional (Balkans and the Black Sea region) and national (Bulgaria) levels, one usually talks about the impact of the following two processes – (1) the collapse of the bipolar system after 1989] and (2) of globalization. These two processes exerted and continue to exert a very strong influence together and separately, but they do not exhaust the essence of what has been happening in the last more than 30 years.
  Human civilization is experiencing a much larger, more comprehensive and profound change, a multi-directional, multi-layered, multi-aspect and multi-faceted transformation – systemic, structural and security-related, political, economic and financial, energy, environmental and informational, social, cultural and ethno-religious.
  This epochal change, this epic transformation has four leading dimensions, each of which can be described as our entry into a qualitatively new type of society, namely: the Globalized Society, the Postmodern Society, the Network Society and the Risk Society.
  
  ▪ The Globalized Society, replacing the Regionalized Society, reflects the first aspect of the transformation of the world – the SYSTEMATIC-SPATIAL DIMENSION: the densification of humanity, its transformation into a global dormitory of coexistence. Marshall McLuhan (1911 – 1980) called the coming society Global village [1]; rather, it is a Global city, a global metropolis with its unequal neighborhoods – from the richest with ultra-security measures, to the poorest with neglected suburbs and numerous squalid ghettos.
  The Globalized society is related to the CHANGE OF THE SCOPE of the transformation of the world – it spreads all over the world and does not leave any part of it untouched.
  
  ▪ The Postmodern society, replacing the Modern Society, reflects the second aspect of the transformation of the world – the SYSTEMATIC-FUNCTIONAL DIMENSION: the radical changes in the way society exists, develops, carries out its internal communications and constructs meanings. This is about the role of the state; about the evolution of principles and practices, of cultures and identities; about personal, group and community interactions, about the regulation and resolution of various conflicts.
  The Postmodern society is related to the CHANGE OF THE VALUES during the transformation of the world, to the ways in which individuals perceive themselves and their roles, how they enter into relationships with each other and relate to their rights, responsibilities and duties.
  
▪ The Network society, replacing the Hierarchical Society, reflects the third aspect of the transformation of the world – the SYSTEM-STRUCTURAL DIMENSION: with the radically different architecture, with networking and the gradual transition from vertical to horizontal organization of systems and subsystems, institutes and institutions.
  The Network society is related to the CHANGE OF STRUCTURES during the transformation of the world, with the growth of networks and network-like forms of organization and with the pressure on hierarchical system entities to flatten their levels and shorten chains of command, as well as to strengthen the role of decentralization and initiative and the importance of coordination and communication.
  
  ▪ The Risk society, replacing the Security Society, reflects the fourth aspect of the transformation of the world – the SYSTEM-MANAGEMENT DIMENSION: the models and approaches for assessing the main challenges and risks, dangers and threats to security; the ways and means of their identification, analysis and evaluation; the strategies for their management. Risks, riskiness are not so much and not only (although it seems to us the opposite) our present. They are our future and we must learn to live in a space and time of greatly increased risk.
  The Risk society is related to the CHANGE OF SECURITY during the transformation of the world, with its qualitatively different essence, meaning and content, insofar as security today is neither safety nor relative security, but it is associated with risk, i.e. it is pro-risk, risky, and an ongoing process that must be constantly managed and which invariably carries with it the potential for escalation and destructive consequences.
  
  We are talking about four different dimensions of transformation (determining, respectively, the spatial scope, the evolution of values, the changes in the structural organization, the new attitude to security), but they must be studied in an integrated and complex way – as dimensions of a general transformation, of an interrelated evolution. Any one of these four transformations taken separately generates, influences, affects, and gives a radically new meaning to each of the other three, and, at the same time, is largely a function of each of them. But such a simultaneous study of the four dimensions of transformation is practically impossible, so the researcher is forced to consider them separately and independently, as if each were for itself. But we must constantly remember that it is about four dimensions of one general transformation, of one complex and civilizational, systemic and interconnected Change.
  
  In this Study we will focus on the Postmodern society. This will be done by considering its characteristics and specifics from a security point of view, as well as by systematizing its security-related dimensions and manifestations.
  
  The transition from the Modern society to the Postmodern society is studied by a whole galaxy of scientists – philosophers, cultural anthropologists, social psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, security experts. We will indicate some specifics of this gradual transition, without pretending to be exhaustive and participating in the fundamental philosophical debate about the essence of the Postmodern society and about its fundamental differences from the Modern society.
  
  The social structure passes historically, through several stages:
  ⁕ Archaic pre-society;
  ⁕ Premodern society;
  ⁕ Modern society;
  ⁕ Postmodern society.
  
  Here are their main characteristics, of course, especially from the point of view of security.
  
  ⁕ ARCHAIC PRE-SOCIETY (XXV CENTURY BC – VII CENTURY BC)
  The Archaic pre-society is called „pre-society“ precisely for this reason, because there is still no society in it, except in the bud, as a proto-society, and its structure can be defined as a clan, a horde or a tribe, as a combination of several clans with weakly expressed property and functional stratifications, the chief is above all the first among equals, and social relations, i.e. the structuring, bindings and communications in relations between people are of the „Commune“ type.
  
  Explanation:
  Commune – collection of people united by kinship, tribal, cultural, ethnic or religious ties.
  
  Among the main conditions for a tribe of hunter-gatherers to begin to transform into a society and create some structures resembling statehood, the following can be distinguished:
  • settledness (spatial and temporal attachment to a certain territory);
  • overproduction (production of more than necessary to satisfy life needs);
  • religiosity (creation of common values and a common identity, a common normative framework and a common shared, internal need for co-experience, empathy and belonging),
  • collective memory (awareness of a common origin, bound by common myths, common mythical heroes ancestors, common overcoming of adversities and common victories).
  
  ⁕ PREMODERN SOCIETY (VII CENTURY BC – SECOND HALF OF XVIII CENTURY)
  The Premodern society is the first truly social society – a society in the modern sense of the word.
  The following are some of the main characteristics of the Premodern society:
  • Social relations, i.e. structuring, bindings, connectedness and communications in relationships between people are of the „Community“ type.
  • The State is high above ordinary people, and they do not have access and influence over it. It is an IDEAL for them – more of an abstraction than something concrete that they can arrange according to their wishes and describe according to their ideas.
  • The focusing is primarily on the general, i.e. on pursuing strategies in which all win.
  
  Explanation:
  In the strategy in which ALL WIN, investments are made in the state (general) interest, and from its successful implementation all individual participants (people) benefit, regardless of the differences between them.
  For example, with a strong army, all are protected from an external attack; with a strong police, to all is guaranteed an effectively maintained public order; with a reliably secured ecology, all live in a healthy environment.
  
  • This is a coercive society functioning by coercion, i.e. it is a society of coercion – a punishing, sanctioning society. In it, hard power plays a major role (i.e. prevails), and it achieves its goals and maintains its stability by coercion.
  • The leading priority in terms of security is primarily the security of the State. Security is an absolute – it is placed on a pedestal as an absolute value, and freedom is perceived mainly and primarily as a component of security and as its subordinate function.
  • Security is primarily security as a good with a minimal component of security as a service.
  
  Explanation:
  In the general case, as a public product produced by the State, security S has two fundamental constituents:
   (1) S_g – security as a good that is produced for everyone to some extent and in some acceptable minimum; and
   (2) S_s – security as a service, for which the market principle applies that everyone gets only as much as he can buy (for as much as he can pay).
  Therefore, in the general case for security, it should be written:
  S = S_g + S_s.
  
  In the Premodern society, the State is the main, almost monopoly producer of security, and Sg reaches the maximum value S_gmax, and S_s – a minimum value S_smin.
  Therefore, it could be written about The Premodern society:
  S = S_gmax + S_smin.
  
  • Political culture, in the spirit of the studies of American political scientists Gabriel Almond (1911 – 2002) and Sidney Verba (1932 – 2019), is parochial, i.e. the State (in this case its rulers, the power) is like a wise and decisive father in the family, and the people are the obedient sons and daughters – they have complete trust in the father to make the right decisions and obey him unquestioningly – as if out of fear of punishment, as well as out of ingrained respect for his role and authority.
  • Political communication flows primarily from the top down, i.e. from the State (the rulers, the power) to ordinary people; the State makes the decisions and the people implement them.
  • A person has one package (set, portfolio) of values, which is imposed on him mainly by society (commune, community, clan, family). The Premodern society in this sense is an one-value society (in the sense that it has one set of values, not one value).
  • A person has one social role, and it is imposed on him mainly by the community to which he belongs. The Pre-modern society is an one-role, a mono-role, imposing one choice society – a society of the one choice.
  In the Premodern society (maybe) there are no absolute prohibitions for the individual to change his values and role, but the price to do so, i.e. the price of the transaction, for him, is prohibitive or extremely high, and the sanction is very severe – it is moral, but not only. That is why, as a rule, the individual follows the values and role imposed on him and thus saves himself serious conflicts and protects himself from severe sanctions and punishments. At the same time, physical and material coercion is not always the leading factor (when the individual must comply with the punishment due to fear of the consequences and painfulness of this punishment), especially since, as a rule, established traditions, strong cohesion and solidarity are of great importance for „coercion“ of the individual to remain within the bounds of the values prescribed to him and the role assigned to him.
  
  MODERN SOCIETY (SECOND HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY – LAST QUARTER OF THE 20TH CENTURY)
  The Modern society is the society, figuratively speaking, that has brought on its shoulders the humanity, and above all the West (Europe and the USA) to astonishing heights of science and technology, of living standards and democracy, of the awareness of man as an Individual, as a thinking, independent and creative personality, possessing values and morality, a sense of duty and responsibility.
  
  Following are some of the main characteristics of the Modern Society:
  • Social relations, i.e. structuring, bindings and communications in relationships between people are of the „Society“ type.
  • The State, although it stands above ordinary people and has power over them, is continuously connected to them; they are not anonymous and voiceless screws, but contact it, enter into a dialogue with it, influence its functioning, its decisions; i.e. there is a constant interaction between the State and the people, although the decisive word remains with the State. For people, the State is no longer just an abstraction whose existence they are forced to endure and whose will for them is the expression of some higher and often blind power; for them, the State is an IDEOLOGY – a combination of an abstract objective (ideal) will and a concrete subjective (ideological) organization. A will that they must obey, but with reason and heart; and an organization that they can often influence or at least communicate their views and interests to it.
  • Focusing is mixed – on the general and on the individual, i.e. on the simultaneous (parallel) pursuit of strategies in which all win, and strategies, in which everyone can win.
  
  Explanation:
  In a strategy in which EVERYONE CAN WIN, conditions for individuals are created to defend their interests, as they understand them. A separate person wants to see how his goals are realized, how his interests are protected; he is not only interested in the macro-results, in the macro-parameters of the general product, but but also in the specific share („his piece of pizza“), which he will get from it.
  
  • This is a society that functions with a combination of coercion and reward, i.e. it is both a society of coercion and a society of reward, both a punishing, sanctioning society and an encouraging, stimulating society. In it, the combination of hard power and soft power plays a major role, and it achieves its goals and maintains its stability by combining coercion and reward. Joseph Nye calls not exactly the optimal mix between hard power and soft power smart power [2]. We said „not exactly“ because it is not so much the intelligent power, but rather the effective power.
  • The leading priority in terms of security is the simultaneous ensuring the security of the State and the security of society and individuals. In it, security is no longer absolute – it has already been removed from the pedestal of the absolute quantity and is only a relative quantity, because it competes equally and interdependently with freedom. Security and freedom are only relative values. The aspiration is to provide some normal, workable (if not optimal) balance of security and freedom.
  • Security is both security as a good and security as a service:
S = S_g + S_s.
  
  • Political culture is subject, i.e. The State (rulers, power) realizes the main functions of organizing and managing society, and people are its loyal subjects who expect the State to work effectively for society, its development and prosperity, but on the other hand, they are constantly concerned about how the State functions and they try to be its empathetic, sensitive corrective, which nevertheless knows its place and role.
  • Political communication flows in both directions: top-down and bottom-up, i.e. from the State (the rulers, the power) to the ordinary people and from the people to the State. The State makes decisions based on (taking into account) the will of society, but once it has already made those decisions, the people carry fulfill them.
  • A person has one package (set, portfolio) of values that he mainly chose himself, but society held him to follow this package (set, portfolio) of values. The Modern society is an one-value society (it has one set of values, not one value).
  • A person has one social role, but mainly he chose it himself. The Modern society is a one-role, mono-role, allowing the one choice society, it is a society of the one choice.
In the Modern Society, there are no absolute prohibitions for the individual to change his values and roles, but the cost of doing so, i.e. the cost of the transaction for him is serious and high, and the sanction is severe – moral, but not only moral. Therefore, as a rule, the individual follows the values and role chosen by him and thus saves himself conflicts, protects himself from sanctions and punishments, but is no longer so unambiguously attached to these values and role, often acts („plays“) on the edge of their observance, allows himself to cross the line, to stay for certain periods beyond that line. But even finding himself in the zone of partially new values and a new role, he prefers to follow the behavioral patterns according to which he is „as he was“ with the old values and the old role, i.e. he sends messages to the community or society that he is basically the same, the change is somewhat formal, so he could be spared from sanctions and punishments, or at least not in their full extent. In this way, the community (society) also preserves the conviction that there is no direct threat to traditions, cohesion and solidarity, but only partially, without any particular risk to the community (society), the individual has expanded the scope of his prescribed values and his assigned role.
  
  POSTMODERN SOCIETY (LAST QUARTER OF XX CENTURY – …)
  The Postmodern society is just in the beginning, we are still entering it. It is, in a number of dimensions, a radically different society and hides many unknowns, pitfalls and trials that we have not yet faced and have no experience, even no idea, how we should act and how to behave in such a contradictory situation.
  The following are some of the main characteristics of the Postmodern society:
  • People are atomized and feel less and less part of the real communities. Rather, they join virtual communities. These communities are characterized, on the one hand, by communication technology, i.e. they are social networks, and on the other hand, they are characterized by rapidity, conventionality, less durability of accession and less empathy of commitment and weaker involvement with connectedness, a lot of easier liking and then disliking, more superficial befriending and then unfriending. In this sense, such a virtual community can be called, following the Irish scientist and scholar in international relations, Benedict Anderson (1936 – 2015), imagined [3].
  A person joins and may later leave a virtual community (one or more). In this virtual, imagined community, people know each other rather virtually, they imagine that they know each other, but in fact they know some part of the image of anyone else, and to that part (which is less and less) of the real image are also added parts (which are more and more) of invented, fictional, imaginary images of other individuals. The spiritual connection is weaker, the kinship, the relationship of thoughts and feelings is more superficial, the involvement, empathy and loyalty to the community are smaller, the attachment to and the need for it are minimized.
  Individuals connect mostly virtually, this social interaction is too free from the old essence of communication as communication with the creation of a (feeling of) community, as a sharing – an essence that was rather a common-ication, when a common-ity, common-unity was created, something common, something direct, immediate, connecting, binding, gluing, sticking, bringing together, and those who communicated were part of a common atmosphere, a common framework, a common environment and a common cause.
  This is the truth of today – people do not share thoughts, experiences, ideas among themselves, but communicate; they do not common-icate with each other, they do not create a common-ity, a common-unity among themselves, but tell each other different mostly unimportant things. Thus, they are not a long-term community, they do not do long-term things together, but communicate short-term; so they simply „communicate“, not common-icate, and therefore they do not share something important, something valuable, something precious, but simply inform each other.
  
  And since these reflections and findings, in our opinion, are extremely important, we will allow ourselves to summarize the differences between communication (common-ication) as sharing and communication as exchange:
  › In the case of communication (common-ication) as sharing, people are a real community; they are rational, predictable, authentic, true to themselves, playing themselves; they communicate with each other and exchange ideas, thoughts, experiences and intentions, which, as a rule (or from a certain time), excite them constantly and are essential.
  › In the case of communication as exchange, people are a virtual community; they are irrational, unpredictable, situational, opportunistic, conjunctural and have chosen a role for themselves; they connect and communicate episodically and exchange ideas, thoughts, experiences and intentions, which are usually sudden thoughts or improvisations and are ad hoc.
  
  › In the case of communication (common-ication) as sharing, the main thing is the content of the exchanged information.
  › In the case of communication as exchange, the main thing is the technology with which and through which information moves.
  
  As Scott Lash (1945) wrote, the relationships between people, used to be primarily social bonds, and now instead there the connections are spatial links [4].
  In our conceptual coordinate system, the communication (common-ication) as sharing is carried out mainly through bonds, and the communication as exchange – through links. Therefore, the Postmodern society is a communicating society, i.e. Society of communication, Communication society.
  
  So, the logical terminological sequence (respectively for the Archaic pre-society, the Premodern soiety, the Modern society and the Postmodern society) is as follows:
  › Commune;
  › Community;
  › Society (actually Society of sharing);
  › Society of communication (Communication society).
  
  • The State in the understanding of people is increasingly divided into its two still highly integrated constituents, namely: the State-History, the State as History, as a spatial-temporal spiritual and material extension, which the people inhabit and build for centuries with traditions, faith, ideals; And the State-Power, the State as Power, as a specific regime of government. People live much more together in the State-Power, but think individually, everyone experiences in his own way, has his own idea, his own attitude to the State-History.
  The State-Power is a function of the interests and needs of people and their tool for better governance. While the State-History turns into something personal and intimate. That is why the State is, first of all, above all, an IDEA – people have their idea about it, and this idea contains many common features and elements for them, but it also has its own specifics, purely individual meanings for each individual person.
  The State, perceived as an Idea, is far more complicated to love and for patriotic attachment, but it also much more needs our attachment to it and our willingness to try not to lose it. The State as an Idea is in a sense „under“ the people, it fulfills their common, in the sense of public, goals and priorities. Therefore, the State as an Idea serves much more to people than they serve it. There is also a big risk here – that people will start looking at the State only as something that should serve them, but not as what they should serve.
  • Focusing is mainly on the individual, i.e. on the pursuit of strategies in which everyone can win.
  • This is a society functioning with rewarding, i.e. it is a society of reward, an encouraging, stimulating society. In it a major role plays (i.e., prevails) the soft power, and it fulfills its goals and maintains its stability through the reward.
  • A leading priority in relation to security is mainly the security of society and individuals, and the security of the State must compete for attention and resources with the security of society and individuals. In it, security continues to remain only a relative value and compete with freedom, but it is increasingly perceived mainly as a constituent of freedom and its subordinate function. Society strives precisely for such a balance of security and freedom, in which security is a consequence of the freedom of society and individuals.
  • Security is increasingly security as a service with a decreasing security constituent as a good:
  S = S_gmin + S_smax.
  
  • Political culture is participant, i.e. the State (rulers, power) is under the continuous control of people who have realized themselves as socially active and responsible for the governing individuals, they have civic positions and seek to constantly express it, while not just declaring it, but to communicate it to the State, to press the State to obey it or at least to take it into account to the maximum constructive extent.
  • Political communication flows mainly from the bottom up, i.e. from ordinary people to the State (rulers, power) – the State is gradually becoming an instrument of society, a team of managers hired over a period of time (from elections to elections). The State is increasingly implementing decisions dictated by society. Society and individuals (citizens) exercise constant control over the State, and this control is facilitated by the increasing speed and depth of communication and information technologies and the information (media), non-governmental and social networks generated by them.
  • A person has many packages (sets, portfolios) of values that he chooses himself and can „surf“ between them. The Postmodern society is a many-value, a multi-value society.
  • A person has many roles and can „surf“ between them. The Postmodern society is a many-role, a multi-role society that allows many choices – a society of many choices.
  
  In the Postmodern society, there is practically no prohibition for the individual from changing his values and his role, moreover – this is largely encouraged, it becomes a way of life, into another name of life. The cost of the transaction is almost zero, and even often the individual is „paid“ to change his values and especially his role, i.e. the transaction becomes actually negative.
  
  





  
  Table 1. Comparison of the main characteristics of the different types of societies
  
  
  If the Premodern and Modern societies are one-value, one-role and, accordingly, imposing or allowing one choice society, then the Postmodern society is the first many-value, multi-value, many-role, multi-role, allowing many choices society, i.e. the first „many“ society.
  Hence his fundamental, philosophical, moral and managerial problem, which can be formulated as follows:
  HOW MANY SHOULD THESE „MANY“ BE?
  Because „surfing“ between roles, values, choices can finally blur the identity of the individual, who is, however, less and less in-divid (i.e. indivisible) and more and more divid (i.e. divisible), even multi-divid.
  
  › If a person has too many roles, then does he have one big – talentedly played – Role?
  › If a person has too many abilities, then does he have one big – essentially realized – Ability?
  › If a person has too many ambitions, then does he have one big – worthy of respect – Ambition?
  › If a person has too many goals, then does he have one big – deserved achieving – Goal?
  › If a person has too many priorities, then does he have one big – giving meaning to life – Priority?
  › If a person has too many loves, then does he have a big – true – Love?
  
  The Postmodern society, the first „many“ society, brings us face to face with a very serious challenge, encoded in the question posed above:
  HOW MANY SHOULD THESE „MANY“ BE?
  
  Because it is quite likely that it will turn out that:
  → When there are too many values, there is really no value;
  → When there are too many roles, there is really no role;
  → When there are too many choices, there really is no choice.
  
  What, then, in a society of increasingly atomized subjects with an increasingly blurred identity, does the security of the individual, of the community, of the society, of the state mean? People are constantly „surfing“ between different identities, changing their values and attitudes, priorities and needs, affiliations and loyalties. It is very difficult for this increasingly mechanical assemblage (and less and less integrative whole) of social agents to find a unifying and motivating concept of common and indivisible security.
  And just as the prominent Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821 – 1881) preached and taught us that:
   „If there is no God, everything is permitted“,
  we can claim the opposite:
   „If everything is permitted, there is no God“.
  
  We should not allow the Postmodern society to turn out to be the LOSTmodern society, i.e. the society of the lost modernity.
  
  So far, our leading task has been to describe the basic understanding of the Postmodern society (as well as to compare it with the Premodern society and the Modern society) from the point of view, above all, of security – of the perception and understanding of it, of its management within the framework and context of the main political characteristics of society. But this is not the end of the analysis of the Postmodern society. Now we will „outline“ only a few nuances of the deep ideological essence of the changes in the transition from the Modern society to the Postmodern society.
  The Postmodern society comes with its own challenges and risks. As was said, it is a very complex and internally contradictory society. It is not in vain that some of the greatest philosophical minds of mankind have been studying it for at least 2–3 decades, trying to capture its most important features, specifics and characteristics.
  
  In the Modern society, the state is an Ideology. Moreover, it was a society of ideologies. „Ideologies extended in time and space. They claimed to be universal“ [5], through them separate levels and layers of the Modern society perceived the world, functioned and reproduced, through them the various spheres of its production of material and symbolic goods were realized and developed – political, economic, social, cultural and others.
  In the Modern Society, ideologies were understood, described and systematized through metanarratives; ideologies created, integrated, and differentiated metanarratives, and thus they themselves inevitably and imperceptibly turned into metanarratives (grand stories), perhaps even meta-metanarratives (grand stories about grand stories).
  
  Explanation:
  Metanarrative is a universal system of concepts, signs, symbols, metaphors, etc., aimed at creating a single type of description. In addition to being a grand story (metastory), it can also be understood as grand narrative (metanarrative), and grand scenario (metascenario).
  In this sense, the Modern society was a metanarrative society – a society of grand narratives, grand scenarios, grand explanatory schemes. And also of the grand ideologies, meta-ideologies (ideologies about ideologies), i.e. of the meta-theories, of the grand theories of organization and transformation of societies – Conservatism and Liberalism, Socialism and Communism, Fascism and Nazism.
  
  Explanation:
  Metatheory – a second-order theory for given theory; a theory about theory; a theory having as its subject another theory and studying its properties, structures, regularities, research methods.
  
  It is through the grand stories, the grand scenarios, the great explanatory schemes, the metanarratives Ideology, Religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), History, Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Art – that the stability and order of the Modern society was maintained, as the father of the modern critical theory of postmodernism, the French philosopher Francois Lyotard (1924 – 1998) wrote [6]. To the grand narratives here we would add Democracy, Security, Freedom and even Society.
  Culturologist Galya Simeonova-Konach (1956) is right, claiming that „this is one of the main thought directions of post-modernism, directly related to the rejection of the philosophical tradition of searching for an objective image of the world, [as well] absolute values and philosophical roots of science, ethics, progress through the systems relating to God, Nature, the Thinking Subject, History, i.e. „grand narratives“. From here there is only one step to the relativism of knowledge and the belief that there are no absolute and objective criteria. Into this context also fits the dispute of the most famous contemporary French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004) with the French culturologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908 – 2009) and his concept of Bricolage, when images are taken from the natural world“ [7 ].
  
  Explanation:
  Relativism – principles of absolutization of relativity and conditionality of knowledge; a teaching that denies the possibility of objective knowledge of the world, and according to which there is no objective truth and objective knowledge is impossible.
  Bricolage – creating a structure, object, product from a diverse range of objects that are available and may even be unnecessary. Claude Lévi-Strauss used this concept to describe a perception that takes place by using a limited set of „handy tools“ to construct representations of primary world perception (signs), located in the middle of the path between sense images (emotional perception) and substantive concepts (rational thinking).
  
  Lyotard's famous thesis „Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives“ [8] has become a sign, a password, a key to understanding the Postmodern society. According to this thesis, postmodernism is a distrust of, disenchantment with, and critique, crisis, and erosion of metanarratives (of grand narratives, of grand scenarios, of grand explanatory schemes) that are becoming obsolete as a way of understanding and constructing the world. In the contemporary world, there is increasingly „no place for metatheories that cover large areas of reality and are therefore sufficiently independent of the context“ [9]. This is inevitable and necessary because postmodern knowledge „refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable“ [10].
  In the Postmodern society, under the pressure of changes, generated by new goals and aspirations for the construction of meaning, by new forms and possibilities for human and social communication, by new technologies and methods of manipulation of society and people, metanarratives begin to disintegrate into mininarratives and even micronarratives, grand stories – into ministories and even micro-stories, „which do not claim universality, truth, reasonableness, certainty [and] are always situational, temporary, conditional, spontaneous, cover local events, and not large-scale global concepts“ [11].
  The end of metanarratives, of grand narratives, can transform them from essence and content into „packaging“, into form. Let us remind that along with other significant metanarratives, grand stories, the key metanarratives, grand stories for us – Democracy, Security, Freedom and even Society – face such a perspective.
  All metanarratives, grand stories begin to lose their socially organizing and socially mobilizing essence as tools for control, for unification, for a unified understanding of goals and priorities (i.e., what is to be achieved, while disputes remain, and are allowed, even encouraged in terms of how it is to be achieved, to what extent it is to be achieved, with what resources it is to be achieved). Thus they acquire multi-meaning and multi-essence; different understandings and even more – different ways of understanding; they acquire character, to use our favorite analogy, of a rainbow, and the rainbow can and must be unwoven, as the English biologist Richard Dawkins (1941) says – every metanarrative can and must be defragmented, deconstructed. And the metanarrative, which until recently had the status of being almost absolute or at least considered a monolithic metanarrative, is falling into pieces, and from them, with different combinations, different narratives (often mini-, even micronarratives) are obtained, which only to a certain extent remind their ancestor, the metanarrative, the grand narrative – just as the man and the chimpanzee share a common ancestor and each resembles him, but the two differ too much from each other.   Indeed, „postmodern societies are only surfaces without depth, only signs without essences, only signifiers“. As the French philosopher, the Bulgarian Tzvetan Todorov (1939 – 2017) wrote, the postmodern model is „called to favor only differences... postmodernism absolutizes relativism" [13].
  
  The most essential things in postmodernism can be summarized as follows: „agonistics of language games (not logic), disconsensus (not consensus), discreteness (not continuity and progress), multiplicity (not unity), instability (not stability), locality (not spatial universality), fragmentarity (not integrity), randomness (not necessity), openness (not closed systematicity), play (not planned purpose), anarchy (not hierarchy), dispersion (not centering), negativity (not positivity), movement on the surface of things and words (not in their depth), trace (not signification and signifier), simulacrum (not image) [see below – N. Sl.], labyrinth (not linearity), uncertainty (not certainty), immanent (not transcendent), aesthetics of the paradoxical-sublime (not beautiful and imaginable), seduction of passions (rather than production)“ [14].
  
  Explanation:
  Agonistics (from the Greek agon – struggle) – „public competition“, „public games“, competition, creative beginning. One of the most important elements of ancient Greek life and culture.
  
  Immanence (lat. in manere – within the framework, within) – internally inherent, intrinsic, arising from the nature of the object or phenomenon.
  
  Transcendence (lat. transcendens – transgressor, going beyond) – beyond the limits of knowledge and experience; that which is beyond the limits of the natural world known by the senses.
  
  The genuine postmodern concept is a simulacrum – „an image that has no relation to reality“ [15], a remarkably accurate characteristic and symbol of postmodernism, an illustration of the fact that postmodernism, especially works of culture, increasingly creates superficial, shallow, illogical and strange images .
  
  Explanation:
  Simulacrum – an image/representation/copy without an original, an image of what does not exist in principle. Centaur is an example of a simulacrum (in ancient Greek mythology, it is a half-man and half-horse, a creature with the head, arms and chest of a man and the body of a horse).
  
  Postmodernism, argued the American literary critic Frederick Jamieson (1934), is characterized by imitation; our age is the „age of pretense“. Continuous imitation and imitation creates simulacra – „copies without originals“. It could not be otherwise when the distinctions between signs and meanings are blurred and erased, when it is increasingly difficult to distinguish the real from that which copies and displaces it in the minds of men. This is how the parallel or copied reality arises, which the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard (1929 – 2007) calls hyperreality or superreality, as it is more often translated in Bulgaria. The culture that reflects such a worldview, that tries to restore from the shadows the images of the objects that gave rise to them, is precisely the culture of simulacra [16].
  The media is less and less a mirror of reality – more and more they themselves are reality. Although they replace and distort reality, the media become more real than reality, become a hyperreality, a superreality; and the real submits to the hyperreal, the superreal, passes into the background and finally disappears. The news of reality is replaced by news of hyperreality, of superreality, in fact of unreality. And what is the news of hyperreality, of superreality, of unreality? This is precisely the fake news, fakenews. And how can people, transferred from reality to hyperreality, to superreality, to unreality, see and understand reality? When this becomes impossible for them, then there is no reality anymore – there is only hyperreality, only superreality [17], unreality. People receive not a copy of reality, not its imitation, not even a falsification, but a simulacrum – both existing and imagined, which not only misrepresents reality or demeans and worsens it, but by its blurred essence is an image, a representation of hyperreality, of superreality, of unreality. It is real without origin or without reality. The real begins to be defined not as an image of reality, but as something of which – even if it does not exist – it is possible to make an equivalent reproduction. And from here, because of and through the simulacrum, reality is distorted and the understanding of which is more real – the real or the simulacrum already – begins to be lost [18]. A simulacrum is not something that hides the truth – the truth is what hides the fact that there really is nothing. Therefore, the simulacrum is the real, and the truth is what is not there, what is absent, what does not exist [19]. We move like sleepwalkers, lunatics among hyperreal, superreal objects and models that have no original, that do not have real prototypes.
  And so gradually „the world becomes a collection of delusions, appearances, semblances and phantoms of consciousness, as the word, speech, print, art, clothing, even individual people become signs and remind familiar ideas“ [20].
Simulacra become a space whose map precedes its territory [21] – a space that we lightly and easily inhabit, where the hyperreal, the superreal is real [22] because we ourselves perceive ourselves as hyperreal, superreal beings, thinking that we remain real, down to earth, real, true to themselves.
  
  In conclusion, the following can be summarized about the Postmodern Society:
  ▪ The Postmodern society first means a crisis (they even talk about an end) of metanarratives, of „grand stories“, of grand explanatory schemes, models, theories, scenarios – Ideology, Religion, History, Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Art, (and very important for us:) Democracy, Security, Freedom and even Society; and furthermore, societies, communities and individuals are increasingly becoming multi-value, multi-purpose and multi-role, i.e. it is increasingly easy to „surf“ between values, goals and roles, and it is increasingly easy for identities to blur.
  
  Along with the inevitable descent (unfortunately) from the scientific scene of our generation, the Modern society is also departing from the historical scene. Just as a new, young, bright and purposeful scientific generation appears instead of us on the scientific scene, so a very complex, contradictory, unknown and fraught with serious challenges and risks appears on the historical scene – the Postmodern society. Again and again, with growing concern, we must express the fear that it is not only the POSTmodern society, but it can also turn out to be the LOSTmodern society – the society of lost modernity.
  
  
  References:
  1. McLuhan, Marshall. The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.
  2. Nye, Joseph Jr. The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011, p. 4.
  3. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, New York: Verso, 2006, p. 6.
  4. Lash, Scott. Critique of information. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002, р. 20.
  5. Ibid.,, p. XIII.
  6. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. Postmodern Condition. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984.
  7. Симеонова-Конах, Галя. Постмодернизмът. Българският случай. София: Факел, Изток-Запад, 2011, с. 276.
  Simeonova-Konach, Galia. Postmodernizmut. Bulgarskiat sluchai. Sofia: Fakel, Iztok-Zapad, 2011, s. 276. (in Bulgarian)
   (Simeonova-Konach, Galya. Postmodernism)
  8. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. Postmodern Condition…, р. 7 et seq.
  9. Арзуманян, Рачья. Кромка Хаоса. Сложное мышление и сеть: парадигма нелинейности и среда безопасности XXI века, М.: Регнум, 2012, с. 31.
  Arzumanian, rachia. Kromka Haosa. Slozhnoe myshlenie i set: paradigma nelineinosti i sreda bezopasnosti XXI veka, Moskva: Regnum, 2012, s. 21 (in Russian)
   (Arzumanyan, Rachya. Edge of Chaos.)
  10. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. Postmodern Condition…, р. XXV.
  11. http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%....
  12. Dawkins, Richard. The Ancestor’s Tale. A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. Phoenix, 2004.
  13. Тодоров, Цветан. Страхът от варварите. София: Изток-Запад, 2009, с. 271.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Strahut ot varvarite. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2009, s. 271. (in Bulgarian)
(Todorov, Tsvetan. The fear of the barbarians)
  14. Канке, Виктор. Философия науки: краткий энциклопедический словарь. Москва: Омега-Л, 2008, с. 195.
  Kanke, Viktor. Filosofia naukiL kratkii enciklopedicheskii slovar. Moskva: Omega-L, 2008, s. 195. (in Russian)
   (Kanke, Victor. Philosophy of Science)
  15. Проданов, Христо. Дигиталната политика. Велико Търново: Фабер, 2010, с. 127.
  Prodanov, Hristo. Digitalnata politika. Veliko Turnovo: Faber, 2010, s. 127. (in Bulgarian)
   (Prodanov, Hristo. The digital policy)
  16. Taylor, Mark C. After God. Chicago, IL; London, UK: The University of Chicago Press, 2007, р. 222.
  17. Ритцер, Джордж. Современные социологические теории. Санкт Петербург: Питер, 2002, с. 550 – 551.
  Ritzer, Dzhordh. Sovremennye sociologicheskie teorii. Sankt Peterburg: Piter, 2002, s. 550 – 551. (in Russian)
   (Ritzer, George. Modern sociological theories)
  18. Clarke, David B. The Consumer Society and the Postmodern City. London, UK: Routledge, 2003, р. 77.
  19. Taylor, Mark C. After God, ibidem.
  20. http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%....
  21. Taylor, Mark C. After God…, р. 221.
  22. Kelly, Kevin. Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World. 1994, 2008, p. 207.
  
  
  
  03/04/2023
  
  
  Brief explanation:
  The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.