Introduction. The concept of “globalization” enters the circulation and becomes widespread in connection with the discussion among scientists, politicians, journalists of the crisis of 1997‒1999, discussions about the prospects of development of the world and individual countries. Among those who study globalization, there are opponents, “skeptics”, hyperglobalists, supporters of the “transformation theory”. An important moment for defining the essence of globalization was not only the identification of its technical-technological and technical-organizational component, but also financial and economic aspects. Later, along with transnational processes and deepening interdependence in economy and politics, qualitative changes in the worldview of subjects involved in the processes of globalization became the focus of attention of researchers. A distinctive feature of the new period of humanity’s development is the global crisis that has taken over all spheres of social life. It is initiated by many factors, but mainly by the modern processes of globalization, growing in social life. In contemporary discourse, there are different approaches to analyzing the social consequences of globalization: as a “world of fluid modernity” [1], “the elusive world” [2], “the end of the familiar world” [3]. Globalization is not so much a change in the movement of people and things as a way of identification of events and phenomena by the participants of the world system. In the most general form, globalization is understood as a process that leads to a comprehensive, worldwide binding of structures, institutions and cultures, “...determining the nature of relations in the sociocultural environment” [4, pp. 141‒143].

Materials and methods. The purpose of this study is to identify, through philosophical reflection, the main trends, forms and specifics of modern social transformations in the logic of the influence of the globalization process on them. “Philosophical reflection sets the educational concept meaning, purpose, forms, and performs an integrative function” [5, pp. 80‒85]. The subject of this study is the content and features of social transformations in the conditions of the modern stage of globalization.

Results. The era of globalization is usually considered by the academic community as “our time”, as what is happening to us at the moment. Due to the lack of “historical distance”, the scale and novelty of changes for humanity as a whole, which is inherent in the name of the era, the search for its essential characteristics leads to the discussion of not only current, but also emerging and expected problems, in the ultimate expression — the problems of posthuman existence. At this stage of humanity’s development, socio-humanitarian and socio-cultural aspects dominate, scientific and technological progress and the info-communication component of globalization play an important role. Despite the fact that the processes of globalization are objective, recently there have been observed tendencies of manifestation of its subjective nature, which is reflected in the formation and spread of the concepts of globalism, anti-globalism and alterglobalism. The sociohumanitarian aspect of globalization leads to the need to consider the problem of modern social transformations in the context of its axiological aspects and determines the special relevance of the problem under consideration. In this regard, an important and relevant task is to identify the nature and features of modern social transformations occurring under the influence of globalization.

Discussion and conclusion. Globalization in the social aspect means changes in the structure of employment. In the management aspect, globalization is defined as a set of unpredictable in its development processes (turbulent). This means that it is practically uncontrollable. According to the famous English sociologist R. Robertson, the global cannot be opposed to the local, the universal to the private. The local is an aspect of globalization, the global creates the local. Globalization has an institutional character. Traditional activities characteristic of local societies are disappearing, and other activities far removed from these local contexts are taking their place. Therefore, R. Robertson suggests replacing the term “globalization” with “glocalization” for greater accuracy. It is composed of two words: “globalization” and “localization” to emphasize their mutual realization at present.

It can be stated that at present, under the influence of globalization, which has a multifactorial character, sociocultural transformations are being made. Modern civilization is a transforming system that promotes the dialogue of cultures in the context of the development of modern civilization [6; 7]. Globalization, as a complex process, reforms and changes all components of social existence: sociocultural norms and boundaries are blurred, new structures and elements of the social system emerge, many spheres of sociocultural existence are intertwined more closely, a global sociocultural space, an integral world system is formed. Acting as a megatrend, globalization initiates fundamental changes in society. Rapid, numerous and rather deep transformations in every sphere of social existence contribute to significant socio-cultural shifts.

The processes of globalization begin to master consciousness, affect cognition, in a specific way contribute to the formation of the worldview of modern man and, as a result, influence his formation and development.

The appeal to the issue of human personality formation in the globalizing world is connected with the aggravated problems of preserving the human being himself, his identity, culture, spirituality, in connection with innovative cultural, social, technological and anthropogenic impacts on people, in parallel with the processes of globalization.

Undoubtedly, globalization has caused an identity crisis. Identity is understood as the integration of a person and society, their ability to realize their self-identity and answer the question: «Who am I?». Identity is opposed to multiculturalism — cultural diversity interpreted in the spirit of role theory. Identity and multiculturalism can be presented as natural self-identity (in the former) and diversity (in the latter), and as a policy of maintaining these principles.

There is an increasingly clear tendency towards the blurring of features between traditional cultures, their “dissolution” in more significant and developed in political, economic and socio-cultural aspects “universals”, which have become, despite the retained titular historical name, essentially supranational units. At the same time, the absolute homogeneity of mankind is fundamentally unattainable, which is formed by “... activities that imitate the real reality ...” [8, pp. 62‒66]. On the contrary, the preservation of a certain level of its diversity is a necessity for the preservation of such a significant source of development — a certain degree of social conflictogenicity, as well as for its existence as a stable system. Thus, gradually mankind creates an integral system of social relations that defeat spatial boundaries. And local transformations are conditioned by the impact of events occurring at a considerable distance. Conversely, factors of local scope can cause irreversible global consequences.

Transformations in the social sphere are particularly acute, as they affect the life of any person, change the social structure of society, its being-spatial order.

The integration dominant feature of the globalization process is the intensive development of information and communication technologies, the expansion of interactions between countries and civilizations, the internationalization of financial and economic sphere. All this deepens the trends of differentiation and diversification. In accordance with this, the processes of interaction between cultures in the world are determined by various attractors that are not predetermined in advance.

The coexistence of multidirectional tendencies of integration and differentiation characterizes the contradictory nature of the globalization process. It can be considered as a complex form of integrity, when this duality exists on the basis of the principle of additionality and manifests itself at both global and local levels. Any culture and ethnos in its own way and in its own rhythm enter global processes, preserving general social and specific local cultural uniqueness.

A sign of self-development of culture is the development of new forms. Globalization processes form in many respects a new environment for the development of modern cultures, as a result of which nowadays ethnic (traditional) cultures, which carry out “the formation and interaction of ethno-cultural traditions ...” [9, pp. 44‒50], are not free from borrowings In order for globalization processes to become possible, leading to the achievement of civilizational synthesis while preserving the diversity of peoples and cultures, a new paradigm of human development, a qualitative transformation of the system of values and practices of culture is necessary.

In the new paradigm, the concept of completeness should replace the concept of integrity. In a living open system, completeness is unattainable, and plasticity, characteristic of integrity, is necessary. Without it it is impossible to reconcile the processes of isolation and interdependence of the components of the modern world, it is impossible to combine the inseparability of the whole and the independence of the parts. In a rigid structure, unity leads to totalitarianism.

There are a number of socio-cultural contradictions in the non-linear world. In the course of the world market development, specialization and international division of labor are deepening, needs are being equalized; the influence of democratic principles is increasing; information is becoming widely available, new forms of communication are being consolidated; social indicators are improving in many regions, and considerable opportunities for choosing life strategies are being revealed. But at the same time, the world economy is becoming less stable, interdependent and vulnerable; the economic and social gap between developed and developing countries is growing; migration flows are increasing, transnational companies are strengthening their economic and political influence on various states; problems of interaction between the state and civil society institutions are deepening; the spread of mass culture threatens cultural diversity. In addition, all this is aggravated by the growing ecological crisis. The strengthening of transnational dimensions leads to the fact that the unique cultural and semantic space and existential world of a person becomes less demanded. Many regions and states are starting to build similar historical vectors, similar guidelines in socio-economic and political development, unifying and standardizing human life activities. Often global processes in traditional cultures are realized in very aggressive forms. The more indisputable in this sense is the movement of peoples and cultures to search for their identity and distinctiveness. The spiritual sphere of existence is less subject to the trend of globalization. O.N. Astafieva believes that the national-cultural mentality and artistic and aesthetic activity retain their essence, remaining the channels of manifestation of cultural uniqueness, through which the national self-consciousness and worldview are expressed.

The formation of external and essential boundaries of any society, any civilization, occurs, as a rule, from the material of the general global integrity at the stage of its reconstruction. The result of it will depend on how clearly the existing contradictory, often mutually exclusive development strategies, are comprehended and how consistently the society, its political and intellectual elite consistently implements its own globalization scenario, based on the preservation of the prospects of both civilizational and other status of society, as well as its living space. It is obvious that it is the maintenance of the diversity of cultural forms and practices that determine the parameters of sociocultural development [10]. One of the modern points of view is that in order to resolve the conflict situation it is necessary to implement the idea of a multipolar community of countries, peoples and cultures, as opposed to its mirror version, i. e. “confrontational polycentrism”. Humanity can unite on the basis of harmonization of interests and interpenetration of values of the currently coexisting technogenic and traditional societies. Therefore, it can be argued that the idea of the dialogue of cultures, which is expressed in the search for the new without destroying the old, in conjugation with the other, in the pursuit of mutual understanding and recognition of all cultures as equal, is of fundamental importance nowadays.