Three cases of interaction of the dialogue of cultures. Cultural dialogue in modern society. Levels of interaction of cultures

The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is interethnic tension in a society, and even more so, interethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of interethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. The processes of interaction of cultures are more complex than it was once naively believed that there is a simple “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which in turn logically led to conclusions about the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. Now the question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is being actively explored. According to Danilevsky, cultures develop separately and are initially hostile to each other. He saw the “spirit of the people” as the basis of all these differences. “Dialogue is communication with culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the way of appropriating the latter, the possibility of relieving political tension between states and ethnic groups. It is a necessary condition for the scientific search for truth and the process of creativity in art.

The interaction of cultures and civilizations also implies some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction represent various types of dialogical relations.

Modern cultures are formed as a result of numerous and long cultural interactions. Modern culture is also beginning to move to a new type of human existence in culture. In the 20th century, culture is shifting to the epicenter of human existence, which occurs in all spheres of life. The dialogue of cultures is the communication of many uniquely universal personalities, the dominant of which is not knowledge, but mutual understanding.

“In the deep idea of the dialogue of cultures, new culture communication. Modern manifestations of fundamental problems are also connected with the interaction of cultures of different peoples. The peculiarity of solving these problems is within the framework of a systematic dialogue of cultures, and not one, even a successful culture. “The solution of these problems presupposes such a globalization of the interaction of cultures in space and time, in which the self-realization of each and every culture through the interaction of all with each and each with all others becomes a reality. On this path, the very mechanism of interaction between cultures is problematized. ” And further, A. Gordienko rightly believes: “Due to the fact that the globalization of intercultural interactions assumes such a completeness of the semantic world of the individuals involved in it, which occurs only at the point of intersection of all cultural images, the individual goes beyond individual, particular limits into the cultural cosmos, into the fundamental endless communication and, therefore, into an endless rethinking of what he himself is. This process forms that “direct” perspective of human history” Gordienko A.A. Anthropological and culturological prerequisites for the co-evolution of man and nature: a philosophical and anthropological model of co-evolutionary development. - Novosibirsk, 1998. S-76-78

Dry formal logic, linear rationality is sometimes alien and hostile to spiritual speculation. One-dimensional rationalism contains the danger of a simplistic or false conclusion. In this regard, the medieval monks had a proverb: "the devil is a logician." As a form of conversation, dialogue implies a certain commonality of space and time, empathy - in order to understand the interlocutor, to find a common language with him. Dialogue can be a form of religious-philosophical thought (for example, Platonic dialogues) and spiritual revelation.

Intercultural interactions cannot occur otherwise than through the interactions of individual worldviews. The most important problem in the analysis of intercultural interaction is the disclosure of the mechanism of interactions. Two types of interaction: 1) cultural-direct, when cultures interact with each other through communication at the language level. 2) Indirect, when the main characteristics of the interaction are its dialogical nature, while the dialogue is included within the culture, as part of its own structures. Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as “foreign” and as “own”. Thus, the mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is the result of indirect interaction, the dialogue of culture with itself, as a dialogue of “own” and “foreign” (having a dual nature). The essence of dialogue lies in the productive interaction of sovereign positions that make up a single and diverse semantic space and a common culture. The main thing that distinguishes dialogue from monologue is the desire to understand the relationship of various views, ideas, phenomena, social forces.

One of the fundamental works devoted to the problems of the interaction of cultures is the work of S. Artanovsky “The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. L., 1967. For the dialogue of cultures, the concept of “unity” is important. S. Artanovsky believes that the concept of unity should not be interpreted metaphysically as complete homogeneity or indivisibility. “The historical unity of cultures does not mean their identity, i.e. full repeatability of phenomena, their identity. “Unity” means integrity, fundamental commonality, the predominance of internal connections between the elements of this structure over external ones. We are talking, for example, about the unity of the solar system, which, however, does not exclude the multiplicity of its constituent worlds. World culture, from this point of view, forms a unity with a structure that is located in two dimensions - spatial (ethnographic) and temporal (ethnohistorical)” Artanovsky S.N. The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. - Leningrad, 1967. S-43

Dialogue implies a comparison of national values and the development of an understanding that one's own ethno-cultural coexistence is impossible without a respectful and careful attitude to the values of other peoples. The interaction of cultures acquires its specificity on the basis of the intersection of unique cultural systems.

Pushkin and Dostoevsky were formed on the border of Russian and Western cultures. They believed that the West is our second homeland, and the stones of Europe are sacred. European culture dialogical: it is based on the desire to understand the other, on the exchange with other cultures, on a distant relationship to oneself. In the development of the world socio-cultural process, an important role is played by the dialogue between the cultures of the West and the East, which has acquired universal significance in modern conditions. In this dialogue, Russia plays a special role, being a kind of bridge connecting Europe and Asia. In Russian culture, the process of synthesizing Eastern and Western cultural traditions continues. dual nature Russian culture allows it to be an intermediary between East and West.

Dialogue, according to M. Bakhtin, can have the following consequences:

1. Synthesis, merging different points of view or positions into one common one.

2. “During the dialogic meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M., 1986. S-360

3. Dialogue leads to an understanding of the fundamental differences between the participants in this process, when “the more demarcation, the better, but benevolent delimitation. No fights on the border."

The category "interaction" in relation to national cultures is generic in relation to "mutual influence", "mutual enrichment". "Interaction" emphasizes the active, intense relationship between cultures in the process of their development. The category “relationship” has a tinge of stability, static, so it does not fully reflect the diversity and result of relations between cultures. If "relationship" fixes the relationship between cultures, then "interaction" marks the active process of this relationship. The methodological significance of the category “interaction” is that it allows us to fully understand the process of development of national cultures. The category of “interaction” can be understood as one side, one of the results of “interaction”. It does not indicate the nature of the impact of one national culture to another. "Mutual influence" includes the appeal of representatives of one or another national culture to certain aspects of reality, themes, images. "Mutual influence" also expresses the practice of mastering new techniques and means of artistic expression for a given national culture. It includes and psychological aspect: excitation of creative energy as a result of the perception of artistic values created by another national culture.

The category of "mutual enrichment" of national cultures is somewhat narrower than the category of "mutual influence", since the latter also includes taking into account negative experience. “Mutual enrichment” means the process of increasing the mastery of artistic mastering of reality, stimulating creative activity and using spiritual values created by another national culture.

The interaction of cultures is an interdependent, two-way process, i.e. changes in the state, content, and therefore, the functions of one culture as a result of the impact of another must necessarily be accompanied by changes in another culture. In other words, the interaction is two-way. It follows from this that it is not entirely correct to consider the form of connection between the historical past of national cultures and the current state of culture as interaction, because there is only one-way connection, since the present does not affect the past. We can assume that the category of “interaction” along the vertical is illegal. It would be more correct to call this phenomenon continuity. However, this does not mean that cultural heritage does not participate in the process of national-cultural interaction. The spiritual heritage of each nation in a rethought or in its original quality is included in the current, modern state of the culture of the nation. It is on the degree of involvement in modern spiritual processes that the degree of participation of the values of the past in the process of national-cultural interactions depends. At the present stage, the need to restore the vertical, diachronic ties in culture is increasingly being realized, first of all, the acquisition of a new spiritual paradigm, which connects the beginning of the 21st century with the beginning of the 20th century, with a spiritual renaissance " silver age”and rooted in the deep layers of Russian history and culture. The variety of forms of activity, thinking, vision of the world developed in the course of historical and cultural development is all in more included in general process development of world culture. At the same time, they have deep roots and cultural differences, reflecting the features of the ethnic community in their integrity and internal relationship with the natural and social environment. Cultural differences are one of the sources of the diversity of the historical process, giving it multidimensionality. The uniqueness of each culture means that in certain respects different cultures are equal to each other. The phrase “culturally backward” is unacceptable in relations between peoples. Another thing is economically backward or culturally backward people. It is impossible to deny the development in the field of culture, and therefore the fact that there are more developed, more powerful and less developed and less widespread cultures. But it is the uniqueness of national, regional features of a particular culture that puts it on a level commensurate with others. The diversity of cultures is an objective reality. The unity of world culture is due to the unity of the historical process, the universal nature of labor, creative activity at all. Any national cultures express the universal human content. Thus, the necessity and possibility of interaction, dialogue of cultures is theoretically substantiated. The exchange of spiritual values, acquaintance with the achievements of the culture of other peoples enriches the personality. The core of the activity of the subject of culture, in the process of which he himself changes, changing, developing at the same time the state, the content of the national culture. The interaction of cultures also takes place at the level of interpersonal communication, since the generally significant values of cultures are realized in sensation. Interpersonal communication, expanding the sources of social and cultural information, can thus be an important factor in overcoming stereotyped thinking and this contributes to the mutual enrichment of the spiritual image of people.

culture spiritual dialogue society

The whole history of mankind is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our whole life. In its reality, it is a means of implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is interethnic tension in a society, and even more so, interethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of interethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. The processes of interaction of cultures are more complex than it was once naively believed that there is a simple “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which in turn logically led to conclusions about the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. Now the question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is being actively explored.

Dialogue presupposes active interaction of equal subjects. The interaction of cultures and civilizations also implies some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction represent various types of dialogical relations. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. The ancient texts of the culture of India are filled with the idea of the unity of cultures and peoples, the macro- and microcosm, reflections on the fact that human health largely depends on the quality of his relationship with environment, from the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding as a reflection of the Universe in our being.

Since spiritual culture is inextricably linked with religion, the dialogue of cultures “is not just the interaction of peoples, but also their deep mystical connection, rooted in religion” (4, p.20). Therefore, the dialogue of cultures is not possible without a dialogue of religions and a dialogue within religions. And the purity of dialogue is a matter of conscience. Genuine dialogue is always freedom of thought, looseness of judgment, intuition. Dialogue is like a pendulum, which, if deflected, then the dialogue moves.

1) cultural-direct, when cultures interact with each other through communication at the language level.
2) Indirect, when the main characteristics of the interaction are its dialogical nature, while the dialogue is included within the culture, as part of its own structures.

Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as “foreign” and as “own”. Thus, the mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is the result of indirect interaction, the dialogue of culture with itself, as a dialogue of “own” and “foreign” (having a dual nature). The essence of dialogue lies in the productive interaction of sovereign positions that make up a single and diverse semantic space and a common culture. The main thing that distinguishes dialogue from monologue is the desire to understand the relationship of various views, ideas, phenomena, social forces.

The methodology of the interaction of cultures, in particular, the dialogue of cultures, was developed in the works of M. Bakhtin. Dialogue according to M. Bakhtin is a mutual understanding of those involved in this process, and at the same time the preservation of one's opinion, one's own in another (merging with him) and maintaining distance (one's place). Dialogue is always development, interaction. It is always a union, not a decomposition. Dialogue is an indicator of the general culture of society. According to M. Bakhtin, each culture lives only in questioning another culture, that great phenomena in culture are born only in the dialogue of different cultures, only at the point of their intersection. The ability of one culture to master the achievements of another is one of the sources of its vital activity. Imitation of a foreign culture or complete rejection of it must give way to dialogue. For both sides, the dialogue between the two cultures can be fruitful.

Interest is the beginning of a dialogue. The dialogue of cultures is the need for interaction, mutual assistance, mutual enrichment. The dialogue of cultures acts as an objective necessity and condition for the development of cultures. Mutual understanding is assumed in the dialogue of cultures. And in mutual understanding, unity, similarity, identity are assumed. That is, the dialogue of cultures is possible only on the basis of mutual understanding, but at the same time - only on the basis of the individual in each culture. And the common thing that unites all human cultures is their sociality, i.e. human and human. There is no single world culture, but there is a unity of all human cultures, which ensures the “complex unity of all mankind” - the humanistic principle.

The influence of one culture on another is realized only if there are the necessary conditions for such influence. Dialogue between two cultures is possible only if their cultural codes are brought closer together, if a common mentality exists or emerges. The dialogue of cultures is the penetration into the value system of a particular culture, respect for them, overcoming stereotypes, synthesis of original and other national, leading to mutual enrichment and entry into the global cultural context. In the dialogue of cultures, it is important to see the universal values of interacting cultures. One of the main objective contradictions inherent in the cultures of all peoples of the world is the contradiction between the development of national cultures and their convergence. Therefore, the need for a dialogue of cultures is a condition for the self-preservation of mankind. And the formation of spiritual unity is the result of the dialogue of modern cultures.

The dialogue of cultures has centuries-old experience in Russia. The interaction of cultures took place in different areas with varying degrees of intensity. So correspondence can be considered as a factor of mutual influence of cultures. A letter can be called a socio-cultural slice of reality, passed through the prism of perception of an individual. Since an important element of culture at all times was the culture of human communication, one of the forms of its implementation was correspondence. Correspondence is the dialogue that reflects the mentality and value system of territorially limited societies, but is also a means of their interaction. It was writing that became one of the most important in the formation of a common European cultural environment and a conductor of its reverse influence on national figures. Translation is not just a mediator, but in itself an essential component of cultural interchange.

The dialogue of cultures has been and remains the main thing in the development of mankind. For centuries and millennia there has been a mutual enrichment of cultures, which formed a unique mosaic of human civilization. The process of interaction, dialogue of cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures, elements of national culture are active for the assimilation of accumulated creative values. The most active process of the dialogue of cultures takes place during the assimilation of artistic values close to one or another type of national thinking. Of course, much depends on the correlation of stages in the development of culture, on accumulated experience. Within each national culture, various components of culture develop differentially.

The dialogue of cultures is most fruitful in conjunction with the dialogue of religions. In Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church has been engaged in an active dialogue with all people of good will for several decades. Now such a dialogue has stalled, and if it is being conducted, it is rather due to inertia. Dialogue between representatives of different faiths today is a dialogue of the deaf. The dialogue of cultures is important in Russia and not only in the conditions of a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country, with an abundance of various cultural and religious differences. The interaction of cultures today is largely political in nature, as it is associated with one of the few ways to relieve interethnic tension without the use of military force, as well as a way to consolidate society.

The dialogue of cultures leads to a deepening of cultural self-development, to mutual enrichment through a different cultural experience both within certain cultures and on the scale of world culture. The need for a dialogue of cultures as a condition for the self-preservation of mankind. Interaction, dialogue of cultures in modern world The process is complex and sometimes painful. It is necessary to ensure optimal interaction, a dialogue of peoples and cultures in the interests of each of the parties to this interaction and in the interests of society, the state, and the world community.

Thus, after all the above, we can sum up.

Dialogue among civilizations is a process within and across civilizations that is based on inclusiveness and a collective desire to learn, discover and explore concepts, identify areas of common understanding and core values, and bring different approaches together through dialogue. .

Dialogue among civilizations is a process aimed at achieving, inter alia, the following goals:

· promotion of universal participation, equity, equity, fairness and tolerance in human relations;
· Strengthening mutual understanding and mutual respect through interaction between civilizations;
· mutual enrichment and development of knowledge, as well as understanding of the wealth and wisdom of all civilizations;
• identifying and promoting what unites civilizations in order to eliminate common threats to common values, universal human rights and the achievements of human society in various fields;
· the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the achievement of a greater common understanding of human rights;
Promoting a deeper understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values;
· Ensuring a higher degree of respect for cultural diversity and cultural heritage.

Interest in the problems of culture and civilization has not ceased for two centuries. The concept of culture originates in antiquity. And the idea of culture arises in the 18th century. The opposition between the concepts of culture and civilization began to be discussed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The First World War, the awakening of Asia sharpened attention to the cultural, regional, behavioral and ideological differences in Europe and other regions. The concepts of O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and others gave a new impetus to the study and correlation of the concepts of culture and civilization.

The Second World War, the collapse of colonialism, the economic strengthening of some Far Eastern countries, the rapid enrichment of oil-producing states, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism demanded explanations. The confrontation between capitalism and communism collapsed. They began to talk about other topical confrontations - the rich North and the poor South, Western and Islamic countries.

If in the 19th century the ideas of Gobineau and Lebon about the inequality of races were in vogue, now the ideas of the clash of civilizations (S.Huntington) are in vogue.

The question arises: so what is "civilization" and how does it relate to the concept of "culture"?

Culture arises and develops along with the emergence and development of man and society. This is a specifically human way of life. There is no culture without man and there is no man without culture.

Civilization develops with the transition to a class, slave-owning society, when the first states are formed. "Civilian" - from the Latin "civil", "state".

At the same time, the concept of "civilization" is quite ambiguous. It is used in different senses:

often equate the concepts of "culture" and "civilization";

use the concept of local civilizations. It allows you to see the common and special in different countries and peoples, to compare them, so in Montesquieu, Herder, Toynbee, Danilevsky, civilization is a spatio-temporal grouping of societies taken in the aspect of cultural and ideological (religious) proximity. So, according to P. Sorokin, there are eastern and western civilizations (we can say that there are eastern and western cultures). So does S. Huntington, but he also highlights other civilizations (cultures).

today they talk about the formation of a world civilization. (Is this process accompanied by the formation of mass culture? Or: Mass culture contributes to the development of world civilization?).

civilization is often understood as a stage in the development of society. First there was barbarism (primitiveness), and then - civilization(You can talk about primitive culture, but not about primitive civilization).

O. Spengler civilization is a special stage in the development of culture. He understood culture by analogy with a biological organism. Like an organism culture is born, matures and dies. Dying, she turns into a civilization.

The separation of the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" was first identified by J.-J. Rousseau. He believed that the social contract (formation of states) provided all the benefits of civilization - the development of industry, education, science, etc. But civilization simultaneously consolidated economic inequality and political violence, which led to a new "barbarism" - to satisfy the needs of the body, but not the spirit . Culture satisfies the needs of the spirit. Civilization embodies the technological aspect of culture.

Civilization is actually a social, and not a natural, organization of society for the purpose of reproducing social wealth. Its appearance is associated with the division of labor, then, the further development of technology and technology (this was the basis for the division of society into barbarism and civilization in the civilizational approach).

Civilization is the social organization of social life on a certain economic basis.

culture believes the target and value settings of civilization.

Civilization provides socio-organizational and technological means for the functioning and development of culture.

V.I.Vernadsky considered civilization as a phenomenon “corresponding historically, or rather geologically, to the established organization of the biosphere. Forming the noosphere, it is connected with this earthly shell with all its roots, which was not the case before in the history of mankind.” (Vernadsky V.I. Reflections of a naturalist. M., 1977. Book 2. P. 33).

Ern: Civilization is the underside of culture.

Bakhtin: Culture exists on the frontiers...

Modern civilization is technogenic (the result of the transformation of nature and society based on the development of technology).

A. Toynbee advocated the creation of a single civilization, but at the same time it is important that the diversity of cultures be preserved (he criticized the ongoing process of globalization for the fact that it proceeds as a general westernization).

Prishvin: Culture is the connection between people in their work. Civilization is the power of technology, the connection of things.

Fyodor Girenok: Culture in its development is based on the personal structures of a person (on a person as a person). Civilization in its development relies on the structure of man's labor force (on man as labor force only).

Culture is content public life.

Civilization is a form of organization of social life.

Culture develops a system of values in order to harmonize human relations with the world. It is always directed at a person, sets him meaningful life orientations.

Culture is a sphere of free self-realization of a person.

Civilization is looking for forms of implementation of harmonious relations between man and the world. Civilization is finding a way to adapt to the world, creating favorable conditions for a person. ... Norms, patterns of behavior ...

Frames, norms, patterns of civilized behavior at a given period of time someday lose their meaning, become obsolete. Moments of dramatic semantic transformations never lose their cultural significance. What remains is a unique spiritual experience, the meeting of one consciousness with another consciousness, the interaction of the individual with stereotypes.

Dialogue of cultures

The modern world is characterized by the ongoing process of globalization, the processes of formation of a single human civilization. It began with the international division of labor, the development of communication networks (trains, planes, the Internet, mobile communications). There is not only the movement of thousands of tons of natural resources around the planet, but also the migration of the population.

At the same time, representatives of different cultures - national, religious - collide. Are we humans ready for this?

S. Huntington claims that along with Western (Atlantic) civilization, which includes North America and Western Europe, can be distinguished:

1. Slavic-Orthodox;

2. Confucian (Chinese);

3. Japanese;

4. Islamic;

5. Hindu;

6. Latin American;

7. An African civilization is possibly being formed.

He characterizes the relationship between them as a collision. And, first of all, there is a clash of Western and Islamic civilizations. BUT, by and large, the formula “The West and The Rest” should be taken as a realistic one, i.e. - "The West and all the rest" ...

However, representatives of a different opinion are actively speaking out - that it is necessary and possible dialogue of civilizations and cultures.

The idea of dialogue was put forward by the sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. In the Middle Ages, dialogue was used for moral purposes. During the Enlightenment, German classical philosophy also used dialogue. Fichte, Feuerbach spoke about the need for a dialogue between the "I" and the "Other"¸i.e. Dialogue involves understanding one's Self and communicating, on the basis of respect, with other Selves.

Dialogue suggests active interaction of equal subjects. Dialogue is understanding and respect for the values of other cultures.

Important in the interaction of cultures and civilizations is the presence of some common values - universal values.

Dialogue helps ease political tensions between states and ethnic groups

Cultural isolation leads to the death of culture. However, the changes should not affect the core of the culture.

№ 46. The socio-cultural situation of modernity and its representation in philosophy

Modern civilization is characterized by the growth of interconnection between states and peoples. This process is called globalization .

Globalization - the process of economic, political and cultural interaction between different countries. It goes back to the New Age, the 17th century, when mass machine production and the capitalist mode of production appeared, which required the expansion of sales markets and the organization of interstate channels for the supply of raw materials. Further, the commodity market is complemented by the international capital market. Transnational corporations (TNCs) are emerging and gaining strength, and the role of banks is growing. A new post-industrial, technogenic civilization requires international coordination of the political interaction of states.

Globalization is the process of forming a single financial-economic, military-political and information space, functioning almost exclusively on the basis of high and computer technologies.

Globalization generates its characteristic contradictions. As a result of globalization, the borders of nation-states are becoming more and more “transparent”, therefore, an oppositely directed process arises - the desire for national independence (the European Union is an attempt to overcome this). Contradictions between rich capitalist countries and developing countries (hunger, national debt...) intensified.

Global problems of our time have arisen - social, economic, military, environmental. They were the result of contradictions between the development of technology and technology and the spontaneity and unevenness of socio-economic progress, between the new global and old national economic systems, a crisis in the socio-political structure of society, unsuitable for effective, social control over the activities of people and groups with different interests, behind the activities of TNCs (criminal terrorism arose), a crisis of the old system of values arose.

How technology is used, what it is invented for, depends on what kind of person, society, their value system, ideology, culture.

Now technocratic thinking, based on cold rationalism, dominates. Consumer attitudes, individualism and egoism, including the national one, are growing, which is contrary to the trends of globalization. The problem is that, as former US Secretary of State H. Kissinger noted: "The main challenge is that what is usually called globalization is not really just another name for the dominant role of the United States."

At the same time, modern technogenic civilization is the basis of the information society. There is an international exchange of cultural values. Formed adequate to the process of globalization Mass culture. Modern man is a mass man.

IN modern culture(New time, the beginning of capitalism, 17-18 centuries) the main values were reason, science, the ideal of a comprehensively developed person, faith in humanism and the progress of society. But already from the end of the 18th century, agnosticism becomes noticeable, in the 19th century - irrationalism, and ideas about the meaninglessness of life - in the beginning. 20th century. Even the existentialist Heidegger said that the sense of the authenticity of existence has been lost. God and reason are rejected, intellectual revelry is welcomed. However, they did not dominate the culture.

20th century with its wars, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, manipulation of mass consciousness using the media, gave rise to the idea of the absurdity of life, the ineradicable irrationality of man, the relativity of everything and everyone, the rejection of truth, the idea of society as a risk society.

Back in the 30s. 20th century The Spanish historian and philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset wrote in his book “The Revolt of the Masses” that a man of the mass entered the arena of history. This new type person - a superficial person, but self-confident. The fault is democracy, the ideal of equality and the liberalization of life. As a result, a generation has emerged that builds its life without relying on traditions.

And already in postmodern late 20th century Consciousness sees its meaning not in the search for a deep, all-connecting meaning, but in deconstruction any sense at all (Jacques Derrida 1930-2004).

Deconstruction is a special form of thinking, one of the forms of analysis. It proceeds from the assertion that nothing is elementary, everything can be decomposed to infinity. So, there is no beginning, no support. Hence, we are wrong when we say that we have roots, for example, in nationality. The question of identity is complex and endless. It's just that people in their weakness are trying to find support in something (nation, religion, gender). But what we take for granted is not! Everything is relative - and gender, and national, and religious, and any other affiliation.

Philosophers note that a profound transformation of culture is taking place, losing its humanistic potential under the influence of technogenic and social factors.

It is natural that in culture there areopposite tendencies . Therefore, nationalism (ethnocentrism, which opposesglobalization as unification according to the American model), religious fundamentalism, environmentalism and other phenomena also arose. Thisthose who are still looking for some basic values that could be relied upon .

Postmodernism is not a single philosophical strategy, but a fan of various projects presented by the names of J. Deleuze, J. Derrida, J. Lyotard, M. Foucault.

They develop their own model of seeing reality:

The world is characterized by uncertainty, the concept of the center, integrity disappears(in philosophy, politics, morality). Instead of a world based on the principles of systemicity, subordination, progress, - image of a radically pluralistic reality as labyrinth, rhizomes. ABOUT denial of the idea of binary(subject and object, center and periphery, internal and external).

Such a mosaic, polycentric world requires specific methods and norms for its description. From here fundamental eclecticism, fragmentarism, mixture of styles, collage: the inclusion of alien fragments in the composition, inserts of works by other authors, arbitrary editing, and “fragments” of history become part of the present. (Today they are talking about clip mass consciousness).

Postmodernism rejects all canons. The language rejects generally accepted logic, it contains absurdity and paradoxes, characteristic of truly creative people and outcasts (madmen, sick people).

Philosophers are postmodernists redefine the concept of truth: there is no absolute truth. The more we master the world, the deeper our ignorance, they say. Truth is ambiguous, multiple.Human cognition does not reflect the world, but interprets it, and no interpretation takes precedence over another..

Postmodernism is assessed differently by contemporaries: for some it is a search for universal forms for both science and art, aspiration for the future, for others it is game in the void, lifeless prospects. Postmodernism is intellectually empty, morally dangerous, - said A. Solzhenitsyn. But it is obvious that postmodernism means a radical reassessment of values, proceeds from the fact that the modern world is much more complicated than previously thought; he speaks in favor of pluralism, equal dialogue, agreement (subject to the acceptance of disagreement and disagreement).

The idea of multiplicity, pluralism corresponds to the diversity and ambiguity of reality. But it is more difficult for thought than the idea of uniqueness. And the ideas of postmodernism were perceived superficially as the possibility of any eclectic connections, forgetting about any functionality. All sorts of quotes, annoying combinations of colors, sounds, colors, hybrid formations from old art forms flashed in all areas of art - from music to cinema.

Postmodernthinking exists according to some other rules.

For example, for classical philosophy it was important to establish the conformity of the theory with objective reality. Postmodern thinking does not require it. However, the freedom of pluralism is by no means arbitrariness. Postmodernism does not deny rationality. He's reaching out to some new understanding "new rationality".

Pluralism is not the freedom of permissiveness, but the exercise of a plurality of possibilities within the rigid framework of the discipline of reason. As the philosopher M. Epstein writes, philosophy should not describe the existing reality, it should not break away from reality in baseless fantasies, it should create worlds of the possible (or possible worlds). Those. model possible development options.

The same process went on in science and, accordingly, in the philosophy of science (for example, V.S. conceptpost-nonclassical rationality , which does not reason according to the “if ..., then ...” scheme, but on mental “What happens if…” scheme those. science strives to play possible situations(before there was the concept of fate, as the unambiguity life path; now we imagine that it is possible for a person to realize different scenarios of life, their options are not unlimited, but also not unambiguous due to the complexity of life as a multifactorial system).

So that the concept of truth and the path to it becomes more complicated ... as a result of deconstruction, we are trying to reconstruct "an open, unformable, endlessly continuing, definitively unfinished truth as the direct opposite of the former substantial truth.

We can say that it happened so that with the development of science, the place of reason was taken by the calculating and dissecting all reason. We must return to reason as a unity of knowledge and values(how did this manifest itself in science? - they began to talk about the development of the ethics of the scientist, the ethics of science).

Belief in Reason in postmodernism is a requirement of anti-dogmatism, rejection of monologism, of binary oppositions (material-ideal, male-female, etc.). The space of culture has become a multidimensional structure, therefore, a transition is needed from classical anthropocentric humanism to universal humanism (for example, ecological philosophy emphasizes the unity of humanity, nature, the Cosmos, the Universe, the requirement of sympathy for all living things, a moral attitude to any life).

Further, earlier rationality, the dominance of regularity over chance, was attributed to the world. Now, synergetics, on the contrary, emphasizes the dominance of chance, considering regularity as arising from chance, as an addition to chance. And since the world is like this, then we must not master the world, but interact with it (listen to the same nature, its needs).

Recognition of the plurality of the world leads to the rejection of Eurocentrism (the same is required by the current political and economic situation in the world ...), ethnocentrism (nationalism), etc. There are ideas of anti-hierarchical cultural relativism, asserting the equivalence of the cultural experience of all peoples. It is necessary to accept the traditions, the spiritual worlds of other people.

Popular in modern philosophy is the concept of " text ". This is not only a text in its direct meaning, but everything can be a text - a social, natural reality (in other words, everything can be considered as a system of signs, i.e. language). The text must be able to read, understand and interpret. Everything needs interpretation. Everyone has their own interpretation. There may be conflicts of interpretation. (A true unattainable. Everyone has their own opinion). Hypertext - this is the whole culture, understood as a single system consisting of texts. The Internet is also hypertext. Hence, J. Baudrillard (French) says that history is what we think of it. History is a simulacrum. ( Simulacrum- this is an image that does not have a prototype, it does not refer us to anything. Simply put, a simulacrum is a kind of fiction, something that does not exist).

Postmodernism reflects the current state of humanity as being in bifurcation point (term of synergetics), transition To new state of civilization, which is sometimes called post-Western, bearing in mind that there is a migration of labor, cultures are mixed, and, relatively speaking, eastern values are integrated into Western culture. A new culture - universal - should integrate both the West and the East, but preserving national characteristics.

In general, we can talk about the dominance of subjective-idealistic, irrationalistic and agnostic tendencies in the philosophy and culture of the 21st century.

ABSTRACT

discipline: Culturology

Dialogue of cultures

Introduction

1. Intercultural interaction and its types

2. Typology of cultures, problems and prospects of dialogue between cultures

Conclusion

As you know, history is filled with a constant struggle of different cultures and confessions. All world history is a process of interaction between peoples, each of which possessed or possesses a specific system of values and a way of activity. The main modes of interaction between peoples are rivalry and cooperation, the tone of which, in turn, can vary over a very wide range. Rivalry can take the form of competition developing within the framework of international law, or it can take on the character of an open confrontation with all the ensuing consequences. It is clear that the cooperation of peoples can acquire a different quality. The nature of relations between peoples, of course, is determined by current economic and political interests. However, very often behind them are hidden factors of a deeper order - spiritual values, without taking into account and understanding which it is impossible to establish normal good-neighborly relations between peoples and predict their future.

The interaction of cultures is an unusually relevant topic in the context of modern Russia and the world in general. It is quite possible that it is more important than the problems of economic and political relations between peoples. Culture constitutes a certain integrity in a country, and the more internal and external links a culture has with other cultures or with each other, the higher it rises.

My work is devoted to the problems of intercultural interaction and dialogue of cultures. The following tasks were set in the work:

· analyze various types of intercultural interaction and highlight the place of dialogue among them;

· describe the intercultural interaction between the West, the East and Russia.

Researchers of intercultural interactions approach their typology and classification in different ways. Thus, one of the simplest typologies is based on a direct analogy with the interaction of biological populations. The main criterion that determines the nature of intercultural interaction here is the result of the influence of one culture on another. In accordance with this indicator, the interaction between two cultures is carried out according to one of four scenarios:

1) "plus on plus" - mutual promotion of development;

2) "plus by minus" - assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another;

3) "minus for plus" - the interaction model is similar to the second option, only counterparties change places;

4) "minus by minus" - both interacting cultures suppress each other.

This typology, for all its tempting simplicity and comparative ease of empirical interpretation, is characterized by a number of significant shortcomings. Firstly, the entire spectrum of intercultural interactions here is reduced to only three options (since the second and third scenarios are almost identical), while in reality it seems to be more diverse. Secondly, in this typology there are no indications of the factors that determine the “choice” of one or another interaction option. Thirdly, it does not reveal the content of the interaction of cultures at all: what exactly is the suppression of one culture by another, what are the criteria that a culture contributes to the development of its counterparty, how does assimilation occur, etc., which makes this typology too abstract and actually “hangs in the air”.

A theoretically deeper typology of intercultural interaction was proposed by V.P. Bransky. Within the framework of his theory of the social ideal, V.P. Bransky identifies four main principles of interaction between the bearers of competing ideals:

1) the principle of fundamentalism (irreconcilability);

2) the principle of compromise;

3) the principle of arbitration (neutralization);

4) the principle of convergence (synthesis).

Another, fairly well-known typology of intercultural interactions belongs to the American anthropologist F.K. Boku. This researcher identifies five main models for optimizing intercultural interaction, corresponding to different ways overcoming culture shock:

1) ghettoization (fencing off from any contact with a foreign culture through the creation and maintenance of one's own closed cultural environment);

2) assimilation (rejection of one's own culture and the desire to fully assimilate the cultural baggage of a foreign culture necessary for life);

3) cultural exchange and interaction (an intermediate way, involving benevolence and openness of both parties to each other);

4) partial assimilation (a concession in favor of a foreign cultural environment in one of the spheres of life while remaining faithful to one's traditional culture in other spheres);

5) colonization (active imposition of one's own values, norms and patterns of behavior on a foreign culture).

Typology F.K. Boca is characterized by greater detail and, due to the anthropological orientation of his work, somewhat less speculative than the previous two. It also contains a meaningful decoding of the types of interaction. However, the emphasis in this typology is, in our opinion, on the social content of interaction. In addition, as far as one can judge, the models of cultural interaction are derived here on the basis of not so much an analytical as a descriptive criterion, which gives a certain shift in emphasis. So, in relation to our research situation, the difference between the "assimilation" and "colonization" of one culture by another is of little importance, and some others of options interactions (for example, convergence as an equal synthesis of initial cultures) are not taken into account at all.

In modern sociology and anthropology, other attempts are being made to typify intercultural interactions. So, N.K. Ikonnikova, based on the developments of Western researchers, offers a complicated version of the typology based on a linear scheme of the progressive development of the mutual perception of counterparty cultures:

1) Ignoring differences between cultures;

2) Protecting one's own cultural superiority;

3) Minimization of differences;

4) Acceptance of the existence of intercultural differences;

5) Adaptation to a different culture;

6) Integration into native and other cultures.

The strength of this typology lies in the disclosure of the socio-psychological content of the interaction of cultures and in the two-level stepwise differentiation of attitudes of mutual perception (the first three attitudes are “culture-centric”, the second three are “culture-relative”). Its weak side is a simplified approach to the social and cultural situation of interaction, similar to that which takes place in the typology of F. Bock: an individual or a small group in a foreign cultural environment, and a “mechanical” approach to culture itself, which is denied the status of a determining factor of interaction.

Taking into account the indicated advantages and disadvantages of the considered typologies of intercultural interactions, we tried to apply a synergistic approach to this problem, according to which culture (social knowledge) is considered as an open non-linear dissipative self-organizing system, and the social carriers of these cultures are conditionally considered as a single social subject. From the standpoint of this approach and based on the above and some other conceptual developments in the field of intercultural communications, available in modern anthropology and sociology of culture, the following "ideal types" of interaction of cultures can be distinguished:

1) Integration (synthesis). Offers three main options:

a) convergence - the gradual merging of cultural systems into a qualitatively new whole. In cognitive terms, it means dialogue at the level of nuclear cognitive structures and their assimilation to each other up to complete identification; in social terms, it involves the actual merging of the subjects of these cultures;

b) incorporation - the inclusion of one cultural system into another as a "subculture". In cognitive terms, it means the legitimization of the corresponding version social knowledge as a "special case"; in social terms, it implies the relative autonomy of the subject of the latter within the framework of the subject of the "mother" culture;

c) assimilation - the absorption of one cognitive system by another. In cognitive terms, it means the assimilation of the "material" of the counterparty culture after the collapse of the latter's nuclear structure as the sum of dissociated fragments; in social terms, it involves the merging of subjects.

2) Mutual isolation - each of the interacting cultures takes the position of "ghetto" in relation to the counterparty culture. In socio-cognitive terms, this principle of interaction means an open or unspoken delimitation of the spheres of social knowledge, which implies various barriers and taboos in the areas of possible dialogue and leads to an increase in mutual esotericism. In social terms, it implies a clear division of subjects on the basis of cultural affiliation.

3) Permanent conflict - means a "war of legitimations" for peripheral space; interpretations of social reality characteristic of one culture tend to completely replace interpretations by others as incompatible with truth, true values, etc.; in social terms, it implies a clear division of subjects with pronounced mutual segregation.

(Experience definition)

Recently I had to take part in the Soviet-French Encyclopedia for Two Voices (Progress). In parallel, articles by Soviet and French authors were to go (for every word). I got the articles “culture” and “dialogue of cultures”, which I, however, in accordance with my concept, combined together. The attempt was painful. But then I thought that the shortcomings of such an experience (the inevitable rigidity of formulations, the almost complete abandonment of argumentation, the involuntary weakening of moments of doubt and reflection) are to some extent redeemed by some new interesting possibilities (the possibility of a holistic, detached look at one’s own understanding, the need to focus some visible image culture, conscious play between image and concept).

Therefore, now, having somewhat developed the text, having “embroidered” the most rigid articulations of the initial definitions, I present the results of my experience to the attention of readers.

There is a certain circle (integrity) of phenomena, behind which the concept of culture has been fixed in the consciousness - in the consciousness of quite a mass, but also in the scientific consciousness. This is a kind of integrity of works of art, philosophy, theory, moral deeds and, in a sense, the phenomena of religion. But in the 20th century, a strange shift takes place in real being and awareness of this range of phenomena. Even a transformation.

I will name a few signs of such a shift, a shift, that disturb our thinking.

1. In the 20th century, there is a strange splitting off of the concept of culture (as a whole) from those concepts or intuitions that have long coincided with the definitions of culture, or "culture", listed with a comma, understood almost as synonyms. There is some kind of gap between the phenomena of culture and the phenomena of education, enlightenment, civilization.

For some reason, it became necessary for our mind to notice this difference, to insist on it, to comprehend it. "An educated person" or "an enlightened person" - these definitions are more and more sharply understood not only as different from each other, but even more different from the definition of "cultured person". Somehow everything goes and develops differently in the processes of education and in the processes (one cannot say “cultivation”, but - precisely) of culture.

2. Some phenomena of people’s communication “about” the works of culture, some actually intra-cultural forms of activity and thinking begin to expand and deepen surprisingly, to capture other, central, other phenomena allotted “places” and “connections” in spiritual and social life . What we usually understood as “culture” ceases to fit into the sphere of the so-called “superstructure”, loses its marginality, and shifts to the very epicenter of modern human existence. Of course, this shift enters our consciousness in different ways, with lesser or greater force, but if you think about it, this process is universal for all strata of modern society: in Europe, Asia, America, Africa. This irrepressible aspiration of culture to the epicenter of our life and at the same time stubborn, wild or civilized resistance to such strange "claims" of culture disturbs our consciousness - everyday and scientific - perhaps no less than the maturing of an atomic or ecological world explosion.

3. In the 20th century, typologically different "cultures" (holistic crystals of works of art, religion, morality ...) are drawn into a single temporal and spiritual "space", strangely and painfully conjugate with each other, almost like Bohr "complement", then are mutually exclusive and presuppose. The cultures of Europe, Asia and America "crowd" in the same consciousness; they cannot be placed along the “ascending” line (“higher - lower, better - worse”). The simultaneity of different cultures hits the eyes and minds, it turns out to be a real phenomenon of the everyday life of a modern person. At the same time, historical, ethnographic, archaeological, art criticism, semiotic forms of understanding and defining “what is culture” are somehow strangely combined. But this means that in this respect, in one logical “place”, the understanding of culture as the focus of a person’s spiritual activity and as a kind of cut of his integral and, perhaps, primarily material, material activity, are combined.

I will not now continue listing other shifts and shifts in our understanding of the phenomenon of culture, in our real "being in culture". Now it is significantly different: in that sense culture, which will be further developed, it is not a set of certain “signs” that determines, but precisely that shift in the actual being and awareness of culture that reveals the deep magmatic processes swirling in its depths. And this is the very shift and transformation that is extremely significant on the eve of the 21st century and therefore allows one to penetrate most deeply into the real meaning and internal struggle of various “restructurings” and “transformations” of our time (regardless of the direct intentions of their authors).

What follows will be outlined not a formal definition of culture, but its "real definition" (in the understanding of Hegel or Marx). Let me remind you that, according to Hegel, “real definition” is a process in which the phenomenon itself determines, defines, transforms itself. I only assume, in contrast to Hegel, that such a real definition is predominantly a special form of "causa sui" precisely of our human rational life.

So, I think that those phenomena of radical shifts and shifts in the culture of the 20th century, which I outlined above, make it possible today to develop a realistic, historically and logically meaningful, universal definition of culture.

First, about the phenomenological image of culture, which today “hit in the eyes and in the minds”, worries our consciousness.

1. In splitting off from the idea of “education” and from the idea of “civilization” (in various versions, this splitting off suddenly became necessary in the 20th century for Spengler and Toynbee, for Levi-Strauss and Bakhtin ...) the idea of culture is realized today in the following integral opposition .

In the history of the human spirit, and in general in the history of human accomplishments, there are two types, two forms of "historical heredity." One form fits into the schematism of climbing the ladder of "progress" or, even milder, development. Yes, in education, in movement along the schematism of science (but science understood Not as one of the phenomena of a holistic culture, but as the only universal, all-encompassing definition of the activity of our mind) each next step higher the previous one, absorbs it into itself, develops everything positive that has been achieved on that step that our mind has already passed (penetrating deeper and deeper into the only truth), our legs and arms (creating more and more perfect tools), our social communication (ascending to more and more “true formation”, leaving below the pre- and pre-historical existence of man). In this ascent, everything that preceded it: knowledge, old tools of labor, "formations" that have outlived themselves ... - of course, do not disappear "to nowhere", they are "compacted", "removed", rebuilt, lose their own being in knowledge and higher skill. , more true, more systematized, etc. An educated person is one who has managed to “rewind” into his mind and into his ability everything that has been achieved at the “passed steps”, moreover, he “rewound” in the only possible (otherwise, one cannot master it!) Form: in the very compactness, removal, simplification, which is best realized in " last word» Textbook. Indeed, what kind of eccentric would study mechanics from the works of Galileo or Newton, mathematics from Euclid's Elements, even quantum mechanics from the works of Bohr or Heisenberg (and not according to modern intelligent textbooks or - let's make a concession - according to the latest scientific works).

culture is constructed and “developed” in a completely different way, according to the opposite schematism. Here it is possible to start from one particular phenomenon.

There is one sphere of human accomplishments that does not fit into schematism. climbing(Newtonian: "I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant" - previous generations...). This area is art. Here - even "by eye" - everything is different. Firstly, it cannot be said here that, say, Sophocles was “removed” by Shakespeare, that the original Picasso made it unnecessary to open the original (necessarily the original) of Rembrandt for the first time.

Even sharper: here, not only is Shakespeare impossible (well, of course) without Sophocles, or Brecht - without Shakespeare, without internal echo, repulsion, rethinking, but also - necessarily - vice versa: Sophocles is impossible without Shakespeare; Sophocles is differently, but more uniquely, understood and shaped differently in conjunction with Shakespeare. In art, "earlier" and "later" are correlative, simultaneous, precede each other, and finally, this is roots each other not only in our understanding, but precisely in all the uniqueness, "densification", universality of their own, special, unique being.

It is not the schematism of the "ascending ladder with the steps overcome" that is clearly at work in art, but the schematism dramatic works.

"The fourth phenomenon ... Sophia is the same." With the advent of a new character (a new work of art, a new author, a new artistic era) old "characters" - Aeschylus, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Phidias, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso - do not leave the stage, do not "remove" and disappear in a new character, in a new character. Each new character reveals, actualizes, even for the first time forms new properties and aspirations in characters who have previously appeared on the stage; one character causes love, another - anger, the third - meditation. Number actors constantly changing, expanding, growing. Even if some hero leaves the stage forever, say, shoots himself, or - in the history of art - some author falls out of cultural circulation, their active core still continues to thicken, the "lacuna" itself, the gap, acquires ever greater dramatic significance.

Such schematism of artistic heredity always retains its basic features, this schematism is fundamentally different from the schematism of "education", "civilization", formational development, no matter how they are understood.

Let's summarize everything that has been said about art:

a) history preserves and reproduces here the “personality” of the phenomena that are being formed;

b) the increase in the number of "characters" is carried out outside the procedure of removal and ascent, but in the schematism of simultaneity, mutual development, consolidation of each artistic monad;

c) the reversibility of “roots and crown”, “before...” and “after...” means in art a special type of integrity, “systematic” art as a polyphonic dramatic phenomenon.

And one more moment, not directly following from the presented theatrical scheme, but organically connected with it. My original image presupposes one more (?) actor, more precisely, a kind of “multiple set” of actors. This - viewer, art listener. In a theatrical performance, the participation of this “actor” is especially evident, but this active creative being is no less necessary, vital, organic for any work of any form of art.

Fix a word for a moment "work" and let's go further, for now emphasizing only the special "schematism" of "heredity" in the history and real existence of works of art. If the history of art is a drama with an increasing number of acting and interacting persons, if all these persons (authors, styles, artistic epochs) are really and effectively simultaneous, really and intensely conjugate the past time (in all its originality) and the present time in the center this moments, then all this is carried out precisely in the communication of the "stage and the auditorium" or the author of the poem and its distant - through the centuries - silent reader; culture and the one who perceives it (from outside) ...

If you like, call the outlined schematism "progress" or "development" ... Now it is essential to initially distinguish the schematism of "heredity" in art ("The fourth phenomenon ... The same Sophia.") From the schematism of "ascent" ("Dwarf on the shoulders giant..."). It's in art.

But in the 20th century it is revealed with particular force that such a schematization of the history of art is only a special and especially illustrative case of a certain universal phenomenon - being in culture, moreover, as in a holistic Organon. And this Organon does not break up into "subtypes" and impenetrable "compartments".

Our view, sharpened by modern life (by the shifts that I spoke about above, and in conclusion I will say even more definitely), unmistakably notices: the same phenomenon as in art operates in philosophy. Aristotle exists and mutually develops in the same (?) dialogic (?) cultural space with Plato, Proclus, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Berdyaev.

But this one space is clearly "non-Euclidean", it is the space of many spaces. Plato has endless reserves of more and more new arguments, answers, questions in a dispute with Aristotle: Aristotle also discovers the endless possibilities of the "form of forms", answering Plato's objections. Kant is infinitely meaningful and meaningful in his conversations with Plato, Hegel, Husserl, Marx... Philosophy as a cultural phenomenon also thinks in the scheme: "The same and Sophia." This is again a drama with an increasing number of actors, and the infinite uniqueness of each philosopher is revealed and has a philosophical meaning only in the simultaneity and mutual positing of philosophical systems, ideas, revelations. Speaking in larger blocks, philosophy lives in conjugation and simultaneous mutual generation of different forms of infinitely possible being and different forms of its understanding.

I do not deny that sometimes it is possible and even necessary to distribute philosophical systems in an ascending, Hegelian series. But then it will be a phenomenon of civilization or, more precisely, a civilizational "cut" of the culture of modern times. It is precisely and only in the simultaneity and infinite dialogic “complementarity” of each of the philosophers at the “feast” of Plato’s new and philosophical thought in general that philosophy enters into a single polyphony of culture.

In the field morality The 20th century reveals the same phenomenon of the "tragic play" ("The same and Sophia") or "annual rings in the trunk of a tree." Modern morality is a conjugation, moral historical memory (and dialogue, conversation) of various moral twists and turns, concentrated in different Images of culture - the Hero of Antiquity, the Passion-Bearer and the Master of the Middle Ages, the Author of his biography in the novel alienation of the New Age. Here, the initial morality is vicissitudes: Fate and Character (antiquity); confessional facet of earthly life and otherworldly eternity (Middle Ages); the openness of my mortal life and otherworldly eternity (Middle Ages); the openness of my mortal life to the infinity of temporal causal chains and, at the same time, full responsibility for Start my life ("To be or not to be..." Hamlet), for her completion, for its isolation "on itself" (New time). But no less vicissitudes - at the point of mutual generation, the beginning - is communication itself, the mutual presupposition of these vicissitudes in the soul of modern man. And this is not "relativism" and not even "variability" of morality, but a complete volume my personal responsibility for the destinies and meanings of life of people of other cultures, other semantic spectrums. This is no longer the morality of "tolerance" (let them live as they can...), but the morality of including in my conscience the ultimate questions of the existence of other people, their response lead in my own destiny.

But let's continue our comparison. Consciousness, awakened by the 20th century, notices that in the same unified key and, I will say more specifically, in the key culture - it is now necessary to understand the development of the Sciences, until recently gave rise to the scheme of "ascending development", "densification" of knowledge, etc. The “correspondence principle”, the idea of a “limiting” transition, the relation of complementarity, the paradoxes of set theory in mathematics, the paradoxes of the foundation of mathematics in general - all this makes one assert: science can and should also be understood and developed as a phenomenon. culture, that is (now let's dare to say: "that is ...") as a mutual transition, simultaneity, ambiguity of various scientific paradigms, as form communication of ancient, medieval, modern forms of answering the question: “What is “elementary”, “number”, “multiple”, etc.?” Again the same cultural paradox: not a generalization, but communication various forms of understanding - this is the formula for moving towards universality in modern positive sciences.

But the same schematism of communication (not generalization) of various universal and unique forms of being operates at the end of the 20th century in the definition "productive forces"(orientation to free time, on time self-change not only in spiritual, but also in material production, in individual-universal labor); in communication with different formations; in elementary cells of modern sociality(special role of small, dynamic groups and policies); in the strange mutual influence of various forms of the modern, striving for universality, humanitarian thinking. In this universality, the atom, the electron, and the cosmos are understood as If if these were works, the meaning of which is actualized in the shuttle of various forms of understanding.

However, communication and being in culture (according to schematism: "The fourth phenomenon ... The same Sophia") does not take place linearly, not in a professional split - a philosopher with a philosopher, a poet with a poet, etc. - but in the context of integral historical " plays" - Antique, Medieval, Modern, Western, Eastern ...

Culture is the tragedy of tragedies, when one into the other (as in a Chinese bone puzzle) are embedded diverse spherical surfaces of dramatic action and catharsis; when real communication and mutual development of individual characters is carried out as communication and dialogue of various tragedies.

Let me draw your attention to two such pairings.

Thus, all the named phenomena of culture - art, philosophy, morality ... - have a truly cultural meaning. Not enumeration, but constructively, in the Organon of a given culture. Within each culture, art, philosophy, morality, theory also acquire their own special "personality", personalize in communication with each other, on the verge of these different forms of being in culture. Here the characters are the Poet, the Philosopher, the Hero, the Theorist, constantly immersing themselves in their external dialogue. Between these characters there is a tragedy of its own, with its own unity of place, time, and action. Plato is contemporary with Kant and can be his Interlocutor (in culture) only when Plato is understood in his inner communion with Sophocles and Euclid; Kant - in communion with Galileo and Dostoevsky.

But if so, then one more, perhaps final or initial, tragic system is guessed.

This culture is able to live and develop (as a culture) only on the verge of cultures 40 , in simultaneity, in dialogue with other integral, closed "on themselves", on the way out behind its limits by cultures. In such a final (or initial) account, the actors are individual cultures, actualized in response to the question of another culture, living only in the questions of this other culture. Only where there is this primordial tragedy of tragedies is there a culture, where all the tragic vicissitudes embedded in each other come to life. But this communication (and mutual generation) of cultures takes place only in the context of present, that is, for us - in the culture of the late XX century.

Moreover, the whole given culture (say, of antiquity) must be understood as a single work, created and re-created by one (imaginary) author, addressed to the essential and impossible "reader", on the eve of the 21st century. So, we fix the word “work” again and move on.

2. The first phenomenological image (I don't want to say - a "sign") of culture implicitly develops into a new integral image, into a new circle of ideas.

culture is my life, my spiritual world, separated from me, translated into a work (!) and able to exist (more than that, focused on to to exist) after my physical death (respectively, after the “physical death” of a given civilization, formation) in another world, in the living life of people of subsequent eras and other aspirations. Answering the question “what is culture?”, we always - fully conscious of it or not - answer another question: “in what form can my spirit, flesh, communication, vital (in my life) exist (and develop itself) life of loved ones after my (my civilization) death, “going to neti”? Answer - in the form of culture. The great Russian thinker M.M. Bakhtin always insisted that the meaning of any of our statements is given by a clear understanding of what which a question addressed to me (explicit or secret), answers this is a statement, this is a statement. So, culture is not only understood, but also arises (as culture) in an attempt to answer (and to oneself, with one’s deeds and creations) the question of man-made forms of “otherworldly being”, being in other worlds, in other, detached, estranged, pre-imagined cultures. And here it is not essential that I, in my immediate existence in culture, can address my direct Interlocutors and Contemporaries. It is essential that in these, by the way, most tense situations, I turn to my Interlocutor So, so that he can perceive me in my work even when I disappear from his momentary outlook (I leave the room, leave for another “polis”, die). So that he perceives me as if (“as if ...”) from another, infinitely distant world. But this also means a special outward orientation of culture, its end-to-end addressing to a different (and quite earthly) being, means an urgent need to be forever out own being, to be in another world. In this sense, a culture is always a kind of Odyssey's Ship, making an adventurous voyage in another culture, equipped to exist. outside its own territory (from M.M. Bakhtin: “Culture does not have its own territory”).

But if ancient images are already remembered, I will say this: every culture is a kind of “two-faced Janus”. Her face is as intensely turned to a different culture, to her being in other worlds, as she is inward, deep inside yourself in an effort to change and supplement one's being (this is the meaning of the "ambivalence" that, according to Bakhtin, is inherent in every integral culture).

Projecting a vital Interlocutor in another world (each culture is an SOS exclamation addressed to another culture) suggests that this Interlocutor of mine is more urgent to me than my own life. This is the basis on which two additional intuitions of "being in culture" grow.

Firstly. In culture, a decisive, inhibited and closed in the flesh of works, discrepancy between the author (individual) and himself arises. All my consciousness is transformed by this turning "from outside" - "into me" of my other Self, my vital reader, remote (in any case, by design) into eternity. It is clear that for the reader (spectator, listener...) such an urgent, "other I" (You) turns out to be author works of culture. This discrepancy, this opportunity to see "from the side" my own being, as if already completed and distant from me in the work, this is the original foundation personality ideas. Personality is that hypostasis of the individual, in the horizon of which he is able to re-determine his own, already predetermined by habits, character, psychology, environment, fate. So, an individual in the horizon of culture is an individual in the horizon of personality.

Secondly. In communication “through” the flesh of the work, each person - the author and the reader - is formed, matures "on the horizon", as a potentially special and unique culture, as a special endless world of possible reincarnations of this communication freely assumed by the work. Communication in culture, that is, being in culture - it is always - in potential, in design - communication between different cultures, even if we both (the author and the reader) live in the same culture.

I will now assume that the phenomenological image (not yet a concept) of culture arose in the mind of the reader, more precisely, it was concentrated from those inner intuitions that, as I assume, are always inherent in all contemporaries of the late 20th century.

Then, if this happened, I will try to briefly outline the meaning of the concept, or, better, ideas culture.

The meaning of culture in the life of everyone and - especially fatally - in the life of a modern person can, in my opinion, be understood in three definitions.

First definition of culture(almost tautological, focuses the image of culture that was outlined above): culture is a form of simultaneous being and communication people of different - past, present and future - cultures, a form of dialogue and mutual generation of these cultures (each of which is ... - see the beginning of the definition).

And a few additions: the time of such communication is the present; the specific form of such communication, such co-existence (and mutual generation) of past, present and future cultures is the form (event) of the work; work - a form of communication of individuals in the horizon of communication of individuals 41 , a form of communication between individuals as (potentially) different cultures.

Second definition of culture. Culture - this is the form self-determination of the individual in the horizon of personality, a form of self-determination of our life, consciousness, thinking; that is, culture is a form of free decision and re-decision of one's destiny in the consciousness of its historical and universal responsibility.

I will say a little more about this sense of culture in human life, since it is especially tense and organic at the end of the 20th century.

The most diverse forces of determination from outside and from within fall upon the consciousness and thought of a person in powerful streams. These are the forces of economic, social, state bonds and predestinations; forces of influence of the environment, schemes of education; "tons" of habits, prejudices, gun heredity(determining the necessity and even fatality of the most initial muscular and mental movements). These are powerful forces of cosmic influences of the most diverse - material and (everything can be) spiritual - origin. These are secret, coming from within and gradually decisive forces of genetic, biological predisposition and doom (doom to this character, this fate).

By the end of the 20th century, the forces of determination from the outside and from within had reached an annihilating limit. The imminent apocalypse of nuclear war, ecological catastrophe, world totalitarian regimes, industrial megacities, endless bunk beds of concentration camps and gas chambers of the most varied design and form. And yet I will assume that in the same 20th century, and especially towards the end of the century, forces are growing weak interaction strength self-determination, embedded in culture ... And in this weak interaction of culture, gradually entering into all centers modern life- into social, industrial, mental, spiritual centers - the only hope of modern mankind.

What I mean?

At the very dawn of human history, a special “instrument” was “invented” (for brevity), a kind of “pyramidal lens” of self-determination, capable of reflecting, reflecting, transforming all the most powerful forces of determination “from outside” and “from inside”.

Implanted in our consciousness by its peak, this device allows a person to be fully responsible for his fate and actions. Or, I will say this, with the help of this "lens" a person acquires a real inner freedom of conscience, thought, action. (True, if the person himself decides, which happens very rarely, to the full measure of his freedom and responsibility.)

This strange device is culture.

Terribly squeezing the presentation, I will say that the pyramidal lens of culture is built as follows.

1. Her foundation - self-determination all human activity.

IN early work Karl Marx outlined precisely this definition of objective instrumental activity and human communication. True, later Marx's attention was mainly directed only to activity turned outward - from man on the subject and those social structures that are formed in the processes of such activity. However, this reorientation was explained by those features of the industrial, machine civilization that became the subject of research in the works of Marx starting from 1848. Unfortunately, our science and our politics have transferred the conclusions of Marx to a post-industrial civilization, emerging, maturing in the 20th century. But that's another question.

Man - unlike animals - always (in principle) acts "on himself", on his own activity, concentrated and removed from him in tools and objects of labor. The final phenomenon and "application point" of human activity is the human self itself, which is not identical to its activity, does not coincide with itself, can change (and is oriented towards to change) own definitions. Of course, separate fragments of this self-directed activity (and communication) can split off from the integral "spiral", and, say, the activity from subject on the subject becomes in separate formations and civilizations self-sufficient and predominant - in any case, prevailing in alienated social structures. But, according to the plan, always, in the end, the ring of self-aspiration is closed, the phenomenon of human self-determination is realized. Thus arises the broad foundation of culture as universal definition of all forms of human labor, communication, consciousness and, finally, thinking (that is, the ability to transform one's communication and consciousness).

In civilizations that preceded our time, this universal basis of culture worked, as it were, on the periphery of social structures;

real sociality and the main, "basic" social structures were built on a narrow basis of one-vector (from me - on subject) activity. Under such conditions, all cultural phenomena acquired a kind of "marginal", "superstructural" character, although, in fact, only in them Always a holistic closure of human activity was carried out, a unique inimitable personality structure of one or another period of culture was formed. Especially sharply and "impudently" civilizationally transformed form of universality ("from me - on subject"...) is realized in the modern, still dominant industrial civilization.

Let's take these considerations into account and move on.

2. Converging facets the main forms of spiritual self-determination of our consciousness, thinking, destiny.

IN art a person doomed to fit into cash, long-standing chains of social ties and relationships, freely re-forms then communication(author - reader; I - another I - You), which breaks through and transforms the powerful forces of determination from the outside and from the inside, closes - through the centuries - "small groups" of individuals living, dying, resurrecting, in the horizon of personality.

IN philosophy our thinking overcomes the inertia of "continuation" and "extension" of logical chains - from generation to generation - and returns to the original beginnings thoughts, those beginnings when being is conceived as possible; thought is assumed in its original self-justification. By the power of philosophy, man each time resolves anew the source and outcome of the integral prehistoric existence of the world and of his own existence. The conjugation of such individual-universal beginnings (and not continuations) of thought and being forms the real initial freedom of communication and dialogues of the meanings of being that are vital to each other - the dialogue of cultures.

In philosophical logic, the original, generative, inexhaustible nuclei of cultures communicate and mutually presuppose each other - the ancient eidetic meaning of being; communion medieval meaning; the essential meaning of being in modern times; the eastern concentration of the universal sense of being in each particular sprout of the World...

IN morality we freely self-determine our absolute responsibility for each of our actions, we self-determine the universal (universally significant) morality as your own choice, decision. So, obedience to fate, personal entry into one's destined destiny and, at the same time, tragic responsibility for the very moment of the fatal plot and outcome - this is what gives the main ups and downs of ancient morality (Prometheus ... Oedipus ... Antigone ...). Thus, free will is the seed in which the foundation of moral freedom and responsibility germinates in the Christian morality of the Middle Ages. Thus, Hamlet's "to be aphids not to be" - the freely decided beginning of one's own, already tied up, life, turns out to be the basis of all the responsibility of a person of the New Age for his - open to infinity - being.

I won't continue. I will not now talk about other facets of the self-determination of human destiny.

I will only repeat: each of these facets of our spiritual self-determination in its own way - universal and unique- forms our consciousness, activity, destiny.

3. All facets of the "pyramidal lens-culture" converge in a single top, at the point (instant) of self-determination of the human I. At this point, already No separate facets, the whole cycle of self-determination is concentrated in the horizon of two regulative ideas converging together: ideas personalities and ideas of my - universal - reason. In the center of these ideas, in the ultimate intensity of the last questions of being, the individual is really free, uniting in full measure of responsibility in his consciousness and in his mortal life universal human existence, self-determination, consciousness, thinking, destiny.

It is clear that with such an understanding it is absurd to speak of culture as some kind of "purely spiritual" activity. No, culture is General history and human activity, concentrated at the pinnacle of self-determination. But the top is the end, it is effective, if only the "pyramid" has a base of playing, if this edge is really and consciously implanted in the painful point of our consciousness.

And finally third definition, third meaning culture. I'll be very brief here. Although I assume that it is this meaning that is the key in the culture of the 20th century, but this should be a separate discussion. This meaning is world for the first time...". Culture in its works allows us, the author and the reader, to regenerate the world, the existence of objects, people, our own existence from the plane of the canvas, the chaos of colors, the rhythms of poetry, philosophical principles, moments of moral catharsis. At the same time, in the works of culture, this world, created for the first time, is perceived with special certainty in its eternal, independent of me, absolute originality, only caught, difficult to guess, stopped on my canvas, in paint, in rhythm, in thought. 42 .

In culture, a person is always like God - in the aphorism of Paul Valery: "God created the world out of nothing, but the material is felt all the time." Without this tragedy and ronia, culture is impossible; every conversation about culture becomes empty and rhetoric.

But both the irony, and the tragedy of culture, and the three definitions of culture, its meaning in human life - all this converges in focus works.

The work is the answer to the question: “What does it mean to be in culture, to communicate in culture, to self-determine one’s destiny in the tensions of culture, to create peace in culture for the first time?”. That is why I so stubbornly, starting from the first page, retarded the reader's attention on this concept. But what is a work? I think that, without resorting to a definition, but revealing the cultural meaning of the life of works, I have already answered this question.

And yet, I will briefly remind you of the context in which the idea of the work was introduced in this article.

(1) A work, in contrast to a product (consumption) destined to disappear, or from a tool (labor) that can work in any skillful hands, is detached from a person and embodied in the flesh of a canvas, sounds, colors, stone - its own human existence, its certainty as this, the one and only individual.

(2) The product is always addressed to, more precisely, in it, in its flesh, my - the author's - being is addressed. The work is carried out - each time anew - in the communication "author - reader" (in the broadest sense of these words). It is communication embodied in "flatness" (flesh ... plane), assuming and assuming - again and again - an imaginary author and an imaginary reader.

(3) In communication "on the basis" of a work (when its participants can and, in fact, must be at an infinite distance from each other in time and space), the world is recreated, first- from the plane, almost non-existence of things, thoughts, feelings, from the plane of the canvas, the chaos of colors, the rhythm of sounds, words imprinted on the pages of a book. The work is a frozen and fraught form start being.

But in key real creation of works, a (decisive for the 20th century) form of understanding of being, space, things arises - as ifthey were a product. This is how ontology and the philosophical logic of culture are formed.

Now we can return to the concept of culture and to those definitions of culture that were understood in the main text of the article. Understanding a work as a phenomenon of culture and understanding culture as a sphere of works: these two understandings "support" and deepen each other.

Being in culture, communication in culture is communication and being based works, in the idea of a work. But this short definition acquires meaning only after absorbing the integral work of culture.

Returning to the very beginning of these reflections, we can formulate the following assumption.

In the 20th century, culture (in its definitions that were comprehended above) is shifting to the epicenter of human existence. This happens in all areas of our life:

V production(the scientific and technological revolution closes all objective human activity for free time, reveals and makes directly significant the universal “self-directedness” of this activity);

V social phenomena(small dynamic amateur groups are gradually becoming the main cells of human communication);

V communication various cultures(cultures of the West and the East and beyond - antiquity, middle ages, modern times... converge and are generated for the first time at their point of origin);

in the limit moral ups and downs (these knots are tied in the trenches of world wars, on the bunk beds of concentration camps, in the convulsions of the totalitarian regime; everywhere the individual is pushed out of the solid niches of social, historical, caste determination, everywhere he faces the tragedy of the original moral choice and decision).

This is how a new universal society is growing - society of culture - a special, somewhat close to the polis, sociality, more precisely, a form of free communication of people in the force field of culture, a dialogue of cultures.

It is also possible to assume that it is the confrontation between the mega-society of industrial civilization (whatever form it takes) and the small nuclei of the society of culture, it is this confrontation that will be the decisive event. early XXI century.

"It is possible to assume ...". Of course, this sounds weak. It remains only to console ourselves with the fact that history in general takes place in the form of assumptions, in the form of a crossroads of historical destinies. However, this is a form of culture.

40 See the main works of M. M. Bakhtin.

41 I think it is already clear from the foregoing that "personality" is for me not some sort of determinant at hand (X - personality, Y - not yet a personality), but a certain regulative idea (horizon) of an individual's existence in culture.

42 This definition of culture is essential in contrasting light aestheticism. Only it preserves that "raw material nature of poetry" and speech culture in general, which O. Mandelstam spoke of as the main antidote against "cheap cultural worship that has swept ... university and school Europe."