level, degree of development achieved in any branch of knowledge or activity (work culture, speech culture ...) - the degree of social and mental development belonging to someone.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

CULTURE

historically determined level of development of society, creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organization of life and activities of people, in their relationships, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​​​created by them. K. is a complex interdisciplinary general methodological concept. The concept of "K." It is used to characterize a particular historical epoch (for example, ancient civilization), specific societies, peoples, and nations (Maya culture), and also specific areas of activity or life (labor culture, political culture, economic culture, etc.). There are two spheres of K. - material and spiritual. Material K. includes the objective results of human activity (machines, structures, results of cognition, works of art, norms of morality and law, etc.), while spiritual K. combines those phenomena that are associated with consciousness, with intellectual and emotional-psychological human activity (language, knowledge, skills, level of intelligence, moral and aesthetic development, worldview, ways and forms of communication between people). Material and spiritual culture are in organic unity, integrating into a certain single type of culture, which is historically changeable, but at each new stage of its development inherits everything most valuable created by the previous culture. The core of culture is made up of universal goals and values, as well as historically established ways of their perception and achievement. But acting as a universal phenomenon, K. is perceived, mastered and reproduced by each person individually, causing his formation as a person. The transmission of knowledge from generation to generation includes the assimilation of the experience accumulated by mankind, but does not coincide with the utilitarian mastery of the results of previous activities. Cultural continuity is not automatic; it is necessary to organize a system of upbringing and education based on a scientific study of the forms, methods, directions and mechanisms of personality development. K.'s assimilation is a mutually directed process for which all basic principles are valid. regularities of communicative activity. - high level something, high development, skill (eg, work culture, speech culture). (Chernik B.P. Effective participation in educational exhibitions. - Novosibirsk, 2001.) See also Culture of behavior, Culture of speech

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Federal state budget educational

higher professional education

MOSCOW STATE MACHINE-BUILDING

UNIVERSITY (MAMI / UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING /

Osei V.P.

Control work oncultural studies

Moscow - 2014

Topic: "Subjects of culture".

Introduction. What is culture.

The concept of the subject of culture. The people as a subject of culture. The people and the "mass".

Personality as a subject of culture.

The role of the intelligentsia and the cultural elite in the dynamics of cultural values.

Conclusion.

References.

1. Introduction

Modern dictionaries give the following concept of culture. Culture is a historically defined level of development of society, the creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organization of life and activities of people, in their relationships, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bcreated by them. The concept of culture is used to characterize certain historical eras(for example, ancient culture), specific societies, peoples and nations (Mayan culture), as well as specific areas of activity or life (for example, work culture, political culture, artistic culture); in a narrower sense - the sphere of the spiritual life of people. It includes the objective results of people's activities (machines, structures, results of cognition, works of art, norms of morality and law, etc.), as well as human strengths and abilities implemented in activities (knowledge, skills, intelligence, moral and aesthetic development, worldview, ways and forms of communication between people). Spiritual and material cultures are in organic unity. Society always creates an appropriate culture or set of material and spiritual values ​​and methods of their production. The degree of cultural development can be different: strong or weak, high or low. This degree depends on the specific historical stage in the development of society, on the conditions in which humanity develops, on the possibilities that it has.

The purpose of this work is to reveal such concepts as the subject of culture, the people and the "masses", the individual, to determine the role of the intelligentsia in society.

2. The concept of the subject of culture. The people as a subject of culture. The people and the "mass".

In culturology, the term “subject” is understood as the carrier of subject-practical activity or cognition, the source and agent of activity directed at the object, which is the world surrounding the subject in all its diversity. The subject can be both an individual, a separate person, and a social group, some set of people. The subject of culture is a creator, a creator of culture. It is generally accepted that the primary subject of culture is man. The initial characteristic of the subject is activity, which is of a conscious nature. Then the subject of culture is an active, amateur being, carrying out the transformation of reality, the creation of the world of "second nature". In order to become a creator of culture, a person must form himself in the course of his life as a cultural and historical being, which is possible only as a result of socialization. Human qualities are the result of his learning the language, familiarizing himself with the values ​​and traditions existing in society, mastering the techniques and skills of activity inherent in this culture.

A person can become a subject of culture only when he is included in social activity to transform the external world and the world of human social relations. Since cultural-transformative activity is never carried out by a separate isolated individual, but only by such a subject who is included in collective activity, the true cultural subject is humanity, society.

People is an ambiguous term:

1) A people is understood, in particular, as an ethnos, that is, a certain group of people that is distinguished by the commonality of a number of features - language, culture, territory, religion, historical past, etc.

2) The word "people" is also used in the sense of a nation.

3) The concept of "people" is also used to refer to the entire population of a country, regardless of its ethnicity.

In cultural studies, the people are considered as a spiritual and social community of people united by material, social and spiritual creativity and common ideas about law and common interests.

For many millennia, the people were not considered as the subject of cultural creativity. Because the people were opposed to the elite. That is, only mental activity was attributed to the sphere of culture.

The population goes the way of becoming a people, acquiring common values, increasing the cultural heritage. Although this path is reversible. With the collapse of common values, unity, the people also fade away.

But it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the people and the mass. In the words of the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gaset: "The mass is a multitude of people without any special virtues." The masses have some common features: tastes, interests, lifestyle, and so on.

Jaspers considers the mass as people who are not related to each other in any way, but in their combination they represent a kind of unity. But “the mass as a public is a typical product of a certain historical stage; these are people connected by perceived words and opinions, not differentiated in their belonging to different strata of society.” The mass makes up its own opinion, which is not the opinion of any individual person, but is called public opinion.

The true subject of culture is the people, not the masses. But the crowd (mass) often plays an important role in this or that historical or cultural event, which then had a serious impact on the subsequent development of human society. Thus, "people" and "mass" are two opposite concepts. The people is a broad community that connects those social strata that are currently the "engines" of progressive development. However, this does not mean that the content of the concept of "people" is exhausted only by the working people who carry out production. wealth. The people also include other social strata of the population that contribute to social progress at this stage in the development of human society.

it follows that the speed is determined by the electromechanical characteristic

It can be seen from the formula that an increase in current leads to a decrease in rotation speed. Reducing the rotational speed leads to a decrease in the EMF until the voltage drop across the internal resistance and the EMF balance the input voltage.

Topic number 1 Introduction. Development and formation of the theory of cultural studies. Culture as a social phenomenon.

1. The science of cultural studies.

Cultural studies is one of the youngest sciences. The term "culture" itself, although this word has been known since ancient times, in the modern sense familiar to us is used only with early XIX century.

The term "culturology" is even younger. It first appeared in the works of the American scientist Leslie White in the middle of the 20th century. With this concept, he meant a new discipline that was born at the intersection of humanitarian and socio-scientific knowledge. White substantiated the need for the formation of a new science and laid its general theoretical foundations. In his works “The Science of Culture”, “The Evolution of Culture”, “The Concept of Culture”, he considers culture as an integral system of elements of material and spiritual plans, which has the property of self-tuning and moving forward as a person masters reality and the very development of the technological and energy aspects of civilization .

Culturology has taken the place of a basic discipline among other social sciences and humanities, has received its own subjects and objects of study, the laws of functioning, and areas of application. Well-known scientists O. Shpendler, O. Kont, T. Chardin, P. Sorokin, Yu. Lotman and others contributed to the formation of the science of cultural studies.

Culturology- humanitarian science about the essence, patterns of existence and development of culture, human meaning and ways to comprehend it.

Cultural studies has its own subjects and objects of study.

The subject of cultural studies are the objective laws of the world and national cultural process, monuments and phenomena of material and spiritual cultures, factors and prerequisites that govern the emergence, formation and development of cultural interests and needs of people, their participation in the multiplication and transmission of cultural values ​​from generation to generation.

The object of cultural studies are the cultural aspects of various aspects of people's social life, the identification of features and achievements, the main cultural and historical types, the analysis of trends and processes occurring in the modern socio-cultural environment.

2. The concept of culture.

The concept of "Culture" is central in cultural studies.

In antiquity (Ancient Romans), the concept of "Culture" meant the cultivation of the land (its cultivation). Until now, this value has been preserved (cereal crops, etc.).

The ancient Greeks meant by this the difference from the wild barbarian tribes.

In the Middle Ages, the concept of "Culture" meant the desire for a divine ideal.

Enlighteners of the XVI-XVII centuries had in mind the rationality of human society.

In the 18th century, the concept of "Culture" meant good breeding, observance of ethical standards, a certain degree of education.

In the 19th century, 4 basic understandings of the word "Culture" were established;

1) the level of the general state of mind;

2) the level of intellectual development of the whole society;

3) the totality of artistic and creative activities;

4) the way of life of the material and spiritual plane.

culture- a historically determined level of development of society, the creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organization of life and activities of people, in their relationships, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bcreated by them.

Culture is created by a person, being a subject of nature, and at the same time, culture affects a person through norms, rules, laws, and a person is an object of influence of culture. This happens through the laws of continuity and inheritance of culture.

3. Functions of culture.

Culture is a multifunctional system:

1) the development and transformation of the surrounding world is one of the main functions;

2) cognitive;

3) storage and transfer of human experience, knowledge, culture, information;

4) educational;

5) educational;

6) communicative (communication);

7) normative (regulatory);

8) psychological relaxation.

4. The structure of culture.

Structural units of culture are material and spiritual culture.

material culture- subject-object activity of a person, aimed at satisfying his needs, i.e. "man in things".

Material culture includes buildings, structures, transport, communications, animal species, plant varieties, human reproduction, production processes, tools and means of labor, money, physical education (sport), ecology, etc.

spiritual culture- the emotional and sensual side of human activity.

Forms of spiritual culture:

1) One of the earliest - myth- a special worldview system that gives an explanation of the world around us through nature, its deification and endowment with supernatural power.

In the process of transition from form 1 to form 2 (within 30,000 years), there are:

totemism- Worship of the animal world.

Fetishism- Worship of inanimate nature.

Animism- Spiritualization of animate and inanimate nature.

Paganism- polytheism.

2) Religion- a special worldview system that gives an explanation of the world around us through God and endows him with supernatural power.

3) Philosophy(approximately VI BC) - the science of the universal laws of development and movement of nature, society and thinking.

4) The science - a system of knowledge about the patterns of formation, formation, development of nature, society, man.

5) Art - human activity according to the laws of beauty and harmony.

6) Morality - human activity, which is regulated by the rules and norms adopted in societies.

5. Mass and elite culture.

Mass (public) culture- Designed for a wide range of consumers. The genres of mass culture include melodramas, action movies, styles of non-science fiction, entertainment shows, hits, varieties of light music genres, and the "yellow" press. It should have a light plot, the action should take place in an exotic area.

Elite culture- culture for the elite and created by the elite themselves: ballet, opera, theatrical genre, symphonic and classical music, painting.

culture (from lat. cultura - cultivation, upbringing, education, development, veneration)

a historically determined level of development of society and man, expressed in the types and forms of organization of life and activities of people, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​​​created by them. The concept of culture is used to characterize the material and spiritual level of development of certain historical epochs, socioeconomic formations, specific societies, nationalities, and nations (for example, ancient culture, socialist culture, and Maya culture), as well as specific spheres of activity or life ( K. labor, artistic K., K. life). In a narrower sense, the term "K." refer only to the sphere of the spiritual life of people.

Pre-Marxist and non-Marxist theories of culture Initially, the concept of culture implied the purposeful influence of man on nature (cultivation of the land, etc.), as well as the upbringing and education of man himself. Education included not only the development of the ability to follow existing norms and customs, but also the encouragement of the desire to follow them, formed confidence in the ability of K. to satisfy all the needs and demands of a person. This dual aspect is characteristic of the understanding of K. in any society. Although the very word "K." came into use in European social thought only in the second half of the 18th century, more or less similar ideas can be found in the early stages of European history and beyond (for example, Ren in the Chinese tradition, Dharma in the Indian tradition). The Hellenes saw in "paydeia", that is, "education", their main difference from the "uncivilized" barbarians. In the late Roman era, along with the ideas conveyed by the main meaning of the word "K.", a different set of meanings was born, and in the Middle Ages it became widespread, positively assessing the urban way of social life and closer to the concept of civilization that arose later (See Civilization). The word "K." began to be associated rather with signs of personal perfection, primarily religious. In the Renaissance, perfection began to be understood as correspondence to the humanistic ideal of man, and later to the ideal of the Enlightenment. Pre-Marxist bourgeois philosophy is characterized by the identification of culture with the forms of spiritual and political self-development of society and man, as it manifests itself in the movement of science, art, morality, religion, and state forms of government. “... Production and all economic relations were mentioned only incidentally, as minor elements of the “history of culture”” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 25). So, the French enlighteners of the 18th century. (Voltaire, A. Turgot, J. A. Condorcet) reduced the content of the cultural-historical process to the development of human "mind". The “culturality”, “civilization” of a nation or country (as opposed to the “savagery” and “barbarism” of primitive peoples) consists in the “reasonableness” of their social orders and political institutions and is measured by the totality of achievements in the field of sciences and arts. The goal of K., corresponding to the highest purpose of “mind”, is to make all people happy [eudaimonic (see Eudemonism) concept of K.], living in accordance with the demands and needs of their “natural” nature [naturalistic (see. Naturalism) concept of K.]. At the same time, already within the framework of the Enlightenment, “criticism” of culture and civilization (J. J. Rousseau) arose, opposing the corruption and moral depravity of “cultured” nations with the simplicity and purity of the “mores” of peoples who were at the patriarchal stage of development. This criticism was accepted by German classical philosophy, which gave it the character of a general theoretical understanding of the contradictions and conflicts of bourgeois civilization (division of labor, the dehumanizing effect of technology, the disintegration of the integral personality, etc.). German philosophers sought a way out of this contradictory situation in the sphere of "spirit", in the sphere of moral (I. Kant), aesthetic (F. Schiller, romantics) or philosophical (G. Hegel) consciousness, which they pass off as the realm of truly cultural existence and human development. From this point of view, psychology appears as an area of ​​man's "spiritual freedom" that lies outside the boundaries of his natural and social existence, independent of his empirical goals and needs. The achievement of this freedom is the meaning of the entire cultural and historical evolution of mankind. German philosophical and historical consciousness is characterized by the recognition of many unique types and forms cultural development, located in a certain historical sequence and forming in the aggregate a single line of the spiritual evolution of mankind. So, I. Herder considers K. as a progressive disclosure of the abilities of the human mind, but uses this concept to determine the stages of relative historical development humanity, as well as to characterize the values ​​of enlightenment. The German romantics (Schiller, A. and F. Schlegel, the late F. Schelling) continued the Herderian line of dual interpretation of K. On the one hand, they created a tradition of comparative historical studies of K. (W. Humboldt and the school of comparative linguistics), on the other - laid the foundation for looking at k. as a private anthropological problem. The third line of a concrete analysis of the customs and ethnic characteristics of K. also goes back to Herder (for the first time in the middle of the 19th century in the works of the German historian F. G. Klemm, who considers K. as distinguishing feature person).

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the universalism of established evolutionary ideas about k. was criticized from the idealistic positions of neo-Kantianism (see Neo-Kantianism) (G. Rickert, M. Weber). They began to see in culture, first of all, a specific system of values ​​and ideas, differing in their role in the life and organization of a particular type of society. In a slightly different aspect, a similar view took shape in the “theory of cultural circles” (L. Frobenius, F. Gröbner), which was widespread until the early 1920s. 20th century (see Cultural and historical school).

The theory of the unity of linear evolution of K. was also criticized from the irrationalist positions of the philosophy of life (See Philosophy of Life) , and it was opposed by the concept of "local civilizations" - closed and self-sufficient, unique cultural organisms that go through similar stages of growth, maturation and death (O. Spengler). This concept is characterized by the opposition of culture and civilization, which is regarded as the last stage in the development of a given society. Similar ideas were developed in Russia by N. Ya. Danilevsky (See Danilevsky), and later by P. A. Sorokin , and in the UK, A. Toynbee. In some concepts, criticism of K., begun by Rousseau, was brought to its complete denial; the idea of ​​“natural anti-culture” of a person was put forward, and any culture was interpreted as a means of its suppression and enslavement (F. Nietzsche). The degeneration of this position was fully manifested in the ideology of fascism.

From the last third of the 19th century The study of culture also developed within the framework of anthropology (see Anthropology) and ethnography (see Ethnography). At the same time, various approaches to K were taking shape. cultural anthropology, the English ethnologist E. Tylor defined K. by listing it specific elements, but without clarifying their connection with the organization of society and the functions of individual cultural institutions. The American scientist F. Boas at the beginning of the 20th century. proposed a method for a detailed study of the customs, language, and other characteristics of the life of primitive societies and their comparison, which made it possible to identify the historical conditions for their emergence. A significant influence in non-Marxist anthropology was acquired by the concept of the American anthropologist A. Kroeber and , moved from the study of cultural customs to the concept of "cultural pattern"; the totality of such “patterns” constitutes the K system. . It also lacked an explanation of the reasons and motivations for maintaining patterns at the individual level. If the theory of “cultural patterns” subordinates the social structure of culture, then in the functional theories of culture, which originated from the English ethnologists and sociologists B. Malinovsky and A. Radcliffe-Brown (so-called social anthropology), the concept of social structure becomes the main one. , and K. is considered as an organic whole, analyzed by its constituent institutions. Structure is viewed by social anthropologists as a formal aspect of social interactions that are stable over time, and social interaction is defined as a system of rules for the formation of structure in such relationships. K.'s functions consist in the mutual correlation and hierarchical ordering of the elements of the social system. The postulates of this functional theory were criticized by representatives of the structural-functional school in non-Marxist sociology (American sociologists T. Parsons , R. Merton, E. Schiele, and others), who sought to generalize the ideas about K. that have developed in cultural and social anthropology, and to solve the problem of relations between K. and society. In structural-functional theory, the concept of socialism is used to designate a system of values ​​that determines the development of forms of human behavior and is viewed as an organic part of a social system that determines the degree of its orderliness and manageability (see Structural-functional analysis). In non-Marxist cultural studies, other approaches to the study of language are also developing. the study of the structure of k., which contributed to the introduction of the methods of semiotics, structural linguistics, mathematics and cybernetics into cultural studies (the so-called structural anthropology - the American ethnographer and linguist E. Sapir , French ethnologist C. Levi-Strauss and others). Structural anthropology, however, incorrectly regards the cosmos as an extremely stable construction and does not take into account the dynamics of the historical development of the cosmos; it weakly traces the connections of K. with the current state of society, there is no analysis of the role of a person as the creator of K. With an attempt to solve the problem of “K. - personality ”is connected with the emergence of a special direction of psychology K. [R. Benedict, M. Mead, M. Herskovitz (USA), etc.]. Based on the concept of Z. Freud and , interpreted K. as a mechanism of social suppression and sublimation of children's psychological impulses, as well as on the concept of neo-Freudians (see Neo-Freudianism) G. Roheim, K. Horney, H. Sullivan (USA) about the composition of K. as the content of direct mental experiences imprinted in signs, Representatives of this trend interpreted the concept of psychology as an expression of the social universal significance of the basic mental states inherent in man. "Cultural patterns" began to be understood as real mechanisms or devices that help individuals solve specific problems of social existence. In this regard, the ability of K. to be a model of learning was highlighted, during which general samples turn into individual skills [M. Mead, J. Murdoch (USA), etc.].

The idealistic teachings of the neo-Kantian E. Cassirer and the Swiss psychologist and philosopher of culture C. Jung formed the basis of the idea of ​​the symbolic properties of culture. to each other and having no real common substratum. This view was reflected in the theory of linguistic relativism by E. Sapir - B. Whorf, in the studies of specific cultures by R. Benedict as separate "cultural configurations" and in the general position of cultural relativism by M. Herskovitz. On the contrary, supporters of the phenomenological approach to cosmology, as well as some representatives of the existentialist philosophy of cosmology, put forward the assumption of a universal content hidden in any particular cosmology, based either on the assertion of the universality of the structures of consciousness (E. Husserl , Germany), either from the postulate of the psychobiological unity of mankind (K. Jung), or from confidence in the presence of a certain “fundamental foundation”, “axial originality” of K., in relation to which all its varieties are only “particulars” or “ciphers” (German philosophers M. Heidegger and K. Jaspers).

V modern conditions accelerated scientific and technological progress and aggravation of the social contradictions of capitalist society, the coexistence of two social systems and the appearance on the historical arena of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America Many bourgeois sociologists and culturologists come to the conclusion that it is impossible to consistently implement the idea of ​​a single K. This finds expression in the theories of polycentrism, the primordial opposition of West and East, etc., which deny general patterns social development. They are opposed by vulgar technological theories, which regard the developed capitalist countries as having reached the highest stage of K.

The gap between humanitarian and technical knowledge was reflected in the theory of "two K." English writer C. Snow. With the growing alienation of the individual in capitalist society, the different forms cultural nihilism, whose representatives deny the concept of K. as a fictitious and absurd fabrication. Popularity in the circles of the radical intelligentsia and youth was gained by the theories of the "counterculture", opposed to the ruling bourgeois culture.

The Marxist-Leninist theory of culture. The Marxist theory of culture, which opposes bourgeois concepts, is based on the fundamental principles of historical materialism about socio-economic formations as successive stages in the historical development of society, about the relationship between productive forces and production relations, the basis and superstructure, and the class character of culture in antagonistic society. K. is a specific characteristic of society and expresses the level of historical development achieved by mankind, determined by the relationship of man to nature and to society. K. thus is an expression of specifically human unity with nature and society, a characteristic of the development of the creative forces and abilities of the individual. K. includes not only the objective results of human activity (machines, technical structures, the results of knowledge, works of art, legal and moral norms, etc.), but also subjective human forces and abilities implemented in activity (knowledge and skills, production and professional skills, the level of intellectual, aesthetic and moral development, worldview, ways and forms of mutual communication of people within the framework of the team and society).

It is customary to divide capitalism into material and spiritual, respectively, according to the two main types of production - material and spiritual. Material capitalism encompasses the entire sphere of material activity and its results (tools, dwellings, everyday items, clothing, means of transport and communications, and so on). Spiritual culture embraces the sphere of consciousness and spiritual production (cognition, morality, upbringing, and enlightenment, including law, philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, science, art, literature, mythology, and religion). The Marxist theory of culture proceeds from the organic unity of material and spiritual culture. “In order to be cultural,” V. I. Lenin wrote, “a certain development of the material means of production is necessary, a certain material base is needed” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 45, p. 377). At the same time, the material foundations of culture ultimately play a decisive role in the development of culture. It is precisely the historical continuity in the development of material culture that forms the basis of continuity in the development of culture as a whole. Lenin emphasized that “... whatever the destruction of culture, it cannot be deleted from historical life ... In one part or another, in one or another of its material remnants, this culture is ineradicable, the only difficulties will be in its renewal” ( ibid., vol. 36, p. 46).

Each socio-economic formation has its own type of k. as a historical integrity. In connection with the change of socio-economic formations, there is a change in the types of culture, but this does not mean a gap in the development of culture, the destruction of the old culture, the rejection of cultural heritage and traditions, because each new formation necessarily inherits the cultural achievements of the previous one, including them in new system public relations. At the same time, the Marxist theory of culture, based on the variety of forms of culture of various peoples and societies, resolutely opposes the absolutization of any culture, rejects not only the theory of cultural diffusionism, but , but also cultural relativism , dividing the world into many initially isolated, devoid of close relations K.

K. is a universal and class phenomenon. “The class that has the means of material production at its disposal also has the means of spiritual production, and because of this, the thoughts of those who do not have the means for spiritual production turn out to be generally subordinate to the ruling class” (Marx K. and Engels F. , Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 46). Antagonistic formations are characterized by the spontaneity and unevenness of the cultural-historical process, the strengthening of the cultural differentiation of society. The ideology of the ruling class pushes the spiritual activity of the masses into the background, but it is precisely this activity that determines the objective universal content of many of the most important achievements of each nation. K. As the class struggle intensifies and the hitherto passive classes alienated from the highest values ​​of K. become increasingly involved in active social life, social groups and the democratization of the mechanism for the production and distribution of cultural goods associated with this, the illusory nature of the so-called “proclaimed by the ruling classes” is increasingly revealed. "cultural unity" of society. The process of cultural polarization, which begins even in the early stages of class society, is especially intensified in the era of modern capitalism, under which the contradictions of social and cultural development become especially acute. The ruling classes seek to impose on the masses a primitive "mass culture" (See Mass culture). At the same time, along with the ideology of the ruling class under capitalism, a new culture begins to emerge more and more confidently in the form of democratic and socialist elements, “... for in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, whose living conditions inevitably give rise to a democratic and socialist ideology” (Lenin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 24, pp. 120-21). Lenin's doctrine of two antagonistic formations in each national antagonistic formation emphasizes the need to distinguish between progressive democratic and socialist elements of the konservancy, which are fighting the dominant exploitative konservancy.

Victory socialist revolution marks a radical change in the development of society and its cultural revolution. In the course of the socialist cultural revolution (see Cultural Revolution), socialist cultural revolution is created and affirmed, inheriting everything of value in culture created at previous stages in the development of society and marking a qualitatively new stage in the cultural development of mankind. . The main features of socialist spiritual culture, determined by new forms of social relations and the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist worldview, are Narodnost , communist ideology and party spirit , Socialist Collectivism and Humanism , organic combination Internationalism a and Socialist Patriotism a. The development of socialist culture under the leadership of the Communist Party for the first time in history acquires a consciously planned character and is determined at each historical stage, on the one hand, by the level of culture and material productive forces achieved, and, on the other, by the socialist and communist ideal.

The most important goal of socialist culture is the formation of a new man, the transformation of the scientific Marxist-Leninist worldview into the conscious conviction of every member of society, the education in him of high moral qualities, and the enrichment of his spiritual world. Acting as a mechanism for transmitting the progressive values ​​and traditions accumulated by society, socialist culture is at the same time called upon to provide the maximum opportunity for creativity that meets urgent social needs and the growth of the spiritual and material wealth of society and each individual. The main criterion of cultural progress in a socialist society is determined by the extent to which the historical activity of the masses, their practical activity, in terms of its goals and means, becomes creative activity based on the achievements of material and spiritual culture.

The experience of the USSR, a multinational socialist state, is a brilliant example of the development of socialist culture under the conditions of interaction between national cultures. Soviet socialist culture, which has been formed during the existence of the USSR and is united in spirit and principle content, includes the most valuable traits and traditions of culture of every people of the USSR. At the same time, any Soviet national culture not only relies on its own cultural heritage, but is also enriched by the achievements of the culture of other peoples. The ever-increasing process of interaction between the nations of socialist culture leads to the growth of common international features in each national culture of culture, socialist in content, in the main direction of development, diverse in its national forms and internationalist in spirit and character, Soviet culture. represents an organic fusion of spiritual values ​​created by all the peoples of the USSR. The growing convergence of national cultures is a progressive, objective process. The Communist Party opposes both its artificial forcing and any attempts to delay it and to consolidate the isolation of national culture. Socialist culture is the prototype of the world-wide spiritual culture of communist society, which will have a universal character. “The culture of communism, absorbing and developing all the best that has been created by world culture, will be a new, higher step in the cultural development of mankind” (Programma KPSS, 1972, p. 130).

Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., German ideology. Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3; Marx K., Capital, ch. 1, ibid., v. 23; his same, On the Critique of Political Economy. Preface, ibid., vol. 13; Engels F., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; his, The role of labor in the process of turning apes into humans, ibid.; his, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, ibid., vol. 21; Lenin, V.I., What inheritance are we renouncing?, Poln. coll. soch., 5th ed., vol. 2; his, Party Organization and Party Literature, ibid., vol. 12; his own, In memory of Herzen, ibid., vol. 21; his, On proletarian culture, ibid., vol. 41; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1972; Materials of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, M., 1971; Brezhnev L.I., On the fiftieth anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, M., 1972; Lunacharsky A. V., Cultural tasks of the working class. Culture is universal and class. Sobr. soch., v. 7, M., 1967; Krupskaya N.K., Lenin's attitudes in the field of culture, M., 1934; Kim M.P., Communism and culture, M., 1961; Agosti E.P., Nation and culture, trans. from Spanish, M., 1963; Gaidenko P. P., Existentialism and the problem of culture, M., 1963; Communism and culture, M., 1966; Artanovsky S. N., The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures, L., 1967; Kovalev S. M., Socialism and cultural heritage, M., 1967; Lotman Yu. M., On the problem of typology of culture, in the book: Proceedings on sign systems, Tartu, 1967; Ornatskaya L. A., On the question of the origin and formation of the concept of "culture", in the collection: Problems of Philosophy and Sociology, L., 1968; Zlobin N. S., Socialist state and culture, M., 1968; Mezhuev V. M., On the concept of "culture", M., 1968; Semenov V.S., Intelligentsia and the development of socialist culture, M., 1968; Baller E. A., Continuity in the development of culture, M., 1969; Markaryan E. S., Essays on the theory of culture, Yerevan, 1969; Lifshitz M., Karl Marx. Art and social ideal, M., 1972; Ideological struggle and modern culture, M., 1972; Party and socialist culture, M., 1972; Arnoldov A. I., Culture and Modernity, M., 1973; Taylor E., Primitive Culture, trans. from English, M., 1939; Klemm G., Allgemeine Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit, Bd 1-10, Lpz., 1843-52; Benedict R., Patterns oJ culture, Boston - N. Y., ; General anthropology, ed. F. Boas, Boston, ; Herskovits M. J., Man and his works, N. Y., 1948; White L. A., The science of culture, N. Y., 1949; Kroeber A. L., KIuckhohn C., Culture. A critical review of concepts and definitions, Camb. (Mass.), 1952; Kroeber A. L., The nature of culture. Chi., ; Snow C. P., The two cultures and the scientific revolution, Camb., 1959; Malinowski B., A scientific theory of culture and other essays, N. Y., 1960; Mead M., Continuities in cultural evolution. New Haven. 1965.

In various areas of human life, he studies many sciences - history, ethnography, archeology, sociology, ethics, aesthetics, religious studies.

Each of them gives its own image of culture. Philosophical analysis of culture allows us to get an idea of ​​this multifaceted phenomenon in the most holistic and generalized form.

But no matter how diverse the definitions of culture are, they all agree on one thing: the term "" emphasizes a proper human, and not a biological existence. The world of culture is not a consequence of the action of natural forces, but the result of the efforts of the people themselves, aimed at improving their being.

Therefore, we can define the concept of culture as a historically defined level of development of society, the creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organization of people's life and activities, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​​​created by them.

Culture is the result of the combined activities of people and the process of preserving, producing, distributing and consuming what has been created. Man and culture mutually develop each other. Culture is impossible without man, he is the creator or the subject of culture. But a person by nature is given only an organism that has certain inclinations. And only under the influence of culture (acquisition of a language, familiarization with the values ​​available in society, mastery of labor skills) are actually human, personal qualities manifested and a creative subject arises.

A person is not born a social being, but becomes one in the process of activity. Education and upbringing is nothing but the mastery of culture, the process of its transmission from one generation to another.

The process of socialization of the personality is accompanied by the process of its individualization. Culture here appears as a complex system that absorbs all the contradictions of society. These contradictions were the reason for the formation of a pessimistic view of culture among a number of philosophers. The first such point of view was formulated in the 18th century. J.-J. Rousseau, who believed that culture was created to suppress and enslave man. Private property makes people unequal and, therefore, unhappy, gives rise to envy, anger and competition, and the best inclinations of a person are suppressed by society.

Later formed the concept of counterculture, the founder and inspirer of which is F. Nietzsche. He denies the need for a unified system of values ​​in society. A person is free to choose any values ​​for himself, while not agreeing with the opinion of society and other people. Nietzsche's aphorisms deliberately mutually exclude each other in meaning, thus showing that opposite truths can be justified and equally have the right to exist. Superman is able to reject cultural prohibitions, everything that prevents him from living, he creates his own law. In Russian literature, a prominent representative of the counterculture is Turgenev's Bazarov, who denies all social traditions and norms. Bazarov is sometimes reproached for calling for abandoning the old world without offering anything in return. But for representatives of the counterculture, it is precisely the desire to destroy any system of values ​​that is characteristic, and it would be illogical to impose another instead of it.

Positions of Nietzsche's philosophy on the problems of culture, society and man were developed in the works of German and French existentialists. So, M. Heidegger spoke out against the dictatorship of the facelessness of modern bourgeois society, against the subordination of man to things. J.-P. Sartre denies any possibility of social progress, emphasizing that the person himself does not change, forced only to adapt to circumstances. A person must choose his own actions, focusing on his own inner world. A. Camus wrote that there are no moral rules and laws in the world, the world is absurd and chaotic. Therefore, a person needs to accept life as a game and live it, playing by his own rules.

Philosophy of psychoanalysis also develops the problem of the influence of culture on man. Z. Freud emphasized that a person in the conditions of Western culture has an unstable psyche, suffers from neuroses that arise under the influence of contradictions between one's own desires and needs of the individual and the norms and prohibitions of culture that prescribe certain behavior. One of the followers of Freud E. Fromm draws attention to the fact that modern man always faces a choice: to have or to be? A person either reveals his inner dignity, or turns into a particle of market relations, and then the content of his life becomes the possession of things and money - these inauthentic attributes of being. But the main human need - to be oneself - is suppressed by bourgeois civilization.

The philosophers of the Frankfurt School (the most prominent representative of G. Marcuse) are also critics of modern culture, proposing to start the struggle for freedom with universal denial. In practice, these ideas, according to Marcuse, can be implemented by people who are on the margins of society, not integrated into the system of social relations - and declassed elements. The concept of universal denial was in the 60-70s. widely taken up by the youth of the West, which forced the governments of a number of countries to create ministries for youth affairs, ensuring the conflict-free adaptation of young people to the existing cultural environment.

A purely positive assessment of modern culture was given only by representatives of the technical intelligentsia, who associated the problems of culture with successes in the field of material and technical support for mankind (W. Rostow, D. Bell, R. Aron are the spokesmen for such views). However, the twentieth century raised questions about the goals of scientific and technological progress and the limits of its growth, about nuclear and environmental threats, and other global problems modernity. Material comfort does not make a person happier, and the desire for comfort, as history shows, is more a sign of the decline of society than its heyday. First of all, a person needs the opportunity to survive on his planet and realize himself as a person.

So what is culture? It is a way of thinking and living of the people. These are material and spiritual values ​​created by the people. This is the totality of people's relationships to each other and nature. This is the originality of the life of nations and peoples in a particular period of history. At the same time, these are the best achievements of all mankind - the treasures of world culture.

Typology of culture

In modern philosophy there are many concepts of the typology of culture and a number of principles for analyzing these typologies.

So, typologies of cultures can be divided into three groups.

A number of thinkers to some extent deny the existence of world culture as a single whole and do not recognize the existence of universal laws for the existence and development of cultures, as well as the meaning in the history of not only humanity as a whole, but also in the history of individual peoples. A prominent representative of this trend is K. Popper, who claims that all attempts by scientists to find certain points that unite people into one whole are untenable. “There is no single history of mankind, but only an infinite number of stories related to different aspects of human life.”

The German thinker M. Weber also believes that there are no patterns of cultural development whatsoever, materialistic or spiritual, and no concept of cultural development is therefore able to predict the future.

That is, in this case, we are talking about philosophical concepts that deny the very possibility of creating a typology of cultures.

Civilizational approach to the typology of cultures. The essence of the concept in its most general form is that human history is a collection of unrelated civilizations. At the same time, the laws governing the development of these civilizations do exist. Representatives of such concepts deny the meaning of universal human history.

So, O. Spengler argued that culture is a closed system of values ​​and the mutual influence of cultures affects them negatively. There is exactly as much meaning and progress in the existence of man and culture as there is in the life of a butterfly.

Spengler identified eight cultures: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greco-Roman (Apollo), Byzantine-Arab (magical), Western European (Faustian) and Mayan culture. Spengler noted the birth of Russian-Siberian culture. Each culture, having completed its life cycle, dies after entering the civilization stage.

A. Toynbee substantiated the concept of human development as a cycle of local civilizations. Toynbee first singled out 21 separate, closed civilizations, then reduced this number to 13. All civilizations, according to Toynbee, are equivalent and go through the same stages of development - emergence, growth, breakdown and decomposition. The universe is constantly asking questions of civilization, and as long as it is able to answer these questions, it exists. Such issues today, no doubt, include the problem of preserving life on our planet. Civilizations perish in agony, wars and revolutions, which cause a lot of anxiety to other peoples. In the 20th century, Toynbee believes, only five major civilizations survived - Chinese, Indian, Islamic, Russian and Western.

Monistic concepts prove that the history of culture is a single natural process in which both the meaning of history and the material and spiritual progress of all mankind take place.

For example, Hegel substantiated the concept of the development of culture as a natural process in which the culture of each nation and the stages of its development represent a natural step in the improvement of the human spirit. The history of culture, being the embodiment of the world spirit, develops in time, pursuing a specific goal at each stage of its development. The common goal is the development of freedom of the spirit, in relation to man and society - this is the freedom of man in civil society.

The monistic concept of cultural development is defended, already from a materialistic position, by Marxism, which studies the most general laws governing the development of human society. The subject matter of historical materialism is universal laws and driving forces societies viewed as integral, contradictory and interdependent. Marxism calls to know the laws of development and use the acquired knowledge for the benefit of mankind.

K. Jaspers is the creator of the original concept of "axial time", covering the period from 800 to 200 years. BC. The culture of this time spiritually changed a person.

Jaspers divided cultures into three types:

The culture of the “axial peoples”. This culture, as it were, was reborn in the axial time, continuing its previous history. It was she who laid the foundation for the spiritual essence of man and his true history. Jaspers referred to it the Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Jewish and Greek cultures.

Cultures unaffected by axial time and remaining internally alien to it, despite the simultaneity with it. Jaspers referred to them the Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, which, despite their great successes, could not be reborn and later became victims of external forces.

A culture of this type divides peoples into those whose formation was based on the world that arose as a result of the axial time (Macedonians and Romans) and subsequent peoples and those that remained aloof from development, that is, primitive peoples.

Hegel singled out three historical types of culture as three phases in the development of the absolute spirit: Eastern, Greco-Roman and Germanic(European) culture. The purpose of history, according to Hegel, is the development of freedom. The criterion of cultures is therefore the principle of awareness of freedom. “The East knew and still knows that only one is free; the Greek and Roman world knew that some were free; the German world knows that everyone is free.”

Nietzsche also distinguished three types of culture: Brahmic (Indian), Hellenic and Christian. The latter, in the conditions in which we live, gave rise, according to Nietzsche, to a slave psychology, humility, fear of struggle and change, doctrinaire morality, inertia, general dullness, the psychology of the "crowd". Here, human originality, individuality, and independence serve as a criterion for the typology of cultures.

Philosophical culture

Philosophical culture is the ability to assimilate philosophical knowledge and familiarize with the world of philosophical knowledge, mastering the experience of philosophical understanding of reality, acquiring the skills and abilities of philosophical expression, i.e. philosophical language. This sphere of culture is associated with the reflection of the relationship between man and the world, man and other people, as well as attitudes towards oneself as an object of study and exists in the form of philosophical concepts, schools, works of philosophers. The specialized level of culture is represented by the works of specialist philosophers, the ordinary level - by common sense and folk wisdom - aphorisms, proverbs and sayings.

Of all the spheres of culture, philosophical culture least of all needs social organizations, although there are connections between philosophers and philosophical schools operate. Often, philosophical culture depends on national specifics, which determine the traditional range of problems of philosophy and approaches to their solution. There is no direct connection between philosophy and other areas of culture, but we can talk about its indirect influence on religion, morality, law and science.