Dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Three examples of the dialogue of cultures in modern society Understanding the dialogue of cultures reflects

(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 the history of human accomplishments in general, 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, removed, simplified, which is best implemented in the "last word" of the 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), the old "characters" - Aeschylus, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Phidias, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso - do not leave the stage, are not "removed" and do not disappear into a new character, 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. The number of actors is constantly changing, increasing, 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 conjugation, moral historical memory (and dialogue, conversation) of various moral ups and downs, 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 in my immediate existence in culture I 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 conversion "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.

A variety of forces of determination from the outside and from the inside 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 the centers of modern life - into social, industrial, mental, spiritual centers - is the only hope of modern mankind.

What I mean?

At the very dawn of human history, a special “device” 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 his early works, 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 the general history and activity of man, 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 at the beginning of the 21st 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."

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 Indian culture are filled with the idea of ​​the unity of cultures and peoples, macro- and microcosmos, thoughts that human health largely depends on the quality of its relationship with the environment, on the awareness 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.

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.

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 the necessary conditions for such influence exist. 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 the modern world is a complex and perhaps sometimes painful process. 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;
• · promotion of a deeper understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values;
• · Ensuring a higher degree of respect for cultural diversity and cultural heritage.

Among all concepts that are difficult to understand, everything related to “culture” is probably the most incomprehensible for the guys who will take the test. And the dialogue of cultures, especially when it is required to give examples of such a dialogue, generally causes stupor and shock in many. In this article, we will analyze this concept in a clear and accessible way so that you do not experience a stupor in the exam.

Definition

Dialogue of cultures- means such interaction between carriers of different values, in which some values ​​become the property of representatives of another.

In this case, the carrier is usually a person, a person who has grown up within the framework of this value system. Intercultural interaction can occur at different levels, with the help of different tools.

The simplest such dialogue is when you, a Russian, communicate with a person who grew up in Germany, England, the USA or Japan. If you have a common language of communication, then you, realizing or not, will broadcast the values ​​of the culture in which you yourself grew up. For example, by asking a foreigner if they have street slang in their country, you can learn a lot about the street culture of another country, and compare it with yours.

Art can serve as another interesting channel of intercultural communication. For example, when you watch any Hollywood family movie or any other movie in general, it may seem strange to you (even in dubbing) when, for example, the mother of the family says to the father: “Mike! Why didn't you take your son to the baseball weekend?! But you promised!". At the same time, the father of the family blushes, turns pale and generally behaves very strangely from our point of view. After all, the Russian father will simply say: “It didn’t grow together!” or “We are not like that, life is like that” - and he will go home about his business.

This seemingly minor situation shows how seriously they take promises (read your own words) in a foreign country and in ours. By the way, if you do not agree, write in the comments with what exactly.

Also, any form of mass interaction will be examples of such a dialogue.

Levels of cultural dialogue

There are only three levels of such interaction.

• First level ethnic, which occurs at the level of ethnic groups, read peoples. Just an example when you communicate with a foreigner will be an example of such interaction.
• Second level national. In truth, it is not particularly true to single it out, because a nation is also an ethnic group. Better to say - the state level. Such a dialogue occurs when some kind of cultural dialogue is built at the state level. For example, exchange students come to Russia from countries near and far abroad. While Russian students go to study abroad.
• The third level is civilizational. What is civilization, see this article. And in this one you can get acquainted with the civilizational approach in history.

Such interaction is possible as a result of what civilizational processes. For example, as a result of the collapse of the USSR, many states have made their civilizational choice. Many have integrated into Western European civilization. Others began to develop independently. I think you can give examples yourself if you think about it.

In addition, the following forms of cultural dialogue can be distinguished, which can manifest themselves at its levels.

Cultural assimilation- this is a form of interaction in which some values ​​are destroyed, and they are replaced by others. For example, in the USSR there were human values: friendship, respect, etc., which was broadcast in films, cartoons (“Guys! Let's live together!”). With the collapse of the Union, Soviet values ​​were replaced by others - capitalist ones: money, career, man is a wolf to man, and stuff like that. Plus computer games, in which cruelty is sometimes higher than on the street, in the most criminal district of the city.

Integration- this is a form in which one value system becomes part of another value system, there is a kind of interpenetration of cultures.

For example, modern Russia is a multinational, multicultural, and polyconfessional country. In a country like ours, there can be no dominant culture, since they are all united by one state.

Divergence- very simplified, when one value system dissolves into another, and affects it. For example, many nomadic hordes made their way through the territory of our country: Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, and they all settled here, and eventually dissolved in the local system of values, leaving their contribution to it. For example, the word “sofa” was originally called a small council of khans in the empire of Genghisides, and now it is just a piece of furniture. But the word has survived!

It is clear that in this short post, we will not be able to reveal all the facets necessary to pass the exam in social studies for high scores. So I invite you to our training courses , on which we reveal in detail all the topics and sections of social science, and also work on the analysis of tests. Our courses are a full-fledged opportunity to pass the exam for 100 points and enter a university on a budget!

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov

DIALOGUE AS A FORM OF CULTURAL INTERACTION

Belgorod

state

university

T. I. Lipich

The article deals with the problem of the dialogue of cultures and cultural dialogue. An analysis of this problem is necessary to consider the dialogic relations that arose between Russia and Germany in the first half of the 19th century. The problem of dialogism in the Russian literary and philosophical cultural tradition was born in the framework of understanding one's own ethno-cultural identity.

e-mail: [email protected]

Key words: dialogue, culture, communication, communication, interaction, mutual influence, ethno-cultural identity.

The problem of dialogue in modern conditions is of particular importance. The modern world is characterized by ever greater processes of globalization, in accordance with this, the processes opposite to them are also intensifying. Unfortunately, this does not indicate that mankind has learned to live, if not in agreement, then at least in a dialogue mode.

In this regard, there is a need to turn to the origins of the dialogue, its understanding in philosophy and cultural studies. These sciences have accumulated quite a lot of experience in understanding this phenomenon.

The analysis of dialogue, dialogue thinking in the history of philosophy was carried out by representatives of various schools and trends, for example, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger (representatives of phenomenology), K. Levi-Strauss, N.S. Trubetskoy, L.N. Gumilyov considered dialogue in the system of dialogue of cultures. Today, this is becoming more relevant than ever, since the dialogue in the field of humanitarian knowledge, culture in general, pushes the boundaries of communication between peoples and states. This contributes to the fact that the need for a better knowledge of one's own national culture increases, contributes to the understanding of one's own self-identification.

The founder of the theory of dialogue in Western philosophical thought was M. Buber. In his book “I and You”, he raises very important questions of the dialogue between man and God, man and man, highlights the role of the language through which the dialogue is carried out. These ideas are developed by the Russian philosopher M.M. Bakhtin: “Dialogical relations ... are almost a universal phenomenon that permeates all human speech and all relations and manifestations of human life, in general, everything that has meaning and significance ... Where consciousness begins, there ... dialogue begins”1 .

A number of researchers consider the problem of dialogue through the analysis of the concept of the "other" and its meeting with the "I"2. The presence of "I" and "other" is a necessary condition for a dialogue that involves the active interaction of equal subjects. If this condition is not met, then it is impossible to speak of a full-fledged dialogue, but it is possible to state mutual influence, which is characterized by an impact on another, assuming a change in behavior, thoughts, etc. This is based on the principle of imitation, suggestion.

Today, many of the old approaches to the problem of dialogue are undergoing changes and require deeper research. More and more relevant, in our opinion, in this direction are the ideas of the “universal dialogue” of M.S. Kagan, "dialogue of cultural worlds" G.S. Pomeranets, "polylogue of cultures", as a form of dialogue of many cultures

HE. Astafieva. Dialogic themes presented in recent decades should be comprehended within the broad cultural context of the era, which is characterized by the development of tolerant behavioral attitudes, interfaith, intercultural dialogue.

Dialogue is a universal, all-encompassing way of existence of culture and a person in culture3. In the 19th century, the Slavophiles proposed the idea of ​​understanding

1 Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M., 1972, S. 71.

2 G.- G. Gadamer, R. Barth, E. Levinas, A.I. Vvedensky, I.I. Lapshin and others.

3 See Kagan M.S. Philosophy of culture. - St. Petersburg: LLP TK "Petropolis", 1996.

language of another culture, a person must understand and appreciate the history and culture of his own people.

Therefore, many modern philosophers associate specific problems of communication, dialogue and communication with the intercultural dialogue of peoples, countries, civilizations. At one time, I.G. Herder singled out the interaction of cultures as a way of preserving cultural diversity and noted that knowledge of one's own culture, oneself is possible through the knowledge of other cultures, since "no nation has achieved culture by itself"4.

The concept of dialogue of cultures is interpreted very broadly. In the 20th century, the ideas of dialogue entered the fabric of philosophical thinking and became more and more widespread from the ethical and aesthetic problems of M. Buber and M. Bakhtin to the analysis of human existence as “dialogical life”, V. Bibler’s “dialogic” and the analysis of internal dialogue, study of the dialogic nature of human speech.

In order to consider the dialogue of cultures, it is necessary to clarify the very concept of "culture", "communication", "dialogue", "communication", "interaction", "mutual influence". With a huge number of various semantic content given to the concept of culture, approaches to its study, we are close to the position of V.S. Bibler, who defines culture as a form of simultaneous existence and communication of people of past, present and future cultures5. Therefore, culture is communication. K. Jaspers, M.S. Kagan, M.M. Bakhtin and others. For example, M.M. Bakhtin in his works argued that culture is a form of communication between people of different cultures. It exists where there are at least two cultures, and the self-consciousness of a culture is a form of its being on the verge of another culture. On this basis, culture is considered as a mechanism of self-determination of the individual. Communication, according to Jaspers, is a relationship that arises “between two individuals who communicate with each other, but must maintain their differences, who go towards each other from solitude, but know about this solitude only insofar as they enter into communication.”6 “Communication” and “communication” are essentially different. If communication has a practical, material and spiritual, informational nature, then communication is a purely informational process, unidirectional, from the sender to the recipient, the relationship of the subject to another person as an object. In communication, the parties are looking for common ground, some common positions, as a result, the struggle of opinions turns into a dialogue. In this case, the subject refers to the other as to the subject.

The dialogue of cultures appears as the most striking form of communication between cultures and as a result of mutual communication between cultures. Communication within the framework of subject-object relations can be called interaction, which is characterized as a universal form of connection between phenomena, which is carried out in their mutual change. Some researchers distinguish partner interaction-dialogue, when there is no imposition, but interaction between two or more cultures.7 Culture is inherently dialogical. Since its inception, humanity has existed within the framework of dialogue. V.M. Mezhuev notes that dialogue is possible between people who are at the same level of civilizational development and are connected, among other things, by a certain system of values.8 Culture, communication of cultures is the communication of individuals as individuals, therefore, it is important to recognize the intrinsic value of all parties involved in the dialogue. In the dialogue of cultures, each culture realizes itself as a separate, original, inexhaustible in its uniqueness culture.

4 I.G. Herder Ideas to the philosophy of the history of mankind. - M., 1977 - - S. 477.

5 V.S. Bibler Culture. Dialogue of cultures. Determination Experience // Questions of Philosophy, 1989. - No. 6. - P. 31 - 42.

6 Jaspers K. Modern bourgeois philosophy. M., 1978. S. 324 - 327.

7 Urazmetov T.Z. Culture, history, dialogue: correlation of concepts // Problems of theory and history of culture: research and materials. - Orenburg, 2005.

8 See Mezhuev V.M. Dialogue between civilizations as a philosophical problem // M.: MGU-KI, 2004.

9 Bibler V.S. From science to the logic of culture. Two Philosophical Introductions to the 21st Century. - M., 1990. - S. 299.

52 SCIENTIFIC Gazette No. 10(65)2009

Gimi, through its conditioning by others. Considering dialogue as the only possible form of people's events, Bakhtin rightly stated: “Alien minds cannot be contemplated, analyzed, defined as objects - one can only communicate with them dialogically. To think about them is to talk to them.”10 According to Bakhtin, dialogue is not just communication, conversation, speech activity - dialogue is mutual self-knowledge and self-affirmation. Dialogue is understood as the only possible form of co-existence, the existence of "We" in "They" and "I" in the "Other".

Communication of individuals in the dialogue occurs due to some component of communication - the text. MM. Bakhtin wrote in The Aesthetics of Verbal Creation that a person can be studied only through texts created or created by him. The text, according to Bakhtin, can be presented in different forms: as a living speech of a person; as speech imprinted on paper or any other medium (plane); like any sign system (iconographic, directly material, activity, etc.). Moreover, in any of these forms, the text can be understood as a form of communication between cultures. Each text is based on previous and subsequent texts created by authors who have their own worldview, their own picture or image of the world, and in this incarnation, the text carries the meaning of past and subsequent cultures, it is always on the verge, it is always dialogic, as it is always directed towards to another.

Cultural dialogue is concretized by M.M. Bakhtin in the concept of polyphonism, and, speaking of polyphonism, M.M. Bakhtin also noted its dialogic nature: “It is built not as a whole of one consciousness that has objectively taken other consciousnesses into itself, but as a whole interaction of several consciousnesses, none of which has completely become the object of another”11.

Polyphony, as the organizing principle of Bakhtin's interpretation, is a word whose key connotative meaning is the understanding of multidimensionality, multidimensionality, polyphony, and here, in this case, we are already dealing with a dialogue organized in a certain way - a polyphonic dialogue.

Ideas of dialogism in culture in the cultural and semiotic aspect in the 60-80s.

The twentieth century was developed by representatives of the Tartu-Moscow cultural school (Yu.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspensky, Vyach. Vs. Ivanov, V.N. Toporov, E.M. Meletinsky and others). Yu.M. Lotman pointed out the following semiotic property of dialogue: a dialogue is possible only when its participants are simultaneously different and have in their structure the semiotic image of the counterparty. “Since the text being broadcast and the response received to it must form, from some third point of view, a single text, and since each of them, from its own point of view, not only represents a separate text, but tends to be a text in another language, the broadcast text should, anticipating the answer, contain elements of the transition to a foreign language. Otherwise dialogue is impossible.”12 Thus, in order to communicate with another culture, a culture must internalize its image into its own world.

Speaking about the problem of the dialogue of cultures and intercultural dialogue, Yu.M. Lotman points out that in a broad historical perspective, the interaction of cultures is always dialogic. The features of any cultural dialogue are: firstly, the alternating activity of the transmitter and receiver, and secondly, the development of a common language of communication. This process is divided into stages: first, a one-way flow of texts is observed, which are deposited in the memory of the recipient, and the memory at this stage also fixes texts in a foreign, incomprehensible language, and the next stage is the mastery of a foreign language and its free use, mastering the rules for generating foreign texts and recreating new ones similar to them according to these rules.

We are close to the idea of ​​V.S. Bibler that culture is able to live and develop (as a culture) only on the verge of cultures, in simultaneity, in dialogue with other holistic, closed "on itself", on going beyond its limits, cultures. He noted that

10 Quoted. Quoted from: Bibler V.S. From Science to the Logic of Culture: Two Philosophical Introductions to the 21st Century. - M., 1990. - S. 146-147.

11 Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M, 1972. - S. 20-21.

12 Lotman Yu.M. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture // Selected articles in three volumes. - V. 1. - Tallinn, 1992. - S. 19.

each culture is a kind of “two-faced Janus”, in the sense that its face is as intensely turned to another culture, to its being in other worlds, as it is inward, deep into itself, in an effort to change and supplement its being. Communication in culture, that is, being in culture, is always (in potential, in design) communication between different cultures, even if we live in the same culture. And dialogue is only then a dialogue (in the sense of a culture of dialogue and a dialogue of cultures) when it can be carried out as an endless deployment and formation of ever new meanings of each - entering into a dialogue - phenomenon of culture, image of culture, works of cultures.

European cultures exist in a single space of European civilization and culture. Each national culture has something that unites and distinguishes them. In such a situation, dialogue is possible. In our opinion, dialogue is a universal process of interaction between subjects of intercultural communication, aimed at the development of this process, as well as at self-development. Analyzing Russian culture, its formation, it should be noted that the basis for the development of dialogue relations is both the space within Russia and the relationship of Russian culture with the national cultures of other countries. For this purpose, we will use the typology of the dialogue of cultures proposed by O.V. Kovalchuk13: vertical-historical (cultural-temporal) dialogue; vertical-diachronic (cultural-diachronic) dialogue - inter-cultural communication; horizontal-historical dialogue - unfolded in the time of their own cultural and historical tradition as a "conversation" with their past; horizontal-spatial (intracultural or systemic) dialogue is a dialogue of cultures and subcultures existing in a single ethnocultural and civilizational space and time.

The problems of dialogism in the Russian literary and philosophical-culturological tradition were born in the space of understanding one's own ethno-cultural identity. The appeal to the Russian tradition of dialogic thinking is due to the following points: dialogism was characteristic of writers, literary critics, and philosophically oriented thinkers. At the beginning of the 19th century, the formation of the Russian national language, Russian literature, the beginnings of Russian philosophical thought took place in Russia. These processes developed in dialogue with French, English, but to a greater extent, with German culture. Russia and Germany have always had difficult relations, which were characterized by both contradictions and conflicts, but at the same time, Russia had close and peculiar relations with Germany: in spiritual, cultural terms, one can trace a relationship between Russians and Germans, which is not between other peoples . A number of researchers analyzing this problem come to the conclusion that Russians and Germans belong to those peoples that can be called metaphysical peoples. They were more shocked than other peoples by the new that was introduced by the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution, but at the beginning of the 19th century the ideology of the Enlightenment turned out to be quite compromised in Europe itself as a result of the terror of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Russia turns its eyes to Germany, whose philosophical ideas become consonant with the Russian mentality: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel become very popular in Russian educated society. The intersection point of dialogic relations between the philosophical and literary social life of Russia and Germany is romanticism, as a special type of creative worldview. Kant and Fichte, Schelling and the romantics for the first time realize the activity of human sensual and mental activity, cultural practice, which acts as a deep ideal form of cultural dialogism. Russian thinkers, having reworked the ideas of German romanticism in a peculiar way, formulated their vision and understanding of the main goals and objectives facing Russian social thought, the most important of which is awareness of one's own identity.

Thus, literature and philosophy as forms of national self-consciousness arise when people begin to feel the need to realize themselves, their place in the world, when radical changes are made in thinking,

13 see: Kovalchuk O.V. "Civilizational Models of the Dialogue between Secular and Religious Culture". - Abstract for the degree of candidate of philosophical sciences. - Belgorod, 2004.

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS

relevant to the development of various spheres of society. Therefore, direct and indirect literary and philosophical dialogic relations both within the country and between countries contribute to the spiritual unity and consolidation of the nation.

1. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M., 1972.

2. Gadamer G.-G., R. Barth, E. Levinas, A.I. Vvedensky, I.I. Lapshin and others.

3. Kagan M.S. Philosophy of culture. - St. Petersburg: LLP TK "Petropolis", 1996.

4. Herder I.G. Ideas for the philosophy of human history. - M., 1977.

5. Bibler V.S. Culture. Dialogue of cultures. Determination Experience // Questions of Philosophy, 1989. - No. 6. - P. 31 - 42.

6. Jaspers K. Modern bourgeois philosophy. M., 1978.

7. Urazmetov T.Z. Culture, history, dialogue: correlation of concepts // Problems of theory and history of culture: research and materials. - Orenburg, 2005.

8. Mezhuev V.M. Dialogue between civilizations as a philosophical problem // M.: MGUKI, 2004.

9. Bibler V.S. From science to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to

XXI Century. - M., 1990.

10. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M, 1972.

11. Lotman Yu.M. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture // Selected articles in three volumes. - T.1. - Tallinn, 1992.

12. Kovalchuk O.V. "Civilizational Models of the Dialogue between Secular and Religious Culture". - Abstract for the degree of candidate of philosophical sciences. - Belgorod, 2004.

Bibliography

DIALOGUE AS A FORM OF INTERACTION OF CULTURES

e-mail: [email protected]

Belgorod State University

The article deals with a problem of dialogue of cultures and cultural dialogue. The analysis of this problem is necessary for consideration of the dialogical relations which have appeared between Russia and Germany in the 1st half of the 19th century. Only in dialogue each culture realizes itself as separate, original, unique.

Key words: dialogue, culture, communication, act of communicating, interaction, interference, ethnocultural identity.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal state budget educational

institution of higher professional education

ABSTRACT

in the discipline "Culturology"

Dialogue of cultures in the modern world

group student.

Teacher

Introduction

1. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world

2. Intercultural interaction in modern society

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The entire history of mankind is a dialogue that permeates our entire life and is in reality a means of implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures and civilizations presupposes some common cultural values.

In the modern world, it is becoming more and more obvious that humanity is developing along the path of expanding the interconnection and interdependence of various countries, peoples and their cultures. Today, all ethnic communities are affected by both the cultures of other peoples and the wider social environment that exists in individual regions and in the world as a whole. This was expressed in the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between state institutions, social groups, social movements and individuals from different countries and cultures. The expansion of interaction between cultures and peoples makes the issue of cultural identity and cultural differences particularly relevant. The trend towards the preservation of cultural identity confirms the general pattern, which consists in the fact that humanity, becoming more interconnected and united, does not lose its cultural diversity.

In the context of these trends in social development, it becomes extremely important to be able to determine the cultural characteristics of peoples in order to understand each other and achieve mutual recognition.

The interaction of cultures is an extremely topical topic in the conditions of modern Russia and the world as a whole. 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.

1 . DiA log of cultures in the modern world

The exchange of knowledge, experience, assessments is a necessary condition for the existence of culture. When creating cultural objectivity, a person “turns into an object” his spiritual powers and abilities. And when mastering cultural wealth, a person “de-objectifies”, reveals the spiritual content of cultural objectivity and turns it into his own property. Therefore, the existence of culture is possible only in the dialogue of those who created and those who perceive the phenomenon of culture. The dialogue of cultures is a form of interaction, understanding and evaluation of cultural objectivity and is at the center of the cultural process.

The concept of dialogue in the cultural process has a broad meaning. It includes the dialogue of the creator and consumer of cultural values, and the dialogue of generations, and the dialogue of cultures as a form of interaction and mutual understanding of peoples. With the development of trade, migration of the population, the interaction of cultures inevitably expands. It serves as a source of their mutual enrichment and development.

The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures that exist within the framework of their common civilization. The interaction of European and non-European cultures can be carried out in different ways. It can take place in the form of mutual promotion of development; assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another or both interacting cultures suppress each other, i.e. the absorption of the eastern civilization by the western civilization, the penetration of the western civilization into the eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries, the need to ensure normal living conditions for the population of the globe have exacerbated the problem of modernizing traditional civilizations.

While retaining its cultural core, each culture is constantly exposed to external influences, adapting them in different ways. Evidence of the rapprochement of different cultures is: intensive cultural exchange, the development of educational and cultural institutions, the spread of medical care, the spread of advanced technologies that provide people with the necessary material benefits, and the protection of human rights. cultural exchange social benefit

Any phenomenon of culture is comprehended by people in the context of the current state of society, which can greatly change its meaning. Culture retains relatively unchanged only its external side, while its spiritual richness contains the possibility of infinite development. This opportunity is realized by the activity of a person who is able to enrich and update those unique meanings that he discovers in cultural phenomena. This indicates a constant renewal in the process of cultural dynamics.

The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as a “memory”, the loss of which is tantamount to the death of society. The concept of tradition includes such manifestations of culture as the cultural core, endogeneity, originality, specificity and cultural heritage. The core of culture is a system of principles that guarantee its relative stability and reproducibility. Endogeneity means that the essence of culture, its systemic unity is determined by the cohesion of internal principles. Identity reflects the originality and uniqueness, due to the relative independence and isolation of the development of culture. Specificity is the presence of properties inherent in culture as a special phenomenon of social life. Cultural heritage includes a set of values ​​created by previous generations and included in the socio-cultural process of each society.

2 . Intercultural interaction in modern society

Intercultural interaction is the contact of two or more cultural traditions (canons, styles), during and as a result of which counterparties have a significant mutual influence on each other.

The process of interaction of cultures, leading to their unification, arouses in some nations the desire for cultural self-affirmation and the desire to preserve their own cultural values. A number of states and cultures demonstrate their categorical rejection of the ongoing cultural changes. To the process of opening up cultural frontiers, they oppose the impenetrability of their own and an exaggerated sense of pride in their national identity. Different societies react to outside influences in different ways. The range of resistance to the process of merging cultures is quite wide: from passive rejection of the values ​​of other cultures to active opposition to their spread and approval. Therefore, we are witnesses and contemporaries of numerous ethno-religious conflicts, the growth of nationalist sentiments, and regional fundamentalist movements.

The mentioned processes, to one degree or another, have found their manifestation in Russia as well. The reforms of the society led to serious changes in the cultural image of Russia. A completely new type of business culture is emerging, a new idea is being formed about the social responsibility of the business world to the client and society, and the life of society as a whole is changing.

The result of the new economic relations was the wide availability of direct contact with cultures that previously seemed mysterious and strange. In direct contact with such cultures, differences are realized not only at the level of kitchen utensils, clothing, food rations, but also in different attitudes towards women, children and the elderly, in the ways and means of doing business.

Interaction is carried out at different levels and by different groups of carriers of the respective cultures.

The subjects of intercultural interaction can be divided into three groups:

1 figures of science and culture, interacting in order to learn a foreign culture and acquaint them with their own;

2 politicians who consider intercultural relations as one of the sides of social or political problems, including international ones, or even as a means of solving them;

3 the population encountering representatives of other cultures at the household level.

The allocation of levels of intercultural interaction depending on its subjects helps to avoid an abstract formulation of the question and more specifically comprehend the goals of interaction that differ among different groups; the means used to achieve them; trends of each level of interaction and their prospects. An opportunity is revealed to separate the problems of intercultural interaction proper from the social, economic and political problems hidden behind the "clash of civilizations" or the dialogue of cultures.

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than communication itself, in others - on the contrary.

The term worldview is usually used to refer to a concept of reality shared by a culturally or ethnically distinct group of people. Worldview, first of all, must be attributed to the cognitive side of culture. The mental organization of each individual reflects the structure of the world. Elements of commonality in the worldview of individual individuals form the worldview of the entire group of people of a particular culture.

Each individual has his own culture, which forms his worldview. Despite the difference between the individuals themselves, culture in their minds is made up of generally accepted elements and elements, the difference of which is permissible. The rigidity or flexibility of culture is determined by the relationship of the worldviews of individual individuals with the worldview of society.

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. But the mastery of cult knowledge contributes to the improvement of intercultural communication.

The worldview defines such categories as humanity, good and evil, state of mind, the role of time and fate, the properties of physical bodies and natural resources. The interpretation of this definition includes cult beliefs about various forces associated with the events that occur daily and with the rituals observed. For example, many eastern peoples believe that the unfavorable atmosphere in the family is the result of the activities of the mythical brownie. If you do not treat him properly (do not pray, do not address sacrifices to him), the family will not get rid of problems and hardships.

Western Kentucky University's graduate school conducted a test that consisted of a single question: "If your half-brother commits a wrongful act, would you report it to law enforcement?" Americans and representatives of Western European countries answered in the affirmative, considering it their civic duty to notify law enforcement agencies. Against were the only representative of Russia (Ossetians by nationality) and two Mexicans. One of the Mexicans was outraged at the very possibility of raising such a question, about which he was not slow to speak out. Unlike the Americans and Europeans, he perceived the denunciation of his own brother as the height of a moral fall. To the credit of Dr. Cecilia Harmon, who conducted the test, the incident was over. She explained that neither answer was good or bad in and of itself. Both must be taken in the context of the culture that the respondent represents.

In the Caucasus, for example, if a member of a traditional family (surname or clan) commits an unseemly act, the entire family or clan, which can number up to several hundred people, is responsible for his actions. The problem is solved collectively, while the one who breaks the law is not considered the only one to blame. Traditionally, his family shares the blame. At the same time, the reputation of the entire family suffers, and its representatives are doing everything possible to regain their good name.

In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than communication itself, in others - on the contrary. The former have a specific worldview that reduces all questions to action. A person who has achieved a certain goal at the cost of hard work rises not only in his own eyes, but also in public opinion. In such cultures, the end justifies the means. In others, where the priority always remains with the person, the relationship is valued more than the result. In this case, “there are many expressive means representing the structures of a deeper, distinguished cognitive value of a person’s meaning in comparison with the problem being solved.” Ultimately, there may be cultures in which no goal, even the most important, can rise above a person.

Any worldview that has developed in a particular culture is autonomous and adequate in the sense that it is a link between opinion and reality, opening a view of reality as something experienced and accepted. The worldview contains a complex of beliefs, concepts, an ordered understanding of social structures and moral principles, and this complex is unique and specific in comparison with other similar complexes of other sociocultural associations. Despite the acceptability of modifications in culture and the possibility of varying the limit of permissible changes, the worldview is always adequate to culture and is conditioned by its principles.

No matter how the circumstances develop in this case, representatives of different cultures, being in the process of interaction, inevitably experience certain psychological inconveniences. The driving force behind adaptation is the interaction of at least two groups of people: the dominant group, which has great influence, and the adaptable group, which undergoes a learning or adaptation process. The dominant group intentionally or unintentionally imposes change, while the other group voluntarily or not accepts it.

Thanks to the globalization of the economy, the process of mutual adaptation of cultures has become more widespread. Of course, on the one hand, this contributes to a more even development of the economy of the whole world. The whole world is connected by one economic chain, the deterioration of the situation in one country will not leave other countries indifferent. Each participant in the world economy is interested in the well-being of the whole world. But on the other hand, the inhabitants of many closed countries are simply not ready for such a sharp foreign cultural invasion, and conflicts as a result of this are inevitable.

More and more theoretical and applied research is being devoted to the problems of intercultural interaction, both in Russia and abroad.

Becoming participants in any kind of intercultural contacts, people interact with representatives of other cultures, often significantly different from each other. Differences in languages, national cuisine, clothing, norms of social behavior, attitude to the work performed often make these contacts difficult and even impossible. But these are only particular problems of intercultural contacts. The underlying reasons for their failures lie beyond the obvious differences. They are in differences in attitude, that is, a different attitude to the world and to other people.

The main obstacle to the successful solution of this problem is that we perceive other cultures through the prism of our own culture, so our observations and conclusions are limited to its framework. With great difficulty, we understand the meaning of words, deeds, actions that are not characteristic of ourselves. Our ethnocentrism not only interferes with intercultural communication, but it is also difficult to recognize, as it is an unconscious process. This leads to the conclusion that effective intercultural communication cannot arise on its own, it needs to be purposefully studied.

Conclusion

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.

No nation can exist and develop in isolation from its neighbors. The closest communication between neighboring ethnicities takes place at the junction of ethnic territories, where ethno-cultural ties acquire the greatest intensity. Contacts between peoples have always been a powerful stimulus for the historical process. Since the formation of the first ethnic communities of antiquity, the main centers of the development of human culture have been at ethnic crossroads - zones where the traditions of different peoples collided and were mutually enriched. The dialogue of cultures is interethnic, international contacts. The dialogue of neighboring cultures is an important factor in the regulation of interethnic relations.

In the process of interaction of several cultures, the possibility of a comparative assessment of achievements, their value and the likelihood of borrowing arises. The nature of the interaction of cultures of peoples is influenced not only by the level of development of each of them, but also specifically by socio-historical conditions, as well as by the behavioral aspect, based on the possible inadequacy of the position of representatives of each of the interacting cultures.

Within the framework of globalization, the international dialogue of cultures is growing. International cultural dialogue enhances mutual understanding between peoples, makes it possible to better understand one's own national image. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever before, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans. In 1997, 5 million Americans began to actively engage in yoga, the ancient Chinese health gymnastics. Even the American religions began to be influenced by the East. Eastern philosophy, with its ideas of the inner harmony of things, is gradually conquering the American cosmetics industry. The rapprochement and interaction of the two cultural models is also taking place in the field of the food industry (healing green tea). If earlier it seemed that the cultures of East and West did not intersect mutually, then today, more than ever, there have been points of contact and mutual influence. It is not only about interaction, but also complementarity and enrichment.

For mutual understanding and dialogue, an understanding of the cultures of other peoples is necessary, which includes: “awareness of the differences in ideas, customs, cultural traditions inherent in different peoples, the ability to see the common and different between diverse cultures and look at the culture of one’s own community through the eyes of other peoples” ( 14, p.47). But in order to understand the language of a foreign culture, a person must be open to the culture of the native. From the native to the universal, the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case the dialogue will be fruitful. Participating in the dialogue of cultures, one must know not only one's own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.

List useoh literature

1 Golovleva E. L. Fundamentals of intercultural communication. Educational

allowance Phoenix, 2008

2 Grushevitskaya T.G., Popkov V.D., Sadokhin A.P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: Textbook for universities (Edited by A.P. Sadokhin.) 2002

3 Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication

4. Sagatovsky V.N. Dialogue of cultures and the “Russian idea” // Revival of Russian culture. Dialogue of cultures and interethnic relations 1996.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Problems and prospects for the development of such a phenomenon as multicultural reality. Dialogue is a natural result of the development and deepening of the relationship between cultures in the modern world. Features of intercultural interaction in the context of the globalization of culture.

abstract, added 01/13/2014


The concept of ethnic contacts and their results. The main forms of ethnic contacts. Analysis of the concept of culture shock. Theories of interethnic interaction: cultural and structural direction. Characteristics of ethnic processes in the modern world.

term paper, added 02/06/2014


Youth as a socio-demographic group of the population. Youth and its role in modern society. Problems faced by today's youth. General characteristics of cultural needs. Features of youth in modern society.

term paper, added 01/05/2015


Essence and content of information, assessment of its role and significance in modern society, classification, types. Contradictions between the limitations of a person's ability to perceive and consume information and the growth of the information flow. The value of the bibliography.

abstract, added 01/18/2014


Theories of cultural differences and cultural interaction between peoples. Interaction of cultures and cultural transformation as a form of the globalization process. The growth of the social role of culture as one of the factors organizing the spiritual life of people.

abstract, added 12/21/2008


Biography of V.S. Bibler, philosopher, culturologist, creator of the doctrine of the dialogue of cultures (dialogics). Methodological features of the lesson, taking place in the form of a dialogue. Dialogue of cultures in education, problems of formation of tolerance in interethnic relations.

abstract, added 12/14/2009


What is a library: the importance of libraries in modern society, history of origin, development. Great library power: functions and features of work. Library Russia at the turn of the millennium. New methods and technologies in librarianship.

abstract, added 11/16/2007


Diffusionism as a way of studying cultures appeared at the end of the 19th century. The concept of "diffusion", borrowed from physics, means "spill", "spreading". In the study of cultures, it means the dissemination of cultural phenomena through communication, contacts between peoples.

control work, added 06/04/2008


Classification of intercultural interactions. Chronotope of the Dialogue of Modern Civilizations. Types of socio-economic formations. Progressive desecularization of the world. Interaction between West and East. The originality of the historical and cultural path of Russia.

abstract, added 11/24/2009


Analysis of the relationship of cultures and languages ​​in today's modern world. The spread of the English language. Culture of English-speaking countries (Great Britain, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India). Language as a mirror of culture.