As a child, I once asked my father: “Does God exist?” His answer was a revelation to me. “For the unbeliever, no; for the believer, yes!” This is a very important issue. I want to say that the film can be interpreted in different ways. So, for example, for viewers who are interested in various supernatural phenomena, the most important thing in the film will be the relationship between the postman and the witch, they will see the main action in them. Believers will first of all perceive Alexander's prayer addressed to the Lord, for them the whole film will develop around this topic. And finally, viewers of the third category, who do not have certain convictions, will simply say that Alexander is a sick, mentally unbalanced person. Thus, different groups viewers will understand the film differently.
I believe that the viewer has the right to perceive what he sees on the screen in accordance with his own inner world, and not with the point of view that I would like to impose on him. My goal is to show life, to create an image - dramatic and tragic image modern man. Well, in the end, can you imagine such a film being made by an unbeliever? I can't!
- Some viewers doubt the faith of your characters. What is the essence of their beliefs? Let's say, what is the flaw of faith that drives Alexander crazy?
“I don’t think that Alexander is crazy, although there are probably people who think otherwise. It's just that he's in a very difficult situation. psychological state. I think Alexander is a certain type. His inner world is the world of a person who has not been to church for a long time. Perhaps he grew up in a family of believers, but his own faith, his religious beliefs are "unconventional" ... maybe he does not believe at all? I can easily imagine his selfless fuss with the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, questions of anthroposophy. Just as easily I see him as a man aware that material world— this is not all that there is a transcendent reality that is yet to be discovered. When a tragedy is played out and a catastrophe is imminent, he, in accordance with the logic of his inner peace turns to God as the only hope. This is a moment of despair.
— It seems that your heroes are only on the threshold of a true spiritual life in a kind of state of inexperience...
- In my opinion, Alexander, despite the torment experienced, happy man because in suffering he gains faith. After all that he had lived through, one can hardly say that he is on the verge of something. The most important and difficult aspect of the religious problem is faith itself.
But such faith in in a certain sense bordering on the absurd?
— It's okay! I think that a person who is ready to sacrifice himself can be considered a believer. Of course it's weird. Alexander sacrifices himself, but at the same time he forces others to do the same. This is madness! Well, what can you do? Of course, for them he is a finished man, although in fact it is quite clear that he is the one saved.
- According to some viewers, in the "Sacrifice" you can feel the atmosphere inspired by Bergman. Is it possible to say that the Swedish director had a certain influence on you, or is this feeling connected with the setting of the film?
— When Bergman speaks about God, it is only to say that His voice is not heard in the world, that He does not exist... Therefore, there can be no comparison between us. Critics who believe otherwise are very superficial, and if they claim it just because the performer leading role"Sacrifice" was filmed with Bergman and that in my film the landscape of the Swedish village is used, it only proves that they do not understand either Bergman or existentialism. Bergman is closer to Kierkegaard than to the problem of faith proper.
- Of all your films, "Sacrifice" comes across as the most "theatrical". Could you imagine staging some of the scenes in the theatre?
- I think it could be done, although it would be easier to stage Solaris or Stalker in the theater. I doubt that these would be successful productions ... they would be pretentious. It's easier for me to work in cinema, because here you don't have to consider time or rhythm. viewer, film has its own rhythm. If you had to move the film to the stage, it would destroy its temporary atmosphere, and it is very important. Otherwise, everything is lost.
- Apparently, the questions you raise should be personally close to the leading actor Erland Yousefson.
- The main roles in the film were really written for Erland Yousefson and Alan Edwal. The rest came later.
— At the end of The Sacrifice, the tree burns down along with the house. Were you surprised by this?
Nothing happens by chance in my films. Why does the tree burn down with the house? If one house burned down, it would just be another "movie fire"... not real... not special...
"Don't you think that's pretty cruel?"
- The tree was dead, it was transplanted and served only as an element of decoration.
- In the film "Nostalgia" you put the words into the mouth of the hero: "In our time, a person must build pyramids." Without going into details, what kind of pyramids did you have in mind?
- A person should strive to spiritual greatness. others will unravel millions of years later, and not the ruins, which will be remembered as a consequence of disasters ... I don't know ... at least not Chernobyl, but something opposite.
- You said that you are very fond of Robert Bresson. But aren't your films the opposite of his work? Bresson cuts off the scene without giving a solution to the main issues, only indicating, hinting at them ...
- For me, Robert Bresson - best director in the world. I have the deepest respect for him. However, I don't see much similarity between us. Yes, he cuts off the scene, which I will never do... for me it's like killing a living being.
- Recently I was told about a man suffering from suicidal mania. He watched "The Sacrifice" and for two hours he immersed himself in some kind of reflection. The will to live returned to him.
- This is more important to me than any assessments and critical judgments ... Something similar happened after the film "Ivan's Childhood": a criminal serving time in a camp wrote to me that the film had such an impact on him that now he will never can kill a person.
- Why do you so often introduce levitation scenes into your films - a body rising into the air?
“Just because they are potentially very powerful scenes. Some things are more cinematic or photogenic than others. Water, for example, is very important to me: it lives, has depth, moves, changes, gives mirror reflection, you can drown in it, swim in it, you can drink it, and so on, not to mention the fact that it consists of one indivisible molecule. This is a monad.
In the same way, when I imagine a person floating in the air, it gives me pleasure ... I see a certain significance in this. If some fool had asked me why in my last film the characters - Alexander and Maria - rise into the air, I would answer: because Maria is a witch! If a more sensitive person, capable of perceiving the poetry of things, asked me this question, I would answer that for these two heroes love is not the same as for a screenwriter who wakes up in the morning with a temperature of thirty-seven and two.
For me, love is the highest manifestation of mutual understanding, it cannot be conveyed by a simple reproduction of the sexual act on the screen. If it were otherwise, why not just go into the field and film the bulls inseminating the cows. Nowadays, when there are no explicit "love" scenes in the film, everyone believes that this is the result of censorship. However, this kind of scene has nothing to do with love, it's just a form of sex. In fact, the act of love for each couple is inimitable and unique. If it is shown on the screen, it will lead to the opposite effect.
- In The Sacrifice, Alexander's doubts on the eve of visiting Mary are doubts about his own faith; doubts of Mary, who does not dare to give herself to Alexander, concern the truth of love. And yet, is it possible to say that we are talking about the same doubt?
“The only way to show the sincerity of these two characters is to overcome the initial impossibility of their relationship. For this, each of them had to rise above all differences.
- Is the film "Sacrifice" the development of your artistic quest?
- Speaking seriously, in this film I managed to more fully reveal my understanding of the world of modern man. But from an artistic point of view, I put "Nostalgia" above "Sacrifice", since it is not built on the development of any idea or theme. Its only purpose is a poetic image, while "Sacrifice" is based on classic drama. That is why I prefer the film "Nostalgia". I have always admired Bresson for the sense of continuity or logical connection that is created from film to film. This feeling arises from the regularity of such episodes as pouring a glass of water into the sink every morning. I consider it very important point. I myself hate the random things in the movie. The most poetic image, no matter how insignificant and unfounded, is always natural, and not accidental.
- It seems that the film "Stalker" is closer to the "Sacrifice".
- Right. For me, The Sacrifice is the most internally consistent of my films. It's about about the obsession with the purity and sovereignty of one's own "I", which can drive a person to madness.
Why did you choose Saint Anthony as your central image one of your next films?
Now, it seems to me, it is very important to think about the contradiction that has always existed in the human heart: what is holiness and what is sin? Is it good to be a saint at all? For Orthodox Church the concept of community with other people is one of the central ones. For Orthodox Christians, the church is an association of people connected by the same feelings with the same faith. When a saint leaves the human world and goes into the wilderness, we naturally wonder why he did it? The answer suggests itself: because he wanted to save his own soul. Was he thinking about the rest of humanity then? I am constantly tormented by the question of the relationship between the salvation of the soul and participation in the life of society.
“But why did you choose St. Anthony anyway?”
- It could be someone else ... In this case, I'm most interested in the price at which the balance between the material and the spiritual is achieved. I'm afraid those who think they've found a way out aren't telling the whole truth.
— And what can you say about your idea of a film about Hoffmann?
- About Hoffmann! This old story. I really want to use this topic to talk about romanticism in general and for myself to end it forever. If you remember the story of the life and death of Kleist and his bride, you will understand what I mean. Romantics tried to present life as different from what it really is. Most of all they were afraid of routine, acquired habits, relationships with life as something predetermined, predictable. Romantics are not fighters. When they die, it comes from the impossibility of the dream created by their imagination. It seems to me that romanticism - as a way of life - is very dangerous, because it gives paramount importance to personal talent. There are more important things in life than personal talent.
- What exactly is your attitude towards the Orthodox Church?
Specifically, it's hard to say. I lived in the Soviet Union, came to Italy, and now I am in France, I did not have the opportunity to establish normal relations with the church. If I went to the service in Florence, it was conducted in Greek, another time in Italian and never in Russian. I am talking, of course, about the Greek Orthodox Church. Recently, I was deeply shocked by a meeting with Vladyka Anthony (Bloom) in London. Relations with the church presuppose a relatively established way of life. I'm in the position of a bombing survivor, so it's hard to expect me to have a normal relationship with the church.
- There is an opinion that Lunacharsky, a writer and Bolshevik, referred to the religious nature of the 1917 revolution. What can you say about this?
Where did he say this? Nonsense! Unless by this he wanted to emphasize his admiration for the revolution. But I doubt that he expressed such an opinion, although when it was necessary to gain popularity, some people's commissars said and admitted anything.
- It seems that you are fascinated by the theme of the Apocalypse, as if you want to bring it closer.
— No, I'm just trying to understand our place in today's world, and the Apocalypse is about the end of everything...
– In his book “The Spiritualists”, Olivier Clement writes that the philosopher Fedorov wanted to turn the traditional individual theme of asceticism into a collective one, which, in his opinion, should have led to radical changes in culture. What do you think about it?
— If asceticism and internal spiritual efforts could influence the world, then why did the development of society for four thousand years lead to such catastrophic results? Two thousand years ago it took Golgotha to guide mankind on the path of truth. But that didn't help either. It is sad to realize the futility of what happened, although in a certain sense Golgotha helped people gain aspiration to spiritual heights. If it weren't there, then there would be nothing.
- Several times I saw that you read Berdyaev. Do you consider yourself one of his followers?
- Of course not! I do not share all of his views. Sometimes he poses a problem in such a way that one might think he knows the solution. I don't trust people like Steiner or Berdyaev. Otherwise, we would have to admit that there are people with pre-given knowledge, and this is impossible!
Why do Christians sometimes say, "Christ is the only answer"?
“The only thing we really have is faith. Voltaire said: "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented" and not because he did not believe, although it was so. The reason is not this. The materialists and positivists have completely misinterpreted his words. Faith is the only thing that can save a person. This is my deepest conviction. Otherwise, what could we do? This is the only thing that a person undoubtedly has. Everything else is unimportant.
- How would you interpret Dostoevsky's words: "Beauty will save the world"?
This statement has been subjected to numerous interpretations, sometimes vulgar and primitive. Of course, when Dostoevsky spoke about beauty, he meant spiritual purity, which, for example, Prince Myshkin or Rogozhin possessed, and not the physical beauty, say, of Nastasya Filippovna, who in essence was an ordinary fallen woman ...
- You said that a person should create in the image and likeness of his Creator ...
- It is both important and unimportant ... For me, it's like breathing clean air...
- Do you distinguish between the concepts of an artist and a saint, a monk?
- Of course, these are different life paths. A saint or a monk does not create because they are not directly connected with the world. The usual attitude of a saint or monk is nonparticipation. This idea has much in common with Eastern beliefs, something similar in Buddhism. Whereas an artist... a poor unfortunate artist... has to tinker in the dirt, in the center of everything that is going on around him. Let's remember French poet Rimbaud, who did not want to be a poet. Many such examples can be found.
I feel compassion for the monk, because he lives a half life, realizes only a part of himself. The artist, on the other hand, has to scatter his talent, he can get confused, be deceived, his soul is always in danger.
At the same time, one cannot oppose the saint to the poet, as an angel to the devil. It all depends on what situation the person is in. The saint will be saved, the artist may not. I believe in divine predestination.
Hermann Hesse said: “All my life I wanted to become a saint, but I am a sinner. I can only trust in the help of the Lord.” I am also not sure that my actions will lead to the desired results...
There is a similarity between the saint and the artist, but it is also necessary to see the difference, which lies in the fact that a person either tries to be like his Creator, or seeks to save his soul. Thus, the question is either about saving oneself, or about creating spiritually more rich atmosphere worldwide. Who knows how long we have left to exist? We must live with the thought that tomorrow the Lord may call us to Himself. Many geniuses have spent their lives trying to answer the question you ask me. This is the theme for the movie! If I turn to the image of St. Anthony, I will probably touch it. I will try to understand and explain this painful question for all people. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we die or not, because we will all die - either all together or individually.
“The meaning of religious truth is hope. Philosophy searches for truth, determining the meaning of human activity, the limits of human reason, the meaning of existence, even when the philosopher himself comes to the conclusion that existence is meaningless and human efforts are useless.
The main meaning of art is not, as is often believed, to convey ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as an example. The purpose of art is to prepare a person for death, to elevate his soul so that it can turn to good.
A masterpiece affects a person in such a way that he begins to feel in himself the same call for truth that the artist was guided by when creating it. When contact is established between artwork and the person who perceives it, the latter experiences a soul-purifying shock.
When the viewer finds himself in the field radiated by a great work of art, the best sides his soul yearning for liberation. At such moments, there is an awareness and discovery of oneself as a person, a feeling of infinity comes. creativity bottomless depths of our feelings"
This interview for the first time in Russian was published in the magazine "Cinema Art" 1989 No. 2 under the title: "Beauty will save the world ..." The interview with Andrei Tarkovsky was conducted by Charles-Henry de Brant. Translated by M. Chakovskaya from the English edition of "Month" ("Manf"). 1987 No. 8-9. Here it is published according to the first Russian edition with restoration original name French edition and French names - Charles-Henri de Brantes, Olivier Clement - in accordance with the norms of Russian transcription.
Tarkovsky A. Captured time. Reflections on cinema. London. Bodley Head, 1987, p. 43.
When it comes to culture, no one can take away the palm from the French: extraordinary, amazing, sophisticated - that's distinctive features French culture. Without a doubt, only long and rich story could lead to the emergence of such a rich culture. It was in France that many currents of world culture were born, which had a significant impact on the course of history, the development of science, art and literature in general. Cultural heritage France is truly huge. This country has been and remains the center of world art for many centuries. France may be a small country in terms of geography, but it is one of the greatest when it comes to creativity, art, philosophy, science and technology.
Great writers, poets, playwrights, artists, actors, fashion designers, musicians and scientists, haute couture and haute cuisine - all this is an integral part of the very concept of "France". It is to the French that we owe the appearance cinema and cinematography(The Lumiere brothers). French cinema was formed after the Second World War: the following received worldwide recognition: "Parma Monastery" (1948), "Red and Black" (1954), "Thérèse Raquin". In the 1940s and early 1950s, such brilliant actors like: Gerard Philippe, Bourville, Jean Marais, Marie Cazares, Louis de Funes, Serge Reggiani. " New wave French cinema has become a separate phenomenon in world culture. Thanks to Francois Truffaut, Claude Lelouch and other young talented directors, France has become one of the centers of world cinema. In the 1960s, Jeanne Moreau, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Gerard Depardieu, Catherine Deneuve, Alain Delon, Annie Girardot, French comedians Pierre Richard and Coluche entered the French cinema scene. The tone of modern French cinema is set by such directors as Luc Besson, Jean-Pierre Genet, Francois Ozon, Philippe Garrel. Speaking of actors, it is worth mentioning Jean Reno, Audrey Tautou, Sophie Marceau, Christian Clavier, Matthew Kassovitz, who have become world stars. It is in France, since 1946, that the famous International Film Festival in Cannes has been held.
If there is anything related to France and known to everyone, then it is most likely haute couture. The great French fashion designers Chanel (Chanel), Dior (Dior), Yves Saint Laurent ( Yves Saint Laurent) raised clothing modeling to the rank of a real art. To whom, if not the famous Coco Chanel, we owe the appearance in our wardrobe of such things familiar to us: shoulder bag, metal jewelry, chains, small black dress, blouses and trousers for men. (Recall that back in 1932, the head of the French police forbade Marlene Dietrich to go out in trousers on the street). After the war in France, real revolution in the world of fashion: in 1946, the first bikini swimsuit appears, in 1947, Christian Dior creates his own special a new style. Soon, Yves Saint Laurent, the chief fashion designer of the House of Dior, released his first sensational collection.
Literature in France, it begins to develop in the 9th century, in any case, the memoirs of literature that have come down to us date from this century. of his heyday literary creativity reaches in the 12th century. This is evidenced by the famous epic poem "The Song of Roland", chivalric literature ("Tristan and Isolde"), the poetry of trouveurs and troubadours. In the Renaissance, Rabelais' novel "Gargantua and Pantagruel" appears, Michel Montaigne publishes his "Experiments". In the era of classicism, along with literature, philosophy actively develops. The names of such French philosophers, writers and playwrights as Descartes, Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Charles Perrault, Jean de La Fontaine are familiar to everyone educated person. Each literary era(Enlightenment, realism, romanticism, symbolism) in France is associated with names that are known all over the world today: Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, the Goncourt brothers, Charles Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud.
In the 20th century, French literature (literature of modernism) is developing intensively, as well as the French language itself. Marcel Proust, André Gide, Anatole France and Romain Rolland, Francois Mauriac and Paul Claudel, Apollinaire, Cocteau, Breton, Aragon, Camus, Ionesco and Beckett became the founders of various literary schools and currents. French writers of our time (Christian Bobin, Amelie Nothombe, Frederic Begbeder, Muruel Barberry, David Fonkinos, Anna Gavalda, Michel Houellebecq, etc.) in their own way reflect the "spirit of the age" in their works. French literature distinguished by social sharpness, humanism, refinement and beauty of form.
Painting in France began to develop very early. Already in the 17th century, it occupied leading place V cultural life countries. France gave us such styles of art as Rococo (Antoine Watteau, Francois Boucher), Impressionism. For many centuries, the art of Italy had a significant impact on the development fine arts France. However, already in the 1860s french art makes a real breakthrough, after which France becomes the undisputed leader. This breakthrough is associated primarily with the work of impressionist artists: Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas, Auguste Renoir, Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, Gustave Caillebotte and others. Post-impressionism is known to us from the work of such major artists as Paul Gauguin, Vincent van Gogh and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. France is gradually developing new art schools and trends in painting: pointillism (Georges Seurat, Paul Signac), the Nabis group appears (Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis), Fauvism (Henri Matisse, Andre Derain), Cubism (Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque).
musical culture France is no less interesting and diverse - this is due to the fact that the French language itself is extremely melodic, the rhythm of the song often coincides with the rhythm of the language. Jazz came to France in the 1920s, most prominent representative which was Stefan Grappelli. In the XX century. At the peak of popularity were Edith Piaf, Charles Aznavour, Georges Brassens. revived folk music(folk music), piano and accordion are two instruments that we always associate with french music. In the second half of the 20th century, pop music begins to take a leading position not only in France, but throughout the world, we are well acquainted with such performers as: Mireille Mathieu, Dalida, Joe Dassin, Patricia Kaas, Mylene Farmer and many others.
Definition 1
Foucault Michel ($1926 – 1984$) - French philosopher, historian, cultural theorist, founder of the $1$ department of psychoanalysis in France, teacher of psychology at the Higher Normal School and the University of Lille, head of the department of the history of thought systems at the College de France.
The topics of his philosophizing, which made him one of the outstanding and influential thinkers of the $20th century:
- social science
- Medicine
- Prisons
- Problems of insanity
- Problems of sexuality
Features of Foucault's philosophy
Remark 1
Foucault's philosophizing cannot be appreciated outside of his life path, changes in relation to socio-politics and culture. His philosophy goes beyond the traditional philosophical systems, but in his reflections he raises exclusively philosophical questions.
Being in a continuous creative search, Foucault is always working on research that is always different from each other, without intersecting with his own. early work. New piece for him literally new, but Foucault did not try to streamline and structure his literary and philosophical experience. He views himself as a historian of the present, who sets goals regarding:
- Reconstruction of the archeology of modern knowledge about the subject
- Deciphering the genealogy of modern power and Western world
- Creation of a special ontology of the present
In his writings, Foucault revealed the heritage European enlightenment in modern European culture 2nd half of the 20th century. The fundamental object of Foucault's study was the study of the unconscious in various historical eras, which strongly united him with the Frankfurt School.
Main works:
- "What is Enlightenment"
- "This is not a pipe"
- "A History of Madness in the Classical Age"
- "History of Sexuality"
- "Supervise and Punish"
- "Archaeology of Knowledge"
- "Words and Things"
History of madness
The primary interest for Foucault's reasoning was psychiatry, which originated after meeting Binswanger and culminated in his fundamental work The History of Madness in the Classical Age. At this point, Foucault begins organized work over historical material. The aim of his research was to establish
- historical modifications of discursive practices,
- epistemes, which are fixed paradigms of knowledge,
- social and cultural determinations of rationality.
Clinic and government
During historical study Institute of Psychiatry, Foucault came to the broad topic of power relations. At the same time, they are connected with the system of knowledge. The Clinical Institute implements knowledge about a person, his body, health and psyche. In parallel with this, the institution of the clinic is engaged in control over the individual through the listed features. Knowledge and truth produce power, which entails a variety of knowledge.
Words and things
Remark 2
This key work of Foucault sums up the thinker's early research on the basis of archeology: The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of the Medical View. At the same time, the fields of study are expanding, with a new level of conceptualization. Central attention is occupied by the study of the movement of rational structures in the history of the Western world. It is a movement that contains the discursive beginnings of knowledge and thought, which Foucault calls epistemes.
A History of Sexuality: The Will to Know is Foucault's last unfinished work. This is a project in which the philosopher tried to think of sexuality as a specific object. He appears in an unusual relationship with the authorities, but not in a repressive mode. This historical analysis from an ethical standpoint, not from a intimate relationships. This is the reasoning of the mode of formation of the truth about sex and the truth about the subject.
In the course of his creative activity, working in the field of psychology, epistemology, sexuality, Foucault relied on literary material, but he did not formulate his literary concept. But the appeal to literary practice suggests that the philosopher saw in literature something more than a successful device. This literary practice embedded in the general creative problem Foucault: namely, the status of the author-subject, the unity and framework of the work, artistic writing as an experience-limit.
“Culture,” wrote J.P. Sartre, “saves and does not justify anyone or anything. But she is the work of man - in her he seeks his reflection, in her he recognizes himself, only in this critical mirror can he see his face. What does Sartre mean, and can one agree with him on everything?
Sartre is absolutely right when he considers culture as a critical mirror in which only a person can see his own face. Is it a lot or a little? Obviously, it is not enough if a person is simply satisfied with the fact that he managed to look in the "mirror". And at the same time, it’s a lot if he, having peered, will be able to draw a practical conclusion: is he capable or not capable of accomplishing his plan in terms of his cultural appearance? The same applies to society as a whole. Consequently, the same Sartre is wrong when he assures that culture does not save anyone and nothing. It saves - even when it is able to help a person in his historical actions; and when, having critically assessed oneself (which is undoubtedly also an act high culture), society refrains from actions that are utopian and meaningless in the given socio-cultural conditions.
So, culture, on the one hand, is the result of the previous activity of a person (society), but, on the other hand, it acts as one of the determinants of their further success. In the “Critique of the Gotha Program”, K. Marx wrote: “Law can never be higher than the economic system and the cultural development of society." And although culture in this statement is in a certain way "economized" in its origin, it is put by Marx on a par with the economy among the determinants of social development. Extrapolating what Marx said in relation to the right to community development in general, we do not sin against the truth: after all, it is law that acts as a regulator of our activities in all areas - starting with the distribution wealth and ending with the participation of the masses in the management of the affairs of society.
The determinant status of culture is especially visibly revealed in the era of revolutionary and reformist changes in society. How and where the revolution will lead society to a certain extent depends on cultural level fighting forces. So today we are forced to think not only about what we must give up in the name of the success of the reforms, but also about what we are unable to give up in terms of the level of our culture, in particular, in terms of our national character.
Given the determinant status of culture, it is necessary to clarify the understanding of society, defining the latter as a socio-cultural formation.
Functions of culture
Being a highly complex system, culture - and this is quite natural - is multifunctional, that is, it performs a number of important, vital for society social functions. About one of these functions - adaptive - we have already had a reason to speak. Let us designate some other functions of culture.
The function is cognitive, which consists in the fact that many cultural achievements act as new ways of further knowledge of the world around us and the use of this knowledge in human practice (curbing the elemental forces of nature, optimizing social relations etc.). The possibilities of culture in this regard depend on how fully it carries out the synthesis of all forms public consciousness, thereby providing at the disposal of the cognizing subject complete picture knowledge and exploration of the world. At the same time - okay feedback- culture itself, its level and condition serve as an indicator that allows you to accurately judge the success of a person in the "humanization" of nature and himself.
The function is informative, associated with the accumulation and transmission of social experience. We are talking about broadcasting to different addresses: from one generation to another, within one country within the life of one generation, from one people to another. Let us emphasize that, apart from culture, society has no other mechanism for the transmission of “social heredity”. For the realization of this function, the culture itself must be a complex sign system, which becomes more and more complicated as quantitative and qualitative changes in social experience occur. Such signs are words and concepts, mathematical symbols, formulas of science, the language of music and painting, tools of production and consumer goods. In its informative function, culture acts as a "memory" of mankind.
The function is communicative, allowing people to communicate with each other. It is not difficult to guess how the communicative and informative functions are genetically related: we can communicate with each other only thanks to those sign systems that culture puts at our disposal, and above all thanks to natural and artificial languages. Important for establishing and maintaining mass communications is technical culture society. Even with the naked eye it is noticeable how with the help of technical means Indirect communication is gaining more and more importance, and the use of satellite communications makes it possible to make its scale truly planetary.
The function is normative, regulating the behavior of individuals and whole social groups. The "censorship" of culture extends literally to everything that people do - to their work and life, to the sphere of intergroup and interpersonal relations. At the same time, quite significant contradictions arise between the requirements of culture and individual features, inclinations, needs of people. What kind of collisions can arise in this case is well said by Z. Freud, who saw in the pressure carried out by the "censorship" of culture, main reason neurotic diseases. By the way, the level of culture of a society should probably be judged by how much it, on the one hand, and the individual, on the other, are able to extinguish these contradictions without bringing them to the stage of antagonism. In this regard, the role of morality and law, the main regulators in the system of culture, is paramount.
The function is civilizational, humanistic, acting as the main, system-forming function of culture. We consider it last "in a row", because its true role can only be understood after all its other functions have been characterized. adaptive, cognitive, informative, communicative, normative functions cultures are subordinated to the humanistic (civilizational) and actually act as its modifications. I. Herder wrote:
“Humanity is a treasure and a reward for all human labors ... The education of humanity is a matter that should be dealt with incessantly; otherwise, we will all ... return to an animal state, to bestial rudeness. ”The humanistic orientation of culture will play the role of a specific selector, designed to remove everything hopelessly outdated, and therefore reactionary, returning us to an uncivilized state, as well as attempts to revive such archaisms Unfortunately, as we shall see, this selector role is not always effectively realized.
There are three approaches to understanding culture:
1. An empirical, descriptive approach, representing culture as the sum, the result of all human activity, that is, as a set of objects and values that make up this result. We note certain disadvantages of this approach. First, culture appears in this concept in a static state - in the form of a set of frozen products of human activity. Secondly, the material and spiritual areas of culture are severely divorced. Such breeding is often social philosophy penetrates into history. It can be remembered that academic institute Archeology at one time was called the Institute of the History of Material Culture, which is obviously not true, because archeology also explores the history of the spiritual life of society on the basis of mined objects.
The division into material and spiritual culture is, of course, conditional and relative. In fact, these areas unified system cultures are not only closely interconnected, but also interpenetrate each other. This is especially clearly revealed in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, leading to an ever greater integration of material and spiritual cultures. On the one hand, the role and importance of the material side of spiritual culture (techniques of means mass media- press, radio, television, cinema, "home" means of consumption of culture - TV, tape recorder, radio, electronic games and training simulators), and on the other hand, the role of its spiritual side increases in material culture ("scientificization" of production, an increase in the role of production aesthetics, etc.). At the intersection of material and spiritual cultures, such social phenomena arise that cannot be attributed to only one of them (for example, design). All this testifies to the integrity of culture as a social phenomenon, but the attribute of systemicity inherent in this connection to culture is precisely not fixed by an empirical, descriptive approach: after all, the sum is by no means a system.
2. Evaluative (axiological) approach, in which "culture" and "uncivilization", as well as the degree of culture, are determined by correlating what is being assessed with what is chosen as a standard. It is understandable that such an approach is largely arbitrary and relative. Thus, from the point of view of Eurocentrism, the measure of the cultural level of all other historical regions is the degree of their proximity to European culture. At the same time, the adaptive function of culture is ignored: after all. what seems from the European belfry to be the "underdevelopment" of culture, in reality, very often turns out to be necessary and sufficient for adaptation to a specific environment, social and natural.
What has just been said about the shortcomings of the appraisal approach is by no means a call for its rejection. After all, one way or another, the historian has to compare and evaluate historical epochs according to various parameters, including the level of cultural development, and therefore the concept of “culture” must necessarily include an evaluative moment.
3. The activity approach, which considers culture as extra-biological, specifically human way activities. The term "extrabiological" in this case is intended to express the means and mechanisms that are potentially not given by the biological type of organization, and not the material of their implementation, which in principle can be of a purely biological nature (for example, domesticated animals).
Culture and society
Whatever definition of culture one proceeds from, no matter how these definitions are grouped, one thing is clear: culture cannot be reduced to any one side of society, because everything that is extrabiological, supernatural in it, everything developed by man is culture. On the one hand, all components of society - from the technical and technological basis to the political and ideological superstructure - are the results of specifically human activity, on the other hand, they also act as a way to continue and improve this activity. What has been said fully applies to society as a whole, since it is the only way of existence and reproduction. public man. In general, logically the volumes of "society" and "culture" coincide, minus, as it may seem at first glance, the natural that is preserved in the life of the individual and the total person, although, of course, also in a specifically human, socialized, cultivated form. That is why, taking into account the reservation made now, both "flank" components of the foundation of society - natural environment society and its ethnic characteristics - also fit into the dimensions of both society and culture.
If we imagine society (and hence culture) in the form of a parallelepiped, then the proposed figure No. 1 expresses the structure of both. The technical and technological basis corresponds to a certain culture of material production (a set of technical means, technological culture, culture of individual labor); the economic basis - the culture of production relations in the narrow sense of the word, the culture of distribution, the culture of exchange, the culture of consumption; political superstructure - a set of relevant institutions and institutions developed by society, a culture of interclass and interparty relations, etc.
For comparison, we present figure No. 2, which reflects the structure of society in the traditional Marxist understanding. It can be said that it is traditional, if only because for decades it has migrated from one textbook to another, having enriched itself with only one component - social psychology.
Sometimes the opinion is expressed that the scheme we propose (Figure No. 1) is less humanistic compared to the traditional one (Figure No. 2), since the latter is based on the productive forces of society, and therefore the person as the main component of these forces. The new scheme, according to opponents, eliminates the person and therefore is technicalistic. One cannot agree with this.
First, schemes by themselves cannot be humanistic or inhumanistic. But if we give them such an assessment, then the more humanistic are those that are closer to the truth, more adequately reflect the object and are able, because of this, to facilitate the search for ways of humanization. public relations.
Secondly, both the proposed scheme and the traditional one do not characterize an individual (the structure of his nature, essence, for example): they are designed to reflect the structure of the social organism (society), i.e., the total social person. That is why the argument to the person when comparing these schemes loses its meaning (both practical and ideological).
For comparison, we have given two schemes of the structure of society in order not only to reveal the limitations of one and the advantages of the other, but also to highlight all that rational from the sociological heritage that can be used in the transition to a multidimensional vision of history.
Bibliography
For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.filreferat.ru were used.
explain whether culture can save a person
Answers:
yes you fagot don't understand what gay porn is
Culture, - wrote J.P. Sartre, - does not save anyone and nothing and does not justify. But she is the work of man - in her he seeks his reflection, in her he recognizes himself, only in this critical mirror can he see his face. What does Sartre mean, and can one agree with him on everything? Sartre is absolutely right when he considers culture as a critical mirror in which only a person can see his own face. Is it a lot or a little? Obviously, it is not enough if a person is simply satisfied with the fact that he managed to look in the "mirror". And at the same time, it’s a lot if he, having peered, will be able to draw a practical conclusion: is he capable or not capable of accomplishing his plan in terms of his cultural appearance? The same applies to society as a whole. Consequently, the same Sartre is wrong when he assures that culture does not save anyone and nothing. It saves - even when it is able to help a person in his historical actions; and when, having critically assessed itself (which is undoubtedly also an act of high culture), society refrains from actions that are utopian and meaningless in the given socio-cultural conditions. So, culture, on the one hand, is the result of the previous activity of a person (society), but, on the other hand, it acts as one of the determinants of their further success. In the “Critique of the Gotha Program”, K. Marx wrote: “Law can never be higher than the economic system and the cultural development of society due to it.” Marx is on a par with the economy among the determinants of social development Extrapolating what Marx said in relation to the right to social development as a whole, we do not sin against the truth: after all, it is law that acts as a regulator of our activity in all spheres - from the distribution of material wealth to the participation of the masses in managing the affairs of society.The determinant status of culture is especially visibly revealed in the epoch of revolutionary and reformist changes in society.How and where the revolution will lead society to a decisive extent depends on the cultural level of the struggling forces.So today we are forced to think not only about what must give up in the name of the success of the reforms, but also over what we are unable to give up due to the level of our culture, in particular, according to the warehouse of our national character. Given the determinant status of culture, it is necessary to clarify the understanding of society, defining the latter as a socio-cultural formation.
