With all the variety of typologies of human needs, they have in common the identification of two types of needs - material and spiritual. Material needs are the needs of the human body - for food, shelter, clothing, etc. Spiritual needs are the needs of the human spirit. The main ones are connected with the striving for the highest values of culture, which are truth, goodness, beauty, mutual understanding.
In accordance with the distinction between the spiritual and material needs of man, culture can also be divided into two types - material and spiritual. The first is connected with the satisfaction of material needs, the second - spiritual.
Each of them, in turn, can be divided into several areas, in accordance with the diversity of both material and, especially, spiritual needs.
Thus, material culture is subdivided into physical culture and everyday culture.
The function of physical culture is cultivation, that is, in accordance with the original meaning of the word "culture", - cultivation, processing, improvement of the human body.
The functions of everyday culture are to satisfy the needs of a person in food, housing, clothing and other items, without which the very physical existence of a person is impossible. Thanks to everyday culture, the adaptation of man and society to the surrounding nature is carried out. This implies significant differences in the everyday culture of different peoples.
Spiritual culture is also divided into a number of areas - art, science, religion, etc., each of which satisfies certain spiritual needs and, in accordance with this, is concentrated around certain main values.
The question of the possibility of dividing culture into material and spiritual is hotly debatable. Many thinkers believe that the concept of "material culture" is absurd and similar to such concepts as "fried water", "hot ice", etc. At the same time, they refer, firstly, to the fact that in culture there are no spheres connected in one way or another with spirituality, and, secondly, to the fact that in all spheres of culture the decisive, dominant role is played by spirituality.
It should be noted that the truth of each of these provisions cannot be challenged.
Indeed, everything in culture is permeated with spirituality. Take, for example, physical culture. It would seem that the name itself speaks of its belonging to material culture. However, the cultivation of a healthy, beautiful body requires great knowledge, a developed aesthetic need and other qualities that depend on the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. The same can be said about everyday culture. All its components - the culture of clothing, the culture of food, the culture of housing - are densely saturated with spirituality. By the way a person is dressed, how he eats, by the decoration of his house, you can get a complete picture of his spiritual appearance.
However, in order to draw a conclusion about the meaninglessness or, conversely, the legitimacy of the concept of "material culture", one more circumstance must be taken into account. It has already been discussed above, when it was said that the distinction between material and spiritual culture is made on a functional basis. In accordance with this, it makes sense to single out material culture as an element of the cultural system, since its basic function is the satisfaction of material needs - in a healthy body, food, clothing, housing.
This is its difference from spiritual culture, the main function of which is the satisfaction of spiritual needs - in truth, goodness, beauty, etc.
It is the difference between spiritual and material culture that allows us to talk about how widely and in what way spiritual culture is represented in material culture, about how spiritualized material culture is.
Thus, despite the fact that everything in culture is indeed permeated with spirituality, the distinction between material and spiritual culture on a functional basis still makes sense. However, we must not forget that it is very conditional.
Another argument that opponents of the concept of "material culture" cite, as mentioned above, is that the spiritual principle plays a decisive role in culture. As you can see, this argument takes the conversation to another logical plane. Here we are not talking about the legitimacy of the concept of "material culture", but about what in culture is primary - spiritual or material beginning, spiritual or material culture.
It should be noted that this is a matter of principle. In the recent past, during the years of the domination of Marxism, often dogmatized and distorted, the majority of Russian thinkers considered it their duty to assert that material culture is primary in relation to the spiritual. This, they believed, necessarily follows from the fundamental principle of materialistic philosophy, according to which matter is primary in relation to consciousness, being determines consciousness, social being determines social consciousness.
However, the supporters of this point of view forgot or did not know that the classics of Marxism-Leninism themselves did not formulate the initial principles of materialist philosophy so categorically. Firstly, they did not get tired of saying that matter is primary in relation to consciousness, ... ultimately, in the world-building sense of the word. If we consider individual fragments of being, for example, human activity, then we will see that here consciousness is primary in relation to matter. Secondly, the classics of Marxism-Leninism considered their philosophy not just materialistic, but dialectical-materialistic. According to the principles of dialectics, the defined element (in this case, spirit, spiritual, consciousness) has an active feedback effect on the defining element (in this case, matter, material being). It is quite legitimate to assume that this influence is intensified and becomes primary in certain areas of being, in certain epochs.
Thus, even from the point of view of Marxism, the thesis about the primacy of material culture in relation to the spiritual did not seem indisputable and unambiguous. Now, when theoretical thought has freed itself from the shackles of dogmatism, it looks like an obvious anachronism.
In deciding the question of the primacy of spiritual or material culture, the decisive role is played not so much by arguments of a logical nature, i.e., conclusions from some general principles, as by the history of culture itself. It convinces that culture as a whole has always been built and must be built in accordance with the hierarchy of spiritual values.
The conclusion about the primacy of spiritual culture is of fundamental importance, since it allows us to speak about the programming function of culture in the development of society.
Culture of everyday life
The close interweaving of spiritual and material cultures, the impossibility of strictly separating one from the other gave rise to the need to consider as an independent formation that layer of culture where the interpenetration of the spiritual and material is especially acute. This education was called "the culture of everyday life." Scientific interest in it arose relatively recently. The history of studying the culture of everyday life can be divided into three stages.
The first of these began in the middle of the 19th century. and was associated with the works of such authors as A. Tereshchenko, N. I. Kostomarov, I. E. Zabelin and others.
The modern researcher V. D. Leleko identifies the following areas for studying the culture of everyday life in the works of the authors named above:
Macro- and micro-environment: nature, city, village, dwelling (its relationship with environment and interior space, including interior, furniture, utensils, etc.);
The body and concerns about its natural and socio-cultural functions: nutrition, exercise, hygiene, healing, costume;
Personally and socially significant moments in a person's life, ritually decorated birth (baptism), family creation (wedding), death (funeral);
A family, family relationships;
Interpersonal relationships in other micro social groups ah (professional, confessional, etc.);
Leisure: games, entertainment, family and public holidays and rituals.
The next stage in the study of everyday life is associated with the publication of a book by the Dutch historian and culturologist Johan Huizinga (1872 - 1945). "Autumn of the Middle Ages" and the emergence in France of the so-called "Annals School" (formed around the journal "Annals of Economic and Social History, published since 1929) headed by Mark Blok (1886 - 1944) and Lucien de Febvre (1878 - 1956) .
The brilliant book by J. Huizinga unfolds a vivid panorama Everyday life people of different classes who lived in the era late medieval. It should be noted that the study went approximately in the directions discussed above.
As for the Annales school, an idea of its methodology can be obtained, for example, from the book of one of its representatives, E. Le Roy Laderie “Montogayu. Occitan village "(1294 - 1324).
As the third stage in the study of everyday life, we can consider the period when it became the subject of philosophical reflection. Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976) emphasized the importance of everyday life especially brightly, defining it as "presence in near being." Thus, he linked together the concepts of "everyday" and "being", which before him were considered as incomparable, diverse and of different orders.
In our country, the culture of everyday life attracted close attention not only of researchers, but also of the general public in the 90s of the XX century. Currently, the discipline "Culture of Everyday Life" is included in the federal component of the State Educational Standard in the specialty "Culturology". This can be seen as a turning point in which the trend towards the humanization of our society has found its manifestation.
It should be noted that until recently the attitude to the culture of everyday life in our country was at best inattentive, at worst - negative. On this occasion, P. Ya. Chaadaev noted bitterly: “There is something truly cynical in this indifference to the blessings of life, which some of us take credit for ourselves.” This was due to many circumstances, among them an important role was played by a kind of prejudice, which consisted in opposing everyday life, which meant everyday life, and being. At the same time, it was believed that a person aspiring to the heights of spiritual culture not only has the right, but is almost obliged to look down on everyday life. True, the catchphrase of A. S. Pushkin: “You can be a sensible person and think about the beauty of nails” had and is widely used, but things did not go beyond “nails”. The "non-existence" of the Russian intelligentsia is a widely known phenomenon. Therefore, the position of M. Heidegger, who connected everyday life with being, as discussed above, is of fundamental importance. Indeed, everyday life is one of the main realities of human existence, "near being". And without the near, as you know, there is no far.
The significance of everyday life lies in the fact that in this area the two-sided nature of the interaction between man and culture is most clearly manifested: a person creates culture, culture creates a person. We are talking about the fact that housing, clothing, daily routine, etc., that is, everything that is in a completely obvious way the result of people's activities, has the ability to have an active feedback effect on them. W. Churchill's formula is widely known: "First we equip our dwelling, and then our dwelling equips us."
Accordingly, a shabby, uncomfortable dwelling makes the inner world of its inhabitant just as shabby and uncomfortable. And vice versa, a house, in the creation of which love and striving for beauty are invested, harmonizes the spiritual world of those who created it.
The same can be said about clothing. Each person in practice has the opportunity to make sure that in one dress he feels like a being who has nothing to hope for in this world, and in another, on the contrary, he feels the ability to conquer peaks. The commercial price of the thing does not matter.
A special role in a person's life is played by relationships with the "inner circle" of people - relatives, neighbors, colleagues. The hysterical or rude tone of communication, the “authors” of which are all its participants, returns to them like a boomerang in the form of mental disorder and even physical illness. Conversely, friendly, benevolent communication results in mental health, a sense of the joy of life.
Thus, everyday life is one of the main areas of manifestation of human creative activity, on the one hand, and the human-creative power of culture itself, on the other. Not everyone goes to the theater, museums, libraries, but everyone has to deal with everyday life. Therefore, the managerial impact on culture can consist not only in improving the work of those organizations that are commonly called "cultural institutions", but also in cleaning up the streets, repairing houses, planting trees, etc.
So, the theoretical understanding of the category "culture of everyday life" is of great importance. It made it possible to "reconcile" spiritual and material culture, showing that with the leading role of spiritual culture, material culture has the ability to actively reverse influence.
It is in the sphere of the culture of everyday life that the “power of things” and at the same time the “power of the spirit” over them is clearly demonstrated.
Spheres of culture
Morality
One of the most important needs of society is the regulation, streamlining of relations between people. This is also the most important need of everyone. individual person because life in a chaotic society, where everyone seeks to satisfy their own interests, regardless of the interests of others, is impossible. Therefore, one of the oldest and most important spheres of spiritual culture is morality. Its function is to regulate relations between people. In the sphere of morality, not only rules and norms of interaction between people are developed and formulated, but also ways are developed to encourage those who obediently follow them or, on the contrary, punish those who violate them.
The highest value of this sphere of culture is kindness.
When asked what is good, people of different cultures answer differently. However, already in antiquity, attempts were made to identify the norms of universal morality. One such attempt is the famous 10 Biblical Commandments.
The question of universal morality is still one of the most burning issues. The answer to it, as well as to others, just as important in a practical sense, can be given by the theory and history of culture.
The emergence of morality coincides in time with the emergence of culture, since moral regulation is regulation not in accordance with the biological instincts of a person, but often contrary to them.
In the realm of morality, it is decided main question social regulation and, consequently, the main question of culture - who is the other person for a person. So, if he acts as an impersonal member of the team, then we have a primitive collectivist morality, if a member of the policy - polis, civil morality, if a servant of God - religious morality, if the means of achieving one's own benefit - individualistic morality, if the highest value - truly humanistic morality.
In accordance with moral values and norms, the content of all other spheres of culture is built. Therefore, morality is the core sphere of culture of any type.
In the synergistic aspect, morality appears as a cultural attractor, i.e., a subsystem around which an order is “tied up” that determines the state of the system as a whole.
Communication
Among the most ancient spheres of spiritual culture is direct interpersonal spiritual communication. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that communication as such is an aspect of all spheres of cultural and social life. It can be direct and indirect. For example, when a group of friends and acquaintances communicate with each other - (they talk, sing songs, etc.) - this is direct communication. When the same friends communicate via the Internet, this is indirect communication. The artist communicates with the viewer, the writer with the reader - both through their works. This is also indirect communication.
In this section, we will focus on direct interpersonal spiritual communication.
The paramount importance of communication as a sphere of culture is associated with its main function, social in its meaning - ensuring the integrity of society and individual groups. The anthropological function of communication lies in the fact that it satisfies the most important human need - the need for another person. In accordance with this, the main value that the participants in communication strive to possess is mutual understanding. If it is absent, then communication does not fulfill either its social or anthropological function.
Achieving mutual understanding allows communication to perform another anthropological function - hedonistic. L. Tolstoy called the pleasure received from communication, "lunch from the non-material side." An important anthropological function of communication is also the cultivation of human emotions, primarily moral feelings.
True, art also performs the same function, but it does this by other, specific means for it. There are complementary relations between communication and art: a person cultivated by art, on the one hand, is enriched as a subject of communication, and on the other hand, a sociable person is more open to art, more receptive to it; in addition, art in itself is one of the most powerful means of communication, and communication, being one of the most complex types of creativity, in which intuition, imagination, fantasy, imaginative thinking (the ability to catch the image of the interlocutor and create your own image) play an important role, is fair regarded as a kind of art.
Communication is an important factor in the spiritual development of the individual also because it allows you to satisfy the need for self-affirmation. It has been established that in some socio-demographic groups (for example, adolescents) this need prevails over others, and direct communication with peers is the dominant way to satisfy it.
The most important anthroposocial function of communication is the socialization of the younger generation in communication with peers.
Finally, spiritual interpersonal communication also performs an informational function, but it is perhaps the least characteristic of it: other types of communication and other areas of culture perform this function more successfully.
Upbringing and education
One of the most important spheres of culture, which allows culture to fulfill its life-supporting functions, is upbringing the rising generation. People paid attention to this already at the earliest stages of their development.
Researchers primitive society note that even among the tribes, the most primitive in terms of development in comparison with all the relic tribes and nationalities known to us, the upbringing of youth is one of the three most important tribal affairs, the first of which is the provision of food and the protection of the inhabited area, fodder spaces.
Let's think about it: already the ancient people understood that the upbringing of the younger generation is just as important as the provision of food and the protection of the territory, which can serve as a source of these means of subsistence. In other words, the ancients already understood that the tribe would perish if it did not properly educate the rising generation, just as it would perish without food.
So, the upbringing of the younger generation is one of the most important areas of culture, performing life-supporting functions.
The function of education is to reproduce the person needed by this particular community. This refers to the totality of the main human features and qualities, that is, a person in his integrity. Education, therefore, is that sphere of culture where the anthropological structure of a given culture becomes visible, since in it the requirements placed on a person by a given culture, that is, certain human standards, are enclosed in a system of rules and regulations that have a diverse, but always a fairly definite shape.
Common to all historical, regional, national types of education is that the main integral value of this sphere of culture is compliance with certain requirements, the totality of which is built on the idea of a certain type of person needed by this society. And since different societies differ significantly from one another, because they live in different conditions, have different histories, etc., the requirements for a person needed by a given society also differ. Accordingly, the values characteristic of education as a sphere of culture also differ.
For example, in a society with an object paradigm, i.e., where a person is thought mainly as an object of external influences - the state, church, family, etc., the most important value of education is obedience, i.e., obedient execution of orders, rules, regulations, following traditions, repeating patterns.
In a society with a subjective paradigm, i.e., where a person is considered primarily as a subject, i.e., a source of activity, thoughtless obedience cannot be a value. Such are initiative, responsibility, creative approach to business. But since no society can live without the implementation of certain rules, then conscious discipline and self-discipline become a value.
In the same way, the attitude towards other essential forces of a person and their combination with each other also varies. The forms and institutions of upbringing also vary.
Education as a sphere of culture has much more modest tasks than education. Its function is the transfer of knowledge necessary for a person as a member of this community.
Thus, if education deals with a person as a whole, then the function of education is the cultivation of only one of the essential forces of a person - the one that we have designated by the term "rational". It includes such components as the ability to think, the ability to act rationally, that is, expediently, and, finally, knowledge. Based on this, it can be concluded that education is rightly considered as part upbringing, since a holistic person is impossible without such an essential force as rational.
However, the increase in the amount of knowledge that each subsequent generation had to assimilate compared to the previous one led to the separation of education from upbringing and, moreover, to the diminishing of the role of upbringing.
This trend became especially noticeable by the middle of the 20th century, and at the same time its disastrous consequences became especially noticeable. They expressed themselves in a one-sided, one-sided development of a person - a hypertrophy of the rational principle in him, moreover, in the form of wretched rationalism with a purely utilitarian bias, and an atrophy of the emotional principle, reaching complete insensitivity. The result of this is moral deafness, since morality is not only knowledge about the rules of behavior, but also a moral feeling, and this requires a developed emotional sphere. In this regard, the most urgent task of our time is the synthesis of upbringing and education. It is possible only if the main goal and value of this dual system becomes an integral person in the full development of his essential forces.
Mythology and religion
One of the oldest spheres of culture is religion (from lat. religion- connection). Many researchers even believe that this is the most ancient sphere of culture.
There are usually two arguments in favor of this view. One of them is logical and etymological. It is associated with a certain interpretation of the concept of "culture" and a certain idea of the etymological origin and meaning of the very word "culture". Thus, supporters of this point of view believe that religion is the most important sphere of culture, expressing its essence. In their opinion, if there is no religion, then there is no culture. And they consider the very word "culture" to be derived from the word "cult", which denotes a phenomenon that is inextricably linked with religion.
Thus, etymology, i.e., the very origin of the word, serves for the supporters of this point of view as confirmation of the starting position of their cultural concept.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that not only the interpretation of the essence of religion, but also the interpretation of the etymological meaning of the word "culture" is in this case very controversial. As is known, the vast majority of researchers associate the etymological meaning of the word "culture" not with the word "cult", but with the words "processing", "cultivation", "improvement".
Another argument in favor of the idea of religion as the most ancient sphere of culture is historical. Proponents of this point of view argue that non-religious peoples have never existed and do not exist.
Historical arguments are refuted with the help of historical facts, they say that religion, which requires a fairly high level of development of consciousness, was preceded by a myth, or rather myths, in connection with which this sphere of culture is called mythology, meaning that the myths of any culture are united in a certain system, that is, they have their own logos.
So what is myth and how does it differ from religion?
Mythology. The main feature of the myth is syncretism. All researchers of primitive mythology (A. F. Losev, F. Kh. Cassidy, M. I. Steblin-Kamensky, E. M. Meletinsky, E. F. Golosovker and others) unanimously note such features of the content of the myth as it is reality and fantasy, subject and object, nature and man, personality and collective, material and spiritual. The myth, therefore, is a reflection of the underdevelopment and, accordingly, the unconsciousness of social and cultural contradictions. And in this it is fundamentally different from religion, which arises when these contradictions begin to manifest and be realized, and is an illusory way to resolve them.
The cultural function of myth is that it gave primitive man a ready-made form for his worldview and worldview. The main function of the myth is "socio-practical, aimed at ensuring the unity and integrity of the team." The myth could fulfill this function due to the fact that it is "the product of a collective and is an expression of collective unity, universality and integrity."
Since there is no difference between the real and the fantastic in myth, there is no problem of faith and unbelief, faith and knowledge, so tragically realized by religion. The myth does not form any ideal, its principle is “what was - that was, what is - that is”, and, therefore, there is no problem of conformity to the ideal. Finally, the myth is impersonal: individuality in it is completely dissolved in the elemental collective force, which means that there is no problem of personal responsibility, personal guilt.
Religion. Religion was the first sociocultural phenomenon that required the professionalization of activity for its functioning. It arose in the process of development of mythological consciousness as its derivative, later and qualitatively higher level. If a myth is a reflection of the underdevelopment and unconsciousness of social and cultural contradictions, then religion, on the contrary, appears when these contradictions already exist and begin to be realized. One of the first signs of religious consciousness is the absence of mythological syncretism of subject and object. Recognizing the contradiction between the subject and the object, in particular, between man and the nature surrounding him, religion resolves it in favor of external forces independent of man, which thus become the subject (deity), and man is thought of as the object of their influence.
The absence of primitive worldview anarchism in understanding the relationship between subject and object is a sign of even the most primitive religions. More developed religions rise to the realization of other contradictions of human existence.
Religion performs the same functions as myth. The main one among them is integrative, that is, the rallying of certain communities around common gods. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the integrative function of religion should not be absolutized: rallying around one's gods or a god often leads to disunity with those who profess a different faith, worship other gods.
Another important function of religion, which it inherited from myth, is ideological. But religion also performs this function differently from myth. Religious worldview, more developed, covers a wider sphere of reality, includes a solution to the problem of a person’s place in the world around him and his capabilities.
On the basis of a myth, as has already been shown, it is impossible not only to solve, but also to pose this problem. However, the functions of religion compared with myth have expanded significantly.
In addition to the functions that myth performed (and still performs), religion began to perform a number of other important functions.
One of them is the function of consecrating moral norms. The status of "holy, sacred" in any culture is given to the highest values of this culture. Thus, the consecration of moral norms is giving them the status of the highest value. In addition, the consecration of moral norms on a religious basis makes it possible to refer to God as the source of moral prescriptions, as the omnipresent and omniscient observer of how they are implemented, and as the supreme judge who passes judgment on moral transgressions (“God is your judge !”), and, finally, as the executor of his sentences (to heaven or hell).
Thus, the religious basis makes moral norms extraordinarily effective and imperative. Moreover, there is a very strong conviction that morality cannot exist at all outside a religious basis. "If there is no God, then everything is allowed."
Religion successfully fulfills and aesthetic function. architecture and interior decoration temple, musical accompaniment worship services, the clothes of priests and parishioners - all this is saturated, permeated with beauty and therefore produces an extraordinary aesthetic effect.
Religion also successfully performs a communicative function, that is, the function of communication. At the same time, it is able to significantly expand the circle of communication of each individual individual: it includes not only parishioners of a particular church, but also fellow believers - compatriots, fellow believers living in other countries, all previous generations of people who professed a particular religion, and finally, every religion gives a person an absolutely perfect partner (or partners) in communication - the god (or gods) of this religion - to whom one can turn with a prayer and be quite sure that she will be heard and understood.
The psychotherapeutic function of religion is also connected with this - turning to God heals mental ailments, helps to cope with internal disorder.
The diversity of the functions of religion is closely connected with its essence, deeply revealed by L. Feuerbach, a philosopher whose work is final stage development of German classical philosophy.
In his works, and first of all, in his most famous work "The Essence of Christianity", L. Feuerbach showed that the god of any religion is the ideal of a person, as he appears to people of a particular era, a particular culture, a particular people. Therefore, the gods are endowed with such features as power or even omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. In fact, these are traits that people themselves would like to have and that they possess, but only in the ideal, and not in real life.
Thus, according to L. Feuerbach, people, as it were, tear off, alienate their own essence from themselves, elevate it to heaven and worship it.
Based on this idea of L. Feuerbach, it is possible to explain the diversity of religions, since it is associated with the diversity of ideals of human perfection, characteristic of different peoples and depending on the conditions of their life and the historical path they have traveled. Therefore, the fulfillment of the functions of religions in all their rich spectrum is possible only in relation to believers. As for non-believers, atheists, it is obligatory for them to respect the feelings of believers, to understand the deep cultural roots of religion and the diversity of its functions.
In addition, every cultured person must understand that there are no good or bad religions, but there are people who are capable of distorting the basic principles of any religious teaching beyond recognition and thereby turning it into an instrument of enmity, separation of peoples.
Art
Art in its developed forms is a vast sphere of human activity, a powerful center of values, without which it is impossible to imagine culture. The specificity of the anthropological function of art lies in the fact that it cultivates the emotional component of human spirituality, that is, it affects his feelings.
This also determines the social function of art: it gives society a “feeling person”. A person deprived of the ability to feel cannot be not only a full-fledged producer, but also a full-fledged consumer of cultural values, since value consciousness has a dual nature - emotional-rational or rational-emotional. This is especially important in the sphere of morality: an insensitive person is defective as a subject of moral activity, since the stimulus for moral activity is not so much knowledge of moral norms as moral feelings: compassion, love, aversion to evil, etc. Thus, a low level of development of emotionality as components of human spirituality weakens the impact of such a powerful regulator of social life as morality.
The role of art is also great in the functioning of other spheres of culture - communication, education, religion, etc., etc.
Thus, the social function of art lies in the fact that it is one of the powerful factors of self-regulation of social life, the action of which is determined by its focus on the emotional sphere of human spirituality.
The specificity of art from a semiotic point of view lies in the fact that it uses the language of artistic images, which represent a model of a particular phenomenon in its entirety. An integral feature of the artistic image is its emotional richness, which distinguishes it from the models that are used in science. Thanks to the peculiarities of artistic images, a person who perceives a work of literature, as it were, "sees" what is told in it. As for works of fine art, the very purpose of which is to give a visible image of this or that phenomenon, here the role of the artistic image is to help a person see the invisible. So, a drawing of a flower in a biology textbook gives an accurate idea of the shape of a flower, its color (if the drawing is colored). And the drawing of a flower, made by the artist, allows you to “see” the author’s experiences, his joy or sadness, admiration for the beauty of a flower and awe at its fragility and defenselessness, etc., etc.
The general cultural function of art is to give a visible image of a particular culture, and above all a visible image of a person of this particular culture, in all his guises and situations. This does not mean that art only reflects, captures "what is." Since any culture is impossible without ideals that orient people towards “what is necessary”, “what should be”, what one should strive for, then art is impossible without this ideal component. Therefore, the references of the authors of “dirty” and “pornukha” to the fact that “such is life” only indicate that they do not understand the purpose of art.
In the axiological aspect, art is also very specific. The main value cultivated in the field of art is beauty. It is one of the system-forming values of any culture. And in accordance with this, one of the most important functions of art is to give a visible standard of beauty. However, the idea of beauty in different cultures differ significantly: what is recognized as beautiful from the point of view of one culture may be perceived as ugly in another. Therefore, the standard of beauty, presented in the art of one people, can at least cause bewilderment on the part of another culture.
However, in understanding beauty different nations there is something in common. It lies in the convergence of the concept of "beauty" with the concept of "harmony". However, new difficulties arise here. They lie in the fact that the concept of "harmony" is no less ambiguous than the concept of "beauty", and thus, instead of an equation with one unknown, we get an equation with two unknowns.
To solve it, it is useful to refer to the etymological meaning of the word "harmony". It is characteristic that originally in the ancient Greek language it meant "clamps". It is in this specific meaning it is used, for example, even in the Odyssey: Odysseus, building a ship, upholsters it with “nails” and “harmonies”. Thus, harmony was conceived by the ancient Greeks as a kind of way to firmly connect various parts into something integral, organic. As you know, they saw a model of harmony in the human body. It was also conceived by them as a model of beauty.
Such an understanding of beauty and harmony is one of the fundamental ideas of Russian cultural philosophy. Thus, the outstanding Russian thinker K. N. Leontiev wrote that "the basic law of beauty is diversity in unity." So understood beauty is identical to harmony, and harmony, according to K. N. Leontiev, "is not a peaceful unison, but a fruitful, fraught with creativity, at times a fierce struggle."
Russian thinkers are credited with the development of another category denoting one of the most important values cultivated in the field of art - this is truth. N. K. Mikhailovsky, one of the rulers of the thoughts of the Russian youth of the last thirds of XIX V., noted that the Russian word "pravda" in the fullness of its meaning is untranslatable into any other language. At the same time, as N. K. Mikhailovsky noted, there are two main meanings, the combination of which gives an approximate idea of what people of Russian culture understand by the word “truth”.
One of these meanings is "truth-truth". It corresponds to the concept of "truth", which can be defined as knowledge that corresponds to reality. This understanding of truth reflects the moment of objectivity as an integral feature, in the absence of which it ceases to be such.
Another meaning of the concept of "truth" is "truth-justice". In this understanding of truth, unlike the first one, the moment of subjectivity is reflected, the relationship from the standpoint of justice, which includes a personal relationship. In the absence of this moment, the truth also ceases to be the truth and remains only the truth.
This idea of Russian philosophy seems to be of permanent importance for understanding the axiological specifics of art. Apparently, it would be correct to consider not only beauty, but also truth as one of the system-forming values cultivated in the field of art. This means, first of all, the truth of human feelings.
Clarification of the semiotic and axiological specifics of art allows a deeper understanding of exactly how art performs its main anthropological, general cultural and social functions, which was discussed at the beginning of this section.
Art also performs a number of other functions that other spheres of culture perform along with it. The specificity of art lies in this case in the way these functions are performed.
Thus, art performs a cognitive function. It is more characteristic of another sphere of culture - science. But art makes it possible to learn and see what is inaccessible to science. So, the novel in verse by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" is rightfully considered an encyclopedia of Russian life in the first third of the 19th century, the epic of O. Balzac " human comedy» - encyclopedia french life approximately the same period, D. Galsworthy's novel "The Forsyte Saga" - an encyclopedia of English life in the late XIX - early XX centuries. etc. But, as mentioned above, art not only reflects reality, but also constructs new, its own, worlds in accordance with the ideals of beauty, goodness, truth. Hence the constructive-programming function of art.
Art is one of the most important means of intercultural and intracultural communication and thus performs a communicative function, often more successfully than other means of communication. This is due to the fact that the language of images is more understandable than other languages of culture. For example, art of this or that people gives an idea about the ideal of beauty, which people of this culture are guided by, and about the problems that concern them, and even about the ways to solve these problems.
Art is also effective tool education. The standards of behavior art form presented in works of art, have a very great educational impact precisely because of their appeal to human feelings. Negative images that avert a person from unworthy behavior have no less impact. The educational function of art is also based on the fact that in figurative and artistic form it gives a picture of the tense, sometimes tragic struggle between good and evil, the arena of which is not only the world as a whole, but also the soul of each individual person.
The function of socialization and acculturation of the personality performed by art is also of great importance. It is carried out due to the fact that art in an artistic-figurative form gives a person an idea of the set of social roles that exist in society, the requirements for them, the basic values and norms of a given culture.
We must also not forget the hedonistic function of art. The pleasure that a person receives from the perception of a highly artistic work of art is unparalleled.
The closely related relaxation and entertainment functions of art are also of great importance.
Unfortunately, in modern culture there is a tendency that the whole variety of functions of art is reduced precisely to relaxation and entertainment. This is especially characteristic of mass culture - the most simplified, primitive version of mass culture.
To perform all the diverse functions of art, professionals working in this area of culture develop and apply various ways, tricks. Their combination at one or another stage of the development of a particular culture forms a kind of systemic unity, which is called the artistic method.
For this or that artistic method, the following main distinguishing features are characteristic.
Firstly, a certain certainty of the content of works of art made in accordance with one method or another. This feature of the artistic method is directly related to the basic value orientations of a particular culture, the semantic centers of which are, as has been repeatedly said above, the ideal of a person characteristic of a particular culture at a particular stage of its development. In addition to this content moment, which is objective in relation to the artist himself, different artistic methods are characterized by varying degrees of inclusion in the content of the work of the subjective moment, that is, the artist’s personal position, his attitude to the values and ideals that prevail in society.
Another distinguishing feature of this or that artistic method is the set of certain formal features that are characteristic of expressing the content of a work of art.
It should be noted that the unity of form and content is one of the universal laws of being. Its action is especially clearly manifested in all the phenomena of culture. But it has a special, unprecedented significance in art.
Since the impact on human feelings is primarily due to the form of the work, the form is often perceived as something independent, and the content of the work as something secondary.
However, this is not the case. With all the great importance that the form of a work of art has, it nevertheless depends primarily on its content. In figurative form, this dependence of form on the content of a work of art was remarkably expressed by K. N. Leontiev, already quoted by us, when he noted that form is an expression of the internal despotism of an idea.
But the peculiarity of a work of art, if it is art, is that under the yoke of the “arbitrary power” of the content, the form does not become a slave, but retains its active role and complements the content, makes it full-blooded, vital and bright, which ensures its impact on the listener’s feelings. , viewer, reader, etc.
The totality of formal features characteristic of a particular trend in the art of a particular era or for the work of a particular artist is called style. However, one should not think that the concept of "style" is associated only with form. It is quite understandable that, given the special role that form plays in work of art, and the specifics of its connection with the content, the concept of "style" cannot but include the idea of meaningful moments characteristic of a particular style. However, taking into account all these considerations, it should nevertheless be emphasized that the cognitive and methodological significance of the concept of "artistic style" is due to the fact that it, to a somewhat greater extent than the concept of "artistic method", fixes attention on the form of works of art, rather than their content.
It should be noted that the concept of "style" is applicable not only in art. For example, one often hears the expression: "A person is a style." It also applies to culture as a whole. In this case, one speaks of the "style of culture", meaning those semantic accents that are characteristic of the concept of "style" in general. They lie in the fact that, as mentioned above, it allows us to pay primary attention to the formal features of a particular phenomenon, without ignoring its content.
Returning to art, it must be said that within the framework of one or another artistic method, different styles can coexist.
« artistic method"- this is a very capacious concept that allows you to most meaningfully characterize the most important features of art as an element of the culture of a particular people, a particular era, a particular stage of development.
Another, no less capacious concept that can serve as a tool for analyzing the state of art is the concept of “artistic picture of the world”. It includes the idea of the "image of the world", which is created by the collective efforts of artists of a particular culture. In contrast to the scientific picture of the world, which remained “deserted” for a long stage in the development of science, in the artistic picture of the world created in the art of all times and peoples, a person has always been in the center. However, his attitude to the world and the attitude of the world to man, the very image of the world and the image of man in different artistic pictures of the world appear differently, and this serves as one of the most important sources of knowledge of a particular culture.
The science
A relatively young sphere of culture is science. Its function is to supply man and society with knowledge about the objective laws of the surrounding reality. The source of knowledge is not only science, but also other areas of human life, which provide knowledge about many useful and necessary things.
Scientific knowledge differs from other types of knowledge precisely in that it is knowledge about laws, i.e., necessary, recurring connections between things, processes, phenomena, while ordinary knowledge is knowledge about individual phenomena, processes, things, etc. .
In addition, scientific knowledge differs from non-scientific types of knowledge in that it has a systemic character, i.e. its individual elements are interconnected and interdependent, while non-scientific knowledge is often fragmentary.
In addition to knowledge about the laws, science includes knowledge about the methods of obtaining and verifying the truth of knowledge.
Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about problems, that is, about unsolved problems that arise in a particular field of science. However, it would be wrong to define science only as a special kind of knowledge. A special kind of knowledge is the goal and result of the functioning of science, and a special kind of human activity is the means to achieve this goal. Thus, science as a sphere of culture is a unity of a special kind of knowledge and activities to obtain this knowledge.
The axiological specificity of science lies in the fact that the highest value of this sphere of culture is true, objective knowledge corresponding to reality.
In the sphere of science, that side of human activity, which is denoted by the concept of "rationality", is especially clearly manifested. It is defined as a set of methods and results of optimizing human activity in accordance with the goals set. It follows that the anthropological function of science is to cultivate human rationality. This is the functional difference between science and art, which is designed to cultivate human emotionality.
On this basis, we can conclude that art and science are complementary and that there is no point in arguing about what is more needed - science or art. But it is important to keep in mind that the prerogative of cultivating human rationality does not belong only to science.
Its rationality is also characteristic of various spheres of human activity, in connection with which we can speak of a rational element in morality, art, politics, etc. In all these areas there is a specificity in setting goals, choosing means, evaluating the results of activities. It is in this regard that one can raise the question of the specifics of scientific rationality. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is, firstly, a characteristic of human activity within the framework of science as a sphere of culture and, secondly, a side of human activity in any other areas where science can be used: for example, in politics there are its own rationality, regardless of whether science is used there, if science is used, then this gives the right to speak not only about rationality in politics, but also about scientific rationality in politics.
So, scientific rationality differs from other types of rationality in that its basis is knowledge of the objective laws of reality. Obtaining such knowledge is the goal of human activity in the field of science. The means to achieve the goal are also specific - they are combined in the concept of "scientific methodology".
The criterion of the truth of scientific knowledge, as well as knowledge in general, is practice. However, in science there is a specific type of practice - a scientific experiment. Its meaning lies in the fact that in order to verify the truth of his assumptions, the researcher, on the basis of his knowledge of the objective laws of a particular area of reality, creates artificial conditions. If under these conditions the objects under study behave in a way predicted in advance, then the probability of recognizing the original statements as true increases.
But in science there are no once and for all established truths, in science everything is always checked, questioned and criticized. Scientific thinking is fundamentally opposed to dogmatism.
Thus, scientific rationality differs from all other types of rationality in terms of goals, means, methods of verifying the results obtained, and the type of thinking that serves it. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is not something immutable, given once and for all, established. It was the culturological approach to the analysis of science that made it possible to see that science changes and develops along with the change and development of culture as a whole. In connection with the foregoing, one can speak of different types of science and different types of scientific rationality.
To be convinced of this, it is necessary to make a short digression into the history of science.
Science as an independent sphere of culture declared itself only in modern times. Therefore, some researchers consider it possible to assert that the history of science begins in the 17th century, and the previous periods should be considered prehistory. As we have seen, there are some grounds for such views.
Be that as it may, since the 17th century. the fact of the existence of science should be recognized as indisputable. Moreover, in the new European culture, science gradually took a dominant place. This is due to the fact that branches of production fertilized by science, through technology, give an immeasurably greater profit compared to those that science ignores. Thus, the impetus for the development of science comes from society, or, more precisely, from the economy.
However, this fully applies only to certain stages in the development of science. Meanwhile, science, like the new European culture as a whole, is evolving.
Thus, until recently it was generally recognized to single out two periods in the development of modern European science: classical and non-classical. The well-known Russian philosopher V. S. Stepin, who is fruitfully engaged in the study of science in a cultural context, proposed and quite reasonably distinguish not two, but three periods: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science. The basis of periodization is the differences in the ideals and norms of scientific research, the scientific picture of the world, the philosophical principles of scientific activity, and the connection with practice. All this, taken together, is the basis for distinguishing three types of scientific rationality - classical, non-classical and post-non-classical.
Among the ideals and norms of scientific research, V. S. Stepin singles out such an aspect of science as its orientation towards the object or the subject of research. Accordingly, a statement is made that classical science focuses only on the object and puts aside everything that relates to the subject and means of activity. Non-classical science is characterized by the idea of the relativity of the object to the means and operations of activity. Finally, post-non-classical science "takes into account the correlation of knowledge on the object not only with the means, but also with the value-target structures of activity." Thanks to the inclusion of the axiological moment in science, which was previously considered fundamentally de-axiological, a new, “humanized” methodology arises.
The question may arise whether there is a discrepancy between the logic of human development and the logic of the history of science. So, speaking about the development of the essential forces of man in capitalist society, we stated that it followed the line of the subjective - the objective - the search for a synthesis of the subjective and the object. And in science, as it seems, things happened exactly the opposite: orientation to the object of study, then to the subject, and now, again, the search for a synthesis between correspondence to the object and the value orientations of the subject. If you look deeper, you can see that there are no discrepancies between these two lines. After all, the orientation of classical science to the object of study was nothing more than a manifestation of an unshakable faith that man is an all-powerful subject of knowledge, fully capable of unraveling God's plan in the dispensation of the world. The transition to non-classical science in this sense can be seen as a person's rejection of his scientific pride and coming to the conclusion that a person can cognize the world "in so far as". And, finally, post-non-classical science poses the problem of synthesizing two previously identified trends: both orientation towards scientific objectivity, and the inclusion of a value, i.e., subjective component in all elements of scientific activity.
The evolution of scientific methodology has manifested itself and manifests itself not only in changes in the orientations of scientific activity towards an object or subject, but also in other directions. Thus, classical science considered mathematics and physics and, accordingly, mathematical methods as a model for itself. Non-classical science has reached "epistemological anarchism", based on the belief that the process of cognition is a field of application of various creativity, or rather, the arbitrariness of the knowing object.
Post-non-classical science is trying to follow the path of combining the principle of pluralism of methods with the principle of scientific accuracy, which, however, is also understood in a completely new way. As K. A. Svasyan rightly notes, “cultural space is a gradation of methods, each of which has the right to self-determination without forcible alignment with excellent students in the physical and mathematical service.”
As regards the question of the orientation of science towards practice, it should be emphasized that a purely pragmatic approach to science was a general cultural phenomenon for modern times. It was characteristic of both scientists and philosophers themselves. The words of T. Hobbes are noteworthy in this regard: “Knowledge is only the path to power. Theorems (which in geometry are the path of inquiry) serve only to solve problems. And every speculation ultimately aims at some action or practical success.
Cartesian analytical philosophy also had a pragmatic orientation. Emphasizing this circumstance, V.N. Katasonov notes: “In this sense, Newton, despite the polemic with Descartes, says the same thing: in geometry, the main construction. Descartes claims to give a kind of “canon” of these constructions. Newton, on the other hand, prefers to preserve the “freedom of hands”, but at the same time he also focuses on the pragmatics of geometry. The ancient understanding of geometry is being re-emphasized: contemplation is relegated to the background. Its “lower” part, “associated with crafts” ... the geometry of constructions, comes to the fore. VN Katasonov rightly sees the connection of this phenomenon with all other aspects of the culture of the new time. "The new geometry was inseparable from new culture, a new, emerging formation, a new person,” he emphasizes. And further: F. Bacon's "New Organon" and the experimental method of G. Galileo, and the "social engineering" of T. Campanella, and the indomitable will of the dramatic heroes of P. Corneille - all testified to the birth of a new person, active, active, terrifying world”.
Non-classical science has given rise to a certain "opposition" of scientists regarding the principle of pragmatism. It was at this time that statements appeared like the well-known assertion that science is a way to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist at the expense of the state.
Post-non-classical science poses the problem of purifying the principle of connection between scientific activity and practice from narrow utilitarianism, into which it often degenerates. This is due to the need not only for a broader, humanistic understanding of practice, but also for its actual humanization. And this already goes far beyond science.
As for the analysis of the process of development of science of modern and recent times in the light of the cultural category "scientific picture of the world", it will give us another triad. So, classical science corresponds to a mechanical picture of the world, non-classical science is characterized by a plurality of pictures of the world - along with the physical, biological, chemical, etc. appear. complete picture historical development nature, society and man himself. This inclusion of man in the scientific picture of the world is, perhaps, the most striking manifestation of the changes taking place in modern science: the “deserted” picture of the world becomes an anachronism for it.
The process of changing the philosophical foundations of science of modern and recent times is also triadic: classical science relies on metaphysical philosophy, non-classical science not only pays tribute, but also exaggerates the principle of relativity, post-non-classical seeks to synthesize the rigor of analysis, which is based on the principles of metaphysical philosophy, with flexibility of thinking, mobility and breadth. views derived from the principle of relativity.
Along with the above, in the domestic literature there is another point of view on the periodization of the history of science, in accordance with other principles. It was proposed by G. N. Volkov, substantiated in a number of his works published in the 60s - 80s of the XX century, but did not find a wide response and support either then or at the present time. Meanwhile, his approach seems to highlight important features and characteristics of science.
G. N. Volkov proposes to consider as a criterion of periodization the orientation of science to a person or to other goals that are outside a person. Accordingly, he distinguishes three periods in the development of science: the first - from the emergence of science in ancient Greece to the 17th century, the second - from the beginning of the 17th century. to the middle of the 20th century, the third - from the middle of the 20th century. Until now.
The first period is characterized by the orientation of science to man. Science seeks to explain to man logos, i.e., the laws of the world around him. The second period in the development of science is characterized by the orientation of science towards technology. The sciences of the physical and mathematical cycle act as leaders, the methods of these sciences are being absolutized, and science is being dehumanized. In the third period of the development of science, the reorientation of science from technology back to man begins. This is reflected in the growing role humanities and humanization of scientific methodology in general, in expanding the range of applied methods and increasing the role of the value moment in the process of obtaining, especially in the process of applying scientific knowledge.
As it is easy to see, in the periodization of G. N. Volkov there are certain similarities with the periodization of V. S. Stepin. Speaking more precisely, it can be noted that different approaches to the periodization of the history of science, which make it possible to highlight different aspects of this process, nevertheless ultimately yield similar results, which apparently indicates the reliability of these results.
In particular, in the characteristics of the second period of the development of science (according to the theory of G. N. Volkov), features of similarity with classical science are found. G. N. Volkov's characterization of the modern period in the development of science reveals the features of post-non-classical science with its humanizing methodology.
Summing up, it should be said that the third stage in the development of science of modern and recent times, associated with its deep humanization, is just beginning, the contours of the new science are barely outlined. The principle of scientism, which consists in fetishizing the norms and ideals of classical science and turning them into general cultural norms, is still one of critical factors that form the modern cultural situation in Western countries. This creates tension in the relationship of science with other areas of culture.
Philosophy
One of the most important areas of culture is philosophy (from the Greek. filo- I love, sophos- wisdom). Since its inception, it has performed and performs a number of functions. Some of them are only capable of being fulfilled by philosophy, the other part is being fulfilled together with other spheres of culture, but in other ways accessible only to philosophy.
The most important cultural and anthropological function of philosophy is ideological. Philosophy satisfies the human need for a holistic view of the world around him and the place of man in it. Before the advent of philosophy, this need was met by mythology and religion. But neither one nor the other gave an explanation and justification for worldview positions, did not answer the questions “why?”, “Why?” and whether other views and other solutions to worldview problems are possible. The desire to answer these questions led to the emergence of philosophy.
Similar information.
Material culture - these are the achievements of the human mind in the development of the productive forces and production relations of society . It is also a set of those values that are aimed at meeting the consumer, material needs and interests of people.. Mainly, the needs for food, clothing, housing, vehicles, physical health, warmth, light, household items, etc. This is the process and result of human material activity. Material culture is the culture of labor and material production, the culture of everyday life, the culture of attitude towards one's own body and physical culture.
I analyze internal structure material culture, within the framework of material activity, one should first of all single out economic (economic) activity aimed at creating material conditions for human life as the creator of the "second nature". It includes the means of production, methods of practical activity (relations of production), as well as creative moments of everyday economic activity of a person.
Features of material (technological) culture:
1) She is not concerned with the "value dimension" of the activity. Its meanings are concentrated around WHAT and HOW to do it, FOR THE SAKE OF WHAT TO DO IT.
2) Values: efficiency, accuracy, strength, utilitarianism(utility);
3) Rationalism. Evolution from mysticism to rationality.
4) In relation to the spiritual culture plays a subordinate, service role. The goals of the development of science and technology are determined by the needs of the development of spiritual and social culture.
5) Performing a service role, it turns out to be an indispensable condition for any cultural activities. Professional skill.
Spiritual culture is a set of norms and values associated with meeting the intellectual needs of people and contributing to the formation of their reasonable moral, psychological qualities and abilities. Spiritual culture is the process and results of spiritual production (religion, philosophy, morality, art, science, etc.). This area of culture is very extensive. It is represented by the richest world of science and art, morality and law, politics and religion. Of course, all the values of spiritual culture are fixed, preserved, transmitted from generation to generation only in the material sphere, indirectly: language, ideology, values, customs, etc. The elements included in the spiritual culture cannot be touched by hands, but they exist in our minds and are constantly supported in the process of interaction. Spiritual culture is represented and functions in a much richer, more extensive objective world and norms of relations than the material one.
So, spiritual culture acts as an activity aimed at the spiritual development of man and society, at the creation of ideas, knowledge, spiritual values - images of social consciousness. The subject forms of spiritual culture are the results of spiritual activity and relations between people, the development and realization of human abilities.
The main forms of spiritual culture: myth, religion, morality, art, philosophy, science. Spiritual culture fixes creative side, innovations, achievements, productive, not reproductive side.
Features of spiritual culture:
1) H utilitarian. She is essentially disinterested. Her cornerstones- not benefit, not benefit, but "joy of the spirit" - beauty, knowledge, wisdom. She needs people on her own.
2) The largest With freedom of creativity. The human mind, not connected with utilitarian considerations and practical necessity, is able to break away from reality and fly away from it on the wings of fantasy.
3) creative activity becomes a special spiritual world, created by the power of human thought. This world is incomparably richer than the real world.
4) Sensitivity. The most responsive to changes in the environment. She is able to catch the slightest changes in people's lives and respond to them with changes in herself. The most fragile area of culture, the most affected by social cataclysms, needs the support of society.
But it is impossible to distinguish and oppose the material and spiritual to each other as two special areas of culture. They are like different parties one coin. For, on the one hand, the whole culture as a whole is spiritual, because it is the world of meanings, i.e. spiritual entities. And on the other hand, it is all material in general, because presented in sensually perceived codes, signs, texts. Therefore, it makes sense to understand material culture not as some special area of culture that is different from spiritual culture, but as a “symbolic shell” of any culture. Any work of art is a material phenomenon, because it is always embodied in something. But at the same time, any work of art is an expression of certain meanings, reflecting the values and ideology of society, era. This division makes it possible to make sure that any cultural phenomenon is the objectified result of the ideal, spiritual content of human activity. Thus, architectural buildings are both works of art and serve practical purposes.
There are various ways to analyze the structure of culture. Since culture acts, first of all, as a prerequisite for all types of socially significant activities, the main elements of its structure are the forms of fixation and transmission of social experience. In this context, the main components of culture are: language, customs, traditions, values and norms.
Language is a system of conventional symbols that correspond to certain objects. Language plays an important role in the process of socialization of the individual. With the help of language, cultural norms are assimilated, social roles are mastered, and behavior patterns are formed. Each person has his own cultural and speech status, indicating belonging to a specific type of linguistic culture: high literary language, vernacular, local dialect.
Tradition is a form of sociocultural reproduction associated with the transmission from generation to generation of the basic elements of normative culture: symbols, customs, manners, language. The need to preserve these basic norms is determined by the very fact of their existence in the past.
social norm is a form of sociocultural regulation in a certain social sphere characterizing the belonging of an individual to a given social group. The social norm establishes the permissible boundaries of the activities of representatives of specific social groups, provides predictability, standard behavior of people in accordance with their social status.
Value is a category that indicates the human, social and cultural significance of certain phenomena of reality. Each historical epoch is characterized by a specific set and a certain hierarchy of values. Such a system of values acts as the highest level of social regulation, forms the basis for the formation of personality and the maintenance of normative order in society.
Material and spiritual culture.
Considering culture by its carrier, material and spiritual culture are distinguished.
material culture includes all spheres of material activity and its results: dwellings, clothing, objects and means of labor, consumer goods, etc. That is, those elements that serve the natural organic needs of a person belong to material culture, which in literally its content satisfies these needs.
spiritual culture includes all spheres of activity and its products: knowledge, education, enlightenment, law, philosophy, religion, art. Spiritual culture is associated, first of all, not with the satisfaction of needs, but with the development of human abilities, which are of universal importance.
The same objects can belong to both material and spiritual culture at the same time, and also change their purpose in the process of existence.
Example. Household items, furniture, clothing in everyday life satisfy the natural needs of man. But, being exhibited in the museum, these things already serve to satisfy the cognitive interest. According to them, you can study the life and customs of a certain era..
Culture as a reflection of the spiritual abilities of the individual.
According to the form of reflection of spiritual abilities, as well as the origin and nature of culture, the following three forms can be conditionally distinguished: elite, popular and mass.
Elite, or high culture includes classical music, fine literature, poetry, fine arts, etc. It is created by talented writers, poets, composers, painters and is aimed at a select circle of connoisseurs and connoisseurs of art. This circle can include not only “professionals” (writers, critics, art critics), but also those who highly appreciate art and get aesthetic pleasure from communicating with it.
Folk culture arises spontaneously to a certain extent and most often does not have specific authors. It includes a variety of elements: myths, legends, epics, songs, dances, proverbs, ditties, crafts and much more - everything that is commonly called folklore. We can distinguish two components of folklore: it is localized, i.e. associated with the traditions of a certain area, and democratic, since everyone takes part in its creation.
Mass culture begins to develop from the middle of the nineteenth century. It is not distinguished by high spirituality, on the contrary, it is mainly of an entertaining nature and currently occupies the main part of the cultural space. This is the area without which it is impossible to imagine the life of modern young people. The works of mass culture are, for example, modern pop music, cinema, fashion, modern literature, endless television series, horror films and action films, etc.
Sociological approach to understanding culture.
In the context of the sociological approach, culture is a system of values and norms inherent in a certain social community, group, people or nation. Main categories: dominant culture, subculture, counterculture, ethnic culture, national culture. Considering culture as a characteristic of the characteristics of the life of various social groups, the following concepts are distinguished: dominant culture, subculture and counterculture.
Dominant culture is a set of beliefs, values, norms, rules of conduct that are accepted and shared by the majority of members of society. This concept reflects the system of norms and values that are vital for society and form its cultural basis.
Subculture is a concept by which sociologists and culturologists single out local cultural complexes that arise within the culture of the whole society.
Any subculture implies its own rules and patterns of behavior, its own style of clothing, its own manner of communication, reflects the peculiarities of the lifestyle of various communities of people. Russian sociologists are currently paying particular attention to the study of youth subculture.
As the results of specific sociological studies show, the subcultural activity of young people depends on a number of factors:
Level of education (in persons with more than low level education, for example, for vocational school students, it is noticeably higher than for university students);
From age (peak activity 16 - 17 years old, by 21 - 22 years old it decreases significantly);
From the place of residence (typical to a greater extent for the city than for the village).
A counterculture is understood as such a subculture that is in a state of open conflict in relation to the dominant culture. Counterculture means the rejection of the basic values of society and calls for the search for alternative forms of life.
Specificity of modern mass culture.
Back in the 19th century, philosophers who studied culture turned to the analysis of the essence and social role mass and elite culture. Mass culture in those days was unequivocally considered as an expression of spiritual slavery, as a means of spiritual oppression of a person, as a way of forming a manipulated consciousness. She was opposed to high classical culture, which was perceived as a way of life characteristic of the privileged strata of society, intellectuals, aristocrats of the spirit, i.e. "colours of mankind".
In the 40-50s of the twentieth century, a point of view took shape on mass information as a new stage culture. It was successfully developed in the writings of the Canadian researcher Herbert Marshal McLuhan (1911-1980). He believed that all existing cultures differ from one another by means of communication, because it is the means of communication that form the consciousness of people and determine the characteristics of their life. As noted by many culturologists, the concept of McLuhan and his followers is a typical optimistic concept of mass culture.
The main function of mass culture is compensatory and entertaining, which is complemented by a socially adaptive function, implemented in an abstract, superficial version. In this regard, Western researchers have repeatedly emphasized that mass culture turns people into curious observers of life, considering the illusory world of video images as an objectively existing reality, and the real world as an illusion, an annoying hindrance to being. The consumption of samples of mass culture, according to many psychologists, returns adults to the infantile stage of perception of the world, and turns young consumers of this culture into passive creators, indiscriminately absorbing the ideological "rations" prepared by them.
American researchers of popular culture claim that today it performs the function of a spiritual drug. By plunging the mind of a person into a world of illusions, mass culture becomes a school of stereotypes that form not only mass consciousness, but also the corresponding behavior of people. Defending such a position, they often proceeded from the fact that the inequality of people is natural, and it will exist forever. That there will always be an elite in any society, that it is she who constitutes the intellectual ruling minority, which has a high level of activity and a developed intellect.
civil liberties;
Spread of literacy in all segments of the population;
National psychology and self-consciousness, most pronounced in national art.
Scientists distinguish two levels of national culture:
Expressed in national character and national psychology;
Represented by literary language, philosophy, high art.
Ways of mastering the national culture:
Unlike an ethnic group, each nation creates specialized cultural institutions: museums, theaters, concert halls, etc.
Becoming national consciousness contributes to the national education system: schools, universities.
Today, the main goal of national education is the moral education of the individual, instilling such socially significant qualities as love, humanism, altruism, tolerance as a desire for freedom and justice, equality of rights and opportunities, and a tolerant attitude towards the most diverse manifestations of human essence.
Culture and civilization.
In cultural studies, next to the concept of culture, there is the concept of civilization. This term arose later than the concept of "culture" - only in the eighteenth century. According to one version, its author is the Scottish philosopher A. Ferrugson, who divided the history of mankind into eras:
wildness,
barbarism,
Civilizations,
meaning by the last, highest step community development.
According to another version, the term "civilization" was coined by the French philosophers of the Enlightenment and used by them in two senses: in a broad and narrow sense. The first meant a highly developed society based on the principles of reason, justice and religious tolerance. The second meaning was closely intertwined with the concept of "culture" and meant a combination of certain qualities of a person - an outstanding mind, education, politeness, refinement of manners, etc., the possession of which opened the way to the elite Parisian salons of the 18th century.
Modern scholars define civilization according to the following criteria as:
Historical time (antique, medieval, etc.);
Geographical space (Asian, European, etc.);
Technology (industrial, post-industrial society);
Political relations (slave-owning, feudal civilizations);
Specificity of spiritual life (Christian, Muslim, etc.).
Civilization means a certain level of development of material and spiritual culture.
In the scientific literature, the definition of civilization types is carried out according to the following criteria:
Commonality and interdependence of historical and political fate and economic development;
Interpenetration of cultures;
Having an area of common interest and common tasks from a development perspective.
Based on these features, three types of civilization development are defined:
Non-progressive forms of existence (natives of Australia, Indians of America, many tribes of Africa, small peoples of Siberia and northern Europe),
Cyclical development (countries of the East) and
Progressive development (Greek-Latin and modern European).
At the same time, cultural studies have not developed a unity of views on understanding the essence of civilization as a scientific category. So from the position of A. Toynbee, civilization is seen as a certain stage in the development of the culture of individual peoples and regions. From the standpoint of Marxism, civilization is interpreted as a specific stage of social development that has come in the life of the people after the era of savagery and barbarism, which is characterized by the appearance of cities, writing, the formation of national-state formations. K. Jaspers understands civilization as “the value of all cultures”, thereby emphasizing their common universal character.
A special place is occupied by the concept of civilization in the concept of O. Spengler. Here, civilization is interpreted as the final moment in the development of the culture of a particular people or region, meaning its “decline”. Contrasting the concepts of "culture" and "civilization", in his work "The Decline of Europe" he writes: "... civilization is the inevitable fate of culture. Here the very peak is reached, from the height of which it becomes possible to solve the most difficult problems of historical morphology.
Civilization is the most extreme and most artificial state of which a higher type of people is capable. They are... completion, they follow becoming as it has become, life as death, development as torpor, mental old age and petrified world city after village and sincere childhood. They are the end without the right to appeal due to internal necessity always turn out to be a reality ”(Spengler O. The Decline of Europe. Essays on the Morphology of World History: in 2 vols. M., 1998. Vol. 1., S. 164.).
With all the diversity of existing points of view, they largely coincide. Most scholars understand civilization as a fairly high level of development of material culture and social relations, and consider the emergence of cities, the emergence of writing, the stratification of society into classes and the formation of states as the most important signs of civilization.
Material culture is connected with the historical approach. Most often, ancient cultures are considered in this regard. Spiritual culture - science, morality, ethics, law, religion, art, education; material - tools and means of labor, equipment and structures, production (agricultural and industrial), ways and means of communication, transport, household items.
Material culture is one of the parts of a holistic human culture, the spirituality of a person embodied in the form of a thing, the results of creative activity in which a natural object and its material are embodied in objects, properties and qualities and which ensure the existence of a person. Material culture includes a variety of means of production, energy and raw materials, tools of labor, production technology and infrastructure of the human environment, means of communication and transport, buildings and structures for domestic, office and entertainment purposes, various means of consumption, material and subject relations in the field of technology or economy.
Spiritual culture is one of the parts of an integral human culture, the total spiritual experience of mankind, intellectual and spiritual activity and its results, which ensure the development of a person as a person. Spiritual culture exists in various forms. These are customs, norms, patterns of behavior, values, ideals, ideas, knowledge that have developed in specific historical social conditions. AT advanced culture these components turn into relatively independent spheres of activity and acquire the status of independent social institutions: morality, religion, art, politics, philosophy, science, etc.
Material and spiritual culture exist in close unity. In fact, everything material, obviously, turns out to be the realization of the spiritual, and this spiritual is impossible without some material shell. However, there is a significant difference between material and spiritual culture. First of all, it is a difference in subject matter. It is clear, for example, that tools and, say, musical works are fundamentally different from each other and serve different purposes. The same can be said about the nature of activity in the sphere of material and in the sphere of spiritual culture. In the sphere of material culture, human activity is characterized by a change in the material world, and a person deals with material objects. Activities in the field of spiritual culture involve some work with the system of spiritual values. From this follows the difference in the means of activity and their results in both spheres.
In domestic social science, for a long time, the point of view dominated, according to which material culture is primary, and spiritual culture has a secondary, dependent, "superstructural" character. Meanwhile, an unbiased examination will immediately reveal the very artificial nature of such subordination. After all, such an approach assumes that a person must first satisfy his so-called "material" needs, in order to then move on to satisfying "spiritual" needs. But already the most elementary "material" human needs, such as food and drink, are fundamentally different from the seemingly exactly the same biological needs of animals. The animal, absorbing food and water, really only satisfies its biological needs. In humans, unlike animals, these actions, which we have chosen quite arbitrarily as an example, also perform a symbolic function. There are dishes and drinks that are prestigious, ceremonial, mourning and festive, etc. And this means that the corresponding actions can no longer be considered the satisfaction of purely biological (material) needs. They are an element of sociocultural symbolism and, therefore, are related to the system of social values and norms, i.e. to spiritual culture.
The same can be said about all other elements of material culture. For example, clothes not only protect the body from adverse weather conditions, but also indicate age and gender characteristics, the place of a person in the community. There are also working, everyday, ritual types of clothing. A human dwelling has a multi-level symbolism. The enumeration can be continued, but the examples given are quite enough to conclude that it is impossible to single out purely biological (material) needs in the human world. Any human action is already social symbol, which has a meaning that is revealed only in the sphere of culture. And this means that the position on the primacy of material culture cannot be recognized as justified for the simple reason that no material culture in its "pure form" simply exists.
Thus, the material and spiritual components of culture are inextricably linked with each other. After all, creating object world culture, a person cannot do this without changing and transforming himself, i.e. without creating itself in the process of its own activity. Culture is not only activity as such, but a way of organizing activity. And such an organization is impossible without a complex and ramified system of social symbolism. A person as a person cannot perform even the most elementary action without weaving it into a chain of symbols. symbolic meaning action is often more important than its purely practical result. In this case, it is customary to talk about rituals, i.e. about such types of activity, which in themselves are completely inexpedient, but are connected with expedient activity purely symbolically.
All human activity becomes the content of culture, and the division into material and spiritual culture looks very conditional. The main thing that is created as a result of the development of culture is man as a generic being. Everything that a person does, he does in the end for the sake of solving this problem. At the same time, the development of a person appears as the improvement of his creative forces, abilities, forms of communication, etc.
Culture, if it is considered in a broad sense, includes both material and spiritual means of human life, which are created by man himself.
Material and spiritual realities created by human creative labor are called artifacts.
Currently, culture is being studied systematically, which means that in its knowledge, ideas about probable and random processes are used.
The features of system analysis are that the system approach makes it possible to present culture as a whole, and not in parts, to identify the specifics of the influence of different spheres of culture on each other.
Such an approach makes it possible to use the cognitive capabilities of a wide variety of research methods created by representatives of the sciences that study culture and have high heuristics.
Finally, a systematic approach is a flexible and fairly tolerant concept that does not allow one to absolutize the conclusions obtained, and even more so to oppose other conclusions obtained by other methods.
It was the systematic approach that made it possible to understand culture itself as a specific form and system of people's life, highlighting in it areas of culture, cultural institutions, principles of social ties, cultural patterns that determine the structure of culture.
An important role in the spiritual culture of society belongs to art. The specificity of art, which makes it possible to distinguish it from all other forms of human activity, lies in the fact that art masters and expresses reality in an artistic-figurative form. . It is the result of a specific artistic and creative activity and at the same time the realization of the cultural historical experience of mankind. The artistic image appears not just as an external resemblance to reality, but manifests itself in the form creative attitude to this reality, as a way to conjecture, to supplement real life.
The artistic image is the essence of art, it is a sensual recreation of life, made from subjective, authorial positions. . The artistic image concentrates in itself the spiritual energy of the culture that created it and the person, manifesting itself in the plot, composition, color, sound, including or other visual interpretation. In other words, an artistic image can be embodied in clay, paint, stone, sounds, photographs, words, and at the same time realize itself as a piece of music, a painting, a novel, as well as a film and a performance in general.
Like any developing system, art is characterized by flexibility and mobility, which allows it to realize itself in various types, genres, directions, styles. The creation and functioning of works of art takes place within artistic culture, which combines into a historically changing whole artistic creativity, art history, art criticism and aesthetics.
Art enriches culture with spiritual values through artistic production, through the creation of subjective ideas about the world, through a system of images that symbolize the meanings and ideals of a certain time, a certain era. Therefore, art has three dimensions: past, present and future. In accordance with this, differences are possible in the types of values that art creates. These are retro-values that are oriented to the past, realistic values that are “exactly” oriented to the present, and, finally, avant-garde values that are oriented to the future.
The role of art in the development of culture is controversial. It is constructive and destructive, it can educate in the spirit of lofty ideals and vice versa. On the whole, art, thanks to objectification, is able to maintain the openness of the system of values, the openness of the search and choice of orientation in culture, which, ultimately, brings up the spiritual independence of a person, the freedom of the spirit. For culture, this is an important potential and a factor in its development.
However, the core basis of spiritual culture is religion. In religion, as a form of spiritual and practical development of the world, a mental transformation of the world is carried out, its organization in the mind, during which certain picture world, norms, values, ideals and other components of the worldview that determine a person's attitude to the world and act as guidelines and regulators of his behavior.
The main thing in almost any religion is faith in God or faith in the supernatural, in a miracle that is incomprehensible by reason, in a rational way. In this vein, all the values of religion are formed. Culture, as a rule, modifies the formation of religion, but, having established itself, religion begins to change culture, so that the further development of culture is under the significant influence of religion. E. Durkheim emphasized that religion operates mainly with collective ideas and therefore cohesion and connection are its main regulators. The values of religion are accepted by the community of fellow believers, so religion acts primarily through the motives of consolidation, due to a uniform assessment of the surrounding reality, life goals, and the essence of a person. The basis of religion is one or another cult system, that is, a system of ritual actions associated with certain ideas about the supernatural and the possibility of communicating with it. In the course of historical development in society, the institutionalization of cult systems takes place, they acquire the form of an organization. The most developed form of religious organizations is the church - an association of believers and clergy on the basis of a certain dogma and under the leadership of the higher clergy. In a civilized society, the church acts as a relatively independent social organization, a spiritual authority that performs a number of important social functions, among which in the foreground is the formation of certain goals, values and ideals among its members. Religion, establishing a gradation of values, gives them holiness and unconditionality, this leads to the fact that religion arranges values along the "vertical" - from earthly and ordinary to divine and heavenly.
The requirement of constant moral perfection of a person in line with the values offered by religion creates a field of tension of meanings and meanings, falling into which a person regulates his choice within the boundaries of sin and justice. Religious consciousness, unlike other worldview systems, includes an additional mediating formation in the "world-man" system - the sacred world, correlating with this world its ideas about being in general and the goals of human existence. This gives rise to a tendency towards the conservation of values and cultural traditions, which can lead to social stabilization, but at the cost of restraining secular values. Secular values are more conventional, they are easier to transform and interpret in the spirit of the times. The general trend is manifested here in the fact that in the development of culture, the processes of secularization are gradually intensifying, that is, the liberation of culture from the influence of religion. These processes are primarily associated with the growing need of people to create their own picture of the world, through its comprehension and comprehension. Thus, another structural element of culture appears - philosophy, which seeks to express wisdom in the forms of thought (hence its name, which literally translates as "love of wisdom").
Philosophy arose as a spiritual overcoming of myth, and religion, in particular, where wisdom was expressed in forms that did not allow its critical reflection and rational proof. As thinking, philosophy strives for a rational explanation of all being. But, being at the same time an expression of wisdom, philosophy refers to the ultimate semantic foundations of being, sees things and the whole world in their human (value-semantic) dimension. Thus, philosophy acts as a theoretical worldview and expresses human values, human attitude to the world. Since the world, taken in the semantic dimension, is the world of culture, philosophy acts as a comprehension, or, in the words of Hegel, the theoretical soul of culture. The diversity of cultures and the possibility of different semantic positions within each culture lead to a variety of philosophies arguing with each other.
Spiritual evolution through myth, religion and philosophy has led mankind to science, where the reliability and truth of the knowledge obtained is verified by specially designed means and methods. This is one of the new institutions in the structure of culture. However, its importance is growing rapidly, and modern culture is undergoing profound changes under the influence of science. Science exists as a special way of producing objective knowledge. Objectivity does not include an evaluative attitude to the object of knowledge, thus, science deprives the object of any value for the observer. Most important result scientific progress - the emergence of civilization as a system of rationalized and technicalized forms of human existence. Science expands the space for technocratic attributes, enriches human consciousness with technocratic meanings and meanings - these are all elements of civilization. It can be argued that in the history of mankind, science acts as a civilizing force, and culture - as an inspiring force. Science creates, according to V. Vernadsky's definition, the noosphere - the sphere of reason, rational habitation. Rationality does not always fit into the requirements of morality. For this reason, modern culture is not harmonious and balanced. The contradiction between rationality and morality has not been resolved to this day, therefore, in in a certain sense, civilization and culture are incompatible. Technitized forms of human being are opposed to the internal principles (values and ideals) of the spiritual essence of man. However, science, giving rise to civilization, is associated with culture into a holistic education, and even the modern history of mankind without science is unimaginable. Science has become a fundamental factor in the survival of mankind, it experiments with its possibilities, creates new possibilities, reconstructs the means of human life, and through this changes the person himself. The creative possibilities of science are enormous, and they are transforming culture more and more profoundly. It can be argued that science has a certain cultural role, it gives culture rationalistic forms and attributes. The ideals of objectivity and rationality in such a culture are becoming increasingly important. Therefore, we can say that the value of scientific knowledge is proportional to its usefulness. Science, giving knowledge to man, arms him, gives him strength. "Knowledge is power!" - said F. Bacon. But for what purposes, and with what meaning is this power used? Culture must answer this question. The highest value for science is truth, while the highest value for culture is man.
Thus, only with the synthesis of culture and science is it possible to build a humanistic civilization.
Summing up, we can say that culture is a complex multi-level system that absorbs and reflects the contradictions of the whole world, which manifest themselves:
1. in the contradiction between socialization and individualization of the individual: on the one hand, a person inevitably socializes, assimilating the norms of society, and on the other hand, he seeks to preserve the individuality of his personality.
2. in the contradiction between the normativity of culture and the freedom that it represents to a person. Norm and freedom are two poles, two fighting principles.
3. in the contradiction between the traditional nature of culture and the renewal that takes place in it.
These and other contradictions are not only the essential characteristics of culture, but are also the source of its development.
A variety of factors influence the formation and development of the culture of a particular society or its individual groups. So each culture absorbs the social or demographic characteristics of life, depends on natural and climatic conditions, as well as on the level of development of society as a whole. Within various social groups, specific cultural phenomena. They are fixed in the special features of people's behavior, consciousness, language, a worldview and mentality are formed that are characteristic only of specific carriers of culture.
Introduction
3.1 Mythology
3.2. Religion
3.3. Art
3.4. Philosophy
Conclusion
Introduction
To understand the culture of peoples and human experience in general, the spiritual aspects of culture are just as important as material culture and social organization. Spiritual culture is understood as all the ideal material produced by society. He has his own history and gives culture its distinctiveness, even if the material aspects of life, especially in modern societies, can be very similar. Many peoples living in the same natural conditions may have very different worldviews, religious beliefs, rituals and mythology. Although there are certain universal characteristics religious systems and beliefs, it is their diversity and originality that are of primary interest to science and social practice.
Spiritual culture is a rich and varied sphere in which everything can be found, from emotional world individual person and ending with brilliant discoveries that are significant for all mankind. Every thing created by people includes their goals, ideas, knowledge. In other words, spiritual culture, entering into the systemic integrity of culture in general, is itself a special world and a special system. Spiritual culture is a world of ideas associated with the existence of man in the world. The presence of spiritual culture is the specificity of the human way of life. It manifests itself not only in the activity of consciousness, but also in human relationships, in religious and scientific ideas about the world, in those artistic images that captured this world in all its richness.
The purpose of this work is to consider spiritual culture as a system. Achieving this goal necessitates the solution of the following tasks:
- to consider the concepts: "spiritual culture", "material culture" and understand how they differ from each other.
- consider the features of spiritual culture;
- to characterize the main elements of spiritual culture: mythology, religion, art and philosophy.
1. The relationship of spiritual and material cultures
Although the phrase "spiritual culture" is often found both in oral and written speech, its meaning requires clarification. It has become a tradition to divide culture into "spiritual" and "material". However, this division is far from being as obvious as it might seem at first glance.
Firstly, the distinction between "spiritual" and "material" culture is interpreted in different ways, and secondly, attempts to separate "spiritual" culture from material" and understand them as two different spheres of culture invariably end in failure.
What do they mean when they divide culture into "spiritual" and "material"?
Some refer to “spiritual” culture that which satisfies the spiritual needs of people, and to “material” culture that which satisfies their material needs. But there are many things that can simultaneously serve to satisfy both needs: works of applied art, a trip to a resort, etc. And, besides, not everything that satisfies any need of people is a cultural phenomenon (for example, air) , and cultural phenomena do not necessarily have to meet human, social needs (for example, negative cultural phenomena - drug addiction, crime).
Others call "spiritual culture" spiritual values created by man, and "material culture" - things made by man, material objects (in this sense, archaeologists speak of "monuments of material culture"). But spiritual values cannot enter a culture and be preserved in it without a material "sign shell". And material objects can act as objects of culture only when they serve as carriers of social information, that is, they embody some meanings, some kind of spiritual content. Consequently, "spiritual" and "material" culture cannot exist separately, apart from each other. “Monuments of material culture” could just as well be called “monuments of spiritual culture”: after all, they are generally objects of culture only because they are “texts” from which an archaeologist extracts the social information contained in them.
Still others understand by "spiritual culture" the sphere of the spiritual life of society - religion, art, philosophy, etc., and by "material culture" - the sphere of material life, the production and consumption of material goods. But then what is culture? The concept of culture is here so broad in its content that it is actually identified with the concept of "life of society" in general, turns into a duplicate, a synonym for the latter. The specificity of culture is lost. And it consists in the fact that culture is social information encoded in various sign forms”, i.e. “ Information Support people's lives, not their whole life. The very process of production and consumption of material goods (like all human life), lies outside the culture. It covers only one of its — information-semiotic — side.
So, it is impossible to distinguish and oppose each other "spiritual" and "material" culture as two special areas of culture. For, on the one hand, all culture as a whole is spiritual, because it is a world of meanings, i.e., spiritual essences. And on the other hand, it is all material as a whole, because it is represented, “materialized” in sensually perceived codes, in signs and texts. Therefore, by material culture it makes sense to understand not some special area of culture that is different from spiritual culture, but the “sign shell” of any culture, that is, objective, material forms of expression of cultural meanings.
Mythology, religion, art, philosophy - these are the main forms of spiritual culture, most obviously belonging to it.
Non-material or spiritual culture is formed by norms, rules, patterns, standards, models and norms of behavior, laws, values, ceremonies and rituals, symbols, myths, knowledge, ideas, customs, traditions, language. They are also the result of human activity, but they were not created by hands, but rather by the mind. Non-material objects cannot be heard, seen, touched, they exist in our consciousness and are supported by human communication.
Bridges or temples exist for a very long time, and ceremonies or rites last only as long as they are observed. The marriage ceremony lasts several hours, although people pass through it repeatedly. The ceremony, like any other object of non-material culture, needs a material intermediary. Knowledge is expressed through books, the custom of greeting is through shaking hands or pronouncing words. Wearing a tie is also a ritual or symbolic act, part of secular etiquette. It would be impossible if it were not for the participation of a material intermediary - a tie.
2. Features of spiritual culture
Spiritual culture has some important features that distinguish it from other areas of culture.
1. Unlike technological and social culture, spiritual culture is non-utilitarian. This is the most distant face of culture from practice (although, like all culture, it is formed and changes depending on the development of social practice). Spiritual culture is inherently disinterested. Its cornerstones are not benefit, not profit, but "joy of the spirit" - beauty, knowledge, wisdom. People need it, first of all, by itself, and not for the sake of solving any utilitarian tasks external to it (which, of course, does not exclude the possibility of using its achievements for practical purposes). The religious beliefs of believers, for example, are often turned by public figures into a means of solving political or some other practically important tasks, but it cannot be said that people believe in God for this.
2. In spiritual culture, in comparison with other areas of culture, a person receives the greatest freedom of creativity. Here the human mind, not bound by utilitarian considerations and practical necessity, is able to break away from reality and fly away from it on the wings of fantasy. The freedom of creativity is already manifested in ancient myths. It plays a significant role in any religion. Art provides unlimited space for creativity.
3. Creative activity in spiritual culture leads to the fact that it becomes a special spiritual world created by the power of human thought. This world is incomparably richer than the real world. For in it, next to the images that reflect what we observe around us in reality, there are images of unprecedented phenomena. In this world there are unprecedented countries, such as the island of Utopia; hell with boiling cauldrons of pitch for sinners and paradise with shady booths for the righteous; planets invented by science fiction writers, inhabited by monsters, and spaceships arriving from nowhere to Earth. Mythical spirits and gods, fantastic hydras, dragons and mermaids live in this world. We meet there with Eugene Onegin, the Karamazov brothers and Anna Karenina. Unprecedented events take place there - Joshua stops the Sun, the emperor rises from the grave, a flea dresses up in velvet and rules over people. And although this world is filled with fiction, it exists according to its own laws and affects our lives, perhaps even more than the real world. We are not always able to distinguish fantasy from reality. And if some aliens tried to study the life of mankind, having at their disposal only books, paintings, sculptures, movies, they could probably come to the conclusion that there are goldfish in the seas on Earth, that some cats walk in boots that the Bronze Horseman sometimes chases the townspeople, that people are constantly fighting with the resurrecting dead and long-toothed vampires, traveling all over the Universe in space rockets, from time to time visiting a virtual reality that they themselves create, experienced many times nuclear war... And what is most curious is that all this is, in a sense, true.
4. Spiritual culture is the most sensitive area of culture, the most sensitive to external influences. She is able to catch the slightest changes in people's lives and respond to them with changes in herself. Therefore, it is in constant tension and movement. Sensitivity, responsiveness makes it the most vulnerable, the most vulnerable area of culture. She has little predisposition to self-defense - it is unusual for good to keep her fists ready. And because of its impracticality, non-utility, people in difficult life circumstances begin to see it as an unnecessary burden, the most worthless part of culture (technological and social culture brings practical benefits at least in some way). She is shamelessly abused and trampled on, thrown out of their souls and heads like useless junk. That is why spiritual culture suffers the most during social cataclysms. They cause more damage to it than to other areas of culture. The October Revolution led to the decline of the spiritual culture of the people. The upheavals of recent times bring new dangers to her. Weakness is happening before our eyes spiritual world of people. If the aliens mentioned above watched our TV programs, they would have the impression that in Russia by the end of the 20th century. revealed the age-old secret of the birth of love (it turns out that love is the result of the use scented soap and cologne with a breathtaking aroma) that dandruff has become the most exciting problem for Russians, and chewing gum has become their most burning interest. Spiritual culture needs the care and support of society, its preservation and development requires efforts from it. If people cease to be interested in it, it loses its inner tension and movement, retreats to the shelves of libraries and museum stores, becomes covered with dust and turns into a forgotten, dead culture.
3. Spiritual culture in the context of historicism
3.1 Mythology
Any schoolchild knows that myths have come down to us since ancient times, that once people believed in them, and then they stopped. If we sum up the ordinary idea of a myth approximately in this way, then the question arises: why was it necessary to begin the analysis of spiritual culture with a conversation about mythology?
Because myth is the germ of all spiritual culture. And not just an embryo that gave it life and then disappeared, not just the initial and long-past stage of its development. The myth continues to live in culture throughout its history right up to our time - next to its other forms.
The word "myth" literally means a legend, a legend. A myth is a story about gods, spirits, deified heroes and ancestors that arose in a primitive society.
Mythology is understood as a set of myths created by some people (or different peoples). However, these dictionary meanings do not reveal the essence of myth and mythology as cultural phenomena.
A myth is a legend, a legend of a special kind. In its most concise form, its main feature is expressed in the following definition: a myth is fiction taken for truth. This definition, for all its simplicity, contains an internal paradox. Only by understanding this paradox, one can understand the essence of the myth. The fact is that people who take a myth for truth cannot see fiction in it; and those who regard the myth as fiction cannot accept it as truth. This means that myth is truth for some people and fiction for others.
People of the culture in which the myth is born, lives and is perceived as true, believe in it and do not know that it is a myth. In their eyes, he is not a myth at all. The fact that they are dealing with a myth is revealed only by people of a different culture, which gives them "other eyes" - a different vision of the world.
In later culture, the myth is often perceived as a fairy tale. But a fairy tale is no longer a myth, since it does not pretend to be a reliable description of reality. Even small children do not believe that everything in a fairy tale is “for real”. Myth, by its very nature, is intended to serve as a genuine knowledge of what really is. This is the fundamental difference between a myth and a fairy tale, as well as from any fiction (by its nature, it is more than just fiction, although later it can be interpreted that way).
Why do people, writing myths, believe in the truth of their fiction? Yes, because, according to their ideas, they do not “compose” anything, that is, they do not invent or invent. In their stories and legends, the world appears as it exists for them. They not only tell myths - they live in the world that their myths describe. Of course, they can live in this world only insofar as the content of myths does not conflict with the real conditions of their life practice and is not refuted by their life experience. But myths are not random fruits of idle fantasy, they do not arise from scratch, for no reason at all. In myths, one way or another, people's experience of life and activity is expressed. And therefore, it is not surprising that, while living in the world of myths, they have at the same time the opportunity to exist and act in the real world - at least until there are differences between what is said in the myths and what happens in their experience. significant discrepancies.
Thus, mythology acts not just as a collection of myths, but also as a cultural form (“a form of social consciousness”) in which people perceive and comprehend the world around them, capture their life experience, preserve and pass it on from generation to generation.
3.2. Religion
One of the most important features of religion is that it makes everything connected with it sacred. Her symbols, relics, temples are sacred, her positions are holy truths. Its most distinguished adherents are counted as saints, its ministers who perform religious rites are clergymen, priests. Sacredness, holiness is a concept that refers to things sublime, cherished, exceptionally significant and important, extraordinarily revered. Desecration of shrines - sacrilege - people consider a terrible sin, an unacceptable manifestation of immorality. The identification of "religious" and "holy" makes it extremely difficult to critically discuss questions of religion. It is not for nothing that Americans say that one should not talk about religion at a party: some random statement can be considered an insult to a shrine.
There is no strict dividing line between mythology and religion. Many historians believe that even the most ancient myths can be considered the first historical form of religion. So, L. Ya. Sternberg identified three stages in the development of religion in primitive times: 1) belief in the animation of nature (animatism), 2) belief in spirits and gods ”3) belief in the existence of the soul as a special incorporeal principle that can be separated from the body and persist after its death (animism). Other historians prefer not to call ancient mythology a religion, believing that only developed and systematized mythological systems deserve this name.
Ancient Egyptian and Greek mythology is often referred to as the religion of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. At the same time, some argue that a true religion arises only when there is faith in a single, unique Creator God, creator of the universe (monotheism, or monotheism). In the European tradition, mythological beliefs in the existence of many gods (polytheism, or polytheism) are most often characterized as a primitive, pagan religion. T. Hobbes, one of the greatest philosophers of the New Age, believed that the difference between religion and mythology is relative and depends on what beliefs receive state recognition: “Fear of an unknown force, invented by the mind or imagined on the basis of fictions allowed by the state, is called religion , not admitted - superstition.
Let the person decide for himself how, from his point of view, it is necessary to distinguish religion from mythology. But in any case, one thing remains undoubted: religion historically grows out of mythology and retains many of its features. In a sufficiently developed society, it is separated from mythological beliefs and becomes an independent and highly significant cultural form. Myths continue to live in every culture, but the religion that has received recognition in society, as a rule, opposes itself to them and condemns them as "superstition".
Without going into an analysis of various approaches to the definition of religion, let us consider the main elements that exist in different religions and therefore, one might think, characterize the essence of religion in general.
1. Belief in God (or gods). This is the main feature of religion. There is no religion without gods.
2. Emotional attitude towards God. Since God is a being, like a man, possessing a mind, you can talk to him, you can turn to him with a prayer, you can ask him, convince, persuade him. God is a very convenient interlocutor: he is always there. With it, a person overcomes the feeling of loneliness. Faith in God is not just a rational belief in his existence: it is a religious feeling. It is permeated with emotions, and these emotions are similar to those that a person experiences for another person. The believer relates to God with love and fear, with reverence, delight, hope, feelings of guilt and remorse. Emotional communication with God forms a special kind of "spiritual experience".
3. Creed. In any religion there are sacred texts that set out the content of religious belief (Christian Bible, Zoroastrian Avesta, Muslim Koran). They talk about God and his deeds, about the prophet-founder of religion, about the holy righteous, about the creation of the world and its structure, about the rules of life for society and man. An indispensable component are stories about miracles performed by gods, prophets, saints. These miracles (which look very similar in all religions: the healing of the sick, resurrection of the dead, extraordinary natural phenomena) serve as evidence of Divine power. The gods "reveal themselves" through miracles.
4. Religious cult. Worship of God is expressed in rites and rituals dedicated to him. They have as their source the magical component of mythology (spells and sacrifices to deities, magic and sorcery based on the principle of participation) and represent nothing more than religious magic. Religious rites and rituals are very diverse and each religion has its own specifics. However, in all religions, as a rule, believers are required to have a personal, individual appeal to God with prayers expressing love, obedience, gratitude and other feelings, as well as requests and wishes. The religious cult also includes collective worship with prayers, chants and other ritual actions - bows, ablutions, manipulations with sacred objects, processions, etc.
An important side of the religious cult is symbolism. The cult serves as a "bridge" connecting believers with the deity. Cult objects, actions, gestures are a symbolic language in which a person's dialogue with God takes place. In symbolic form, the believer, on the one hand, expresses his feelings and thoughts in consecrated forms acceptable for addressing the deity, and on the other hand, he joins God, receives support and help from him.
5. Organization of believers. Religion is by nature collective. It presupposes not only the connection of an individual with God, but also the connection of individuals who believe in this God, co-religionists. Pointing out the importance of this element of religion, L. Feuerbach emphasized that the very word "religion" comes from the word "connection". A person, of course, can call his personal and not shared with anyone beliefs “his religion”, but this is just a figure of speech. There can be an individual personal faith, but it cannot be an individual, personal religion that does not find support from other people. The great founders of religions - Buddha, Christ, Mohammed - preached their ideas, and these ideas became a religion only when they gained a lot of supporters. There can be no "individual religions". Society recognizes as a religion only a fairly common belief among people.
Any religion unites co-religionists, unites their individual "I" into a single "We". Fellow believers need an organization to find mutual support in their faith. Thanks to the organization, collective worship becomes possible, which plays an essential role in all religions, because it contributes to the strengthening of a single faith.
Summing up the above, it can be noted that “religion is a worldview and attitude, as well as appropriate behavior and specific actions (cult); it is based on the belief in the existence of a god or gods, the supernatural."
3.3 Art
The ancient Greeks called art "the ability to create things in accordance with certain rules." In addition to architecture and sculpture, they referred to art as handicraft, arithmetic, and in general any business where it is required to act according to certain rules. In this sense, art was understood for two and a half millennia - until the 16th century. In the XVI-XVIII centuries. craft and science gradually ceased to be called arts. French philosopher S. Watte in the 18th century, defining art as a “creation of beauty”, singled out 7 types of “fine arts”: painting, sculpture, architecture, music, poetry, eloquence, dance. Since then, the list has become much longer. But the concept of art is currently used very ambiguously. In modern explanatory dictionaries It is indicated that the word "art" in Russian is used in three different senses. It can mean: 1) any occupation that requires certain knowledge and skills (“ military art”, “the art of knitting”, “the art of driving a car”); 2) skill, skill in any business (you can “show art” in anything - in chopping firewood, compiling cheat sheets, negotiating, etc.); 3) artistic creativity in general - literature, architecture, sculpture, painting, graphics, arts and crafts, music, dance, theater, cinema and other varieties of human activity.
The word "art" can be given an extremely broad meaning, if we proceed from the fact that "artificial" is opposed to "natural". For every artifact, i.e., any phenomenon of culture, unlike a natural phenomenon, has an artificial origin, and therefore is the result of some kind of "art". With this interpretation of this word, all human culture and everything that it generated .
3.4 Philosophy
Like religion and art, philosophy was born from mythology. But from the very beginning, it acted not simply as a branch of spiritual culture that separated from mythology, but as a rival of mythology. The first philosophers were those who dared to criticize the content of myths and tried to understand the structure of the world around them, relying on logical reasoning, and not on stories about the gods and their deeds. Philosophy originated about three thousand years ago in the ancient cultures of India, China, Greece. The word "philosophy", which is believed to have been first introduced by Pythagoras (c. 580-500 BC), comes from the Greek: love and wisdom and is translated literally as "love of wisdom." However, the ancient Greek word does not fully correspond to the Russian word "wisdom", but has a broader meaning and means the possession of great knowledge, the ability to understand the meaning of the phenomena and events of life. Philosophers in ancient times began to be called people engaged in knowledge, the search for truth.
Ancient philosophers saw wisdom not just in collecting disparate information about many things: they believed that the main thing was to comprehend the connection of phenomena, their causes and foundations, general order of things. The guiding thread of philosophy was the idea that behind the observed, sensually perceived phenomena, there is an invisible essence, comprehended only by the mind, that the diverse things of the surrounding world have a single, common fundamental principle from which they are all formed. This idea resulted in the formulation of the initial problems of philosophy - the problem of the essence of phenomena and the problem of the unity of the world.
Unlike mythology, philosophy began to explain the world not in visual images, but in abstract concepts. Thus, Greek philosophers, to express the force that establishes and protects a reasonable world order, introduce the concepts of “nous” (thought, mind) and “logos” (word, meaning, mind).
In ancient Chinese philosophy, the concept of “tao” plays a similar role. This word, graphically consisting of two characters - "head" and "walking", literally means "the main direction of walking" or "path". However, it gradually began to be used in a broader sense and also mean “exodus”, “correct movement”, “the life path of a person”. And great Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who lived in the VI century. to c. e., began to speak of Tao as the "heavenly way" or "the will of heaven." It is the "deepest beginning" and the "mother of all things." In fact, in Lao Tzu, Tao is nothing more than an abstraction, which characterizes the “natural path” of the processes taking place in the world, that is, the universal (“invisible” and “inaudible”) regularity of nature .
The first philosophical abstractions - "logos", "tao", "arche", "apeiron" and others - still had a fuzzy, vague and ambiguous content. At first, many meanings were merged in them, which later separated and began to be expressed by various philosophical categories - substance, matter, law, necessity, causality, etc. This is how the conceptual apparatus of philosophy (its concepts and categories) was gradually formed.
Philosophy and science in antiquity did not differ - these concepts were synonymous and denoted any theoretical knowledge in general. The ancient philosophers were also scientists. Philosophy acted as a science (theoretical science) about everything that can only be the subject of knowledge.
However, over time, theoretical (logical, mathematical) reasoning is gradually more and more supplemented by factual information obtained in experience, in the course of practical activity. The volume of knowledge about nature, society, man is increasing. And within philosophy, areas of knowledge that make up special scientific disciplines begin to stand out.
Already in ancient times, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and mechanics were formed as special branches of science. There are also specialists who concentrate their efforts within the framework of any one of the sciences - physicians (Galey), astronomers (Aristarchus), mathematicians (Euclid), mechanics (Archimedes). The more the circle of knowledge expands in individual disciplines, the more difficult it becomes to be an expert in all areas of philosophy. Nevertheless, many philosophers of antiquity—Empedocles, Democritus, Aristotle, and others—are generalists, touching upon the most diverse problems of theoretical knowledge in their works. So, Aristotle devotes one of his books to physics, writes fundamental works on logic, explores the problems of medicine, psychology, ethics, and aesthetics. You can also see the beginnings of zoology, embryology, mineralogy, geography in him. Philosophers-generalists, covering various fields of science in their work, appeared in more later times: F. Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, Leibniz, Russell and others.
But the more special knowledge accumulates in different sciences, the more difficult it becomes to combine all this knowledge into a single philosophical system. With the development of individual sciences, their "branching" from philosophy occurs. This process was especially intensified as a result of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. It led to the formation of experimental natural science, which ceased to be based on philosophical speculations and acquired its own methods for constructing theoretical knowledge - experiment, generalization of experimental data, creation of theoretical models, mathematical formulation of the laws of nature, etc. But even after the actual separation of many sciences from philosophy, they for a long time were still considered branches of philosophy.
According to the established tradition, even in modern times they continued to look at philosophy as the "mother of all sciences", the "queen of sciences". Both philosophers and many scientists continued to consider philosophical reasoning as the main means of understanding the world, and a subordinate role was assigned to experimental, experimental study of nature.
The traditional idea of philosophy as the sum of all scientific knowledge persisted until the 18th-19th centuries. Philosophy, as it were, did not notice that the sciences were branching off from it and were building their theories more and more confidently, not through philosophical reasoning, but with the help of their own special means and methods. She still continued to claim the role of "mother of sciences". Philosophers, as before, sought in their writings to “drive” all sciences into the framework of a single philosophical system.
However, in the XIX century. there was little doubt among scientists and philosophers that the dominance of philosophy over all sciences had come to an end. The former "queen of sciences" lost power over them.
Here is how one of the outstanding philosophers of the 19th century characterized the current situation: “There is no more metaphysics - philosophy has destroyed itself. Why else her empty name? All individual objects were distributed to special sciences ... Philosophy is like King Lear, who distributed all his property to his children and who, after being a beggar, was thrown into the street.
What is philosophy? What is its essence and specificity? Why is it needed and is it needed at all if the sciences have "learned" more precise and rigorous methods of constructing theories than philosophical reasoning? Does she even have a right to exist? Such questions arose before philosophers and to this day remain the subject of ongoing discussions.
In the 17th century Descartes stated the relationship of philosophy with other sciences as follows: "All philosophy is like a tree, the roots of which are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emanating from the trunk are all other sciences, reduced to three main ones: medicine, mechanics and ethics."
What is the main thread that binds the various historical variants philosophy? It is unlikely that it will be possible to present it in the form of a boundary delineating the content of philosophy. The subject of philosophical reflection has no boundaries. Various questions either enter the field of vision of philosophers, then leave it: philosophy constantly peers into social life and responds to the needs of our time, often raising questions that are then resolved in science and the practical activities of people. Along with transient, temporary zones of philosophical interest, there are also “eternal” problems that always form the subject of philosophy: the meaning of life, the relationship between matter and spirit, the mystery of infinity, the prospects for the future awaiting humanity, the ideals of goodness, justice, humanism, etc. But the formulation of such problems do not remain unchanged, as well as their solutions proposed by philosophers. The essence and specificity of philosophy, most likely, is not so much in its subject matter, which, with the exception of some “eternal” problems, is inconsistent, but in its choice of its subject matter, in its approach to the problems it raises, in their interpretation and ways to solve them. In short - in the peculiarities of philosophical thinking.
The traditional question for philosophy - what is primary: matter or spirit - in cultural studies is solved differently than is customary. In culture, meaning and symbol are primary, not thing and material. The material from which the book is made is secondary in culture, and the content of the transmitted information, reasoning, and thought is primary.
Thus, “philosophy is a form of social consciousness, a worldview, a system of ideas, views on the world and on a person’s place in it. Explores the cognitive, socio-political, value, ethical and aesthetic attitude of man to the world. Based on the theoretical and practical attitude of man to reality, philosophy reveals the relationship between subject and object.
Conclusion
So, spiritual culture acts as an activity aimed at the spiritual development of man and society, at the creation of ideas, knowledge, spiritual values - images of social consciousness. The subject forms of spiritual culture are the results of spiritual activity and relations between people, the development and realization of human abilities.
It should be noted that spiritual culture is not identical to spiritual production, spiritual processes as such, it fixes its creative side, innovations, achievements, productive, but not reproductive side in this production. Spiritual culture expresses the development of the subjects of spiritual production, the level of not just the development of the spiritual wealth of mankind, but their increment.
List of used literature
- Bystrova A.N. The world of culture (fundamentals of cultural studies). Tutorial. - M.: ITC "Marketing"; Novosibirsk: YuKEA Publishing House LLC, 2000. - 680 p.
- Karmin A.S. Culturology: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Lan", 2004. - 928 p.
- Kravchenko A.I. Culturology: Textbook for universities - M.: Academic Project; Tricksta, 2003. - 496 p.
- Culturology: Textbook / Ed. Prof. G.V. Fight. - M.: Alfa, 2003. - 432 p.
- New Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. Kol.: V. I. Borodulin, A. P. Gorkin, A. A. Gusev, N. M. Landa and others.
Kravchenko A.I. Culturology: Textbook for universities - M.: Academic Project; Tricksta, 2003. - p. eighteen
New Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. coll.: V. I. Borodulin, A. P. Gorkin, A. A. Gusev, N. M. Landa and others. 767
