From savagery to civilization and back. Savagery, barbarism and civilization as historical forms of cultural transmission

Introduction

“What is culture”, how much about “how it functions”, “how” the unity of the cultural life of society is carried out in the historical and

geographic space? Culture in this case appears as a social asset, a community of norms, customs, mores. And of course completely

it is impossible to get away from the answer “what” they are (what is their objective, material, effective embodiment). From one historical era to

on the other hand, one can trace how customs and rituals are replaced by legal norms and artistic creativity, institutions are formed

education and upbringing. Only the forms of culture are modified, while its main functions should basically remain the same.

otherwise the society would have disintegrated, perished.

What are the main functions of culture that allow society to exist for a long historical period, to enter into modern age

ethnic communities that have long become large social formations. Of these, we will highlight and consider two:

a) culture as a form of transmission of social experience;

b) culture as a way of socialization of the individual.

Naturally, such an approach takes into account the results achieved by cultural anthropology, which focuses on

describing the dynamics of the development of culture, revealing the social mechanisms of the transmission of knowledge and the socialization of the individual. But cultural anthropology,

spending comparative analysis ethnocultures, focuses more on the spiritual potential of society, while the culturologist is not

less interested in the world of cultural and subject specifics.

Culture as a type of social memory of society

In modern cultural studies, there are several competing research programs that differ from each other.

different understandings of what culture is and what are the possible ways of studying it.

In analytical definitions of culture, the emphasis is usually placed either on its substantive content or on its functional side. In the first

case it is interpreted as a system of "values, norms and institutions". In the second - as a process of "development of the essential forces of man"

abilities in the course of his conscious activity in the production, distribution and consumption of certain values.

In synthetic definitions, attention is focused on the fact that culture is “a complex social phenomenon that encompasses various

aspects of the spiritual life of society and the creative self-realization of man. This is a "historically developing system of created

a person of material and spiritual values; norms, ways of organizing behavior and communication; process creative activity person."

There is a classification based on the following concepts of culture: subject-value, activity, personal-

attributive» information sign as well as the concept of culture as a subsystem of the whole society.

The subject-value concept is based on the understanding of culture as a set of material and spiritual values ​​that have their own

aspect of consideration in the structure of various sciences.

The activity concept takes into account, first of all, the "human factor" as a spiritual intention of the development of culture, as a way

vital activity.

Personally-attributive - represents it as a characteristic of the person himself.

Information-sign - studies as a certain set of signs and sign systems.

Within the framework of the concept of culture as a subsystem of society, it is considered as such a sphere of it that performs the function

management of social processes at the normative-verbal level. Society itself in this case is presented as a societal

a system, changes in one of the spheres of which lead to corresponding transformations in other subsystems. Culture is also considered

as a supra-individual reality, assimilated by a person in the process of his socialization or, conversely, nominalistically, i.e. like reality

personal character.

AT recent times in cultural studies, two research programs compete most actively with each other. At the heart of one of

They are based on an active approach to understanding culture as “the technology of reproduction and production human society”, “spiritual code

life activity of people”, “foundations of creative individual activity”, “adaptation and self-determination of personality”. Another paradigm

is focused on a value approach that considers culture as a "complex hierarchy of ideals and meanings."

Despite different interpretations, the common thing for the active and value approaches is that within their framework, culture is either comprehended

through the study of the field of the symbolic, or is reduced to it, since the symbol is the means of realizing the values ​​and meanings of culture,

which is the most accessible for direct study.

In this regard, the reflections of those specialists on culture and the tasks of its study who work at a high level are of interest.

professional level, not only in the field of philosophical and normative, but also concrete historical research.

So, Yu.M. Lotman, realizing the semiotic approach, emphasizes that “culture, first of all, is a collective concept. An individual person can

be a bearer of culture, can actively participate in its development, nevertheless, by its nature, culture, like language, is a social phenomenon, then

there is social.

Consequently, culture is something common to any collective - a group of people living at the same time and connected by a certain

social organization. It follows from this that culture is a form of communication between people and is possible only in a group in which people

communicate... Any structure that serves the sphere of social communication is a language. This means that it forms a certain system of signs,

used in accordance with the rules known to the members of this collective. We call signs any material expression

(words, pictures, things, etc.) that has meaning and thus can serve as a means of conveying meaning.”

Thus, culture, according to Yu.M. Lotman, has, firstly, a communicative and, secondly, symbolic nature. Concerning

in it, he distinguishes two sections - synchronous and diachronic, in accordance with those organizational and communicative structures that

unite people who lived at the same time and at different times. “Culture is always,” writes Yu.M. Lotman - implies the preservation of previous experience.

Moreover, one of essential definitions culture characterizes it as a "non-genetic" memory of the collective. Culture is memory. Therefore she

always connected with history, always implies the continuity of the moral, intellectual, spiritual life of a person, society and humanity.

And therefore, when we talk about our modern culture, we, perhaps without suspecting it ourselves, are talking about the huge path that this

culture is gone. This path has millennia, crosses the boundaries of historical eras, national cultures and immerses us in one

culture - the culture of humanity.

Therefore, culture is always, on the one hand, a certain number of texts, and on the other, inherited symbols. Symbols of culture

rarely occur in its synchronous slice. As a rule, they come from the depths of centuries and, modifying their meaning (but without losing memory and about

their previous meanings), are transmitted to the future states of culture ... Therefore, culture is historical in nature. Her very

the present always exists in relation to the past (real or constructed in the order of some mythology) and to forecasts of the future.

Culture as a form of transmission of the social experience of society

is in the present. Times are changing, people are changing, and in order to understand the meaning of their behavior, you need to study their culture, which, while remaining in

the present, actualizes the past and shapes the future. Next, we should introduce the concept of "social system", since we will talk about

actions of a multitude of persons, whose relations to the situation, including their connections with each other, are precisely determined and mediated by that system of images,

symbols, norms and traditions that connect the past with the present and act as elements of culture. “Understood in this way, social

the system is just one of three aspects of the complex structure of a particular system of action. The other two aspects are

personality systems of individual actors and the cultural system on which their action is built. Each of these systems must

considered as an independent axis of organization of the elements of a system of actions in the sense that none of them can be reduced to another or

to their combination. Each system necessarily presupposes the existence of the others, for without personalities and culture there can be no social

systems."

The sociological position of T. Larsons focuses on the main components of "action in general" and, in this sense, on

"needs-attitudes of the individual actor". But although the systems emerging at the same time (social system; culture;

personality) cannot be reduced to each other, they are linked together by a common coordinate system of action. And the problem ultimately boils down to

next; “how can a perfectly stable cultural system be related to the characteristics of both the individual and the social

system, so that there is a complete "match" between the standards of the cultural system and the motivation of the individual actors of this

systems?”^ The following theoretical circumstance contained in this position is important: culture, on the one hand, is a product, on the other hand,

the other is the determinant of systems of human social interaction. If we take it into account, then the question may arise,

guiding us in the direction of the topic put forward in the title of this subsection: how culture ensures the preservation of the social system (the question of

We do not yet consider the mechanisms of its destruction).

In the social dimension, culture is, first of all, the world of surrounding things that bear the imprint of human labor,

relations existing in society, the level and characteristics of human interaction with the natural environment, etc. In this sense, "culture" is

processed, humanized, "cultivated" nature. The things around us appear as a world of “revived” objects, as an objective

embodied human efforts, skill, norms, traditions, aesthetic tastes and moral values ​​transferred by man to

creations he made. And their very creation corresponds to both individual needs and social values ​​and ideals, i.e. certain

cultural tradition.

This world gives us an idea of ​​​​a social system as a whole (the originality, originality of society, the presence of certain social

layers, groups, institutions - priests and scribes in ancient civilizations, craft workshops and guilds in the medieval cities of Europe), and about members of

system of social interaction of individuals. In this case, the type of social and individual culture is embodied in certain

cultural patterns, which are referred to as "learned behavior", "a set of patterns of behavior", "a set of patterns that determine

life”, etc. It is they who determine the institutionalization of individual behavior (in one case, the priestly caste as the basis of social

organization, in the other - a rationally organized system of bureaucratic management, etc.).

Consequently, in the results of human activity, in the form of its completed material and spiritual formations,

the embodiment of the features of individual activity in various types of culture, types of human society, at certain stages of its history

dimensions of society. However, in contrast to his socio-philosophical consideration, the culturologist brings his research to the socio-psychological level.

logical level, revealing the national character of the people, the mentality (system, features of thinking) of the ethnic group and era. Essentially, it is about identifying

only about “what” is produced, and not only about “who” produces, what is the cultural face (customs, mores and traditions) of the ethnic group, and most importantly, about

how they produce. And this “how” characterizes, first of all, the way of mastering reality, technological experience, techniques and methods of obtaining

information and passing it on from generation to generation.

Consequently, culture characterizes the renewing being of a person, and since a person is a social being, and his life is impossible

outside society, then culture is the social being of the individual self-renewing in the process of human activity. The whole human world

culture (both material and spiritual) appears as a living and self-renewing substance (i.e., that which exists independently, without

any dependence from the outside), the basis of which is the algorithm, methods, characteristics of labor, artistic and intellectual activity

person. The whole question is how this algorithm is set, the method, the characteristic features (cultural features) of the life of the people.

Apparently, culture in this regard is the level of relations that have developed in the team) those norms and patterns of behavior that are consecrated

tradition, are obligatory for a representative of this ethnic group and its various social strata. Culture appears as a form of transmission (transmission)

social experience through the development by each generation of not only the subject (first of all, objects of production) world of culture, skills

and techniques of technological attitude to nature, but also cultural property, patterns of behavior, and this one, which regulates social experience,

the role of culture is such that it forms stable artistic and cognitive canons, the idea of ​​beauty, a vision of nature in

all its ethnic features and colors.

In the interaction of man with nature, culture plays a special role, not reducible to social (public). social organization

(technological and economic level of development) may be the same for different nations, but it is impossible to confuse their artistic

tastes, customs, traditions. The national world is a single cosmos in which man and the historically surrounding nature, which influences

on the social psychology of an ethnos, forms the national character and determines the direction of its practical activity. Nature -

only separates) a person from nature, unites the natural landscape, dwelling, way of obtaining food and the person himself into a single cosmos.

all its ethnic manifestations.

his tastes and life ideals are formed. This cultural foundation, in which archetypes (basic types of behavior, rooted in

in the depths of the psyche), initially not expressed at the conceptual level, it is present in mass psychology and determines the entire human

activity, its purpose, means and result. This initial state of the collective (and, accordingly, individual) psyche is realized and

transformed into ways of mastering reality. Man, as the heir of culture, thus masters the national heritage, experience

human interaction with nature.

Another thing is that such mastery occurs in the process of an active (and not passive-contemplative) attitude to the world, the assimilation of a certain

roles in the family and society. The sphere of activity itself can retain a national flavor or acquire a massive character, therefore

we proposed to distinguish between the sphere of the subject of culture and the activity sphere through which the transfer of tribal culture to

individual results of material and spiritual labor.

Naturally, both in the preservation and transmission of patterns of behavior inherent in culture, values ​​that primarily regulate relations between

people in society, there must be a certain stability, a code. This stability is the tradition in the existence and development of culture, which

is one of the mechanisms of hierarchization (consecration) of cultural values. Tradition as a way of preserving culture shows that culture is

we can talk about the "cultivation" of a person in the historical forms of his existence due to the preservation of traditions and, conversely, a gap

cultural ties and traditions threatens the collapse of folk culture. Tradition concretizes social experience and the level of development reached by

society in its relationship with nature, which can also be manifested in the presence of specific traditions: in traditional handicrafts,

artistic creativity, poetic folk art, etc.

Society as a whole and the culture that unites it is characterized not only by tradition, but also by innovation (a way of updating culture). Culture type

reflects the originality of the way of updating and accumulating experience adopted in a given society. In a traditional society, social regulation,

which determines the place of a person in it, connects the receipt of knowledge from a single and reliable source, which sanctifies this order.

The Englishman Dart and the Indian Pradhan describe the traditional culture of Nepal, where, in contrast to the European education system and along with it

Nepalese schoolchildren, naming the wise old people as the original source of knowledge, further believe that they, in turn, received them from

gods. Cultures of a non-traditional type are based on the system of education, science, when a universal (sign) way of obtaining knowledge is not

is hampered by tradition, and any knowledge is perceived as someone's personal invention. Different types of culture - different systems of transmission of knowledge.

Culture as a way of socialization of the individual

Culture as a stable tradition of the individual's social activity makes it possible to transfer patterns of social behavior from generation to generation.

and a determinant of social interaction. But already the question of tradition and innovation presupposes a distinction between systems of personality and culture, culture and

society. If culture is traditions, norms and customs transferred to the objective world from the spiritual life of society, including its

collective unconscious, and thereby organizing social experience, then how does culture differ from society? It is usually considered

as part of society, along with production, politics, etc. But if culture is a system that provides a way to transfer spirituality

of a person for his entire way of life, then a culture of a certain type is manifested in politics, and in the economy, and in art. This does not mean,

that culture and society can be identified with each other: the content of the cultural process is, in fact, the development of the person himself

as a public entity.

Considering this problem in its final versions, it should be noted that society is a system of relations and institutions, i.e. ways and

means of social influence on a person. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to point out the laws and the legal system as a whole, the system

education and upbringing, etc. But then it can be said that culture in its functioning in society is determined by the forms of social

regulation. All this is so. But, focusing on the integrative role of culture in relation to man and society, at the same time

it is necessary to see that the emphasis on man leads to the development of anthropology (culturology), i.e. to the study of specific cultural norms

and samples presented in the symbolism characteristic of a given society, and the emphasis towards society - to sociology (social theory).

Another thing is that cultural anthropology narrows the concept of culture, and the task is not to separate a person from society, but to show

human foundations of social development, explain social development as the cultural evolution of humanity. The main difference lies in

in our opinion, that social institutions do not require choice (understanding by the individual of his attitude to social norms and

institutions), they are taken for granted, as the rules of the game, which must be followed and deviation from which is punishable by society.

Achieved real results of human activity are evaluated according to the scale of values ​​accepted in society - fame, honors, wealth, etc.

If we turn not to the social, but to the individual world of a person, then we find that these results acquire value not by themselves.

themselves, but as their own internal qualities and conditions further development individual. Both the personal properties of a person and the material

position - these are its internal physical and spiritual qualities that characterize the way it relates to the world, i.e. his culture.

the patterns of ethnic behavior, the types of social connections built on their basis, and the inner qualities of the individual coincide. Another picture

cultural development characterizes a society where innovation prevails as a way of relating to social experience. An example of such

The culture of ancient Greece can serve as a dynamic type. Its originality can be associated with ethnic characteristics, national

the character of the Greeks (F.H. Cassidy). Of interest is the concept of M.K. Petrov, explaining the destruction of the traditional paradigm

sociocultural situation that arose in the conditions of the Aegean Sea and the island civilization.

M.K. Petrov also owns an interesting classification of intertype differences in culture, taking into account individual

activities in social interaction and the personal system of entry of the individual into the social whole: “Based on the key structures

distribution of activity among individuals and integration of differences into wholeness, three types can be distinguished:

A) personally-nominal (hunting, "primitive" society);

B) professional name (traditional agricultural society, "developing" society);

C) universal-conceptual (society of the European cultural tradition).

The beginning of a non-traditional type of culture characterizes the breakdown of tradition, the entry into the name (i.e., receiving, along with the name of the whole complex

social burdens) ceases to be (as subsequently the acquisition of inherited professional knowledge) the only form of socialization

personality. The motivation of individual action and the system of social assessments do not coincide, they are mediated by individual reflection, choice.

Culture in this case allows a person to develop inner world, creatively responding to social demands, be aware of their moral,

political and aesthetic meaning, to make decisions and make moral choices. After all, no social demands can completely (yes

there is no need for this, because a person is not a robot!) to regulate human behavior. Actions, a person’s choice and speak about his inner, and

foreign culture, since the internal is realized in its behavior and actions. Motivating their own actions or relying on the chosen

consciously or not, a person is guided by his inherent needs (natural and social). Natural

(biological) needs govern his life; their satisfaction (food, drink, shelter) allows you to prolong the life of a human

kind. Social needs are formed in a person, since from childhood he rotates in human society, located on a certain

stage of his development and forming in him certain needs for communication, leisure, etc. It should be noted that various ways

meet the natural needs of man characterize the type of culture. Without difficulty, we will establish the cultural level of development of society

(gatherers, hunters, cattle breeders) and the individual according to the method of preparing and eating food. Even more about the culture of the people (and in

Savagery, barbarism and civilization as a stage in the development of society

Introduction

Introduction

Culture as a way of socialization of the individual

Culture as a stable tradition of an individual's social activity makes it possible to transfer patterns of social behavior from generation to generation. The individual, the personality here is completely absorbed by cultural norms and patterns, he is their carrier. In this sense, culture is both a product and a determinant of social interaction. But already the question of tradition and innovation presupposes a distinction between systems of personality and culture, culture and society. If culture is traditions, norms and customs transferred to the objective world from the spiritual life of society, including its collective unconscious, and thereby organizing social experience, then how does culture differ from society? Usually it is considered as part of society, along with production, politics, etc. But if culture is a system that provides a way to transfer the spirituality of a person to the whole way of his life, then a culture of a certain type is manifested in politics, and in the economy, and in art. This does not mean that culture and society can be identified with each other: the content of the cultural process is, in fact, the development of man himself as a social subject of activity.

Considering this problem in its final versions, it should be noted that society is a system of relations and institutions, i.e. ways and means of social influence on a person. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to point out the laws and the legal system as a whole, the system of education and upbringing, etc. But then it can be said that culture in its functioning in society is determined by the forms of social regulation. All this is so. But, focusing on the integrative role of culture in relation to man and society, at the same time it is necessary to see that the emphasis on man leads to the development of anthropology (culturology), i.e. to the study of specific cultural norms and patterns represented in the symbolism characteristic of a given society, and the emphasis on society - to sociology (social theory).

Another thing is that cultural anthropology narrows the concept of culture, and the task is not to separate a person from society, but to show the human foundations of social development, to explain social development as the cultural evolution of mankind. The main difference, in our opinion, is that social institutions do not require a choice (an individual's understanding of his attitude to social norms and institutions), they are taken for granted, as rules of the game that must be followed and deviation from which is punishable by society. Achieved real results of human activity are evaluated according to the scale of values ​​accepted in society - fame, honors, wealth, etc. If we turn not to the social, but to the individual world of a person, then we find that these results acquire value not in themselves, but as their own internal qualities and conditions for the further development of the individual. Both the personal properties of a person and the material position he has achieved are his internal physical and spiritual qualities that characterize the way he relates to the world, i.e. his culture.

An individual with his own needs and interests does not destroy the cultural system, remaining within the framework of tradition. Here, cultural norms and patterns of ethnic behavior, the types of social ties built on their basis, and the internal qualities of the individual coincide. A different picture of cultural development characterizes societies where innovation prevails as a way of relating to social experience. An example of such a dynamic type is the culture of ancient Greece. Its originality can be associated with ethnic characteristics, the national character of the Greeks (F.H. Cassidy). The concept is of interest M.K. Petrov, who explains the destruction of the traditional paradigm by the socio-cultural situation that arose in the conditions of the Aegean Sea and the island civilization.

M.K. Petrov also owns an interesting classification of intertype differences in culture, taking into account individual activity in social interaction and the personal system of the individual entering the social whole: “Based on the key structures of the distribution of activity among individuals and the integration of differences into integrity, three types can be distinguished:

a) personally-nominal (hunting, "primitive" society);

b) professional name (traditional agricultural society, "developing" society);

c) universal-conceptual (society of the European cultural tradition).

The beginning of a non-traditional type of culture characterizes the breakdown of tradition, entry into the name (i.e., receiving the whole complex of social loads along with the name) ceases to be (as well as subsequently the acquisition of inherited professional knowledge) the only form of socialization of the individual. Motivation for individual action. the system of social assessments do not coincide, they are mediated by individual reflection, choice.

Culture in this case allows a person to develop the inner world, creatively responding to social requirements, to realize their moral, political and aesthetic meaning, to make decisions and make a moral choice. After all, no social requirements can completely (and there is no need for this, because a person is not a robot!) Regulate human behavior. The actions, choice of a person speak about his internal and external culture, since the internal one is realized in his behavior and actions.. Motivating his own actions or relying on the cultural tradition he has chosen, consciously or not, a person is guided by his inherent needs (natural and social). Natural (biological) needs regulate its vital activity; their satisfaction (food, drink, shelter) allows you to prolong the life of the human race. Social needs are formed in a person, since from childhood he rotates in human society, which is at a certain stage of its development and forms in him certain needs for communication, leisure, etc. It should be noted that various ways of satisfying the natural needs of a person characterize the type of culture. Without difficulty, we will establish the cultural level of development of society (gatherers, hunters, pastoralists) and the individual in terms of the way food is prepared and consumed. Even more about the culture of the people (and in the individual case and the individual) says housing. Cattle breeder's yurt and Eskimo's tent, Russian hut. These are different dwellings, but they are also different worlds that have absorbed the uniqueness of the boundless steppe in one case, the snow-covered tundra in another, and the mighty Russian forests in the third.

It is important to note that the satisfaction of needs, even the simplest ones, since this happens in society, leads to the emergence of culture, since a person does this not directly, but indirectly, guided by social taboos (prohibitions) and social control, reproducing norms, patterns of behavior, as well as ways of their transmission from generation to generation, i.e. world of culture.

Of course, a non-traditional type of culture is distinguished by a high level of technical development, which is usually associated with the concept "civilization". This term is often used to denote a stage, a level of development of a culture. This, in fact, is its original meaning: the Romans used the term “civilization” (“civilis”) to denote the civil (from which this concept comes) urban standard of living, emphasizing their superiority in domestic and political terms and distinguishing them from the primitive, in their opinion. surrounding tribes (barbarians). However, the concept of "civilization" requires special attention.

"Civilization"

When we use the concept of "civilization", we are talking about a term that carries an extremely large semantic and etymological load. There is no unequivocal interpretation of it either in domestic or in foreign science.

The word "civilization" appeared in French in the middle of the 18th century; the laurels of its creation are given to Boulanger and Holbach. Initially, this concept arose in line with the theory of progress and was used only in the singular as a stage of the world-historical process opposite to "barbarism" and as its ideal in the Eurocentric interpretation. In particular, the French Enlightenment called civilization a society based on reason and justice.

At the beginning of the 19th century, a transition began from a monistic interpretation of human history to a pluralistic one. This was due to two factors.

Firstly, the consequences of the Great French Revolution, which established a new order on the ruins of the old and thereby revealed the inconsistency of evolutionary views on the progress of society.

Secondly, by the huge ethno-historical material obtained in the "age of travel", which revealed a huge variety of customs and human institutions outside of Europe and the fact that civilizations, it turns out, can die.

In this regard, an "ethnographic" concept of civilization began to take shape, the basis of which was the idea that each people has its own civilization (T. Jouffroy). Romantic historiography of the early 19th century. with its apology for soil and blood, the exaltation of the national spirit, the concept of civilization was given a local historical meaning.

At the beginning of the XIX century. F. Guizot, in an attempt to resolve the contradiction between the idea of ​​the progress of a single human race and the diversity of the discovered historical and ethnographic material, laid the foundations of the ethno-historical concept of civilization, which suggested that, on the one hand, there are local civilizations, and on the other hand, there are still and Civilization as the progress of human society as a whole.

In Marxism, the term "civilization" was used to characterize a certain stage in the development of society, following savagery and barbarism.

Established in the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. three approaches to understanding the word "civilization" continue to exist at the present time. It:

a) a unitary approach (civilization as an ideal of the progressive development of mankind, which is a single whole);

b) stage approach (civilizations, which are a stage in the progressive development of mankind as a whole);

c) locally historical approach (civilizations as qualitatively different unique ethnic or historical social formations).

Civilization, Guizot believed, consists of two elements: social, external in relation to a person and universal, and intellectual, internal, which determines his personal nature. The mutual influence of these two phenomena. social and intellectual, is the basis of the development of civilization.

A. Toynbee considered civilization as a special socio-cultural phenomenon, limited by certain spatio-temporal limits, which is based on religion and clearly defined parameters of technological development.

M. Weber also considered religion to be the basis of civilization. L. White studies civilization from the point of view of internal organization, the conditioning of society by three main components: technology, social organization and philosophy, and his technology determines the remaining components.

F. Kopechpa also attempted to create a special "science of civilization" and develop it general theory. The latter must be distinguished from the history of civilization. because theory is a single doctrine of civilization in general. There are as many stories as there are civilizations, and there is no single civilizational process.

The main problem of the science of civilization is the origin and nature of its diversity. The content of universal history is the study of the struggle of civilizations, their development, as well as the history of the emergence of cultures. The main ideas of F. Konechny boil down to the fact that civilization.

firstly, it is a special state of group life, which can be characterized from different angles; “a special form of organization of the collectivity of people”, “a method of arranging collective life”, i.e. civilization is a social entity;

Secondly, inner life civilization is defined by two fundamental categories - good (morality) and truth; and the external, or bodily, categories of health and well-being. Apart from them, the life of civilization is based on the category of beauty. These five categories or factors establish the structure of life and the uniqueness of civilizations, and the unlimited number of methods as ways of connecting the factors of life corresponds to an unlimited number of civilizations.

In Russian literature there is also a different understanding of what underlies civilization. Thus, representatives of geographical determinism believe that the geographical environment of the existence of a people, which primarily affects the forms of cooperation of people gradually changing nature (L.L. Mechnikov), has a decisive influence on the nature of civilization.

L.N. Gumilyov connects this concept with the peculiarities of ethnic history.

However, in general, a cultural approach to the definition of the concept of "civilization" prevails in our country. In most dictionaries, this word is interpreted as a synonym for culture. In a broad sense, it means the totality of the material and spiritual achievements of society in its historical development, in the narrow - only material culture.

Therefore, most scientists tend to define civilization "as a socio-cultural community with qualitative specifics", as "a holistic concrete historical formation, distinguished by the nature of its relationship to the natural world and the internal features of its original culture".

The culturological path to understanding civilization is a form of epistemological reductionism, when the whole world of people is reduced to its cultural characteristics. Thus, the civilizational approach is identified with the culturological one. In this regard, it should be noted that back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially in the countries of the Germanic language, culture was opposed to the concept of “civilization”.

Thus, Kant already outlines the difference between the concepts of civilization and culture. Spengler, representing civilization as a set of technical and mechanical elements, opposes it to culture as the realm of organic life. Therefore, he argues that civilization is the final stage in the development of any culture or any period. community development, which are characterized by a high level of scientific and technical advances and the decline of art and literature.

In addition, some scientists, regardless of their ideas about what underlies civilization, consider it as an external world in relation to man, while they interpret culture as a symbol of his inner heritage, as a spiritual code of life.

In this regard, the term "civilization" is used in a normative-value sense, which allows fixing what is called the matrix or "dominant form of integration" (P. Sorokin).

Such an understanding also differs from the idea of ​​it as a “conglomeration of various phenomena” and does not reduce civilization to the specifics of culture.

Thus, from this point of view, civilizational and cultural approaches are different ways of scientific interpretation of history. The civilizational approach is focused primarily on the search for a "single matrix", the dominant form of social integration. Culturological - the study of culture as the dominant social life. Different bases can act as a matrix of this or that civilization.

In addition, civilizations also differ in development algorithms (social genotypes) and cultural archetypes.

Conclusion

Culture in its essential being cannot be understood without its correlation with society, taken as a whole. The interpretation of culture we have already mentioned, called summative (culture is the result, the sum of actions and deeds of people), completely removes this problem, because in this understanding, culture and society are synonyms, they coincide. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that culture and society are related to each other not in an abstract, but in a concrete identity, which implies not only a coincidence, but also a difference, which, however, cannot be considered as such a rigid separation of cultural and social, when between them a deaf barrier is erected.

Relations between society and culture can be interpreted in different ways. For example (according to M. Kagan), culture is a product of society's activity, and society is the subject of this activity. Or (according to E. Markaryan) take as a starting point the idea of ​​culture as a function of society. These authors are known in the national culturological literature of recent decades as active defenders of the technological understanding of the essence of culture.

Based on this, at the philosophical level of consideration, it turns out that the concept of "culture" characterizes the mode of activity of a particular subject of social integrity, acting as a technology of this subjective activity, while it fits well into the abstract philosophical model of society.

But how is “society” understood in its self-sufficiency as a specific fragment of being, an original reality? In different socio-philosophical concepts (from Plato to S. L. Frank, from K. Marx to P. Sorokin), society is interpreted ambiguously. However, almost all of them have one common idea. Society is not a simple set of people (arithmetic counting), not a "bunch" of individuals, but some integral system in which they are united by a set of connections (relations). The interaction of people forms social life, it creates society as a kind of living organism (an organic whole). And therefore, it is hardly worth discarding the formula of classical Marxism that society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of those connections and relations in which they are with each other.

It is social relations (connections) that act as a prerequisite and condition for human activity proper. When a person (a newborn) is born, with a whole set of inherited individual qualities, he enters a social environment that does not depend on him. He, passing his life path (biography), must “fit” into the network of social relations, socialization (acquire social roles), absorb cultural traditions, and only then he will be able to act as a subject of culture.

Culture is a way of people's activity, and social relations are a springboard, a basis, a field for this activity. Such an understanding helps to understand exactly how society (social relations) and culture (mode of activity) are connected. Social relations are grounds, and culture is grounded. Society creates a field for human action, its present appearance determines their boundaries and to a certain extent determines the nature and methods of action. Culture and society do not correlate as part and whole, segment and totality. They interpenetrate. In fact, we are talking here about two planes of consideration of people's lives.

The first - "society" - is a vision of human life from the side of ways of uniting individuals into integrity, creating a model of their unity.

Another plan - "culture" - is a vision of human life, based on how people act, what they create and pass on from generation to generation. Culture, acting as an aspect of action (the ability to do), reveals itself as an indispensable side of any activity, being a kind of expression of its quality, posited certainty.

Finding out the question of the connection between culture and society, we answer two more questions.

The first of them: what exactly determines, justifies the way of human activity? And we answer: the concrete image of the present society (individual, "environment", nature of the social structure, region, country, continent, all mankind) that has grown in the course of its own history. Inherited activity, coupled with individual and group genetic determination, characterizes the appearance and forms of human culture.

And the second question: in what spheres and to what extent is culture specifically revealed? And here we see the presence of a fan of cultural phenomena. There is a culture of production and economic culture, organizational, political, legal, moral, scientific, religious, environmental, pedagogical and other forms, depending on the specifics of the segment of public life in which it operates. And it is no coincidence that in the practice of word usage, quite often one has to deal with the reduction (reduction) of an integral multidimensional culture to one of the forms of its functioning. For some, culture appears primarily as the acquisition of wealth. art treasures, to others it seems to be morality (let us recall the formula of A. Schweitzer “Culture is ethics”), still others believe that one who does not have religious experience is not cultured, for the fourth, a person who is not familiar with the highest achievements of science is outside culture.

In a different perspective, the entry of culture into the social horizontal, into the actual social structure, is revealed. Here the question of the subject of activity arises. Who is acting? No longer where, not in what area and how does it act, but who?

The concept of the object of activity is interpreted by philosophy in definitions different levels. From the epistemological pair of Western philosophy "subject-object", representing in an abstract form the practical relationship of a generic person to the world, to an individual acting in the society of an individual person (personality).

The fact is that in the integral organism of society there are separate (horizontal) subsystems, socio-historical communities of various types. Their presence and interaction characterize the emergence and development of the actual social structure.

From these positions, the social subject appears as a group (community) of people united by objective properties and connections into a qualitatively defined social education. It should be noted that the subjects of the social community are not only communities (classes, ethnic groups, sub-ethnic groups, professional groups, generations, etc.), but also institutions, organizations, associations (states, parties, unions, commercial groups, etc.). ).

In the most general form, it would be possible to expand the following chain of subjects of activity: an individual (personality), a small (contact) group, social institutions, organizations and associations, classes, other subjects social stratification(stratifications), ethnic groups, country-states, regional communities, humanity (generic subject). Each of these formations can act and acts as a subject of culture.

Therefore, it is legitimate to talk about the culture of the individual, about the national, youth culture, about the culture of the West or the East, about the tribal (universal) culture.

Thus, all of the above makes it possible to characterize the essence of culture through the category of the mode of human activity. Existing in the forms of external (objectified) and internal (subjective) objectivity, culture acts as a principle of communication between a social person and the subject of his actions, predetermining the nature, mechanism and direction of the actions themselves. That is why it appears in the form of a system of regulatory activity, which carries the accumulated experience accumulated by history. These regulators themselves are a contradictory unity of the material and the ideal, their interweaving and interpenetration.

Such an approach to culture makes it possible to capture its deep essence and understand why it is “spilled” in the entire sociality, woven into social life and inherent in the human race, everyone and everyone, any individual and the whole society.

List of used literature

Drach G.V. Culturology. Rostov-on-Don, 1996

Kogan L.N. Sociology of culture. M., 1995

Culture as a social phenomenon. Journal "Nature and Man" No. 3, 1995

And Civilization as Historical Forms of Culture Translation // Modes of Time: Socio-Philosophical Analysis: Sat. articles / Ed. . - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 2005. S. 184-194. (0.7 p.l.).

Savagery, barbarism and civilization

AS HISTORICAL FORMS OF CULTURE BROADCASTING

, Ph.D., Associate Professor

The entire socio-historical phylogenesis of society is conventionally divided into three stages - savagery, barbarism, civilization. In terms of their functional significance, these stages are historical forms of cultural transmission. Savagery metaphorically embodies human childhood. Barbarism is presented as an ardent, unbridled youth in itself. Civilization corresponds to the maturity of human existence, organized into a special socio-systemic community of people. In the state of savagery, the elements of the emerging culture are rigidly determined, spontaneous, primitive. Wildness usually manifests itself in the form dominance of nature over culture. In the state of barbarism, culture acquires the features of a flexible determination. Here the forces of nature and culture are in dynamic balance. Civilized culture acquires the character of a universal determination. Here culture dominates nature. Therefore, the call of nature here is transformed and oriented in the direction that is set by the cultural forms of social existence and rational ways of existence.

All peoples go through a historical path from savagery to barbarism, for savagery and barbarism are the archaic foundations of any modern civilized people. Therefore, savagery and barbarism are historically necessary ways of human origin and existence, in which the natural principle plays a more important role, and without which modern civilization hangs in the imagination as an empty abstraction.

The first abstract social forms and ways of people's existence initially, in an embryonic form, exist before -, outside - and regardless of emerging and emerging elements, norms, and samples of culture. When the elements of culture only appear episodically and generally cannot line up even in one consistently interconnected series, then in such a situation one can speak of super-savagery, preceding the state of savagery. If several elements of culture begin to line up in the simplest series of interconnected events, then savagery begins as the simplest social form of human existence.

In the course of his life, an ancient man, not knowing how he sets different vector orientations of his being. Human nature (the natural body and the natural properties inherent in this body) never goes beyond the limits of the area that arises between such vector orientations of its being as mortal and immanent. It is between these orientations that the whole variety of forms and modes of existence of human nature arises. The farther the vector applications of the immanent and the mortal are separated from each other, the richer the area of ​​possibilities for the realization of human nature.

Humanity arises not only from nature, and, to put it even more strictly, not from nature at all. The vector orientations of immanent and mortal being are not opposite to each other. Moreover, with their multidirectionality, they set a common area for them in which human nature exists. For the immanent, the transcendent is the opposite, and for the temporal, the eternal. Vector orientations of transcendental and eternal being are directed to the area opposite to human nature. They define the general sphere in which culture exists.

In the era of super-savagery, the area of ​​culture, one might say, does not exist, because. here the transcendent and the eternal do not yet exist, although the potential possibility for them is already presupposed by the inverse meanings of the immanent and the perishable. Super-savagery differs from savagery in that the transcendental and the eternal merge at one point and do not differ from each other, do not receive a vector existence in which a person could somehow realize his intentions.

In the broadest sense, there is no hard line between super-savagery and savagery. A common feature for them is that with their common being they lay the foundation for humanity, being its initial form. But at the same time, they never lose their ability to be a through form of all human existence. First, savagery acts as a causal-historical basis in relation to barbarism, and then in relation to civilization. In both barbarism and civilization, savagery can play different roles, depending on the conditions, tendencies, meanings, and other circumstances in which it is realized. But all these changing roles and meanings of savagery will always be conditioned by the same common essence, which directly follows from the interplay of the interrelated forces of nature itself, in which the biological and social principles are not separated. human life. The objective conditions for the play of these elemental forces of nature are directly determined in favor of the circumstance that shapes the development of human culture.

Wildness, taken in relation to civilization, manifests itself as a deeper, latent, secret foundation than in relation to barbarism. Therefore, it can be said that in a civilized society, it is not the primordial, original savagery itself that manifests itself, but a special, "civilian" savagery, endowed with a certain potential for more mature and civilized possibilities for the manifestation of this outlandish essence. Nevertheless, even in barbarism, savagery does not manifest itself so straightforwardly, openly and obviously, as it does in archaic conditions.

In this regard, it is clear that savagery for civilization is not the only formal basis on which immanent forms and methods of translating elements of culture unfold. Barbarism can no less successfully play its causal role in various spheres of the life of society, sometimes capable of significantly crowding out and limiting both elements of savagery and elements of civilized existence. In the conditions of savagery, the civilization of the ancient Greeks, for example, expressed a more mature form of organizing social life in its era, in comparison with the surrounding "wild-barbarian" world. Nevertheless, in the spiritual life of the wild-barbarian world, relations between people are at best determined by the formula of naturalistic humanism, which I. Goethe expressed in a poetically mature form:

“... Clear before me

The final conclusion of earthly wisdom:

Only he is worthy of life and freedom,

Who every day goes to fight for them!».

Humanism, cultivated by reason, in contrast to naturalistic humanism, which exists in the natural course of history, thanks to the mechanisms of morality, state and law, removes the need for a person every day " go to battle" for your life and freedom.

The formation and observance of rational-legal norms of behavior, first in the bowels of ethics, and then beyond it, is cultivated in ancient society in various ways. One of the most obvious of these was the theatre. For the soul of the ancient Greek, the more public form "paideia" becomes widely demanded. After all, it is no coincidence that the theater, in which a mask is put on the true state of affairs, becomes more important for the Athenians than the fatherland. Behind the screen of a theatrical spectacle, one of the greatest human discoveries was hidden - the creation of a social mechanism for the historical design of the course of events, for the implementation of the very historical creativity. Speaking about the true social essence of the theater, K.Stanislavsky noted that "the joint creativity of not one, but many creators is embodied here, ... the impact of not one, but many arts at once." The actor and the spectator constitute one holistic co-creation.

The ancient theater was one of the first, most stable foundations in the formation of a generally accepted type and prototype, transmitted to a civilized culture. Here, the cultivated humanity comes not from the very nature of man, in which the forces of the elemental interweaving of faith, reason, passions, emotions and instincts play, but from mediation from this nature, from a retreat from it. The theater brings this elemental interlacing of elements of humanity into a special normalized order, which teaches people to see and understand together the universal movement, the common impulse in their soul and in their body. The theater not only embodies the expressive richness of the forms of being of the “mass man”, but also transforms everyone in such a way that the play of the wild forces of nature in his soul begins to be supplanted by the flirtation of the soul itself over its natural forces.

Thus, the sublime harmony of humanity cultivated in the theater is gradually formed for the people themselves, in the course of external theatrical contemplation behind the impulses of human nature, in the course of a reflexive comprehension of its feigned naivety and vulgarity. The mystery and temptation of the theatrical action and the penetrating spectacle lay in the fact that ancient man was accustomed to renunciation, to retreat, to abstraction from his nature, which for centuries dominated him in his own soul. An attempt at an external psycho-emotional, psychedelic objectification of one's passions, arising in the course of reflexive empathy for the stage action, the objectification of feelings in the plot predetermination of a tragicomic farce, a gladiatorial duel, an Olympic competition, a philosophical dialogue and a dispute that give rise to truth, goodness and beauty - all this created such a series of impulses that led to sudden breakthroughs of the soul from animal immediacy into the bosom of rational, cultivated humanity.

A special role in overcoming (through development) savagery as the original form human being played by primitive social mechanisms filled with myth-making and ritual activities of people. At first, in a state of savagery, myth and ritual do not have an independent meaning and a clear distinction. They merge into one inseparable wholeness, which helps ancient man to humanize the surrounding nature, to look into it as in a mirror in order to see oneself there, one's human appearance. Therefore, historically, the first form of people's relationship to nature was syncretic, chaotically unified, undivided. Later, in the course of the primary socio-functional division of activity, myth (as a prototype of a social communication mechanism) and ritual (as a prototype of a social activity mechanism) are gradually divided into separate, systemically related, natural-historical, social mechanisms that are not directly related to the biological laws and mechanisms of nature itself. These mechanisms are aimed at the implementation of the transition of the main, most significant, valuable achievements of organized human existence from the state of savagery to the state of barbarism and further, if not directly, then indirectly, into civilization.

Some myths and rituals, especially those that were historically weeded out and then flourished in traditions, functionally translated the most valuable fragments of human existence directly from savagery into civilization. These are, first of all, those myths that fixed the skillful, speculative movement of thoughts in a linguistic form, in the elements of oral speech and in the signs of written speech, as well as those rituals that fixed especially significant norms of body movement (for example, the first forms of archaic labor or sports and gymnastic exercises). It is these myths and rituals in their interweaving that continue to make up the life-giving primordial layer of the original skills of humanity, effectively spiritualizing and materializing even such a rich experience of modern civilized culture.

Wildness manifests itself in a peculiar way at its different stages. It is the most "pure", primordial it is only in distant antiquity - where the first line was formed, separating the human world from the rest of the animal world. As such facets multiplied and deepened, the savagery did not weaken. On the contrary, she thus received new opportunities and conditions for self-realization. But at the same time, it lost its "purity" and became dependent on other circumstances penetrating into it. Some circumstances strengthened the social potential and the status of savagery, others weakened it, and such a functional differentiation of different meanings of savagery often played its noticeable role in the chronological sequence of unfolding events.

Classical barbarism, in contrast to the archaic barbarism that surrounded ancient civilization, is perceived in the ordinary mass consciousness through the norms, examples and images of the "gloomy" Middle Ages. A. Herzen eloquently writes about the problems of understanding the classical image of medieval barbarism: “If we forget the brilliant image of the Middle Ages, as the romantic school forced it into us, we will see in them (in the Middle Ages - M.K.) the most terrible contradictions, reconciled formally and fiercely tearing each other apart in deeds. Here civilized elements medieval culture reconcile a barbarian society, and the dying out remnants of savagery savagely tear it apart. Further, A. Herzen concretizes this polarization of the medieval image of barbarian humanity and notes that people, "believing in divine redemption, at the same time accepted that the modern world and man are under the direct wrath of God. Attributing to their personality the rights of infinite freedom, they took away all human conditions being among entire estates; their selflessness was selfishness, their prayer was a mercenary request, their soldiers were monks, their bishops were military leaders; the women they deify were kept as prisoners - abstinence from the pleasures of the innocent and devotion to violent debauchery, blind obedience and boundless self-will "2 . This is truly a test of humanity for limitless flexibility in the self-determination of social life.

Here, a number of important circumstances require clarification. Barbarism is a special stage of cultural development, in which humanity not only realizes its primary form of relation to the world, but is already actively using its capabilities in the form of cultural methods and patterns of socio-systemic existence, in contrast to the bio-systemic, herd unity, which is gradually losing crucial in the social organization of life. The barbaric way of human existence consists in the fact that people in their life activity are necessarily doomed to actively "balance" between the forces of nature and socio-cultural forces. Sometimes barbarism and savagery are metaphorically, and not without reason, meant by internal absurdities and shortcomings that manifest themselves in civilization itself. Therefore, it can be said that savagery and barbarism can also be presented in abstract identity as special "quasi-cultural" states that connect humanity with natural, law-like being, shimmering with all the colors of life in nature itself.

However, all forms of manifestation of barbarism are qualitatively different from savagery, and, above all, by their special inner aesthetics and refined balance between the wild forces of nature and the civilized forces of culture across the entire spectrum of forms of human life. This balance often arouses in people a vital-aesthetic admiration for the special way of self-organization of the entire way of barbarian life. This admiration in a wild man does not yet come through, but in a civilized man it is already enough with a trivially negative "excess". The meaning of barbarian life is clear and understandable only to the barbarian himself. Therefore, neither the savage nor the civilized man can truly understand what the barbarian does and thinks. This circumstance clarifies the question of why the barbarian often looks equally incomprehensible to the savage and to the civilized man.

This special barbaric attraction of man to his innermost essence is equally incomprehensible both from below and from above, both from the dark depths of human culture and from its shining peaks. It is precisely in this circumstance that the “quixotic”, chivalrous existence of barbarism is concluded, which is so close to the nature of a modern civilized teenager, who is in the circle of his peers and is situationally untwisted between the romantic aesthetics of the spirit and the all-encompassing heroism of the way of life.

Each epoch is characterized by its main genotype of human nature and its adequate socio-cultural form of human existence. Therefore, barbaric humanity always finds its place in our life, although it is never completely comprehensible to both the savage and the civilized man.

The historical existence of barbarism is full of dramatic inconsistency between the "voice" of the past, calling back to nature, and the "voice" of the future, drawing it into the world of culture being created. The barbarian's heart experiences something that neither the savage nor the "citizen" can experience. Barbarian life is torn between the material frailty of the body and the spiritual eternity of the soul. Therefore, he doomedly seeks his salvation and finds it in full in religion.

The drama of barbarian life is exacerbated by the fact that, on the one hand, nature shows enough "wise" examples and models worthy, if not direct imitation, then in any case - the corresponding understanding, assimilation and reproduction. But on the other hand, there is a no less worthy reason for choosing the path traveled by previous generations of people, passing on to us their experience of social, autonomous, isolated existence in the natural environment, by limiting and crowding out the ways of their biological coexistence with it.

Barbarism is more clearly defined in its comparison with civilization, which, as a mature form of manifestation of social life, is more convex and clearly shows the direction and mature content of social life. Such a comparison shows that barbarian humanity is characterized by a dramatic comprehension of nature - through the breakdown of its original nature in itself. At first naively, through superstitious-pagan myth-making, and then through religious-mystical spiritualization, the barbarian divides natural forces by quality and singles out their hierarchy in a consistent quantitative series. Thus, the barbarian gradually and in a peculiar way cognizes the structure and general harmony of all nature available to him, and then, as far as he can, makes the received ideas the subject of the entire world Universe.

The main historical purpose of barbarism is that humanity could empirically master all the tiny fragments, the smallest details and harmonious elements that make up the way of human life. That is why, as long as people deal with the elements of their social existence (and they will always have such a deal), barbarism is a potentially necessary, immanent form of humanity.

The realization of the historical destiny of barbarism is preparing a turning point in human history, which can already move on to a new direction in its cultural development - to the "self-sufficient" science of modern times. Here, humanity opens its mature civilized movement in the multipolar dynamics of mutual transitions between falsehood and truth, fact and theory, problem and its solution, experimental testing and verified methodology. Religious illusions of otherworldly salvation are being replaced by new hope and faith in scientific and technical possibilities that give the true benefits of life, discovered by science. However, no matter what prospects scientific and technological progress promises us, there is no complete deliverance from savagery and barbarism. These stages exist not only phylogenetically, as we are accustomed to believe, thinking about the far past time, but can also be considered in ontogenesis, i.e. in our modern life, both for the whole society and for each individual. Difficulty of detection modern forms savagery and barbarism is due to the fact that their actual status of existence in both bodily and spiritual life is constantly being pushed to the periphery of relevance by civilized being and civilized consciousness.

Manifestations of barbarism can also arise within a civilization. Therefore, we can say that barbarism is not only an archaic form of social life that has sunk into history, but also a necessary derivative, derived from the depths of civilization as a special social phenomenality, reminiscent of archaic barbarism in its features and signs. It cannot be assumed that a high level of development of civilization in itself displaces absolutely all elements of barbarism or savagery from social reality. Some of these elements, once formed, can be doomed to the subsequent "evolving eternity", which protects the further course of progress from the possibility of following a disastrous path. Therefore, if civilization in some situation chooses the course of development of social events leading to the abyss, then the wild cry of despair of the universal human soul and the barbaric impulse of the universal human body (crowd, human mass) are able to stop such an apocalyptic movement of history, activate the irrational search for a way out of the labyrinth, in which all directions lead to a common disastrous end.

In a broad historical aspect, between savagery, barbarism and civilization, there are not only direct, but also reverse connections, multiplying in their interaction the strength and power of the bio- and psychosocial nature of mankind. These connections are manifested, first of all, in the historically transparent nature of the existence of savagery, which can be divided into different stages - from archaic, ancient, primitive to modern, technogenic, civilized savagery.

In a civilized society, social forms of human interaction are formed on the basis of cultural patterns. Moreover, the very existence of a civilized society without the foundations of culture is impossible. Nevertheless, a really existing civilization always includes in an implicit, folded form both past stages - both savagery and barbarism - which never completely and irrevocably disappear from any episode of modern people's life. These archaic, fundamental stages in the development of humanity noticeably make themselves felt, especially in extreme, critical, crisis situations, where they clearly manifest their original naive, pro-naturalistic essence.

Civilization in general relies, first of all, on those genetic foundations that historically precede it and can always somehow make themselves felt. In this regard, theoretically defining the ontological limits of society, it is necessary, first of all, to identify the criterion for distinguishing between such fundamental states of society as savagery, barbarism and civilization. In the most general form, such a systemic criterion can be the relation driving forces, emerging between the two foundations of social life - natural history and cultural history, without taking into account which the knowledge of modern civilization loses its true meaning.

Like savagery, civilization can also be viewed in a broad sense. historical context- from an ancient set of isolated civilizations torn apart from each other to a single community of modern civilization. Each ancient civilization acts not only as a "embryo" that carries a future organism, but also as a "rag" from which history will sew the common fabric of humanity, for a genuine, "pure" civilization appears only as universal.

Here we are dealing with the realization of the universal universal human Self, which realizes itself only after it has become identical and identical to itself civilized. That clear I, which as social self-consciousness is already "here and now", does not coincide with the secret, essential I, which in potentiality fantasizes something about itself, fetishizes, i.e. projects its constituted being in different ways in the symbolic structures of the past, present and future, or even the eternal, “God-human”.

Following civilization, one can conceptually single out and ontologically designate the boundaries of the existence of the future super-civilization. Super-civilizations arise as a result of such a situation in human existence, in which human nature is “completely” leveled (displaced, replaced) by human culture. This means that the immanent and the mortal almost merge at one point, lose their vector orientation, and the transcendent and the eternal are removed from each other as much as possible for them.

It is in a super-civilized state that humanity as a creator will discover its merger with its own creation and learn to reap the fruits of this creation, which, apparently, will not only please, but also grieve, not only elevate heavenly complacency to heaven, but also throw them into hellish hell despair. Now the “apocalyptic” consciousness of civilization is semantically nourished by the metaphors of “death of God” (F. Nietzsche), “death of the author” (R. Barth), “death of man” (M. Foucault), “death of labor” (P. Thomson, R. Dahrendorf). Therefore, running far ahead and speaking about the "prospects" of civilization, it cannot be ruled out that sooner or later it will be said about the "death of civilization", that the "apocalyptic age" will come, meaning the "death" of mankind, in the traditional sense of understanding all previous earthly history. - "the end of history" (O. Toffler). This could mean moving from a rift in nature to a rift in human history. From this bifurcation point, the "mega-era" of historical existence will begin, in which back side"axial time", overturned by its "post-axial" course. Here the history of mankind will, as it were, step over the shadow of its past.

In this sense, the ideas of anthropocentrism are already giving way to the ideas of anthropocosmism. Humanity as a whole is becoming a real cosmic category. Such a state of mankind may mean the limit of the traditional existence of civilization, after which the "cosmolization" of life will begin. These ideas of cosmomorphism have long been widely and diversely played out in science fiction and futurological literature.

Goethe. M, 1969

Stanislavsky life in art // Collection of articles. op. In 8 vols. T.1. M., 1954.- S. 373.

Herzen in science // Op. In 2 vols. T.1. M., 1985.- P.105.

Morgan was the first to competently attempt to introduce a certain system into the prehistory of mankind, and as long as a significant expansion of the material does not force changes, the periodization he proposed will undoubtedly remain in force.

Of the three main eras - savagery, barbarism, civilization - it goes without saying that only the first two and the transition to the third occupy it. He divides each of these two epochs into a lower, middle, and higher stage, according to the progress in the production of means of subsistence, because, he says,

“skill in this production is decisive for the degree of human superiority and domination over nature; of all living beings, only man has managed to achieve almost unlimited dominance over the production of food. All the great epochs of human progress coincide more or less directly with the epochs of the expansion of livelihoods.

Along with this, the development of the family takes place, but it does not give such characteristic signs for distinguishing between periods.

1. Wildness

1. lowest rung. Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in tropical or subtropical

forests. They lived, at least in part, in trees; only this can explain their existence among large predatory animals. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; the main achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech. Of all the peoples that have become known in the historical period, not one was already in this primitive state. And although it probably lasted for many millennia, we cannot prove its existence on the basis of direct evidence; but, having recognized the origin of man from the animal kingdom, it is necessary to admit such a transitional state.

2. Middle step. It begins with the introduction of fish food (where we also include crayfish, mollusks and other aquatic animals) and with the use of fire. The two are mutually related, since fish food is made completely fit for consumption only thanks to fire. But with this new food, people became independent of climate and locality; following the course of rivers and sea ​​shores, they could even settle in the wild on most of the earth's surface. Roughly made, unpolished stone tools of the early Stone Age, the so-called Paleolithic, in whole or for the most part belonging to this period, are common on all continents and are clear evidence of these migrations. The settlement of new places and the constant active striving to search, combined with the possession of fire, produced by friction, brought new means of nutrition: starchy roots and tubers baked in hot ash or baking pits (earth ovens), game that, with the invention of the first weapon , clubs and spears, has become an additional food obtained on an occasional basis. Exclusively hunting peoples, as they are described in books, that is, those who live only hunting, never existed; for this prey from hunting is too unreliable. Due to the constant lack of food sources at this stage, apparently, cannibalism arose, which has persisted for a long time since then. The Australians and many Polynesians are still in this middle stage of savagery.

3. Highest level. It begins with the invention of the bow and arrow, thanks to which game became a permanent food, and hunting became one of the usual branches of labor. The bow, bowstring and arrow already constitute a very complex tool, the invention of which requires a long accumulated experience and more developed mental capacity, therefore, and simultaneous acquaintance with many other inventions. Comparing with each other peoples who already know the bow and arrow, but are not yet familiar with pottery (Morgan considers it the beginning of the transition to barbarism), we really find already some rudiments of settlement in villages, a certain degree of mastery of the production of means of subsistence: wooden vessels and utensils , hand weaving (without a loom) from wood fiber, wicker baskets from bast or reeds, polished (Neolithic) stone tools. Fire and a stone ax usually also make it possible to already make boats from solid wood, and in some places make logs and planks for building a dwelling. We meet all these achievements, for example, among the Indians of the North-West of America, who, although they know the bow and arrow, do not know pottery. The bow and arrow were to the age of savagery what the iron sword was to barbarism and firearms for civilization, a decisive weapon.

2. Barbarism

1. lowest rung. Begins with the introduction of pottery. It can be shown that in many cases and probably everywhere it was due to the coating of wicker or wooden vessels with clay in order to make them fireproof. At the same time, it was soon found that molded clay served this purpose even without an internal vessel.

Until now, we could consider the course of development as completely universal, having in certain period power for all peoples, regardless of their location. But with the onset of barbarism, we have reached a stage where the difference in the natural conditions of the two great

continents. A characteristic moment of the period of barbarism is the domestication and breeding of animals and the cultivation of plants. The eastern mainland, the so-called Old World, possessed almost all domesticable animals and all kinds of crops suitable for breeding, except one; the western continent, America, of all domesticable mammals - only llama, and even then only in one part of the south, and of all cultivated cereals only one, but the best - maize. As a result of this difference in natural conditions, the population of each hemisphere has since developed in its own special way, and the landmarks at the boundaries of the individual stages of development become different for each of the two hemispheres.

2. Middle step. In the east it begins with the domestication of domestic animals, in the west with the cultivation of edible plants by means of irrigation and with the use of adobes (raw bricks dried in the sun) and stone for buildings.

We start from the west, because here, before the conquest of America by the Europeans, they did not go further than this stage anywhere.

The Indians, who were in the lowest stage of barbarism (they belonged to everyone who lived east of the Mississippi), already knew at the time of their discovery some method of growing maize in gardens, and possibly also pumpkins, melons and other garden plants, which constituted a very substantial part of their diet; they lived in wooden houses, in fenced-in villages. The northwestern tribes, especially those who lived in the Columbia River basin, were still at the highest stage of savagery and did not know either pottery or any kind of plant cultivation. On the contrary, the Indians belonging to the so-called pueblos in New Mexico, the Mexicans, the inhabitants of Central America and the Peruvians were at the time of the conquest at the middle stage of barbarism: they lived in fortress-like houses made of adobe or stone, grew maize in artificially irrigated gardens and others - various, depending on location and climate, - edible plants that served as their main

food sources, and even tamed some animals: the Mexicans - the turkey and other birds, the Peruvians - the llama. In addition, they were familiar with the working of metals, but with the exception of iron, and therefore they still could not do without weapons and tools made of stone. The Spanish conquest cut short any further independent development.

In the East, the middle stage of barbarism began with the domestication of animals that gave milk and meat, while the culture of plants, apparently, remained unknown here for a very long time during this period. The domestication and breeding of cattle and the formation of large herds, apparently, caused the separation of the Aryans and Semites from the rest of the mass of barbarians. Among European and Asian Aryans, domestic animals still have common names, but cultivated plants almost never.

The formation of herds led to pastoral life in places suitable for this: among the Semites - on the grassy plains along the Euphrates and the Tigris, among the Aryans - on similar plains of India, as well as along the Oxus and Jaxartes, the Don and the Dnieper. For the first time, domestication of animals was achieved, apparently, on the borders of such pasture areas. It seems to later generations, therefore, that the pastoral peoples originated from areas that, in reality, not only could not be the cradle of mankind, but, on the contrary, were almost unsuitable for life for their wild ancestors and even for people who stood on the lower rung of barbarism. On the contrary, after these middle-class barbarians had become accustomed to the life of a shepherd, it never occurred to them to voluntarily return from the grassy river valleys to the forested regions in which their ancestors lived. And even when the Semites and Aryans were pushed further north and west, they could not move into the Western Asian and European woodlands before the cultivation of cereals made it impossible for them to feed their cattle, especially in winter, on this less favorable soil. It is more than probable that the cultivation of cereals here was motivated primarily by the need for fodder for livestock, and only subsequently became an important source of human nutrition.

The rich meat and milk diet of the Aryans and Semites, and its especially favorable influence on the development of children, may perhaps be attributed to the more successful development of both of these races. Indeed, the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, who are forced to subsist almost exclusively on vegetable food, have a smaller brain than the Indians, who are on the lowest rung of barbarism and eat more meat and fish. In any case, at this stage, cannibalism gradually disappears and is preserved only as a religious act or, which is almost equivalent here, as a witchcraft rite.

3. Highest level. It begins with the smelting of iron ore and passes into civilization as a result of the invention of alphabetic writing and its use to record verbal creativity. This stage, which, as has already been said, was passed on its own only in the eastern hemisphere, is richer in success in the field of production than all the previous stages put together. The Greeks of the heroic era, the Italic tribes shortly before the founding of Rome, the Germans of Tacitus, the Normans of the Viking times belong to it.

First of all, for the first time we meet here a plow with an iron share, with livestock as a draft force; thanks to him, agriculture on a large scale became possible, crop farming, and at the same time, an almost unlimited increase in living supplies for the conditions of that time; then - uprooting the forest and turning it into arable land and meadows, which again on a large scale could not be done without an iron ax and an iron shovel. And at the same time, a rapid increase in population began, which became more dense in small spaces. Before the advent of crop farming, absolutely exceptional conditions must have developed in order for half a million people to be allowed to unite themselves under a single central leadership; this probably never happened.

The full flowering of the highest stage of barbarism appears before us in the poems of Homer, especially in

"Iliad". Improved iron tools, bellows, hand mill, potter's wheel, cooking oil and winemaking, advanced metalworking, turning into artistic crafts, wagon and war chariot, building ships from logs and planks, the beginnings of architecture as an art, cities surrounded by battlements with towers, the Homeric epic and all mythology - this is the main legacy that the Greeks transferred from barbarism to civilization. Comparing with this the description given by Caesar and even Tacitus of the Germans, who were in the initial stage of the very stage of culture from which they were preparing to pass into the higher level of Homeric Greeks, we see what a wealth of achievements in the development of production the highest stage of barbarism has.

The picture of the development of mankind sketched here by me, according to Morgan, through the steps of savagery and barbarism to the origins of civilization is already quite rich in new features and, more importantly, indisputable, since they are taken directly from production. And yet this picture will seem pale and pathetic compared to the one that will unfold before us at the end of our wandering; only then will it be possible to fully illuminate the transition from barbarism to civilization and the striking contrast between the two. In the meantime, we can generalize Morgan's periodization in this way: savagery is a period of predominantly appropriation of the finished products of nature; products artificially created by man serve mainly as auxiliary tools for such appropriation. Barbarism is the period of the introduction of cattle breeding and agriculture, the period of mastering the methods of increasing the production of natural products with the help of human activity. Civilization is a period of mastering the further processing of the products of nature, a period of industry in the proper sense of the word and art.

wildness. The presence of certain modes of social significance at the stages of social evolution can be judged depending on the existence of certain figures - carriers of these modes. The first significant figure that we encounter at the earliest stage of savagery (when man was just beginning to stand out among other animals) is the figure of the leader. Therefore, it is obvious that the first and only mode at the beginning of the history of society was power, the origin of which is lost in the depths of the animal world. Only the leader, the leader, could establish himself as a social being. His decisions, deeds, actions mattered to all members of the community. He was the bearer of power, in whatever primitive forms it may be expressed. It was through power that he acquired social significance. The remaining members of the community remained in the position of natural beings and asserted themselves as such through posterity. However, the leader had an advantage here as well, since he had sexually mature females at his disposal.

Power was probably achieved with the help of natural properties or qualities: intelligence, strength, ability to make decisions and take aggressive actions (malice, rage, "bestial cunning", etc.). It is difficult to say which of these properties mattered more. Ethnologists have an opinion that in a herd of anthropoid primates, not the most intelligent, beautiful or strong, but the most "stubborn" most often gets into the leaders. Perhaps the ability to make a decision and keep it for a long time is really the most important quality of a leader. Of course, he would have to be strong enough to stand up for himself. In addition, the function of protecting females and cubs required a certain amount of heroism and self-sacrifice.

The only way to obtain social recognition could be an examination, probably in the most crude initial form - a fight. "Experts" - the contender for leadership and the leader - on their own skins learned the superiority of the opponent or proved their own.

Martial arts as a way of proving rightness or superiority over an opponent is often mentioned in mythology and literary monuments. It has survived literally to this day (dueling among the nobles, "showdowns" among the bandits). And in ancient times, competition for the sake of power, honor, glory was widespread among different peoples, and this competition often took the form of a sacred game. For example, in Chinese tradition steady type of legendary establishment state power consisted in the custom, according to which the heroic prince proved his superiority to his rivals by victory in a miraculous test. As a rule, such a tournament entails the death of the defeated [Hizinga. 1992, p. 71 and others]. Odysseus, in order to regain power, also wins the competition arranged by Penelope for suitors, pulling his bow, and then interrupting his rivals.

An excellent illustration of such expertise is provided by the "taking office" custom of the priest of Forest Diana in ancient Italy, described by J.J. Frazer in The Golden Bough.

In ancient times, near the small forest lake Nemi, there was a sacred grove and a sanctuary of the goddess Diana. A tree grew in this grove, and “around it all day long until late at night, a gloomy figure of a man walked with a crouching gait. He held a drawn sword in his hand and carefully looked around, as if at any moment he expected the attack of the enemy. It was a priest-killer, and the one he was waiting for, sooner or later, also had to kill him and take his place. That was the law of the sanctuary. A contender for the position of a priest could achieve him in only one way - by killing his predecessor, and he held this position until a stronger and more dexterous competitor killed him.

This position, the possession of which was so unsteady, brought with it the royal title. But no crowned person was tormented by darker thoughts than a Nemian priest. From year to year, in winter and summer, in good and bad weather, he kept his lonely watch, and only at the risk of his life did he fit snatches into a restless slumber. The slightest weakening of vigilance, the manifestation of bodily weakness and the loss of the art of wielding a sword put his life in danger ...

A certain tree grew in the Nemian sanctuary, and not a single branch could be plucked from it. Only a runaway slave, if he succeeded, was allowed to break one of the branches. In case of success, he was given the right to fight in single combat with the priest and, if he won, take his place and inherit the title of King of the Forest.

According to the general opinion of the ancients, this fatal branch was the same Golden Bough, which Aeneas, at the instigation of the Sibyl, plucked before undertaking a dangerous journey to the land of the dead. Frazer believed that the inheritance he described by the right of the sword arose in time immemorial, when "prehistoric Italy was still in a state of savagery" [Frazer. 1986, pp. 9-14].

In the era of savagery, at its earliest stage, a person could hardly establish himself in society through something other than power. Without her, he remained a social nonentity. Therefore, the possession of power elevated its bearer to an almost unattainable height, and he himself became almost a supernatural being. Is it not from these ancient times that power is considered the first hypostasis of God, and his first name is “Lord”?

At a later stage of savagery, next to the figure of the leader, you can see the figures of a shaman (magician) and a master. The basis for the appearance of these figures was the gradual development of activity.

As he mastered fire and other methods of processing natural materials, a person got the opportunity to influence the life of the community not only through power, but also as a bearer of certain knowledge, skills, and abilities. At that time, these knowledge and skills obviously constituted an integral unity, consisting of fantastic ideas and elements of objective knowledge. Fantastic ideas underlay the "management" of natural processes with the help of magical (witchcraft, shamanic) means. Elements of real knowledge served as the basis for primitive technological processes in the production of things. At the same time, magical rites accompanied the production almost without fail. Generally recognized in modern science what a savage compared to civilized man almost incapable of distinguishing the natural from the supernatural, tribal customs from natural laws, and so on. That is why such a perception of the world is the basis of magical actions.

Since the "management" of natural forces with the help of magical means "causing or stopping rain and wind, accelerating the arrival of spring, etc.) was extremely important for society, specialists engaged in social magic became very significant figures in it. True, in case of failure, they risked their lives and often paid with it, but such a risk forced smart and ambitious people, on the one hand, to look for ways to deceive their fellow tribesmen, and on the other, stimulated the search for real knowledge. Public magic classes opened the way to power. The figure of the king-priest arose, the royal title was combined with the administration of priestly duties, which was commonplace in different countries in ancient times.

It happened, although less frequently, that knowledge of real technological processes turned out to be a stepping stone to power, for example, blacksmithing [Frazer. 1986, p. 85-87 and others). True, in the popular mind, blacksmithing was closely associated with witchcraft for a very long time. It is no coincidence that in Gogol it is the blacksmith who takes the upper hand over the devil (“Christmas Night”).
The development of activity went side by side with the development of thinking and the emergence of language. These processes mutually determined each other. Accordingly, in the later period of savagery, “historical” memory arose, the rudiments of medical and visual arts consciousness was formed. Glimpses of the latter were accompanied by amazement at the secrets and mysteries of the world, as well as the desire to influence it. The emerging consciousness stimulated the emergence of ideas about the spirit as some mysterious, but undeniable force. An idea was formed about holiness as a special involvement in the spirit, the ability of a person to be a temporary or permanent carrier (or conductor) of supernatural spiritual power.

On the whole, it can be said that a certain syncretic mode of social significance was taking shape, in which knowledge, skill and holiness turned out to be merged together, and knowledge always acted in some kind of auxiliary function. The figures of the leader, shaman (magician, priest), master in different combinations could be combined in one person, but could also exist separately. In specific cases, such modes as power, skill and holiness then came to the fore. Knowledge did not come to the fore, but was a hidden component in other modes. Perhaps, during this period, ideas arose about the second (creation and creativity) and third (spiritual essence) hypostases of God. Accordingly, his second and third names arose - "Creator" and "Holy Spirit".

The emergence of mastery and holiness (in part, knowledge) as modes of social significance expanded the circle of applicants for the performance of vital functions in society, while simultaneously expanding the field of possible application of individual forces. In particular, a woman could also claim the role of a master, a magician, a bearer of holiness. Historians believe, for example, that initially the rite of initiation of young men into hunters was led by a woman prophet, only later replaced by a male teacher, “grandfather of the forest”. The memory of this role of a woman is preserved in Russian folk tales in the form of a benevolent Baba Yaga, who helps the hero with advice and deed [Rybakov B.A. 1997, p.172]. Important functions associated with magic and increasing the role of women in society were the storage of fire, the manufacture of primitive clay vessels, and the preparation of food and medicines.

The presence of the modes mentioned above limits the value of brute force and aggressive emotional reactions for the achievement of power. It required more intelligence, cunning, physical dexterity and mental flexibility, etc., in order to perform these functions with more or less success. Since, due to the high position of women in society, a man could achieve power through marriage (marrying a princess after a series of trials is perhaps the most common way to achieve the throne in Russian fairy tales), the importance of such personal qualities as natural strength and beauty increased.

In addition, to master knowledge, skill, holiness, purely natural properties and inclinations are not enough. A number of qualities that have a “social coloring” are required, which develop on the basis of natural properties, but are not reduced to them. These qualities (in particular, diligence, patience, obedience, etc.) are brought up with the help of special rituals-exercises, as well as by direct (subconscious) assimilation of norms of behavior from elders during the period of cohabitation of persons of the same sex (for example, adolescent boys in "houses of men") or during joint activities with a master or magician.

It is important to emphasize that the objectively necessary activity aimed at mastering the external world is not only becoming more complicated, but a system is being formed educational activities which aims to train specialists in various areas of the world and spirit. In education, elements of diversity are manifested.

The procedure of social recognition remains the same - personal expertise, but in many respects it loses its coarse features. It contains additional criteria for evaluating a person - his knowledge, skills in various fields of activity, as well as the ability to direct his activities for the benefit of the community. The rites of initiation for the majority remain very severe, if not cruel, but a person is already being evaluated collectively. This makes the assessment more objective. In addition, new forms of expertise are emerging (besides martial arts). Evaluation comes from different figures: a shaman, a master, a leader, ordinary members of the community, as well as from the point of view of the suitability of the applicant for future social functions. A person is evaluated as a possible specialist in the spheres of spirit, matter, and society.

The need to evaluate the usefulness of each member of the community probably caused the need for public opinion, which serves as a natural prerequisite for early tribal democracy, and, consequently, ideas about the law within the clan-tribe. After all, if there is no need for everyone to evaluate everyone, then why democracy? And how is such an assessment possible if not everyone is entitled to it?

Towards the highest period of savagery, the first rudiments of an objective, impersonal method of social recognition also appear. A person (master) begins to be valued not by his personal natural qualities (beauty and strength), but by the result of labor, by product. The latter, probably, has not yet served as the subject of a targeted exchange within a tribe or clan, but has already begun to move within the community, passing from one person to another and carrying information about the master who made it. This means that when evaluating the master, his social quality is a skill that is made up of knowledge, skills and abilities that are not inherent in a person from birth, but are transmitted through the social environment.

The decline in the role of some personal natural qualities in assessing the master was probably reflected in myths in which the deities-masters are depicted with natural flaws (according to the Greek myth, Hephaestus, the blacksmith god, was born so weak and ugly that his angry mother, Hera, threw off the baby from Olympus to a distant land. With the participation of sea goddesses, Hephaestus grew up with a wide chest and powerful hands, but ugly and lame). However, natural flaws do not prevent masters from marrying the most beautiful women: according to one version ancient Greek myth Aphrodite herself became the wife of Hephaestus! [Odyssey. Song 8. 265-315].

Mastery became a means of gaining fame, even if it was very narrow and fleeting. A well-made thing, especially weapons, is highly appreciated (later, during barbarism, individual samples of military weapons receive personal names). In addition, there is a more or less regular exchange of things and products between collectives (kinds, tribes). Permanent places of such an exchange appear, where people receive the necessary things from each other, initially without even entering into direct contact. This brings a market principle to the impersonal mode of social recognition. People become meaningful to each other as owners of something useful. Since the chiefs usually become the custodians of things intended for exchange, in their hands accumulates wealth, which appears for the first time precisely as a collective property.

If the above considerations regarding the figures of the leader, the magician (shaman) and the master, as well as the modes of holiness, power, skill and knowledge make sense, then there is a doubt in the well-known scheme of the division of labor. Perhaps, contrary to Engels' opinion, "the first major division of labor" did not occur when "pastoral tribes emerged from the rest of the mass of barbarians" [Marx K., Engels F T.21, p.161], but much earlier, when sorcerers and healers who apparently formed "the oldest class of professionals in the history of society" [Frazer. 1986, pp. 106-107). If we add to this class the class of craftsmen that arose around the same period, then it turns out that the first major division of labor was within the community along functional lines, which, we note, encompassed the entire world.

The activity of the leader was aimed at the world of people: at maintaining order within the community, at organizing the most important joint actions within the tribe and interacting with neighbors, including peace, war, trade, alliances.

The activity of a shaman (magician, sorcerer, later a priest) was aimed at the world of higher powers, at the world of space, including later the world of the spirit, as well as at the bodily and spiritual existence of an individual.

The activity of the master was aimed at a specific objective world, at the world of things. With its help, the mastery of natural forces and resources was carried out.

It is necessary to emphasize two more circumstances, characterizing the stage of savagery.

First, of the pair of values ​​"personality - society", the most important value was, of course, society. Officials (leaders, magicians, masters) became significant precisely because they performed important public functions [Frazer, 1986, p. . 1986, pp. 87-88]. In other words, they acquired their significance not as specific individuals, but as bearers of important social functions.

As J. Fraser notes, at a certain stage in the development of society, people often believe that the course of natural phenomena to a greater or lesser extent depends on the king (priest), since he is endowed with supernatural power or is the embodiment of a deity. Therefore, the responsibility for bad weather, harvest or other natural disaster rests with the ruler personally. It is assumed that the power of the king over natural phenomena, like his power over his subjects, is exercised through acts of will. Therefore, if there are droughts, famines, epidemics, storms, the people attribute these misfortunes to the negligence or criminal behavior of their ruler. For this, “he is punished with rods and shackled, What if he continues to persevere?(my italics - P.S.), he is either overthrown or killed ”[Frazer, 1986, p.165-166].

Secondly, it is precisely the quality of the performance of these functions, i.e. service the behavior of officials was subordinated, which was often accompanied by great inconvenience for them [Frazer. 1986, p.9, 165-166 and others]. This means that the main type of objectively necessary activity was service, work. Egoactivity was allowed only to the extent that it was required for the physical preservation of the individual. Apparently, it could not have been otherwise, as long as labor productivity was so low that it was possible to survive only through joint efforts and a strict collective distribution of the product.

Thirdly, which is clear from what has been said, the economy at the stage of savagery could only be homemade according to its main goal - it was carried out to directly meet the needs of the producers themselves. The basis of the economy was appropriating activity, often specialized in certain types natural resources. As a result, tribes engaged in hunting and fishing, harvesting peoples arose. Later wandering hunters gave rise to pastoral peoples, and harvesters gave rise to farmers.

In general, savagery is characterized by the following features: 1) the predominance of official activity, 2) the dominance of the value of "society", 3) the presence of power, skill and holiness as the main modes of social significance, and individual modes could merge together, 4) these modes are available on the basis of official activities, 5) when they are achieved, the instrumental values ​​are mainly (except for the figure of the master) natural qualities, 6) the leading role of personal expertise as a way of social recognition, 7) housekeeping.

Obviously, a society in a state of savagery can be quite stable, since the activities of the main officials ensured the satisfaction of the most important social needs. The question arises, how is the further evolution of society possible? After all, self-activity should appear in it, other modes of significance should appear, and in addition, these modes should become available not on the basis of official activity, but on the basis of a person’s personal choice. Where can a vulnerable, weak point be found, through which all these phenomena could “penetrate” into an integral society, and the value “personality” could enter the system of fundamental values ​​of society? And how can all this happen?

Of course, one should take into account the gradual improvement of material activities and the inevitable results of this process.

In particular, by the highest period of savagery, the beginnings of wealth appear in the form of prestigious things (weapons, clothing, jewelry). The leaders, as already mentioned, may accumulate surpluses of commodity stocks, since it is they who act as representatives of the tribe or clan in exchange with other tribes. But wealth is not their personal property. There have been cases (in the tribes of American Indians) when the leader (katsik) does not look rich at all and wears more worn clothes than his subjects. This is due to the fact that the position of the leader obliges him to make a large number of gifts, so it is extremely difficult for him to accumulate great wealth (more will be said about the need for a noble person to be generous). Wealth was accumulated in the form of valuable "sacred" things necessary for the performance of magical or religious rites, in various kinds of sanctuaries. As a factor of internal social changes, competition between individual communities should also be taken into account.

However, changes in the spiritual sphere are more important during this period. Honorary signs of valor, which had become widespread by that time (necklaces from the fangs of killed predators, robes made of skins, scalps or dried heads of killed enemies, etc.), testify to the appearance of some kind of prototypes of glory. Perhaps, at the same time, legends and traditions arise and develop as a means to perpetuate the glorious deeds of the ancestors, elements of eloquence and poetry are born, which also served to glorify the heroes and their exploits.

The accumulation in the oral memory of legends “about valor, about exploits, about glory” of great ancestors gradually leads to the fact that glory becomes an important value. Military merits, exploits and the glory associated with them paved the way to power. But fame proved to be worthy of purposeful activity in and of itself.

After all, if memory arose, then it is possible to prolong its significance in the world even after death, for which glory is needed. In literary monuments, reflecting the worldview of the people of the era of barbarism, fame is highly valued, taking first place among the goals that a person can strive for. The Scandinavian epic says: “The herds perish, relatives die, and you yourself are mortal, but the loud glory of worthy deeds does not know death” [Elder Edda. The speeches of the High. 2002, pp. 32-33). One of the main characters of the Iliad, Achilles, prefers a long happy life in obscurity to a short life, leading to quick death, but crowned with glory [Iliad. Canto 9, 410-415; Song 18, 120]. A similar choice is made by Rostem, the character of “Shahnameh, who is threatened with troubles in earthly life and suffering in another world, if he chooses glory: “But we give death only flesh to power, not a name - I am ready to fall with glory!” [Shahnameh / Goshtasp. 9060-9090 / V.4, p.286-287]. Apparently, the words of Heraclitus should also be considered an echo of the same worldview setting: “The gods and people honor those killed by Ares ... The more valiant death, the better the lot falls to the lot (of the dead) ... The best people they prefer one thing to everything: eternal glory” [Cit. by: Popper. T.1. 1992, p.47].

The desire for glory (which M. de Unamuno considers to be the desire for immortality, if not in essence and not complete, then at least the immortality of the name) can also have negative consequences, firstly, because it gives rise to envy, which is “a thousand times more terrible than hunger, because it is a spiritual hunger”, and secondly, because even bad, shameful fame becomes an object of desire, that is, such a phenomenon as herostratism arises. Probably, it was glory, the desire for it that prompted society to internal changes that are of fundamental importance in the evolution of society.

Barbarism. The emergence of fame as a mode of social significance, its extremely high status signifies a transition from savagery to barbarism. The fact is that its appearance marks the emergence of a fundamentally different type of activity in society. After all, the former (associated with the service to society) modes of social significance (power, holiness, knowledge, skill), although they were appropriated to individuals, but affirmed a person in society not as this particular person, but only as a bearer of a social function. The beginning of "I" in this case was actually absent. Society was the highest value.

The desire for fame and activities to achieve it are initially aimed not at the team, but at the self-realization of a particular person. The goal of this activity is “individual good”, no matter how conditionally this good is understood. It is not the collective that asserts itself through glory, but the individual, even if this self-assertion takes the form of self-sacrifice.

Glory was at that time the only mode of social significance capable of combining the individual's desire for self-assertion in the world with the benefit of society, with the subordination of individual activity to the interests of the collective. Giving glory to the individual, society, as it were, “said”: “Well, assert yourself, but in order to be remembered, sacrifice yourself for the common good. Then you have a chance to stay in our memory.” There is a figure of a hero, a bearer of glory, whose exploits are preserved in myths, epics and other heroic songs. Thus, fame turned out to be a natural “bridge” from official activity to ego activity and received such a high and desired status during the period of barbarism, opening in further path individual initiative. The emergence of individual activity for oneself is the most important indicator that makes it possible to distinguish the era of barbarism from savagery.

The presence of fame as a mode of social significance entails at the same time the recognition by society of some minimum of individual freedom. Fame is obviously achieved on the basis of free choice and through free activity. So, it is considered worthy for a loving woman to go to the fire after the body of her husband on the basis of a free decision, for which she is long remembered and set as an example (“Praise day in the evening, wives at the stake”) [Elder Edda. The speeches of the High. 2002, p.33]. But the numerous servants of a noble person who were killed during funeral rite to accompany him to the realm of the dead. They are killed without asking for consent.

The society's acceptance of ego activity as a means of achieving fame gradually legitimizes it as a way to achieve other modes. Wealth significantly strengthens its position, but the attitude towards it is very specific among the barbarian nobility.

Firstly, barbarians prefer to get wealth by force rather than create it by their own labor [Marx K., Engels F.T.21, p.164]. Apparently, appropriating activity in their eyes remains for a long time much more honorable than productive activity. The spoils of war were main goal their campaigns, and more civilized neighbors unanimously noted that the barbarians greedily thirst for someone else's good. Yes, and in literary monuments that store memories of barbarian times, the dignity of "power methods" in gaining wealth or property is noted. So, according to the Mahabharata, a noble (kshatriya) “does not use what he did not acquire with his prowess” or did not “get it with courage”, since pleasures “obtained by courage always delight the heart of a person who lives according to the customs of the kshatriyas.” In general, according to the law of this caste, a real kshatriya wants to “enjoy the kingdom obtained by the power of his own hands” [Mahabharata. 1976, pp. 168, 192, 259].

Secondly, the barbarians, in particular, the Normans, used the extracted treasures in a very peculiar way. If items made of gold and silver - pendants, rings, hryvnias - they wore, boasting of jewelry (men are no less willing than women), then they drowned coins in the sea or swamp, buried them in the ground without counting on their further use. This is evidenced by the so-called "marsh treasures" found during land reclamation work in Scandinavia. A similar custom was also reflected in the Nibelungenlied, when the treasures obtained by force by Siegfried were finally drowned in the Rhine.

Why did the barbarians (in particular, the Normans) treat their hard-earned wealth in this way? And these works were really hard, which can be seen from the description contained in one of the sagas.

A flotilla of drakkars floats out of the Scandinavian fjord. They go around Europe, reach the coasts of southern Spain and North Africa, rob coastal settlements and return to winter at the mouth of the Rhone. In the spring, the flotilla sets off again and reaches Italy. They besiege the city of Luna, at first mistaking it almost for Rome itself (probably, the Italian marble palazzo made an amazing impression on the Vikings, who left their "long houses", covered with turf). During the siege of the Moon, a story took place that is somewhat reminiscent of the capture of Troy. When the defenders of the city repulsed the attacks of the sea robbers, their leader (named Halstein) resorted to the "northern trick". Pretending to be dying, he sent for a priest for the rite of baptism, and then "died." His soldiers carried the coffin to the cemetery to bury their leader as a Christian. Once outside the city gates, Halstein jumped out of the coffin and sacked the city with his men.

Suppose he returned home with the stolen treasures, put the coins in a barrel and, choosing a darker night, drowned it in a swamp. What made Halstein (or another Viking leader) act in such an unreasonable way from the point of view of a modern person? It turns out that according to the Normans, such an act was more than reasonable. They simply believed that the treasures that a person possessed embodied his personal qualities and concentrated his happiness and success. The treasure, while it was securely hidden at the bottom of the sea or swamp, kept the happiness of the owner. The loss of treasures meant the loss of combat luck and the most important qualities. Therefore, it was extremely important to prevent the treasure from falling into the wrong hands. Who really wants to voluntarily lose the favor of the gods?

Thirdly, the use of wealth for ritual purposes is very likely, for example, sacrificing it to the gods, in particular, to the Earth. This is evidenced by some details of the burial of treasures by the Eastern Slavs, as well as the fact that these treasures are sometimes found in places sacred to our distant ancestors [Froyanov. 1996, pp. 66-69].

Fourthly, wealth was not used by noble people as a means of increasing new, even greater wealth, but was spent on feasts, badges of honor, which were generously distributed to the squad. Thus, the combatants loyal to the leader joined his glory and fortune [Gurevich. 1972, pp. 196-199 and others]. “He generously gave hot gold, mined with blood, to the faithful squad” [Elder Edda.1977, p.157-158], - one of the heroes of the Scandinavian epic is said with praise. King Sigmund, calling guests to a family celebration, makes it known in neighboring lands through messengers, “that he gives clothes and horses to his own and strangers” [Song of the Nibelungs. 1975, p.362].

Perhaps such an attitude towards wealth, as well as its use for these purposes, is due to the fact that for a long time it was a collective property that the leader only disposed of on behalf of the clan or tribe. After all, “the leader in an archaic society is the personification of the collective, the expression of his will and social potential,” and his property was considered “public property, either in part or in whole” [Froyanov. 1996, pp. 70-71]. In other words, wealth is only gradually individualized, becoming a mode of social significance of an individual.

In the period of barbarism, the economy also appears as a mode of social significance, probably almost simultaneously in different forms:

n as a large household of a leader or noble person;

n as a household of a separate family (for own consumption);

n large commodity economy (latifundia, slave-owning workshop for production on the market);

n as an individual small commodity farm.

The emergence of the economy in its various forms is connected,

no doubt with technical progress, but for us the most important thing is that a new class appears important people- hosts. A leader, a shaman, a master, a hero, and now a master claiming a share of social and natural resources. Along with this class comes a new way of acquiring wealth, different from war booty. This also applied to the large "princely" economy, whose original function, probably, was to provide military campaigns with material resources. The certain prosperity of the small owner provided the latter with some independence from society and secular power.

Probably, during the period of barbarism, and not civilization, again contrary to the opinion of F. Engels [See: Marx K., Engels. F. T. 21, p. 165], the figure of an intermediary in the exchange of goods, a merchant, competing with the leader and nobility in this field of activity, also appears. Therefore, he loses the protection of his fellow tribesmen, turns into an outcast and compensates for his “social insecurity” with dexterity, resourcefulness, the ability to reach compromises, personal energy and initiative, as well as the ability to establish “business acquaintances” with his own kind (forming business alliances) and simply the right people. Of course, the reverse course of events was also possible - at first a person became an outcast, and then began to engage in intermediary activities. For these people (unlike the nobility), wealth became the most important value, in fact, the only mode of social significance.

By the late period of barbarism, shifts in the hierarchy of values ​​are possible. Glory remains the most important value, but gradually wealth gains more weight, and power is more and more “individualized”. It is less and less dependent on the testing procedure (including elections), turning into a hereditary one. In addition, it becomes possible to “tear off” power from service activities. The phenomenon of tyranny arises when power is purposefully used in favor of its bearer. Power "grows" with egoactivity. At the same time, since the personality of the tyrant becomes the main value, the activities of the other members of society become official, which leads to an "increase in tension" in society. The role of the economy as the possible and most reliable source of wealth is also growing. Therefore, the importance of productive activity also increases in comparison with appropriating. This change is evidenced by the fact that different peoples in certain time periods change from predatory campaigns to a more or less ordered collection of tribute, and then the establishment of a clear vassal dependence, etc. A stratified society offers different social strata different modes of social significance.

The nascent feudal lords remained focused on glory, power, military skill, while not giving up wealth as a means of maintaining a reputation in society and maintaining a military squad, gradually mastering the economy as a source of wealth. The main way to gain social recognition among the barbarian nobility remains "personal expertise". A specific person is always recognized as the owner of this or that property, title, privileges. It does not matter that all of the above could be captured by force or deceit. A fight is just a complicated procedure for a personal examination. It is important that the right to ownership was recognized for a specific person. This procedure led among the nobility to increase the requirements for the moral qualities of applicants. Rituals arose that forced them to "chivalrous behavior", the nobility of deeds, generosity, and beauty began to be highly valued. Personal honor became a subject of special concern, which served as a sign of the increase in the value of "personality" in the hierarchy of universal values. True, this did not apply to all types of personalities.

As for the rabble, the “mean people”, then the people from the lower classes were left with skill (not military), economy and wealth as a subject of purposeful activity. At the same time, in public opinion, life for the sake of wealth was still considered of little honor, sometimes even despised (usury). Small farming, although it allowed the owner to gain recognition in the market through the product, carried within itself a fatal contradiction, for a means that was social in nature served at that moment a purely biological need for survival. The person who manages the household and is completely occupied with it, in fact, refused to achieve significance through “respected” modes - fame and power, he refused the procedure of personal examination, often associated with a risk to life. Consequently, in public opinion, he looked like something like a "coward", "insignificance", i.e. "low man".

This idea was also facilitated by the fact that the impersonal, market method of obtaining social recognition gradually became the leading one among the common people (we are talking about free people). The impersonality of the market at this stage almost inevitably entailed the non-recognition of the personal dignity of the master or small owner. The market crowd did not (and does not) care about the personal qualities of the commodity owner - the product would be good. Moreover, the noble person did not care about the personality of the master. And this may sound paradoxical and even cruel, but in a sense, the masters and owners themselves were guilty of not being recognized as respected people. After all, they voluntarily or involuntarily, but agreed to an impersonal way of obtaining social recognition, refusing to defend their own dignity with weapons in their hands. Consequently, they gave the moral right to treat them unceremoniously. To some extent, a similar situation is currently emerging in prisons and prison colonies. There, the refusal to protest furiously against any attempt to humiliate, say, the absence of an immediate angry reaction to a contemptuous name, can ultimately lead a person to the category of "untouchables", lower him to the very bottom of this community of people.

But a person cannot live feeling like a faceless performer of a social function. In order to compensate for the negative consequences of the market method of obtaining social recognition, in particular, its facelessness and soullessness, and to feel like "respected people", small producers united in unions, in brotherhoods of craftsmen for friendly communication of equals. After all, the German word Zeche meant at one time "binge", "revel", the word guild(guild) derived from Old English gild, "sacrifice", and Old Norse Gildi meant "feast", "festivity" [Gurevich. 1972, p.189]. In such unions (workshops) the masters could feel respected people, could to a certain extent preserve their human dignity.

Apparently, it was this need that stimulated the unification of people into brotherhoods according to professional sign(“equal among equals”), but not the protection of purely professional interests, which should have arisen much later.

E. Durkheim believed that “... individuals who discover common interests unite ... not only to protect their interests, but ... in order not to feel lost among opponents, in order to enjoy communication, to be one with others , i.e. Ultimately, in order to live together a single moral life” [Durkheim. 1996, pp. 20-21]. And one of the authoritative researchers of Roman professional corporations, Waltzing, noted that the association of artisans “gave them more strength to protect their common interests. But this was only one of the useful side effects of this institution, and not its foundation and main function. First of all, the corporation was a religious college. Each of them had her own special god, whose cult, when she had the means, went to a special temple. ... This professional cult could not do without holidays, which were celebrated together with sacrifices and feasts. In addition, the professional corporation provided assistance to its members, it was also a funeral college, often with its own cemetery. A common cult, common feasts, common holidays, a common cemetery - all together make up features family organization among the Romans. Therefore, the professional organization was called " big family". Members of Roman handicraft professional corporations called themselves brothers or comrades [See. Durkheim. 1996, pp. 16-17].

For all that, professional corporations were not part of the official structure of Roman society, and crafts were subjected to moral disgrace and were even an object of contempt [Durkheim. 1996, pp. 24-25]. And at a lower evolutionary stage, in Athens, handicraft corporations were not only extra-social, but almost extra-legal [Durkheim. 1996. p.25]. Given the above, the statement sometimes found in textbooks that "artisans united in workshops to protect their interests" raises doubts. What kind of protection is there if, as a result, a person is outlawed? Protection of interests arose later, when workshops and corporations received official status in society. Prior to this, the most important incentive to unite in a handicraft corporation was the desire to compensate for the impersonality of the market by gaining social recognition from peers.

By the highest stage of barbarism, the relationships between the main modes of social significance become quite complex. In particular, holiness in the hierarchy of values ​​could compete with glory or power, which was reflected in the struggle of the priestly class or clergy with secular power. Under these conditions, service to the spirit often degenerates into a mere formality, which entails the secularization of holiness, turning it only into a means of achieving power, and later wealth and economy. This is facilitated by the process of spreading ego-activity to this mode as well. Concern for personal salvation (the immortality of the individual soul) gives rise to martyrs and hermits in Christianity. The desire to obtain immortality or divine power through the mortification of the flesh and a righteous life drives many characters in Indian mythology [See: World Gallery. 1994, pp. 273-274, 276 and others].

Finally, knowledge, which was present in a hidden form in different modes of significance, is isolated and becomes independent. Special figures appear - carriers of it. Singer (skald, rhapsodist, akyn, etc.) - at the first stage. Then the sage-philosopher. Later - a specialist in astronomy or mathematics, an engineer, etc. The isolation of knowledge as a mode of social significance is manifested in the fact that its bearers begin to be paid, people appear who sell knowledge - professional teachers.

The highest level of barbarism is characterized by the following signs: 1) all modes of social significance begin to function in society. There is an abstract possibility that they will become the main stimuli for the activity of people as social beings; 2) both varieties of objectively necessary activity - ego- and service - are represented in it; 3) all modes of significance are available both on the basis of service and on the basis of activity; 4) both ways of social recognition - expertise and the market - are formed and coexist simultaneously; 5) the values ​​"society" and "personality" are introduced into the system of social values; 6) there are two types of economy - domestic and market; 7) in addition to the natural qualities of a person, initially acting as instrumental values ​​(beauty, strength, intelligence, etc.), there are values ​​associated with society and two types of activity - discipline and duty, freedom and law.

What prevents society from remaining at this stage of development, if it has everything you want? This is hindered by one reason - the disorder of all these signs (modes, procedures of social recognition, varieties of activity).

The modes of social significance "compete" among themselves for the predominant influence in society (in reality, of course, the bearers of the modes compete). The struggle between secular and religious powers in Europe (popes and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire) reflects the "rivalry" of holiness and power. Later, as the third estate grows stronger, wealth also joins this struggle. It is also unclear which of the social recognition procedures takes leading place, what is the hierarchy of higher human values, in particular, society and the individual. This chaotic state is extremely "costly" in terms of any resources, and the minimum acceptable order in society can only be maintained with the help of brute force. Society has no other means for this.

Society faces the challenge of ending chaos and reducing the use of violence. To do this, some "natural" complexes of modes, activities, procedures of social recognition must be formed in order to reduce the cost of maintaining order and reduce the use of violence. Such complexes, reflecting a more orderly social state, can be formed, generally speaking, on the basis of one of the three highest universal values ​​- God (the thinking spirit), society, and the individual. In reality, however, either the value of "personality" or the value of "society" became the basis of society. The value of "God" served, as a rule, rather as an ideological camouflage than as the real basis of society, although the leaders of any significant actions (wars, revolutions) very often spoke with religious slogans.

In general, the following combinations seem natural and most likely:

The highest universal value is society, the leading type of activity is official, the main procedure for social recognition is personal expertise, the main modes are power, holiness, knowledge. The economy is home. Such a combination is typical for a civilization that we will call office-home ;

The highest universal value is a person, the leading type of activity is self-activity (perhaps in the guise of a market), the main procedure for social recognition is the market, the main modes are wealth, economy, skill in the field of material activity. The economy is a market economy. These signs are characteristic market civilization.

Transition period. Society cannot pass from barbarism to the stage of civilization at once, directly. A more or less long transitional period is required, when the complexes of values, activities and procedures of social recognition are “shaken”, merged into more or less stable formations. AT real history such a transition is accompanied by social cataclysms, wars and rebellions of various kinds. This period must somehow be overcome and the degree of violence within society reduced. It cannot be completely eliminated, but nevertheless, even before the transition to the stage of civilization, there are states of society that allow it to be reduced. There are two such states: the first of them can be called civilized community uniting different countries and peoples, the second - internally tense civilization.

civilized community. It is based on the fact that a special speech-communication interaction is revealed that connects its members with each other. In practice, this may be the common or "sacred" language in which religious rites are celebrated. In addition, the emergence of a community requires a common religious cult based on the belief in a common god or gods, and (or) a common reverence for some historical figure who laid or expressed the foundations of morality, for example, Buddha in India or Confucius in China. In addition, an important feature of a civilized community is the presence of more or less conscious kinship between the groups of people included in it, based on a common historical memory (real or mythical, in particular, the myth of descent from a common ancestor).

The so-called Greek and especially Roman "civilizations" were, from our point of view, civilized communities, i.e. associations of peoples worshiping similar gods and using common languages(Greek or Latin). Christian (Catholic) and Muslim "civilizations" are also civilized communities based on monotheism and a single sacred language for each community (Latin and Arabic). China also experienced a similar state, albeit in a somewhat more secular version, when numerous related tribes that inhabited it adopted the teachings of Confucius as a spiritual basis and created a common written language using hieroglyphs. Similar, though more complex, processes took place in the Indian subcontinent, where civilized communities were formed based on Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Sanskrit.

It is more expedient to consider such associations of people precisely as communities, and not as societies, since the activity interaction within them has not yet become the leading one. The absence of this basis of society just determines the fragility of such formations, and also makes possible a backward movement towards barbarism and a split in the community in the event of "heresy" or the replacement of a "sacred" language.

The presence of a common cult, a common “sacred” language and a myth about a common origin serves as the basis for the emergence of a feeling of closeness between members of the community, makes them “brothers”, as a result of which the relationship between them softens and becomes fundamentally different compared to relationships with “strangers”, “ outsiders", "infidels". Within such a community, violence is somewhat mitigated, although, of course, it is not completely eliminated (this is impossible in principle).

The principles of interaction within a civilized community are well described by Plato when, building a project for a perfect state, he discusses the relationship between Hellenes and barbarians.

In his opinion, the difference between the barbarians and the Greeks is so great that even the rules for conducting war between them should be completely different. The armed struggle between the Greeks is discord, and between Hellenes and barbarians - war. Barbarians and Greeks are enemies by nature, but Hellenes are friends by nature. In the war between the Greeks, the rules of philanthropy must be strictly observed, the sale or conversion of prisoners into slavery is not allowed. The war between the Hellenes and the barbarians is waged with all ruthlessness, and the prisoners are turned into slaves [Plato. T.3 1971, pp. 270-273 and others].

It is curious to note that many aggressors have the idea that the object of their aggression is a barbarian, a savage who needs to be “civilized”, taught to live “according to the law”. At one time, Genghis Khan himself compared the war against the surrounding "disordered" peoples with the hunt for wild animals. And they were “disordered” because they did not live according to the Yas, not according to the law that Chingis established by the will of Heaven [Kychanov. 1995, pp. 17-18]. Today, the aggressors aim to teach others "democracy", to protect "human rights", and so on.

Internally tense civilization. Theoretically, any of the four highest human values ​​- society, personality, thinking spirit (God), nature - can become the basis of a service-home civilization. After all, service activities can be performed for the sake of any of these values. As for Nature, so far people perceived it rather as a blessing, not wanting to spend their labor on preserving it. They agreed only to a more or less careful attitude towards her.

When society or a thinking spirit (God) occupy a place at the base of civilization, often acting in conjunction, a stable, “natural” service-home civilization arises. Such civilizations can be considered more or less "natural" when society in the guise of the Motherland or "the bright future of all mankind" comes to the fore. In these cases, service activities are performed in the name of a certain whole, which, undoubtedly, is higher than an individual person. And that's okay. But a situation is possible when a person (concrete) or a group (national, class, close by blood) turned out to be the basis of society. Then such a civilization will turn out to be unnatural, internally tense, and, consequently, fragile. It is absurd when the whole society is subordinated to the service of some of its parts, and it is natural that trends arise in it aimed at changing such a situation.

However, in history quite often there were societies with noticeable features of a tense service-home civilization, in which the individual or group was considered the highest universal value. Moreover, it was always not about abstract, but some specific individuals and groups. In certain circumstances, the condition for the emergence of such a civilization may be the tyranny of a person or group.

In the first case, society entirely serves the individual. But this is precisely a tense civilization, internally unstable in its essence, for people are mortal. The empire of Alexander the Great contained elements of a similar civilization.

In the second, the highest value for which society functions is a group of persons (genus, clan, union of aggressors, for example, a military squad, a separate estate). It seems that Sparta was a classic example of such a civilization, in which a relatively small number of free citizens were supported by the labor of a huge mass of public helot slaves.

In real history, such a group of people may well have some kind of supreme leader whom they themselves serve, so a particular society contains the features of both varieties of intense civilization.

Probably, the empire of Genghis Khan can appear as an example of such a civilization. It is believed that the state and the army of Genghis Khan were created primarily in the name of the khan's family, its male representatives - uruk. The state, the army, wars served to ensure that “members of the Uruk and their families” dressed in “clothes woven with gold”, ate “delicious and fatty dishes”, mounted “beautiful horses” and hugged “beautiful-faced wives”. But the direct servants of the khan and his uruk - guards, nukers, noyons, military leaders - were promised a "sweet life" at the expense of the booty that had to be taken by force from "disordered peoples" [Kychanov. 1995, pp. 18-19].

Perhaps the beginnings of such a civilization can be observed in the empire of Charlemagne, in Kievan Rus under the first princes, in Britain after its conquest by the Norman Duke William the Conqueror and his baron allies. The instability of a tense civilization (in addition to all external causes) is also conditioned by the natural custom of dividing the inheritance between the sons, giving each his own “destiny”.

There is a possibility of the evolution of a "normal" service-home civilization towards a tense civilization. This occurs when a certain estate, called upon to perform some important social function, first subjugates the resources of society in the name of this function, and then directs them to satisfy their own needs. Very similar processes took place in tsarist Russia, and later in the USSR. In the first, the nobility, called upon to defend the Fatherland, enslaved the peasants in the name of defense, and later “forgot” about their task. In the second, the party-state nomenclature, which assumed the function of governing the country in the name of a certain goal, provided itself with all sorts of privileges, also “forgot” about the goal and made it a task to manage its own well-being. In both cases, society became internally fragile.

There are ideological systems that proclaim (or proclaim) as their goal the construction of a service-home civilization, the social structure of which would be aimed at satisfying the interests of a certain tribe or people. All other peoples of the Earth should serve this "chosen tribe". The most impressive examples of this kind of ideology are Zionism and German Nazism. In the first case, the right to own the world is justified by an agreement with a tribal god. In the second - a reference to the natural superiority of a part of the Aryans, the Germans. This goal can be achieved by various means. Firstly, relatively peaceful - the concentration in the hands of the "chosen people" of the lion's share of social wealth and the leadership of the media (the Zionist path). Secondly, with the help of violence (the Nazi way). In both cases, internal tension and instability of such a civilization are inevitable, and in the event of their collapse, a rollback to barbarism.

Main conclusions. From the standpoint of the activity-value approach, the main path of the evolution of society is to expand the possibilities for a person to acquire social significance. At the stage of savagery, a person acquires it through three main modes - power, holiness, mastery - and on the basis of service activities. At the stage of barbarism, all modes become available to him on the basis of both service and ego activity. The transition from the stage of savagery to the stage of barbarism is associated with the mode of glory, which legitimizes self-activity in society, and thereby introduces the value of "personality" into the foundation of the social system. The period of barbarism is characterized by the instability of society, since the relations between values, types of activity, procedures of social recognition, etc. are disordered. Order in society is maintained by brute force. The use of force can be optimally reduced when natural complexes are formed from the basic values ​​of society, types of activity, modes of social significance, social recognition procedures, etc. Then society passes into a relatively stable state, which can be called civilization. At the same time, as mentioned above, depending on the choice of the main value - the individual or society - the society has two alternative ways of development: towards office-home and aside market civilizations, which will be discussed below. But a society can somewhat reduce and streamline violence if a civilized community or a tense service-domestic civilization is formed in it.