Modern sociocultural situation

The current socio-cultural situation can be characterized as the completion of the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial, information society, which leads to a change in priorities and values ​​not only in the sphere of economics and politics, but also in the sphere of culture and morality. Information becomes the basic resource, which inevitably leads to an increase in the value attitude not only to the information itself, but also to the ability to extract, process and use it.

The currently experienced socio-cultural as a whole and epistemological situation is also usually characterized as a "state of postmodernity", the basic characteristic of which is the crisis of the historical meta-narrative. It cannot be assessed in the moral and ethical categories of "good - bad", but it must be understood that the crisis of the national level metanarrative destroys social memory, leads to the atomization of society and, ultimately, to the loss of national-state identity.

The modern socio-cultural situation is also increasingly understood as a situation of cultural transition, which in terms of synergetics can be described as a kind of bifurcation point, in which a single social action can lead to large-scale and unpredictable consequences. In this situation, the tasks of professional humanitarian education change: from a simple transfer of professional skills to the development of the ability to comprehend the socio-cultural whole in its historical dimension and the conscious formation of a worldview. In this new socio-cultural situation, liberal arts education in Russia and in the world as a whole is undergoing cardinal changes. In the new conditions of rapid social change, the development of globalization processes, the existence in the real historical process of various political systems, levels of economic development, the dialogue of cultures, society presents new challenges to the humanities, and historical science in its broadest sense.

This requires a specialist to use non-traditional methods for solving non-standard situations, presenting a qualitatively different intellectual product to society. Naturally, with this approach, the traditional model of liberal education, which is widespread in the world, focused on the transmission of ready-made knowledge, an illustrative way of teaching, passive assimilation, loses its effectiveness. The new education strategy highlights the disciplines aimed at the formation of a specialist who, at the level of understanding, knowledge and skill, is able to develop such an intellectual product as new knowledge.

Characteristics of the modern socio-cultural situation in Russia

To characterize the current sociocultural situation in Russia, it is necessary to take into account three groups of factors that determine it today:

Factors of internal development, such as the economic model of development, social dynamics, changes in the state structure and political regime, and many others;

Historical factors, national factors in the development of Russian culture and features of the culture of the Soviet period, in the spirit of which the living generations of Russians were brought up and educated;

Influence on modern Russian cultural processes of the global, primarily Western, socio-cultural situation.

It should be noted that all of the above factors do not just determine the current socio-cultural situation, they determine it in a sharp objective competitive struggle among themselves for the right to become the spiritual dominant of today's cultural development in Russia. One can draw a parallel with the Middle Ages, when at least three traditions fought among themselves for the right to determine the sociocultural situation in Europe: barbarian - of the northern Germanic tribes, ancient - Greek and Romanesque and Christian.

Christianity won, becoming the spiritual dominant of European cultural development for a whole millennium.

Now in the economic life of Russia there are complex, ambiguous, often contradictory processes associated with the initial accumulation of capital, which often takes uncivilized forms and causes complex relations regarding property. In conditions of various kinds of monopoly, market relations are established, which has the most ugly consequences. The principle of private property has been proclaimed politically and legally, but its implementation takes place in a bitter struggle, without finding adequate forms (suffice it to recall voucherization, privatization). The model of social development has changed in the country, but it is still too early to talk about the replacement of sociocentrism with anthropocentrism, according to some researchers. Today one can talk about anthropocentrism as one of the tendencies in the development of Russian society. Real, established anthropocentrism presupposes a civil society, the existence in society of a formalized ideology of free owners, respect for the dignity of the individual, established at all levels in society. And it will be in Russia when, in the community of free owners, not a class, not a nation, not a social stratum or group, but each individual will become the measure of all things.

Confirmation of the fact that an anthropocentric trend exists in Russia is the policy of the state in matters of culture.

In 1984 for reading, distribution and reference to the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn (b. 1919) could lose his job, become "for life travel restrictions", be expelled from the party. At that time, no one in the most rosy dream could dream that ten years later the head of the Russian state would talk for several hours with a recently disgraced dissident writer, asking him for advice on how to equip Russia.

Sociocentrism is the concept that in the relationship between society and the individual, priority belongs to society.

Anthropocentrism is the concept of the Italian Renaissance, according to which man is at the center of the universe. This concept became the ideology and practice of the European Modern Age and the Enlightenment. The centuries-old existence of this idea as a priority in European ideology contributed to the early emergence of the idea of ​​human rights and its formalization into an independent concept already in the second half of the 17th century. This concept, known as the "concept of natural law", was formulated by the English philosopher J. Locke (1632--1704), who singled out the rights to life, liberty and property as the main natural inalienable human rights.

In the new Russian state, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion are legally fixed and implemented in practice, atheism is no longer the position of the state. The state stopped engaging in ideological censorship, and many outstanding works of philosophy and fiction were returned to the Russian reader. The pluralization of the mass media has led to the elimination of the propaganda function of these media in favor of their information purpose.

Radical changes have taken place in the relationship between the state and the intelligentsia. Discrimination against progressive intelligentsia has not just stopped: citizenship has been returned to those who were expelled, deported, who left during the period of previous political regimes, their works have not only been rehabilitated, they have become the property of those for whom they were intended - spectators, listeners, readers. For the first time, the authorities brought highly professional people closer to themselves on an equal footing, provided a political and professional platform to all those capable of creating alternative programs for organizing economic and social life in the country. The special depositories were liquidated, overflowing with forbidden works of Russian and world classics. The pluralism of publications expanded the reading circle of an ordinary citizen, provided the opportunity for a real spiritual choice (and the authenticity of a choice is a criterion for the authenticity of freedom), made it possible to form a home library without looking back at the “knock on the door” for the fact that it contains the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn or A.D. Sakharov.

However, this phenomenon, which is decisive for the emancipation of the individual and the development of a genuine culture in the country, still has negative aspects. First of all, the intelligentsia, whose activity and struggle ensured the changes that have taken place, cannot always take advantage of the benefits brought by these changes. The low salaries of scientists, teachers, doctors, creative intelligentsia, the symbolic scholarship of students do not allow them to buy books, visit theaters, travel to get acquainted with world and domestic culture.

For the intelligentsia, the creator of works of art, the process of emancipation was not only a boon, but also a test. These processes became a test, however, for the entire intelligentsia. So, the teachers faced the questions of how to teach, what to teach, what sources to teach, since not only the vices of the past, but also the negative phenomena of the present became obvious. Not all intellectuals pass this test. Freedom of creativity often turns into freedom of rivalry between different factions of the spiritual elite. For example, conflicts, strife in the Art Theater, the Bolshoi Theater. Union of Writers and other creative unions. It can be said that not a single fundamental work has been created in any area of ​​culture over the years. Similar facts have already found their interpretation in the works of Russian culturologists. Some consider acquired freedom insufficient:

“I think that the current social confusion, in which you can’t figure out where to go - to church or to the market, is not yet freedom, it’s chaos. And it is right to talk about the influence of chaos on culture... But freedom... We have not lived up to freedom yet. Freedom is not a simple absence of censorship, it is a balance based on one's own depth, on the existing personality.

Quite often a person, after seventy years of guardianship (and rebellion against guardianship), has not yet learned to stand on his own feet and go his own way, not paying too much attention to politics. The trouble is not in freedom, but in unaccustomed to freedom.

Despite the positive trends in the current socio-cultural situation, they are not sufficient grounds to define the current political system in Russia as a democracy.

Democracy is, in addition to these characteristics, a developed community. And today the organized society is destroyed, the organized anthropocentric society has not been formed. In society, there is a confrontation between democrats and conservatives, while none of them has a developed concept of a positive political and state arrangement of the country. Everything is expressed on the contrary: the democrats do not want totalitarianism, the conservatives do not want Russia to turn into the "backyard of the West." And society, under the influence of the processes of social stratification, under the influence of party confrontations, is disintegrating, any commonality is lost, including the commonality of cultural orientation.

The past, of course, was difficult and forced the Russians to endure and suffer, but everyone “endured”, and today in Russia “new Russians” are rising spiritually and materially due to the impoverishment and degradation of others, whose mental level is below the permissible norm.

All this serves as the basis for the emergence of potential and social conditions for the transformation of Russia into a third world country or for the emergence of an authoritarian strict regime in it.

However, what has been said does not mean a thoughtless praising of the past - a balanced analysis, accounting and preservation of everything positive from the past is necessary, because civilization and culture always rest on continuity and preservation of the conquered and acquired by labor, barbarism always destroys. Wise guidance of the ongoing spiritual and cultural processes is necessary.

A positive aspect of the current socio-cultural situation in the country is the de-ideologization of the entire education system.

Freedom in itself does not solve a single problem, but, on the contrary, by shaking social norms and increasing the spontaneity of people's behavior, it gives rise to many new problems.

“Meetingism is one of the most accessible forms of outpouring of mass group feelings. Apparently, it was not in vain that the ancients spoke of domination in such times of ochlocracy - the domination of the crowd. Against this background, demagogy flourishes, since the opinion of the masses in such a state does not constitute a basis for truth. All decisions, without exception, taken under the pressure of this kind of rallies, give unpredictable, often unpleasant social consequences.

They also point to the "rampancy of feelings" characteristic of the transitional era, since the transition of large groups of people to new values ​​​​first of all occurs at the emotional level.

In this connection the problem of culture and democracy arises in general. It seems that this problem is solved by itself: democracy creates optimal conditions for the development of culture. Indeed, democracy is the most favorable regime for the exercise of the power of the people. It is democracy that protects the pluralism of positions and freedom of choice, but, as N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948), there is also an inverse relationship between culture and democracy: democracy needs a sufficient cultural basis, certain conditions are necessary for its implementation, brought up in the masses for centuries and even millennia.

Spiritual liberation revealed the weaknesses and limitations of professional and humanitarian education in the country during the Soviet period. This, in particular, manifested itself in the inability of the majority of the population to adequately perceive the works of Russian classical philosophy that came to us after decades of prohibition.

The entire history of Russia is marked by the significant factor that, due to its geopolitical position, the country found itself between two civilizational centers - the West and the East. Russia, which united many ethnic groups, emerged at the crossroads of the power paths of Europe and Asia, experiencing a powerful socio-cultural influence of both the West and the East. The Eurasian position of the country, of course, is not limited to a purely geographical interpretation. Bearing in mind this feature of Russia, V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Historically, Russia, of course, is not Asia, but geographically it is not quite Europe. It is a transitional country, a mediator between the two worlds. Culture bound her inextricably to Europe, but nature imposed on her features and influences that always attracted her to Asia, or Asia was attracted to her. The peculiarity of the position of Russia is that from the very beginning it acted as an object of Europeanization by the Western European peoples (for example, Norman and German) and at the same time as an agent of Europeanization in relation to the peoples located to the east of the original settlements of the Slavs. At the same time, Russia is an object of orientation on the part of an array of its Eastern peoples and an agent of orientation in relation to the European West. Hence the initial dilemma of civilizational identity for the Russian national self-consciousness with the constantly recurring impossibility to choose between “our own” and “foreign” values ​​(in this case, both the East and the West act as “foreign”), as well as the impossibility to unite them.

The genesis of Russian civilization, a cumulative (from Latin cumulatio - accumulation) process of accumulation of a civilizational resource, which spanned several centuries (VIII-XV centuries), already initially combined many cultural influences. The spiritual face of Russia was formed under the influence of three ideological and cultural flows coming from the south (Byzantium), the west (Western Europe) and the east (Golden Horde). The influence of either the South, or the East, or the West, alternating, alternately dominated Russian culture. In the VIII - XIII centuries. in this influence the South (Byzantium) dominated. The strongest impact from the X to the XV centuries. rendered the East (Mongol-Tatars). And after that, Rus' was subjected to powerful Western influence.

The specificity of Russia lies in its civilizational and cultural complexity, which includes many religious, ethnolinguistic and cultural-historical streams. Here the impulses of East and West, North and South, Forest and Steppe, Nomadism and Settlement, Ocean and Continent collided. However, it is precisely this complexity, which, of course, is a feature of Russia that makes it difficult for her civilizational identity. We can talk about the drama of civilizational uncertainty in relation to Russia. The search for one's own civilizational identity has become one of the dominants of Russian national identity.

The thesis about the civilizational uncertainty of Russia (in a “soft” or “hard” version) is put forward by many modern well-known domestic scientists, historians and philosophers. Thus, I. Yakovenko defines Russian civilization as a semi-barbarian “civilization involuntarily”, the outskirts of the civilizational world. A. Panarin points to the absence of strong “civilizational staples” in Russia, to the fragility of its civilizational syntheses. Historian V. Mezhuev characterizes Russia as a country “not so much becoming civilization, the appearance and contours of which are still only vaguely visible in the ideological searches of its thinkers and artists.

Views according to which Russia is a conglomerate of various civilizations, "inter-civilizational space" are quite widespread. “I proceed from the premise,” writes Yu. Kobishchanov, one of the leading African theorists, “that Russia arose and developed as a dynamic system of cultures and civilizations. Russia has never been the territory of any one civilization.” L. I. Semennikova believes that Russia is a special historically formed conglomerate of peoples, belonging to all existing types of civilizations, united by a powerful centralized state, and this turns Russia into a heterogeneous, segmental society.

The ideas of civilizational “underdevelopment” and “intercivilization” of Russia are united in the concepts of A. Akhiezer. In his opinion, the country is, as it were, torn between two civilizations: traditional and liberal, having gone beyond the first, it has not been able to overcome the boundaries of the second. Occupying an intermediate position between these civilizations, Russia has developed the inorganicity, instability of its civilizational status into a special systemic quality of an “intermediate civilization”, stimulating the destructive tendencies of socio-cultural reproduction, in particular, the split of culture and society, reproducing their inorganic nature.

A compromise position is taken by E. Rashkovsky. Recognizing that Russia has the qualities of “civilizational uncertainty” and “intercivilized continental ocean”, he considers this as a civilizational characteristic of Russia, “the basis of the content and structural originality of Russia”, which cannot interfere with studying it as a sociocultural, civilizational whole.

Along with the concept of Russia's civilizational uncertainty, there exists and is sufficiently recognized both in domestic and foreign science the point of view that Russia has its own civilizational peculiarity. For example, one can note the fact that all the famous authors of the theory of local civilizations (Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, Huntington) considered Russia as a separate civilization, independent and original. At the same time, Danilevsky considered Russia the basis of the Slavic civilization, Toynbee characterized it as Russian-Orthodox (subsidiary of the Hellenic one), and Huntington considers Russia to be the carrier state of the Orthodox-Slavic civilization, representing one of the eight main civilizations. Russia is also considered as part of the Eastern European civilization. There is a concept of Russian civilization (Platonov O.). The Eurasian concept is very popular in our time, according to which a synthesis of European and Asian principles has been carried out in Russia, as a result of which a Russian superethnos and its original culture arose.

Russia has experienced several waves of targeted Western influence. The first powerful wave, of course, is associated with the Petrine reforms. It was a radical attempt to bring Russia closer to Western Europe, "Europeanization" from above. However, this attempt was made after the civilizational synthesis was completed. From now on, foreign cultural material could not be assimilated in significant volumes. It was "rejected as contrary to the quality of the system, although it was vital." The German philosopher O. Spengler characterized such a phenomenon as “pseudomorphosis” – the destructive influence of a borrowed culture on the recipient culture, associated with the inability of the latter to creatively master the acquired spiritual experience. The result of pseudomorphosis is the inability of society to independently move from one historical era to another. Society turns out to be split into two worlds that are not connected with each other (with their own type of social ties, type of economic and legal relations). The essence of the situation of pseudomorphosis in relation to Russia is that the reforms of Peter I split Russian society, led to the formation of two different ways - “soil” and “civilization” (in the terminology of V.O. Klyuchevsky). The way of the Western type (“civilization”) included only a small part of society, mostly literate and active. The majority of the population continued to adhere to the old ethical norms and forms of life (“soil”). In Russian society, a large gap has formed between the enlightened part of society and the traditionally living masses. They constituted, in fact, two civilizational levels related to the West in different ways. The narrow, upper, ruling, educated stratum perceived itself as part of the West. The bulk of the people lived in another world, from which the pro-Western force was often seen as hostile. The elite in its mass turned out to be alien to the people in spirit, there was a separation of the educated layer of the country from the people. The presence in the Russian people of the carriers of two psychological paradigms explains many aspects of Russian history.

All of the above allows, in our opinion, to conclude that Russia is only moving towards civilizational self-determination. This movement occurs in conditions when the world is divided into two parts unequal in their power and influence - the West and the non-West. At the same time, the non-Western world, including Russia, is extremely complex, heterogeneous and incapable of competing on equal terms with the much more powerful West. “The West… uses international institutions, military power and economic resources to rule the world, maintaining Western superiority, protecting Western interests and spreading Western economic and political values,” says S. Huntington.

Thus, the entire social and cultural life of Russia is permeated by a mixture, interweaving and superimposition of not only contradictory, but also mutually exclusive orientations.

1. Socio-cultural features and problems of the development of Russian society. Possible alternatives for its development in the future.

Over the past ten years, Russian society has been characterized by a radical increase in inequality, changes in stratification, upward and downward personal and group mobility, and the formation of a middle class.

In the last few years, a certain correlation between the level of income and the level of education, especially higher education, has begun to appear. New values ​​and goals enter into the daily life of Russians, new life practices and behavior patterns are being approved.

value system Russian society is also undergoing a major transformation. In our life, the role of material values ​​has increased: money and wealth, the value of intangible values ​​has decreased

. The main features of the socio-cultural development of Russia - increased social stratification and the formation of new population groups. increased social inequality. The emerging new population groups (the rich, the middle classes, the middle and low-income) have formed their own ways of life.

"Mass culture" is mainly based on the values ​​of money, selfish interest, and hence the corresponding influence that it has on the mass consciousness. Such consciousness forms knowledge, ideas, norms, values ​​shared by a particular set of individuals developed in the process of their communication with each other and joint perception of social information.

Among the positive changes in the cultural life of Russia can be attributed the appearance of a large number of periodicals, as well as a large selection of various literature.

The spectrum of cultural undertakings is enriched through the development of various kinds of public associations, movements, clubs, and associations. The cultural exchange with other countries has become richer, the feeling of cultural isolation disappears. New radio stations are being created. New orchestras, including symphony ones, are organized, new theaters are opened. More and more films are being created that can already compete with Hollywood productions and are in demand by the audience. Domestic cinema continues to perform several basic functions: introductory, educational, critical.

Problems of development of the socio-cultural sphere of Russian society- falling demographic indicators, worsening living standards against the backdrop of rising prices and lower wages, social vulnerability of the poor.

It can also be noted that, in general, Russians' view of the future is becoming more optimistic compared to the past decade. People attach more importance not only to economic and political issues, but also to relationships, careers, and a healthy lifestyle.

Also, the socio-cultural development of Russia is influenced by terrorism, the role of oligarchs in the political and economic life of the country, the environmental situation, bureaucracy, the presence of extremist and fascist youth groups. and use in everyday socio-cultural practice. The dynamism of modern life has caused a significant complication of the structure and content of people's relations with each other, with the natural and cultural environment. In addition, the possibilities for choosing forms and places for leisure, recreation, satisfaction of intellectual and aesthetic interests have significantly expanded.

But the biggest problem of modern Russian culture is the confrontation between "folk" culture and "mass culture". Incidentally, Russia has almost always been characterized by the fact that true art is always the art of the past, not the present.

Prospects for the development of Russian society

For the socio-cultural development of Russian society as a whole, there is a favorable forecast, despite a number of existing problems. In the socio-cultural complex, the process of forming a system of state entrepreneurship is underway. The development of cultural organizations is largely related to the prospects for the development of cultural tourism, enterprises that provide various forms of leisure. For a modern Russian, the most significant socio-cultural values ​​are a good education, a prestigious job, a happy family, doing what you love, creativity, material wealth, reliable friends, honesty throughout life, spiritual, intellectual and physical self-improvement, gaining new knowledge and traveling. All this confirms the fact of the formation of the middle class in Russia in the course of socio-cultural development.

At present, it is necessary to develop an effective state social and cultural policy. The federal targeted programs currently in force are poorly developed, they only indicate general priorities and directions of activity in the socio-cultural sphere, they are too abstract in nature, not taking into account the specifics of specific regions and territories.

Over the past ten years, Russian society has been characterized by a radical increase in inequality, changes in stratification, upward and downward personal and group mobility, and the formation of a middle class.

Years of reforms have shown that positive adaptation to a market socio-cultural system requires a high quality of human capital, a personality prone to innovation, creative interpretation in the development of adaptive behavior patterns, emphasizing individual ways of achieving success. In the last few years, a certain correlation between the level of income and the level of education, especially higher education, has begun to appear. This is largely due to both the arrival of transnational corporations on the Russian market and the gradual transfer of managerial positions from the owners of industrial, mining enterprises, trading firms to managers, specialists, that is, employees. This process accelerated especially after the 1998 crisis.

The value system of Russian society is undergoing a serious transformation. In the bowels of the Soviet middle class, a system of values ​​was formed, to a certain extent different from the official one. This partial reorientation of values ​​largely contributed to the post-Soviet adaptation to the explosive dynamics of the sociocultural system of that part of it that managed to advance the most in the reassessment of values. In our life the role of material values ​​has increased: money and wealth, the value of non-material values ​​has decreased.

The most important task that needs to be solved in the process of the modernization transition to the new Russian sociocultural system is the massive transition to internal control, i.e. self-control of the individual, his ability to make decisions and bear full responsibility for them, in contrast to external control, which is characteristic of traditional society. Self-control, the readiness to introduce one's behavior into a rational, legal framework is a necessary condition for the functioning of civil society. The formation of internal control is, apparently, the main task of modern Russian upbringing and education. The solution of this problem will largely reduce the intensity of various forms of deviant behavior.

The socio-cultural development of Russian society is largely due to economic and political reasons. The main features of the socio-cultural development of Russia can be called increased social stratification and the formation of new population groups. As a result, social inequality has increased in the country, which is expressed not only in quantitative parameters. The emerging new population groups (the rich, the middle classes, the middle and low-income) have formed their own ways of life. At the same time, in the years of growth, despite favorable average economic indicators, the differences between these modes continued to deepen.

In the cultural space of post-Soviet Russia, the “mass culture” ball rules. And with its help, the reform of the economy, the political system, and the social sphere is largely carried out.

Mass culture is "propaganda without a propagandist". The values ​​preached by mass culture are presented as consecrated by the authority of public opinion as norms that a member of society must follow if he wants to live in harmony with other people, to be "no worse than others."

Thus, this, firstly, forms consumer psychology. Secondly, there is a narrowing of the sphere of personality, which leads to its peculiar standardization.

The system of higher education has received a fresh breath - being an educated person is again becoming both fashionable and profitable, education brings respect and weight in society. In recent years, the so-called alternative education and distance learning, which is possible with the use of modern computers and connection to the international Internet information systems, have become widespread.

Among the positive changes in the cultural life of Russia can be attributed the appearance of a large number of periodicals - newspapers and magazines - as well as a large selection of various literature. And in most cases, this is literature in almost all branches of knowledge, of good content and in good printing performance.

After a period of almost complete collapse of the domestic system of film production and film distribution, when hundreds of cinemas were closed across the country, a certain upsurge has now been outlined in this area of ​​culture.

75. Globalization: ideas about the main theories.

In its most general form, globalization is understood as numerous social processes of a planetary nature.

Pan-economic approach: the development of the global economy is considered by its adherents as the main engine of globalization processes. Emphasis on the growth of labor productivity, scientific and technological progress, the strengthening of democracy, the improvement of education, culture and health as a result of the growth of the global economy. Technological development is of key importance, capable of smoothing out the traditional conflicts of capitalist society and bringing humanity to a new quality of life. An optimistic view of globalization through the prism of a pan-economic approach. The main adherents of the pan-economic approach (D. Bhagwati, B. Gates and others).

Cultural approach: the process of globalization is considered by representatives of this approach through the prism of intercultural interaction. Analysis of the nature of the flow and consequences of the globalization of culture, including the erasure of socio-cultural boundaries, the destruction of cultural identity, intercultural conflicts, the formation of a new geopolitical configuration. Globalization is seen as a new tool for pursuing the traditional goals of international power politics. A critical look at the achievements of globalization, a protest against the leveling of cultural diversity. The main adherents of the culturological approach (S. Huntington, A. Panarin and others).

System-theoretical approach: globalization is seen as a systemic transformation of society, accompanied by the weakening of traditional instruments of political management and the formation of a power vacuum. As a result of globalization, a new social system is emerging, often leading to an aggravation of social conflicts. The emphasis is on understanding the systemic risks generated by globalization, on the structural and institutional effects of international communication, on the new role of transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations, and on the consequences of dismantling the welfare state. The most representative approach that allows you to combine the socio-economic analysis of social development with theoretical calculations of a philosophical nature. The main adherents of the system-theoretical approach (I. Wallerstein, W. Beck, E. Altvater, N. Luhmann and others).

Anti-globalization approach: globalization is perceived as a conspiracy of the forces of evil. These views are the result of religious and metaphysical perception of reality, mystifying social processes. The thesis about the threat of the formation of a "global government" is put forward and means of combating it are proposed. Adherents of this approach can differ greatly in their theoretical, cultural and religious attitudes, as well as in their approaches to the fight against globalization. What they have in common is the rejection of globalization as a process, as well as the perception of this process as man-made, i.e. as a systematic implementation of the plan of hidden influential groups. The main adherents of the anti-globalization approach (G. P. Martin, H. Schumann, N. Chomsky and others).

Deliberativist approach: the process of globalization is viewed through the prism of the unification of legal and ethical ideas in different parts of the globe. Ethics and law are perceived as specific mechanisms for self-correction of global development, applicable on a global scale. The task is to search for positive value foundations of society, shared by adherents of different political views, representing different cultures. Mechanisms for overcoming global problems generated by the development of mankind are proposed. Historical roots of the deliberativist approach in European philosophical thought (I. Kant, G. Grotius). The main adherents of the deliberativist approach (K.-O. Apel, J. Habermas). Methodology for the study of globalization processes. Methods of socio-economic analysis. International statistics. System functionalism. normative methods. Socio-cultural analysis.

It can be argued that as a result of the economic, social and political processes of the last 15-20 years, Russian society has not yet been able to consolidate around common goals and values. At present, it is a gradually becoming more complex set of microcommunities that have arisen for a variety of reasons.

It is somewhat more difficult to determine the exact list of problems. It is the public services, their leaders and their representatives that most often become producers of "social problems", the solutions of which they themselves then propose. It is the state that then turns to the professional community of experts to substantiate the formulation of such problems and substantiate options for their solutions.

Non-profit organizations and civil society structures most often do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for orders for in-depth and objective research.

Therefore, even in the presence of a variety of opinions and assessments, the Russian expert community most effectively defends the priorities and interests of the state, and not citizens.

However, among them, one can single out the main problems, the presence of which is beyond doubt: a drop in demographic indicators, a deterioration in living standards against the backdrop of rising prices and lower wages, social vulnerability of the poor, an increase in alcoholism, drug addiction, and tuberculosis.

According to a poll by the Public Opinion Foundation FOM conducted on January 21-22, 2006 in 44 regions of Russia, 51% of Russians consider high prices for housing and communal services to be the most painful social problem.

Russians also consider the lack of money for food and goods (37%), rising prices and inflation (35%), alcoholism (33%) and high prices for medical services and medicines (32%) as the main social problems.

According to another FOM survey conducted on November 23, 2006 (1500 survey participants), the majority of respondents named the main problems as low wages and housing problems. Thus, we can add to the number of socio-cultural problems of Russian society the financial problems of the population for various reasons, the poor organization of health care and education systems, and the personal problems of people caused by an unhealthy psychological atmosphere in society.

The listed problems of social and cultural development are supplemented and exacerbated by political instability in the world, the development of the financial crisis affecting the growth of the Russian economy, as well as cultural problems. Workers of cultural infrastructure are reduced. The cultural infrastructure in Russia is quite developed, but at the same time it remains ossified, technically and morally obsolete. A strong imprint on it was left by the former social order and the cultural policy inherent in it; the consequence of this is an orientation towards centralized management and direct budgetary support, a noticeable lack of own initiative of cultural institutions, their unpreparedness for existence in conditions of social and economic pluralism and a free market. As a result, there is a cooling of the population's interest in the heritage of Russian and world civilization. The average Russian considers going to a bar or watching a TV show as cultural leisure. It is also a result of the mass craze for cinema, the Internet, and the high cost of other cultural entertainment. The level of political culture, the ability to adapt in society, the quality of the performance of professional duties directly depend on the general level of culture.

In the field of healthcare, a multiformity and fragmentation have formed, which worsens the quality of medical services provided.

The second feature of modern health care is its rise in price. With the elimination of the Iron Curtain, modern diagnostic and therapeutic technologies poured into the country in a wide stream. Their appearance, on the one hand, improved the quality of diagnostics, improved the results of treatment, and reduced the time for restoring lost health. On the other hand, it led to a rise in the cost of medical care by several orders of magnitude.

The next problem is the lack of funding, ie. discrepancy between the real needs of healthcare and the allocated financial resources.

The fourth is a costly healthcare model with an excess bed capacity. Weak equipment of pre-perestroika health care, the lack of effective medicines and advanced technologies were compensated by a large number of hospitals, an entire army of doctors and a strong clinic. Over the past 10 years, the preventive component of healthcare has weakened, and from preventive it has become curative. And we inherited a bloated bed network and a large number of inefficiently operating hospitals.

Health care and education, as the most significant social institutions, continue to suffer from high levels of corruption. In 2004, bribes to prestigious universities increased by 15-20%. The amount of a bribe for admission to the law and economics departments of universities ranged from 10-25 thousand euros in the capital and 9-22 thousand dollars in the provinces. For humanities faculties of universities, these figures ranged from 8-15 thousand euros in the capital and 8-12 thousand dollars in the provinces, and for science faculties - 6-8 thousand euros in the capital and 3-5 thousand dollars in the provinces.

According to the monitoring data of the Higher School of Economics, 70% of families admit that significant investments are needed for a child to successfully enter a university, but only 60% of the respondents are solvent. Children from high-income families chose such specialties as journalism, architecture and design, children from low-income families - pedagogical specialties (data for 2002-2003).

This trend reflects the mood of society, which continues to consider education the key to a secure future for their children.

It can also be noted that, in general, Russians' view of the future is becoming more optimistic compared to the 1990s. People attach more importance not only to economic and political issues, but also to relationships, careers, and a healthy lifestyle. The desire for the latter is especially expressive against the background of the problems of alcoholism and drug addiction. According to the data given at the international scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the national scientific center for narcology of Roszdrav, more than 3.5 million Russians - 2.4 percent. of the total population of the country suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction. About 70,000 drug addicts die every year, most of them young people barely 25 years old.

The AIDS epidemic also undermines the Russians. In general, about 336 thousand HIV-infected people are officially registered in Russia today, of which 7952 have died. And this is just the beginning - according to the estimates of the Federal Scientific and Methodological Center for the Prevention and Control of AIDS, about 1 million Russians are actually infected. Moreover, if before 90 percent. of all HIV-infected people were drug addicts, today there are only 12-15% of them. Increasingly, pregnant women and mothers, adolescents who engage in unsafe sex are becoming victims of AIDS.

Among the causes of drug addiction and alcoholism, social factors can be noted: psychological shock, political shock, economic shock that occurred after the fundamental breakdown of the state system, the prevalence of drug addiction in the region, unemployment and personal: seed problems, lack of attention and love, lack of harmony in relationships.

Also, the socio-cultural development of Russia is influenced by terrorism, the role of oligarchs in the political and economic life of the country, the environmental situation, bureaucracy, the presence of extremist and fascist youth groups.

The aggravated ideological and socio-cultural problems of modern Russia are reflected in the state of the whole society, first of all, the modern family reacts to the ongoing changes and transformations.