Specific features of Russian culture. Russian culture

Russian culture was influenced by: nature, national character, the historical fate of the state, the influence of religion, etc. The increase in continentality and desert climate affects the delay of cultures. The cradle of Russian culture is the East European (Russian) plain (from the Arctic to the Black Sea) - a huge array. The relief of the plain determined the instability of the climate. Historically, Russia is a transitional country between Europe and Asia. Culture connected her with Europe, nature - with Asia. arose historical concept Eurasianism (Vernadsky).

The Tatar-Mongol yoke had a strong influence. Because Rus' was fragmented, this saved her from being conquered by other countries, Golden Horde brought the idea of ​​greatness, religious idea king. The Eurasian peoples built statehood based on the principle of the primacy of the rights of each people to a certain way of life, hence the concept of catholicity.

Against the backdrop of cold weather, droughts, famine, conquests, demographic and ethnic processes unfolded, their result was the formation of the Russian nation. Stages of formation:

1. The collapse of the Indo-European linguistic unity and ethnic group, the allocation of a new ethnic group that spoke the Proto-Slavic language

2. The resettlement of the Slavs after the Hun invasion (5th-6th century), the loss of unity, the emergence of western, southern and eastern Slavic tribes

3. The formation of the first state formations among the Eastern Slavs (Polyans, Drevlyans, northerners, etc.), their unification into the Old Russian Kiev state (7-10 centuries)

4. a single nationality is being formed in the conditions Kievan Rus, then fragmentation (11-12)

5. The collapse of the ancient Russian nationality, the formation of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples(13th-16th century).

Continuous colonization and resettlement began in the 7th century, it was necessary with great efforts to win land for arable land from nature. The waterway "from the Varangians to the Greeks" led from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea through the Volkhov and the Dnieper, and formed along it Russian state. The patriarchal-tribal way of life quickly collapsed.

The national type of the Great Russian, known for his unpretentiousness in everyday life, rare endurance and long-suffering, was formed in a constant struggle with harsh nature on poor soil, which he won from the forest.

National character is the backbone of any national culture. The Russian people have always been aware of their historical vocation, hence the formation of certain lofty goals, ideals, and canons. The Russian idea is the idea of ​​a contemplative heart, freely and objectively transmitting its vision to the will for action and thought for awareness and speech. In Rus' there was no such respect for commercial business as in the West.

The Russian people have always been detached, not attached to the family, the State, they are turned to heaven, in this spirit they were brought up by Orthodoxy, it inspired the idea of ​​duty, and not the idea of ​​right. WE did not perceive the bourgeois system, hence special interest in culture to social issues, the desire for a righteous, just world order. Negative attitude towards values Western civilization. An important feature of the Russian character is patriotism.

Of great importance for culture was the giftedness of the Russian people (how many names we have given to the world!), the love of beauty and the gift of creative imagination.

The national character, features of the Russian mentality belong to the ethno- and socio-psychological Russia.

History of the national character

The question of national character has not received a generally accepted formulation, although it has significant historiography in the world and Russian pre-revolutionary science. This problem was studied by Montesquieu, Kant, Herder. And the thought that different peoples have your own national spirit”, was formed in the philosophy of romanticism and pochvennichestvo both in the West and in Russia. In the German ten-volume "Psychology of Peoples" the essence of man was analyzed in different cultural manifestations: life, mythology, religion, etc. Social anthropologists of the last century also did not bypass this topic with their attention. In Soviet society, the humanities took as a basis the predominance of the class over the national, so the national character, ethnic psychology and similar issues were left aside. They weren't given much importance back then.

The concept of national character

At this stage, the concept of national character includes different schools and approaches. Of all the interpretations, two main ones can be distinguished:

• personal-psychological

• value-normative.

Personal and psychological interpretation of the national character

Such an interpretation implies that people of the same cultural values ​​have common personal and mental traits. The complex of such qualities distinguishes representatives of this group from others. The American psychiatrist A. Kardiner created the concept of "basic personality", on the basis of which he drew a conclusion about the "basic personality type" that is inherent in every culture. The same idea is supported by N.O. Lossky. He highlights the main features of the Russian character, which is different:

• religiosity,
• susceptibility to the highest examples of skills,
• spiritual openness,
• subtle understanding of someone else's state,
• strong willpower,
• ardor in religious life,
• ebullition in public affairs,
• adherence to extreme views,
• love of freedom, reaching to anarchy,
• love for the fatherland
• contempt for the common people.

Similar researches reveal also the results contradicting each other. Any people can find absolutely polar traits. Here it is necessary to conduct more in-depth studies using new statistical techniques.

Value-normative approach to the problem of national character

Such an approach admits that the national character is embodied not in the individual qualities of the representative of the nation, but in the socio-cultural functioning of his people. B.P. Vysheslavtsev in his work "Russian National Character" explains that the human character is not obvious, on the contrary, it is something secret. Therefore, it is difficult to understand and surprises happen. The root of character is not in expressive ideas and not in the essence of consciousness, it grows from unconscious forces, from the subconscious. In this sub-foundation such cataclysms are ripening that cannot be predicted by looking at the outer shell. For the most part, this applies to the Russian people.

Such a social state of mind, based on the attitudes of group consciousness, is usually called mentality. In connection with this interpretation, the features of the Russian character appear as a reflection of the mentality of the people, that is, they are the property of the people, and not a set of features inherent in its individual representatives.

mentality

• reflected in the actions of people, their way of thinking,
• leaves its mark on folklore, literature, art,
• gives rise to an original way of life and special culture characteristic of one or another people.

Features of the Russian mentality

The study of the Russian mentality was begun in the 19th century, first in the works of the Slavophiles, the research was continued at the turn of the next century. In the early nineties of the last century, interest in this issue arose again.

Most researchers note the most characteristics mentality of the Russian people. It is based on deep compositions of consciousness that help to make choices in time and space. In the context of this, there is the concept of a chronotope - i.e. connection of spatio-temporal relations in culture.

• Endless movement

Klyuchevsky, Berdyaev, Fedotov noted in their writings the sense of Space characteristic of the people of Russia. This is the boundlessness of the plains, their openness, the absence of borders. This model of the national Cosmos was reflected in their works by many poets and writers.

• openness, incompleteness, questioning

A weighty value of Russian culture is its openness. She can comprehend another, alien to her, and is subject to various influences from outside. Some, for example, D. Likhachev, call this universalism, others, like, note universal understanding, call it, like G. Florovsky, universal responsiveness. G. Gachev noticed that many domestic classic masterpieces literature remained unfinished, leaving the way for development. This is the whole culture of Russia.

• Mismatch between the Space step and the Time step

The peculiarity of Russian landscapes and territories predetermines the experience of Space. The linearity of Christianity and the European tempo determine the experience of Time. The vast territories of Russia, endless expanses predetermine the colossal step of Space. For Time, European criteria are used, Western ones are tried on. historical processes, formations.

According to Gachev, in Russia all processes should proceed more slowly. The psyche of a Russian person is slower. The gap between the steps of Space and Time generates tragedy and is fatal for the country.

Antinomy of Russian culture

The discrepancy in two coordinates - Time and Space creates a constant tension in Russian culture. Another feature of it is connected with this - antinomy. Many researchers consider this feature to be one of the most distinctive. Berdyaev noted the strong inconsistency of national life and self-consciousness, where a deep abyss and boundless heights are combined with meanness, baseness, lack of pride, servility. He wrote that in Russia boundless philanthropy and compassion can coexist with misanthropy and savagery, and the desire for freedom coexists with slavish resignation. These polarities in Russian culture do not have semitones. Other peoples also have opposites, but only in Russia bureaucracy can be born from anarchism, and slavery from freedom. This specificity of consciousness is reflected in philosophy, art, and literature. This dualism, both in culture and in personality, is best reflected in the works of Dostoevsky. Literature always provides great information for the study of mentality. The binary principle, which is important in national culture is reflected even in the works of Russian writers. Here is a list compiled by Gachev:

"War and Peace", "Fathers and Sons", "Crime and Punishment", "Poet and Crowd", "Poet and Citizen", "Christ and Antichrist".

The names speak of the great inconsistency of thinking:

"Dead Souls", "Living Corpse", "Virgin Soil Upturned", "Yawning Heights".

Polarization of Russian culture

The Russian mentality, with its binary combination of mutually exclusive qualities, reflects the hidden polarity of Russian culture, which is inherent in all periods of its development. Continuous tragic tension manifested itself in their collisions:

G.P. Fedotov in his work "The Fate and Sins of Russia" explored the originality of Russian culture and depicted national mentality, its device is in the form of an ellipse with a pair of centers of opposite polarity, which are constantly fighting and cooperating. This causes constant instability and variability in the development of our culture, at the same time it stimulates the intention to solve the problem instantly, through a flash, a throw, a revolution.

"Intelligibility" of Russian culture

The internal antinomy of Russian culture also gives rise to its “incomprehensibility”. The sensual, spiritual, and illogical always prevail over the expedient and meaningful in it. Its originality is difficult to analyze from the point of view of science, as well as to convey the possibilities of plastic art. In his works, I.V. Kondakov writes that literature is the most consonant with the national identity of Russian culture. This is the reason for the deep respect for the book, the word. This is especially noticeable in the Russian culture of the Middle Ages. Classical Russian culture of the nineteenth century: painting, music, philosophy, social thought, he notes, was created for the most part under the influence of literary works, their heroes, designs, plots. It is impossible to underestimate the consciousness of Russian society.

Cultural identity of Russia

Russian cultural self-identification is hampered by the specifics of mentality. The concept of cultural identity includes the identification of a person with cultural tradition, national values.

Among Western peoples, national and cultural identity is expressed in two ways: national (I am German, I am Italian, etc.) and civilizational (I am European). In Russia, there is no such certainty. This is due to the fact that the cultural identity of Russia depends on:

• multi-ethnic basis of culture, where there are a lot of local variants and subcultures;
• intermediate position between ;
• inherent gift of compassion and empathy;
• repeated impetuous transformations.

This ambiguity, inconsistency gives rise to arguments about its exclusivity, originality. In Russian culture, the idea of ​​a unique path and the highest calling of the people of Russia is deep. This idea was embodied in the popular socio-philosophical thesis about.

But in full agreement with everything that was said above, along with the awareness of national dignity and conviction in one's own exclusivity, there is a national denial that reaches self-abasement. The philosopher Vysheslavtsev emphasized that restraint, self-flagellation, and repentance are a national trait of our character, that there is no people that has criticized itself so much, exposed it, and joked about itself.

Theoretical part

In addition to the historical typology of cultures, other variants of typologies are widespread, for example, those that have chosen as their basis not the historical, temporal, but the “spatial” specificity of these cultures. An example of a special "local civilization" is Russian culture.

The specificity of geopolitical, geographical, natural factors is the starting point for the formation of a way of life, thinking, national character of people of a particular culture, including Russian. The location of Russia on the East European Plain, its "middle" position between the world of the West and the world of the East, largely determined the complexity and characteristic features of the development of Russian culture. Russia, both now and in previous critical epochs of its history, constantly faced a civilizational choice, the need for self-determination and the formulation of its ideals, basic values ​​and prospects.

ON THE. Berdyaev noted that the uniqueness of Russia, which combines both Europe and Asia, lies in the antinomy, inconsistency of the Russian soul and the Russian national character. He understood the national character as stable qualities inherent in the representatives of a given nation and arising under the influence of natural and historical factors manifested not only in mores, behavior, lifestyle, culture, but also in the fate of the nation, the state. He calls the main characteristic of the national psychology of Russians a deep inconsistency, the root of which is “in the unconnectedness of the masculine and feminine in the Russian spirit and the Russian national character”, when the personal masculine principle is perceived as if from the outside and does not become an internal shaping principle for Russian culture. ON THE. Berdyaev notes that "the mysterious antinomy can be traced in Russia in everything." On the one hand, Russia is the most anarchic country in the world, unable to organize its own life, longing for freedom from earthly concerns and freedom from the state, that is, feminine, passive and submissive. On the other hand, it is "the most state-owned and most bureaucratic country in the world", which has created the greatest state. Russia is the most non-chauvinistic country, and at the same time it is a country of “national bragging”, which has assumed the universal messianic role. On the one hand, the Russian soul demands infinite freedom, not being satisfied with anything temporary, conditional and relative, striving only for the Absolute, seeking absolute divine Truth and salvation for the whole world. On the other hand, Russia is a slavish country, devoid of an idea of ​​the individual, his rights and dignity. The thinker notes that only in Russia does the thesis turn into an antithesis and follow from the antithesis. He hopes that, realizing this, Russia will cope with its own national element, finding an internal opportunity for self-development.

The inconsistency of the Russian character attracted the attention of many researchers. 3. Freud explained it from the point of view of psychoanalysis by the ambivalence of the Russian soul: "... Even those Russians who are not neurotics are very noticeably ambivalent, like the heroes of many Dostoevsky's novels ..." This term refers to the duality of experience, expressed in the fact that that the same object evokes two opposite feelings in a person at the same time, for example, pleasure and displeasure, sympathy and antipathy. This is how the child relates to the mother, who both leaves and comes to him, that is, both bad and good. 3. Freud believes that "the ambivalence of feelings is a legacy of mental life primitive man, preserved by the Russians better and in a form more accessible to consciousness than among other peoples ... "

Russian culture is a culture that recognizes itself as borderline, lying between different worlds. Its origins are connected with the transition of the East Slavic tribes to historical life, the creation of the Old Russian state and the adoption of Orthodoxy. The Eastern Slavs had to develop a territory that was far removed from the centers of world civilization, in addition, it was inhabited by peoples who, in terms of their socio-economic development, were at a lower level than the Slavs themselves. These factors, as well as rather difficult natural and geographical conditions and constant clashes with the nomads of the southeast, formed the features of the gradually emerging nationality, which is called Old Russian. Old Russian statehood and culture were formed under the significant influence of Byzantium, from which the system of values ​​came to Rus', feudal, church, state system. However, borrowing gave rise not to copying, but to the creation of a new cultural world on new soil. You can say ancient Russian culture became a reaction of the Eastern Slavs to Byzantium, creating a special cultural identity. Already showed up here characteristic development of Russian culture, which is built mainly as a response, as a reaction to the culture of the surrounding world. Russian culture conceives itself as borderline, located between the “Varangians and Greeks”, “East and West”, i.e., defines itself, first of all, in relation to others, not as “what”, but as not that, and not other (not the East and not the West, not the Vikings, not the Greeks).

Any borrowed ideas and achievements on Russian soil (as well as on any other) acquire a certain new character, significantly changing the original model. The adoption of Christianity was not just a borrowing that was not fully assimilated (a long-standing dual faith), it was adapted to the archaic ideas of the tribal and neighboring community of the Eastern Slavs. The Christian idea of ​​personal individual spiritual self-improvement was supplanted in the absence of an idea of ​​the individual, combined with community psychology. As a result, "true Christianity", which gives salvation, has become a matter of no individual person but of the whole world, the community. Faith is understood as catholicity, mutual consent, which implies the moral community of the collective on the basis of mutual duty, the renunciation of the individual from his sovereignty and subordination to the interests of the church and the religious community. Such an understanding is archaic, it is rooted in the moral economy of the peasantry, who prefer communal collectivism and traditional leveling economy to personal initiative and risky commodity production. Russia, for almost its entire history, has been an agrarian country, peasant in spirit and nature of economic activity. The moral collectivism of catholicity is paternalistic in nature, gives rise to a lack of personal responsibility and expanded from the level of the community to the scale of the state determines the role state beginning in Russian history, the attitude towards him and even the meaning of the life of a Russian person.

In the West, the Christian idea of ​​spiritual perfection has been refracted into a mechanism for the constant dynamic development of society, in which a person lives for the sake of personal achievements, personal self-realization. Russian people reject such a prosaic meaning of life. One can live only for the sake of universal happiness, universal salvation. Collectivism, leveling, the lack of a personal beginning not only led to a lack of responsibility and the inability of a Russian person to take the initiative, but also formed in him a disrespectful attitude towards life itself, which is always some kind of compromise, imperfection. A Russian person does not see the deep value of this life and, accordingly, has no interest in its arrangement and improvement. For him, the immutability of the already established production-consumption balance as the basis of the “timeless” and isolated existence of a traditional peasant society is more valuable than risky novelty. Hence such national trait like a sacrifice. If there is nothing to live for, then it is important to die for traditional values: "In the world, even death is red." To give up the pettiness of a routine life, to sacrifice oneself for the sake of society, faith, ideals and the state - that was the meaning of the life of a Russian person for many centuries.

The traditional nature of such a worldview does not provide an opportunity for dynamics, for the formation of a mechanism for the self-development of Russian society, even if it is as critical as in the West. The role of the engine in the history of Russia is assumed by the state. From the 14th to the 17th centuries a huge multinational Russian state was created, the core of which was the Russian people. This state, in accordance with the Eastern tradition, was built on the principles of allegiance and completely controlled society. It was the result of a complex interweaving of factors of its location, artificial isolation from the Christian world, the influence of the traditions of ancient Russian, Byzantine, Mongolian statehood and the heroic efforts of the Russian people.

In relation to the state, the duality of Russian perception is clearly manifested, at the basis of which traditional peasant psycho-mentality prevails. On the one hand, the state acts as a hostile force, forcing to organize and move. This happens because the peasantry in general is characterized by the predominance of instinctive forms of resistance to economic and social innovations and rejection of the state as a faceless and soulless part of power. Until now, foreigners in Russia have never ceased to be surprised by the negative attitude towards their own state apparatus: "they" are sure to steal and harm the people. In addition to the traditional peasant psychology, the time when the Russian land was part of the Golden Horde, was considered khan's land, and everyone living on it had to pay tribute to the khan, also affected here. In the Moscow kingdom, such a characteristic Eastern tradition a form of tributary relations between the authorities and the people and the monopoly of power on property. Therefore, on the part of the people, nation state the attitude to it passed as to something hostile, alien, imposed, as it were, from outside.

On the other hand, a powerful strong state is the greatest value that ensures the very survival of the Russian people, for which it is not a pity to die. The external danger was perceived by localized peasant societies at the level of a natural disaster and forced them to take care of state guarantees for their existence. Hence the value of the state - the protector of the earth. But the disunity of the peasant communities could only suggest a paternalistic type of relationship with the authorities.

Further Russian history took shape under conditions of constant challenge from the West. The Russian state responded in a typically oriental way, keeping society away from property and any manifestation of political activity. Starting with Peter I, the state paternalistic policy becomes an instrument for adapting traditional way to the needs of the country's survival next to the changing and dynamically developing Western world. The Eastern response to the Western challenge resulted in a tragic split in Russian culture. Purposeful creation of a Europeanized elite throughout the 18th century. and first half of XIX V. split the country into two worlds - the world of traditional values ​​and feudal slavery of the majority of the population and the world of peculiarly assimilated Western culture of the privileged strata, which had no real socio-economic foundation in the country. Moreover, since the assimilation of Western values ​​did not occur naturally, but in many respects by force, and the authorities from Western culture chose and planted exactly what this moment corresponded to her ideas about the state benefit, neither a normal private life nor a civil society was formed in Russia. Therefore, a society that could not even properly form under the pressure of the state, awakening to life, from the very beginning turned out to be in strong opposition to it.

WITH mid-nineteenth V. the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia, specifically Russian cultural phenomenon, which largely reflects the features of the Russian cultural development. The Russian intelligentsia, like the Russian culture of which it is a part, is formed as a response, as a reaction to the achievements of Western thought. She comprehends and behaves in relation to Russian authorities and the Russian people, as well as Russian culture as a whole in relation to the West.

The Russian state, which took on the role of a trustee, caring for the general welfare, to late XIX V. turned out to be incapable of self-change and fulfillment of its historical mission - the formation internal mechanism development of the country, proving that paternalistic systems are unusually inert.

The tops and the bottoms in Russia have never understood each other, because the relationship of power-subordination has always dominated personal ties and relationships of purchase and sale. As a result, the authorities, the intelligentsia, and the people spread their understanding of the world from their social environment to others, without striving for mutual understanding and dialogue. Unlike a dispute, when everyone is sure of his own truth and convinces the other of it, a dialogue is not a proof of one’s rightness, but an interview in which the truth is not expressed, but a new integrity is achieved, which is achieved as a result of many compromises from all sides. . Therefore, the development of culture is also a dialogue, when the interlocutors are different cultures seeking mutual understanding. Truth is not on anyone's side, it exists only in continuous cultural interaction. For Russian culture, dialogue is not typical. At all levels, it was built not as a dialogue, but as a monologue-reaction, demonstrating the inability or unwillingness to understand the other. Recognition of one's own view of the world as the only true one led to the inability to internally change both on the part of the state and on the part of all segments of the population. Even today, the position that recognizes the need to understand a person of a different culture finds its way with difficulty among the Russian people, who cling to their habits, values ​​and ideas to the last, recognizing only them as true and showing intolerance. For example, Russians consider themselves in the right to categorically condemn the "denunciation" of the Americans, without taking the trouble to understand their way of life, where such behavior has a completely different meaning and content than in the Russian cultural world. Monologuery has become one of the features of Russian culture, which still prevents Russia from fitting into the European world in the role that it has been claiming since the era of Peter I - the great European power.

In modern sociocultural situation It seems that Russia's fundamental national interest is to ensure the country's dynamic development not through a forced impulse given from above, but through the creation of a society that has internal sources of development.

Questions for self-examination

• 1. What does the expression "monologic nature of Russian culture" mean?
• 2. What is the Russian intelligentsia? What are its characteristics?

Tasks and exercises

Working with key concepts, terms and definitions

• 1. Formulate the relationship of concepts: nationalism and extremism; anarchism and statehood.
• 2. Define terms Keywords: antinomy, ambivalence, national character, xenophobia.

Working with cultural text

1. Read an excerpt from N.L. Berdyaev "The Fate of Russia" and answer the questions.

Psychology of the Russian people. ...Since ancient times, there has been a premonition that Russia is destined for something great, that Russia is a special country, unlike any other country in the world. Russian national thought was nourished by the feeling of God's chosenness and God-bearingness of Russia. It comes from old idea Moscow as the Third Rome, through Slavophilism - to Dostoevsky, Vladimir Solovyov and modern neo-Slavophiles. A lot of falsehood and lies stuck to the ideas of this order, but something truly folk, truly Russian was also reflected in them.

<...>The spiritual forces of Russia have not yet become immanent in the cultural life of European mankind. For Western cultured humanity, Russia still remains completely transcendent, a kind of alien East, now attracting with its mystery, now repelling with its barbarity. Even Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky appeal to Western civilized people as exotic food, unusually spicy for him. Many in the West are drawn to the mysterious depths of the Russian East.

<...>And truly it can be said that Russia is incomprehensible to the mind and immeasurable by any yardstick of doctrines and teachings. And everyone believes in Russia in his own way, and everyone finds facts in the full contradictions of the existence of Russia to confirm his faith. One can approach the unraveling of the mystery hidden in the soul of Russia by immediately recognizing the antinomy of Russia, its terrible inconsistency. Then Russian self-consciousness is freed from false and false idealizations, from repulsive boasting, as well as from spineless cosmopolitan denial and foreign slavery.

<...>Russia is the most stateless, the most anarchic country in the world. And the Russian people are the most apolitical people, never able to organize their land. All truly Russian, our national writers, thinkers, publicists - all were stateless, a kind of anarchists. Anarchism is a phenomenon of the Russian spirit; it is inherent in different ways both in our extreme left and in our extreme right. The Slavophiles and Dostoevsky are essentially the same anarchists as Mikhail Bakunin or Kropotkin.

<...>The Russian people seem to want not so much a free state, freedom in the state, as freedom from the state, freedom from worries about the earthly order. The Russian people do not want to be a courageous builder, their nature is defined as feminine, passive and submissive in state affairs, they are always waiting for a groom, a husband, a ruler. Russia is a submissive, feminine land. Passive, receptive femininity in relation to state power is so characteristic of the Russian people and of Russian history. This is fully confirmed by the Russian revolution, in which the people remain spiritually passive and submissive to the new revolutionary tyranny, but in a state of evil obsession. There are no limits to the humble patience of the long-suffering Russian people. State power has always been an external, and not an internal principle for the stateless Russian people; she was not created from him, but came, as it were, from outside, as the groom comes to the bride. And that is why so often the authorities gave the impression of a foreign, some kind of German domination. Russian radicals and Russian conservatives alike thought that the state was "they" and not "we". It is very characteristic that in Russian history there was no chivalry, this courageous beginning. This is connected with the insufficient development of the personal principle in Russian life. The Russian people have always loved to live in the warmth of the team, in some kind of dissolution in the elements of the earth, in the bosom of the mother. Chivalry forges a sense of personal dignity and honor, creates a temper of the personality. Russian history did not create this personal temper. In a Russian person there is softness, in a Russian face there is no carved and chiselled profile. Tolstoy's Platon Karataev is round. Russian anarchism is feminine, not masculine, passive, not active. And Bakunin's rebellion is a plunge into the chaotic Russian element. Russian statelessness is not the conquest of freedom, but the surrender of oneself, freedom from activity. The Russian people want to be a land that is bride-to-be, waiting for a husband. All these properties of Russia formed the basis of the Slavophile philosophy of history and Slavophile social ideals. But the Slavophil philosophy of history does not want to know the antinomy of Russia, it takes into account only one thesis of Russian life. It has an antithesis. And Russia would not be so mysterious if it contained only what we have just talked about. The Slavophil philosophy of Russian history does not explain the riddle of Russia's transformation into greatest empire in the world or explains too simplistic. And the most fundamental sin of Slavophilism was that they mistook the natural-historical features of the Russian element for Christian virtues.

Russia is the most state-owned and most bureaucratic country in the world; everything in Russia becomes a tool of politics. The Russian people created the most powerful state in the world, the greatest empire. From Ivan Kalita, Russia consistently and stubbornly gathered and reached dimensions that stagger the imagination of all the peoples of the world. The forces of the people, about whom, not without reason, they think that it is striving for an inner spiritual life, are given over to the colossus of statehood, which turns everything into its instrument. The interests of creating, maintaining and protecting a huge state occupy a completely exclusive and overwhelming place in Russian history. The Russian people had almost no strength left for a free creative life, all the blood went to strengthen and protect the state. Classes and estates were poorly developed and did not play the role they played in history Western countries. The personality was crushed by the enormous size of the state, which made unbearable demands. The bureaucracy has developed to monstrous proportions.

<...>No philosophy of history, Slavophile or Western, has yet figured out why the most stateless people created such a vast and powerful statehood, why the most anarchist people are so subservient to the bureaucracy, why a free-spirited people does not seem to want a free life? This secret is associated with a special ratio of the feminine and masculine principles in the Russian folk character. The same antinomy runs through all of Russian existence.

There is a mysterious contradiction in the attitude of Russia and Russian consciousness towards nationality. This is the second antinomy, no less important than the relation to the state. Russia is the most non-chauvinistic country in the world. ... The Russian intelligentsia has always been disgusted with nationalism and abhorred it as evil spirits. She professed exclusively supranational ideals. And no matter how superficial, no matter how banal the cosmopolitan doctrines of the intelligentsia were, they nevertheless reflected, at least distortedly, the supra-national, all-human spirit of the Russian people. The outcast intellectuals in a certain sense were more nationalistic than our bourgeois nationalists, whose facial expressions are similar to the bourgeois nationalists of all countries. The Slavophiles were not nationalists in the usual sense of the word. They wanted to believe that the all-human Christian spirit lives in the Russian people, and they exalted the Russian people for their humility. Dostoevsky directly proclaimed that the Russian man is an all-man, that the spirit of Russia is the universal spirit, and he understood the mission of Russia not in the way that the nationalists understand it. Nationalism of the newest formation is the undoubted Europeanization of Russia, conservative Westernism on Russian soil.

Such is one thesis about Russia that could rightly be expressed. And here is the antithesis, which is no less justified. Russia is the most nationalist country in the world, a country of unprecedented excesses of nationalism, oppression of subject nationalities by Russification, a country of national bragging, a country in which everything is nationalized up to the universal Church of Christ, a country that considers itself the only one called and rejects all of Europe as rot and the fiend of the devil doomed to perish. reverse side Russian humility is an extraordinary Russian conceit. The most humble is the greatest, the most powerful, the only "holy Rus'". Russia is sinful, but it remains in its sin great country- a country of saints, living with the ideals of holiness. Vl. Solovyov laughed at the certainty of Russian national conceit that all the saints spoke Russian.

<...>The same enigmatic antinomy can be traced in everything in Russia. It is possible to establish an innumerable number of theses and antitheses about the Russian national character, to reveal many contradictions in the Russian soul. Russia is a country of boundless freedom of spirit, a country of wandering and searching for God's truth. Russia is the most non-bourgeois country in the world; it does not have that strong philistinism that so repels and repels Russians in the West.

<...>There is rebelliousness, rebelliousness in the Russian soul, insatiability and dissatisfaction with anything temporary, relative and conditional. Farther and farther must go, to the end, to the limit, to the exit from this "world", from this land, from everything local, petty-bourgeois, attached. It has been repeatedly pointed out that Russian atheism itself is religious. The heroically minded intelligentsia went to their deaths in the name of materialistic ideas. This strange contradiction will be understood if we see that under the materialistic guise she aspired to the absolute.

<...>And here is the antithesis. Russia is a country of unheard of servility and terrible obedience, a country devoid of consciousness of the rights of the individual and not protecting the dignity of the individual, a country of inert conservatism, the enslavement of religious life by the state, a country of strong life and heavy flesh. ... Everywhere the personality is suppressed in the organic collective. Our soil layers are deprived of legal consciousness and even dignity, they do not want self-activity and activity, they always rely on the fact that others will do everything for them.

<...>How to understand this enigmatic inconsistency of Russia, this identical fidelity of mutually exclusive theses about it? And here, as elsewhere, in the question of the freedom and slavery of the soul of Russia, of its wandering and its immobility, we are confronted with the secret relationship between the masculine and the feminine. The root of these deep contradictions lies in the unconnectedness of the masculine and the feminine in the Russian spirit and in the Russian character. Unlimited freedom turns into boundless slavery, eternal wandering into eternal stagnation, because courageous freedom does not take possession of the feminine national element in Russia from within, from the depths. The courageous beginning is always expected from the outside, the personal beginning is not revealed in the Russian people themselves. ... Connected with this is that everything courageous, liberating and shaping in Russia was, as it were, not Russian, foreign, Western European, French or German or Greek in the old days. Russia is, as it were, powerless to shape itself into a free being, powerless to form a personality out of itself. The return to one's own soil, to one's own national element so easily assumes in Russia the character of enslavement, leads to immobility, turns into a reaction. Russia is getting married, waiting for a groom who should come from some height, but not the betrothed, but a German official comes and owns her. In the life of the spirit, she is dominated by: either Marx, or Steiner, or some other foreign husband. Russia, such a peculiar country, such an extraordinary spirit, was constantly in a servile attitude towards Western Europe. She did not learn from Europe, which is necessary and good, she did not join European culture, which is salutary for her, but slavishly obeyed the West or, in a wild nationalist reaction, smashed the West, denied culture. ... And in other countries you can find all the opposites, but only in Russia the thesis turns into an antithesis, bureaucratic statehood is born from anarchism, slavery is born from freedom, extreme nationalism from supernationalism. There is only one way out of this hopeless circle: the disclosure within Russia itself, in its spiritual depths, of a courageous, personal, formative principle, the mastery of one's own national element, the immanent awakening of a courageous, luminous consciousness.

Berdyaev N. The fate of Russia.

M.: Soviet writer, 1990. S. 8-23.

• 1. What are the reasons for the inconsistency of the Russian soul N.A. Berdyaev?
• 2. Why only in Russia, according to N.A. Berdyaev, does the thesis always turn into its antithesis?
• 3. What are the most significant antinomies of the Russian character that N.A. Berdyaev?
• 2. Read an excerpt from B.L. Uspensky "Russian intelligentsia as a specific phenomenon of Russian culture" and answer the questions.

<...>What is the originality of Russian culture in general? Oddly enough - in its borderline.

This seems like a paradox: after all, the border, according to our ideas, does not have space or is limited in size - strictly speaking, this is a conditional boundary, a feature. Meanwhile we are talking about the country that occupies the most large area in the world and, moreover, distinguished by an amazing - for such a territory - uniformity of cultural standards.

And yet it is so. In general, culture is connected not so much directly with objective reality (in this case, with geographical reality), but with the comprehension of this reality: it is the comprehension of reality, autoreflection, that forms culture. Russia conceives of itself as a frontier territory - in particular, as a territory located between East and West: it is the West in the East and, at the same time, the East in the West. It seems that this is a stable characteristic of Russia: already in the most ancient Russian chronicles, Rus' is characterized as a country that lies on the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, and, accordingly, ancient description Russian customs in the same chronicles are given in an estranged description, from the perspective of an otherworldly observer, where “one’s own” is described as alien and strange (I mean the legend about the journey of the Apostle Andrew to Rus' in The Tale of Bygone Years).

Russian culture has always been focused on foreign culture. In the beginning - after the baptism of Rus' - it was an orientation towards Byzantium: together with Christianity, Rus' accepts the Byzantine system of values ​​and strives to fit into Byzantine culture.

And just like that in the 18th century. Russia conceives itself as a part of European civilization and seeks to adapt itself to the Western European cultural standard. Previously, Rus' (Russia) conceived of itself as part of the Byzantine ecumene, but now it is included in the European cultural sphere: just as the Byzantine system of values ​​was previously accepted, now the Western European cultural landmark is being accepted.

The frontier, frontier character determines, so to speak, the double self-consciousness of Russian culture, the double starting point. In conditions of orientation to Western culture in different perspectives, from different angles of view, both the West and the East can be seen here. Hence, we constantly observe in Russia either an attraction to Western culture, or, on the contrary, an awareness of its own special path, that is, a desire to dissociate itself, to survive. One way or another - in both cases - the West, Western culture, acts as a permanent cultural landmark: it is something that has to be reckoned with all the time. ... Hence the accelerated development: the rapid assimilation of foreign cultural values ​​and, at the same time, the cultural heterogeneity of Russian society, the stratification of the cultural elite and people who speak different languages, belong to different cultures. And hence, in turn, a special phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia - with such a characteristic feeling of guilt or duty to the people.

Uspensky B. A. Etudes on Russian history.

St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2002. S. 392-412.

• 1. What role, from the point of view of the author, does self-comprehension of culture play in its development?
• 2. What, in the author's opinion, forms the features of Russian culture?

Practical exercises, tasks

• 1. Some researchers argue that Russian culture at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries. experiencing an identity crisis. Since our society is undergoing a systemic deformation, it is increasingly difficult for a Russian citizen to relate himself to certain social and cultural communities and so self-determine. This extremely uncomfortable state becomes the cause of nationalism and extremism. They unite in primary, natural ethnic and religious groups, xenophobia and the influence of the ideas of traditionalism, often developing into fundamentalism, are growing (“we will clear ourselves of innovations and return to the origins”). Can you give examples of such phenomena in our society?
• 2. Remove the excess in each of the rows:
  • N. Berdyaev, V. Rozanov, S. Bulgakov, L. Karsavin, I. Stravinsky, S. Frank, G. Fedotov, L. Shestov;
  • A. Blok, K. Balmont, D. Merezhkovsky, V. Kandinsky, Vyach. Ivanov, 3. Gippius;
  • A. Antropov, F. Rokotov, D. Levitsky, D. Ukhtomsky, V. Borovikovsky;
  • “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”, “Arzamas”, “Society of wisdom”, “Serapion brothers”;
  • "Black Square", "Space Formula", "Aviator", "Girl with Peaches", "Troubled";
  • "October", "Neva", "Literature and Life", "New World".
• 3. Complete the list:
  • Gzhel, Dymkovo, Palekh, Fedoskino...
  • Russia is the most "anarchist and most state-owned" country in the world, "a country of infinite freedom and unheard of servility",...
  • "Left Front of Art", "Russian Association of Proletarian Writers"...
• 4. Give a description of the main stages in the development of Russian culture by filling out the table:

Creative tasks

• 1. Prepare a mini-essay on the following topics, expressing your opinion:
  • Who is a Russian intellectual? Is it difficult to be an intellectual in Russia?
  • I see Russia's place in the world "historical concert" as follows...
• 2. Read an article from a book by B.A. Uspensky "Etudes on Russian history". Write a review.
• 3. Read the work of N.Ya. Berdyaev, The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism. Give a description, from the point of view of N.A. Berdyaev, Russian civilizations.
• 4. Write an essay about the work of Y. Lotman. Assess his contribution to the development of Russian culture and cultural studies.
• 5. In your opinion, are all the antinomies of the Russian character (according to N.A. Berdyaev) relevant to the present stage Russian cultural life? Formulate your theses on the topic "Russian national character".

Literature

• 1. Culturology: study guide for universities / ed. A.N. Markova. M.: UNITI-DANA, 2006.
• 2. Berdyaev N.L. The fate of Russia. Moscow: Soviet writer, 1990.
• 3. Uspensky B.A. Etudes about Russian history. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2002.
• 4. Ryabtsev Yu.S. History of Russian culture. M.: ROSMEN, 2003.
• 5. Sadokhin A.P. Culturology: Theory and History of Culture. M.: Ex-mo-Press, 2005.
• 6. Grinenko G.V. Reader on the history of world culture. M.: Higher education, 2005.

Let us summarize all of the above and note the specific features of Russian culture from ancient times to the 20th century.

1. Russian culture is a historical and multifaceted concept. It includes facts, processes, trends that testify to a long and complex development both in geographical space and in historical time. The remarkable representative of the European Renaissance, Maxim Grek, who moved to our country at the turn of the 16th century, has an image of Russia that is striking in depth and fidelity. He writes about her as a woman in a black dress, sitting thoughtfully "by the road." Russian culture is also "on the road", it is formed and developed in constant search. History bears witness to this.

2. Most of The territory of Russia was settled later than those regions of the world in which the main centers of world culture developed. In this sense, Russian culture is a relatively young phenomenon. Moreover, Rus' did not know the period of slavery: East Slavs went directly to feudalism from communal-patriarchal relations. Due to its historical youth, Russian culture faced the need for intensive historical development. Of course, Russian culture developed under the influence of various cultures of the countries of the West and the East, which historically outstripped Russia. But perceiving and assimilating cultural heritage other peoples, Russian writers and artists, sculptors and architects, scientists and philosophers solved their problems, formed and developed domestic traditions, never limited to copying someone else's samples.

3. A long period of development of Russian culture was determined by the Christian Orthodox religion. For many centuries, the leading cultural genres were temple building, icon painting, church literature. Until the 18th century, Russia made a significant contribution to the world artistic treasury through spiritual activities associated with Christianity.

At the same time, the influence of Christianity on Russian culture is a far from unambiguous process. According to the fair remark of the prominent Slavophil A. S. Khomyakov, Rus' assumed only the external form, ritual, and not the spirit and essence of the Christian religion. Russian culture came out from under the influence of religious dogmas and outgrew the boundaries of Orthodoxy.

4. Specific features Russian culture is determined to a large extent by what researchers have called "the character of the Russian people." All researchers of the “Russian idea” wrote about this. The main feature of this character was called faith. The alternative "faith-knowledge", "faith-reason" was decided in Russia in specific historical periods in different ways, but most often in favor of faith. Russian culture testifies: with all the inconsistencies in the Russian soul and Russian character, it is difficult to disagree with famous lines F. Tyutcheva: “You can’t understand Russia with the mind, you can’t measure it with a common yardstick: it has a special become - you can only believe in Russia.”

The Orthodox Church played an important role in the development of the self-consciousness of the Russian people. The Orthodox choice brought Russia closer to the West and separated from the East those variants of cultural development that are associated with Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Fall of Byzantium in the 15th century made the Moscow principality the only independent Orthodox state in the world.

The integrity of the vast country, which annexed territories with a diverse ethnic composition of the population, rested not on centralized autocratic power, but on the unity of culture.

Orthodoxy was a factor that separated the Russian people from other peoples of Europe and Asia. Opposition to his Catholicism prevented cultural contacts with Western Europe. This left Russia aside from the development of Western European culture. This led to cultural backwardness from the West, especially in scientific and technical terms.

Peter I laid the foundation for the introduction of Russia to world culture. As V.O. Klyuchevsky, Peter wanted not just to borrow the finished fruits of someone else's knowledge and experience, but "to transplant the very roots on their own soil so that they would produce their fruits at home" 9 .

The penetration of Western European culture into Russia in the 18th century contributed to the cultural, economic and political upsurge of the country. But it was a complex and controversial process, encountering resistance from the supporters of antiquity. new type culture began to take shape among a relatively narrow circle of people. The people continued to live by old beliefs and customs, enlightenment did not touch them. There was a gap between the old and new cultures. The old, pre-Petrine type of culture retained its non-native, rural existence and for a long time locked itself in the forms of Russian ethnic culture. And Russian national culture, having mastered the fruits of European science, art, philosophy, during the XVIII-XIX centuries. took the form of a master, urban, secular, "enlightened" culture and became one of the richest national cultures in the world. In social thought, the gap between ethnic and national cultures gave rise to a gap between Slavophiles and Westernizers.

Serfdom, which kept the peasantry in the dark and downtrodden, tsarist arbitrariness, which suppressed all living thought, and the general economic backwardness of Russia in comparison with Western European countries, hindered cultural progress. And yet, despite these unfavorable conditions, and even in spite of them, Russia in the 19th century made a truly gigantic leap in the development of culture, made an enormous contribution to world culture. Such a rise in Russian culture was due to a number of factors. First of all, it was associated with the process of formation of the Russian nation in the critical era of transition from feudalism to capitalism, with the growth of national self-consciousness and was its expression. Of great importance was the fact that the rise of Russian national culture coincided with the beginning of the revolutionary liberation movement in Russia. An important factor that contributed to the intensive development of Russian culture was its close communication and interaction with other cultures. Advanced Western European social thought had a strong influence on the culture of Russia. This was the heyday of German classical philosophy and French utopian socialism, the ideas of which were widely popular in Russia. We should not forget the influence of the heritage of Moscow Rus' on the culture of the 19th century: the assimilation of old traditions made it possible to germinate new shoots of creativity in literature, poetry, painting and other areas of culture. N. Gogol, N. Leskov, P. Melnikov-Pechersky, F. Dostoevsky and others created their works in the traditions of ancient Russian religious culture. But the work of other geniuses of Russian literature, whose attitude to Orthodox culture is more contradictory - from A. Pushkin and L. Tolstoy to A. Blok - bears an indelible stamp, testifying to Orthodox roots. Of great interest are the paintings of M. Nesterov, M. Vrubel, K. Petrov-Vodkin, the origins of creativity, which go back to Orthodox icon painting. Vivid phenomena in the history of musical culture were ancient church singing (the famous chant), as well as the later experiments of D. Bortnyansky, P. Tchaikovsky and S. Rachmaninov.

The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century is often called the "Silver Age" today. It occupies a very special place in Russian culture. This contradictory time of spiritual searches and wanderings gave rise to a whole galaxy of outstanding creative personalities. It greatly enriched all kinds of arts and philosophy. On the threshold of a new century, the deep foundations of life began to change. End of XIX - beginning of XX century. represents a turning point not only in the socio-political, but also in the spiritual life of Russia. The great upheavals that the country experienced in a relatively short historical period could not but be reflected in its cultural development. An important feature of this period is the intensification of the process of Russia's integration into European and world culture.

The attitude towards the West for Russian society has always been an indicator of landmarks in its forward historical movement. The ideals of “Russian Europeanness”, guiding the development of Russian society along the path of European cultures, receive a worthy embodiment in education, science, and art. Russian culture, without losing its national identity, increasingly acquired the features of a pan-European character. Its ties with other countries have increased. This was reflected in the widespread use of the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress - telephone and gramophone, automobile and cinema. The most important thing is that Russia has enriched world culture with achievements in the most diverse fields.

Soviet culture is traditionally called the period in the history of Russian culture from 1917 to 1991, i.e. the period of existence of Soviet power and under its leadership, in contrast to the domestic culture of the 20th century, which was created and distributed by Russian emigrants in the diaspora. However, in fact, the history of Soviet culture (as, indeed, the history of the culture of the Russian abroad) begins much earlier than October 1917. Already at the beginning of the 20th century, the first proletarian poets and prose writers appeared, revolutionary songs spread, the first theoretical concepts of proletarian art, proletarian culture, appeared in the press literary critics speak, substantiating their judgments and assessments with the provisions of Marxist philosophy and socialist ideas, the studies of the first literary and art critics who profess Marxism and consistently adhere to a sociological approach to the study of literature and art, social thought and culture as a whole are published.

The completion of the Cultural Revolution presupposed semantic unambiguity: the brutal suppression of any dissent or “dissent” and the forcible establishment of sociocultural monism. The era of "cultural pluralism" ended with the NEP; It is not for nothing that the 1920s in Soviet culture are sometimes called "cultural NEP".

In the minds of the bulk of the population, the establishment of a narrow class approach to culture began. Class suspicion of the old spiritual culture and "anti" intellectual sentiments spread widely in society. Slogans were constantly spread about distrust of education, about the need for a vigilant attitude towards old specialists, who were regarded as an anti-people force. Characteristic features of the art of this time are splendor, pomposity, monumentalism, glorification of leaders. The visual arts of the West, starting with the Impressionists, were declared entirely decadent.

After Stalin's death, features of totalitarianism continued to exist in cultural politics for a long time. The reforms that began after Stalin's death created more favorable conditions for the development of culture. But the administrative-bureaucratic system that has developed in in the late 1920s and early 1930s, took deep roots. Attempts to overcome the consequences of Stalin's personality cult did not affect the foundations of this system, but only gave it a certain democratic appearance. The strengthening of administrative pressure can be traced in various spheres of cultural life.

The beginning of the 1990s was marked by the accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, which not only rejected the values ​​of the common culture of the USSR, but also the cultural traditions of each other. Such a sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in socio-cultural tension, to the emergence of military conflicts and caused further disintegration of the cultural space.

The elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture. However, the economic crisis that the country is experiencing, the difficult transition to market relations have increased the danger of the commercialization of culture, the loss of national features in the course of its further development, the negative impact of the Americanization of certain areas of culture (primarily musical life and cinema) as a kind of retribution for "initiation to universal human values". The spiritual sphere experienced an acute crisis in the mid-1990s.

In modern Russian culture, incompatible values ​​and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, catholicity and individualism, selfishness, deliberate politicization and demonstrative apathy, statehood and anarchy, etc.

The key problem is the preservation of the original national culture, its international influence and the integration of cultural heritage into the life of society; integration of Russia into the system of universal culture as an equal participant in world artistic processes.

TASKS FOR SELF-CONTROL:

How did culture originate and develop?

What is modern culture?

What characterizes modern culture?

What are the trends in the development of modern culture?

Main literature.

Andreeva O.I. World art culture: textbook. settlement for suzes. - Rostov n / D .: Phoenix, 2005. - 347 p.

Anthology of Cultural Studies. Interpretations of culture (culturology). - St. Petersburg, Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University, 2007, 722p.

Batkin L. Italian Renaissance: problems and people. - M, 1994.

Blok M. Apology of history. - M., 1973.

Danilevsky N. Russia and Europe. - M, 1991.

Spiritual culture of China. T. II. Mythology and religion. - M .: Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ed. "Eastern Literature", RAS, 2007, 869p.

Duby J. Europe in the Middle Ages. - Smolensk, 1996

Zhigulsky K. Holiday and culture. - M., 1985.

Culturology. History of world culture M.: Culture and sport. 2001.

Markova A.N. Culturologists. History of world culture. Moscow "Unity" 1998

Marcuse G. One-dimensional man. - M., 1994.

Mills C. Power elite. - M., 1959.

Huizinga J. Autumn of the Middle Ages. - M., 1995.

Schweitzer A. Culture and ethics. - M., 1983.

Spengler O. Decline of Europe. - M., 1993.

Additional literature.

Anthology of Cultural Studies. Interpretations of culture (culturology). – St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 2007, 722p.

Markaryan E. Theory of Culture and Modern Science. - M., 1983.

Markova A.N. "Culturologists. History of World Culture". Moscow "Unity" 1998

Freud 3. The future of one illusion // Twilight of the gods. - M., 1991.

Fromm E. Escape from freedom. - M, 1990.

Shendrik A.I. Culture in the world: the drama of life. Selected works on the theory and methodology of culture, sociology of culture, social philosophy. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2007, 704p.

Spengler O. Decline of Europe. - M., 1993.