State administration in the field of culture. Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the right of everyone to participate in cultural life, use cultural institutions, and have access to cultural values. The legal foundations in the field of culture are: the Law of the RSFSR of December 15, 1978 "On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments"; Law of the Russian Federation of April 15, 1993 "On the import and export of cultural property"; Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture of October 9, 1993, Federal Law of December 29, 1994 "On librarianship"; Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73 "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation", Federal Law of October 22, 2004 No. 125 "On archives in the Russian Federation" and other legislation.
The main directions of cultural activity: book printing and library, museum, archive business, protection of historical and cultural monuments.
The system of governing bodies in the field of culture:
Government of the Russian Federation in accordance with Art. 17 of the Federal Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation" provides state support for culture, the preservation of cultural heritage of national importance, as well as the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation. The government approves the statutes of cultural institutions of national importance and appoints their leaders by its order.
The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation is a federal executive body that conducts state policy in the field of culture, art, and the protection of historical and cultural values.
The Federal Archival Agency (Rosarchive) exercises control over the preservation and use of documents from the archival fund, issues a special permit for the collection of documents. The tasks of the agency are to organize and ensure the formation, preservation and use of the archival fund; control over compliance with legislation in the field of archiving; maintaining a centralized count of documents. Functions of the Federal Archives: licensing activities for working with documents of the archival fund; issuance of permits for the collection of documents issuance of temporary permits for the export of documents from the state part of the archival fund outside the Russian Federation. The archival fund is divided into state and non-state parts. The state part of the archival fund includes archival funds and documents of federal government bodies. The non-state part of the archival fund consists of funds of public associations and legal entities of non-state forms of ownership. The law provides for various periods of storage of documents of the state part of the archival fund - from 3 to 75 years. The highest official of the Rosarchive is its head, who, by virtue of his position, has the status of the chief state archivist of Russia.
State administration of physical culture and sports in the Russian Federation is based on the Federal Law of April 29, 1999 No. 80 “On Physical Culture and Sports in the Russian Federation”. Physical culture is an integral part of culture and is a set of spiritual and material values created and used by society for the purpose of physical development of a person, strengthening his health and improving his physical activity.
Like any social sphere, physical culture and sports cannot exist and develop without state support. The state ensures the development of physical culture and sports, supports the physical culture and physical culture and sports movement, the Olympic movement of Russia in certain areas, including annual financing of events in the field of physical culture and sports, incl. measures to prepare the participation of athletes in the Olympic Games and other international sports competitions.
The process of formation of authorities for the implementation of state administration in the field of physical culture and sports in post-Soviet Russia did not develop steadily enough. During the nineties of the last century, the regulation of issues in the field of sports was mainly carried out by separate republican legal acts. The issues of physical culture of that period were not closely interconnected with sports. Physical education was more closely linked with health care. In the early 90s. 20th century Some attention was paid to sports by the President of the Russian Federation, who had an adviser on physical education and sports. By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 30, 1992 No. 1148, the Committee of the Russian Federation for Physical Education and Mass Sports was included in the structure of the central bodies of federal executive bodies, which changed its names in the future. By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 9, 2004 No. 314 “On the system and structure of federal executive bodies”, again, the Federal Agency for Physical Education, Sports and Tourism was created in the healthcare system. However, by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2004 No. 904, the agency was divided into the Federal Agency for Physical Culture and Sports and the Federal Agency for Tourism. Both agencies were removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 21, 2012 No. 636, the Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation was created, which was transferred to the functions of the reorganized Ministry of Sports, Tourism and Youth Policy for the conduct of state policy, legal regulation, the provision of public services and the management of state property in the field of physical education and sports.
The Russian Federation has created the Russian Olympic Committee, which is an all-Russian union of physical culture and sports associations, citizens of the Russian Federation and Russian legal entities, created on the basis of the succession of the former National Olympic Committee of the USSR. The legal status of the Olympic Committee is determined both by the above-mentioned law and the Federal Law "On Public Associations". The Olympic Committee heads the Russian Olympic movement and represents the interests of the Russian Federation in the international Olympic movement.
Public administration in the field of healthcare. Art. 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the right of everyone to health care and medical care. The legal basis for the organization of management in the field of healthcare is: Federal Law of March 30, 1999 No. 52 "On the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population"; Federal Law of April 12, 2010 No. 61 "On Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances"; Federal Law of November 29, 2010 No. 326 "On Compulsory Medical Insurance in the Russian Federation"; Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323 "On the Fundamentals of the Legislation for Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation"; Federal Law of February 23, 2013 No. 15 "On protecting the health of citizens from the effects of second hand tobacco smoke and the consequences of tobacco consumption" and other legal acts.
Health protection is understood as a set of political, economic, legal, social, cultural, scientific, medical, sanitary and epidemiological measures aimed at preserving and strengthening the physical and mental health of each person, maintaining his active long life, providing him with medical care in case of loss health.
The main tasks in the field of health protection are the improvement of the quality and accessibility of medical care, the implementation of federal and territorial targeted programs aimed at ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population, the creation of economic and social conditions that help reduce the prevalence of negative risk factors and reduce their impact on humans.
The environmental doctrine of the Russian Federation aims to improve the quality of life, health and increase the life expectancy of the population by reducing the adverse impact of environmental factors and improving the environmental performance of the environment.
Health care management is a purposeful process of ensuring the effectiveness of the functioning of the health system under certain conditions and available resources, which is carried out by economic and administrative methods. Administrative methods are characterized by one-sided direct imperious influence of the subject of management on the behavior of the governed. The subject of management makes a decision (for example, on the introduction of sanitary and epidemiological rules, sanitary and epidemiological regime, certification of medicines, etc.), the implementation of which is mandatory.
The system of governing bodies in the field of health protection includes:
The Government of the Russian Federation, whose powers are enshrined in Art. 16 FKZ "On the Government of the Russian Federation". The government of the Russian Federation is called upon to take measures to realize the right of citizens to health care and to ensure sanitary and epidemiological well-being.
The Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation is a federal executive body that conducts state policy and carries out regulatory and legal regulation of the healthcare sector, including the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population of the Russian Federation and the resort business. The Ministry is responsible for about 200 federal state healthcare institutions in Russia, the list of which was approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 19, 2012 No. 1286.
The Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, subordinated to the Government of the Russian Federation, exercises state sanitary and epidemiological supervision over compliance with sanitary legislation and sanitary quarantine control at checkpoints across the state border of the Russian Federation. The Service carries out licensing of activities related to the use of pathogens of infectious diseases and in the field of the use of sources of ionized radiation. It is entrusted with the authority to register chemical and biological substances introduced into production for the first time and preparations made on their basis, certain types of products, incl. food products imported into the territory of the Russian Federation for the first time, biologically active additives.
The State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service operates in the Russian Federation, the organization of which is carried out by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation. The procedure for carrying out control measures in the implementation of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance was approved by Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated July 17, 2002 No. 228.
The Federal Medical and Biological Agency has the authority for sanitary and epidemiological surveillance in industries with especially dangerous working conditions. By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2008 No. 724, the agency was transferred the functions of the abolished Federal Agency for Health and Social Development, namely: the provision of public services and property management in the healthcare sector.
State medicine has existed in Russia for more than 400 years. Back in 1581, the first state medical institution appeared in Rus' - the Pharmaceutical Order. His postulate: the need for state care for the sick and infirm. In 1721, the Medical Office arose, in 1763 - the Medical Board, command medicine (the prototype of the Zemstvo). In the second half of the 19th century, zemstvo, then factory and city (municipal) medicine arose.
State administration in the field of education and science. Legal basis: art. 43 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273 “On Education in the Russian Federation”.
Education management system:
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation replaced the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology of the Russian Federation. However, it is not the only executive body operating in this area. Educational and scientific institutions of various profiles may be subordinated to other federal executive authorities (departmental institutions), for example, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the FSB and others.
The Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Education and Science exercises federal state supervision over the activities of educational organizations and bodies, as well as state control over the quality of education in these organizations. The service recognizes education or qualifications obtained in other countries, monitors the education system, determines the minimum number of points for the unified state exam (USE), etc.
The central place in the system of scientific organizations belongs to the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). It is the highest scientific institution in Russia and is an all-Russian self-governing organization operating on the basis of its own Charter, approved by the general meeting of the academy - the highest body that decides all the main issues of its activities. In the period between general meetings, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences operates, consisting of the President, vice-presidents, chief scientific secretary, and academicians. The Russian Academy of Sciences unites full members (academicians) and corresponding members of the academy, employees of scientific institutions. The Russian Academy of Sciences has its own regional branches - Ural, Siberian, Far East.
State administration in the field of labor and social protection of the population. Management issues in this area were transferred to the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation and the Federal Service for Labor and Employment. The legal basis for social services for citizens in the Russian Federation, the powers of state authorities in this area are determined by the Federal Law of December 28, 2013 No. 442 “On the basics of social services for citizens in the Russian Federation”.
The Ministry adopts normative legal acts in the field of labor and social protection, in particular, participates in the development of legislation on the minimum wage, pensions, allowances, scholarships, compensation payments.
In the field of labor protection and compliance with labor legislation by all organizations, regardless of the scope of economic activity, form of ownership and departmental subordination, control functions are carried out by the Federal Service for Labor and Employment, whose officials have the right to issue binding instructions to eliminate violations of labor legislation and its protection, temporarily prohibit the activities of production units, impose administrative fines for administrative offenses under Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - violation of labor legislation. The head of the service is the chief state labor inspector of the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation has a state employment service. Its functions include analysis of supply and demand for labor, accounting for vacancies and citizens in need of employment; organization of professional training and retraining of citizens; registration of the unemployed; unemployment benefits, etc.
An extensive network of integrated and specialized state and municipal services has been created in the Russian Federation for social support, the provision of social, social, medical, social and legal, psychological and pedagogical services, i.e. institutions of social security and social support of the population. Their areas of activity include: rehabilitation of the disabled, prosthetic and orthopedic care, care at home for the elderly, issues of maternal and child health, and others (see, for example, the Federal Law of August 2, 1995 “On social services for elderly citizens and disabled people” ).
Section 1. General part
Lecture 1. Subject, concept, method of administrative law
Lecture 2. Public administration and executive power
Lecture 3. Norms of administrative law and administrative-legal relations
Lecture 4. Administrative and legal status of a citizen of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons
Lecture 5. Executive authorities as subjects of administrative law
Lecture 6. Public associations as subjects of administrative law
Lecture 7. Administrative and legal status of an enterprise, institution
Lecture 8
Lecture 9. Administrative and legal forms
Lecture 10. Administrative and legal regimes
Lecture 11
Lecture 12. Administrative process
Lecture 13
Lecture 14
Section 2. Special part
Lecture 15
Lecture 16
Lecture 17
Marina Konstantinovna Toporkova
Administrative law of Russia
(short course of lectures for bachelors)
Tutorial
Chief Editor:
Editor:
K.S. Belsky. Police law: Lecture course - M .: Delo and Service, 2004. P. 6
There. S. 7
Manokhin V.M. Administrative law of Russia. Textbook. 2nd ed., ster. Saratov: IP Air Media; M.: SPS GARANT, 2011. P. 11
Agapov A.B. Administrative law: a textbook for bachelors, 7th ed., revised. and additional M.: Yurayt, 2011. S. 35.
E.G. Lipatov, V.V. Lysenko, G.V. Matvienko, M.V. Presnyakov, S. E. Channov. Administrative law. A course of lectures: a textbook for universities M .: Exam, 2006. P. 16.
Belsky K.S. To the question of the subject of administrative law // State and law. 1997. No. 11. S. 20-21.
I.A. Polyansky, E.V. Trofimov. Administrative law in schemes and definitions. M.: Eksmo, 2011. S. 40
Belsky K.S. Police Law: Lecture Course. – M.: Business and Service, 2004. S. 28-32.
Administrative law of the Russian Federation. Rep. ed. N.Yu. Khamanev. M.: Lawyer, 2004. S. 76.
A.S. Tumanov. Legislation on public organizations in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century // State and Law. 2003. No. 8. P.30-37.
Manokhin V.M. Administrative law of Russia. Textbook. Saratov: IP Air Media; M.: SPS RARANT, 2011. S. 69-70.
A.A. Grishkovets. Problems of legal regulation of public service in the Russian Federation. Part 3. Public office and civil servant: problems of legal status. - M.: IPKgossluzhby, 2002. S. 47-48.
Bahrakh D.N., Rossinsky B.V., Starilov Yu.N. Administrative law: a textbook for universities. – M.: Norma, 2004. S. 426.
K.S. Belsky. Police law: a lecture course. - M .: Publishing house "Delo and Service". 2004. S. 631-632.
Lapina M.A. Unified concept of the system of administrative process // Legal world. 2012. No. 3. S. 38-42.
Administrative law of the Russian Federation / Ed. ed N.Yu. Khamanev. M.: Lawyer, 2004. S. 311-326.
See, for example, the Administrative Regulations for the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Education and Science of the State Function for the Implementation of Federal State Supervision in the Field of Education. Russian newspaper. 2012. July 18.
Administrative law of the Russian Federation / Ed. ed. N.Yu. Khamanev. M.: Yurist, 2004. S. 491
(Document)
n1.doc
Chapter II. Socio-culturalactivities and management
Issues related to social systems, social activities, social relations and, in general, the social life of a person and society are deeply and comprehensively presented in scientific and educational literature. For example, social activity reflects the types and nature of the functioning of a person and social groups in society; it is not a direct productive activity, but is a process of socially transforming actions of people, improving social relations.
Let's take another example - socialization. At first glance, this concept has no cultural meanings, it is also a social process, but its essence lies in the assimilation and further development of social and cultural experience by a person, which is embodied in labor skills, knowledge, norms, values, traditions passed down from generation to generation. .
On the one hand, socialization is the process of including a person in the system of social relations, which is the subject of the social sphere, on the other hand, the inclusion of a person in the system of social relations involves the formation of norms and values in him that determine his cultural status, the level of his social consciousness, social activity, the need for creativity and the development of their abilities.
Consequently, the category "socialization" is determined by the dichotomy "social - cultural", in other words, the inclusion of a person in the system of public (social) relations and is not only a social, but a socio-cultural process that takes place in the family, school, special educational institutions, labor collectives, public organizations, cultural and leisure institutions, among friends, acquaintances, etc.
The interaction of these sociocultural institutions forms a sociocultural reality in which cultural processes take place with the direct participation of cultural institutions, public cultural organizations, artistic and creative teams and groups, informal associations, which allows us to conclude that there are various forms and types of cultural processes in cultural life. They proceed thanks to the internal potential of the society itself and with the help of an extensive network of catalysts, in the form of a variety of socio-cultural subjects.
The totality of these facts indicates the presence of an extensive network of components that affect the individual in terms of its cultural development and socialization in society and the presence in the social shell of society of a certain socio-cultural system.
§ 1. Conditions for the formation of domestic management
If today we pay attention to preferences, tastes, patterns of behavior, cultural values, then it is easy to see that social consciousness is decomposed according to the principle of dichotomy (dividing into two) "public - private".
Polish sociologists quite convincingly reveal this problem in relation to their country, but, with the exception of some national differences, this is applicable to Russian reality.
Polish sociologist Miroslava Marodi (Sociology Studio) compiled a list of opposite motivations in people's behavior, which we present below with some cuts and additions.
1. People have different attitudes towards work. The sloppiness, lack of diligence, laxity typical of working in state-owned enterprises is in stark contrast to the discipline, accuracy and full dedication of those who work in the private sector, work for themselves.
2 Helplessness, inability to make decisions, the desire to relieve oneself of responsibility, the desire for selfish gain, which dominate public institutions, enterprises, administrative offices, etc., give way to self-confidence, initiative, the desire for innovation, readiness for risk.
3. Neglect of state or public property contrasts sharply with the care and protection of private property. Dirt, disorder and vandalism reign in the yards and on the landings, and inside the apartments - comfort, cleanliness, carefully thought-out interior. One has only to look at the facade of the building and the surrounding area to distinguish a state enterprise from a personal workshop, a state store from a private one.
4. Passivity, conformism, subordination and mediocrity in state and public roles clearly do not coincide with the desire for success, self-realization, personal achievements in private life. The first leads to fatalism, a sense of hopelessness in public affairs, the formation of a "wait and see" attitude.
5. People do not trust the media, and at the same time, they are naively ready to believe gossip, rumors, all kinds of prophecies that reach them through unofficial channels.
6. Official authorities, both in the highest echelons of power and at the local level, are most often denied. Their actions are regarded as collusion, lies and cynicism, or, at best, as stupidity and incompetence. As for private connections and relationships, they are clearly idealized.
Examples from the extensive sociological literature testify to the fact that delimitation in social consciousness is also reflected in the real behavior of people. In our society, there is a significant difference between what people say and what they actually do.
The gap between word and deed, declarative statements and real behavior is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of figures. Both those and others often use double vocabulary, in public practice and in private conversations.
Some people, including activists, are even able to refuse and ridicule their public statements. The opposition of public and private life gives rise to the desire to deceive the state, to look for loopholes from raising prices and taxes, to open a business with the expectation of quick profit, but not for long-term investments. Using the popular expression "grab and run", many try to achieve their personal goals "in spite of" and not "thanks" to the system. And those who manage to outwit the system are respected in their environment and, moreover, they are envied.
The reason for this behavior is the conviction that this is a kind of revenge on the authorities who deceive their citizens, and a kind of compensation for the losses suffered before from the state. Another behavioral model is characterized by the refusal of people and especially actors to make responsible decisions, limiting them in ways that cannot be accounted for (by phone, without protocol, orally).
Suffice it to recall the anonymity of the orders for the forceful suppression of the democratic demonstrations of the people in Tbilisi, the military assault on the television center in Vilnius. For many decades, the emerging philosophy of equality, fair distribution according to the principle "from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs" in the new conditions gave rise to a steady rejection of any unusual achievement by another person, too much success, profit, prosperity. This rejection of someone else's success breeds opposition, even if someone else's success does not diminish one's own chances.
The specific features of the domestic reality outlined above are largely due to the nature and mentality of the Russian person, the motivation of his activity creates significant difficulties in the country's entry into market relations.
Nevertheless, the transition of Russian society from a planned economy to a market economy reveals significant changes in the ideas, social and economic orientations, as well as the forms of behavior of various groups and strata of the population. private property
Formation of private property consciousness It can be said that the implementation of economic reforms in Russia would be impossible
If not for the appearance of new types of people in different strata of the population, new economic behavior and activities.
In contrast, groups of opponents of reforms, oriented to past experience and style of activity, have taken shape. Between these polar groups was the bulk of the population, which, ultimately, decided the fate of reforms in favor of market relations.
Under these conditions, the task of including the bulk of the population in real transformations in the economy, management, raising social status, determining prospects for growth and advancement, adaptation, and raising the educational and cultural level has become the most urgent.
The difficulties of the country's entry into the market are, of course, significant. By their own admission, the authors and promoters of the economic reforms started with "shock therapy", the population is not yet able to fully accept and put into practice liberal ideas, to take advantage of the economic freedom that market relations open up.
Different points of view are expressed regarding the "slippage" of economic reforms: insufficient culture and cleanliness in their affairs of businessmen and entrepreneurs; a large number of criminal communities; outdated management practices. But most importantly, the unsuitability of the bulk of the population, unable to take advantage of the provided benefits of the free market.
Here it is necessary to elaborate on this, the main question. Underestimation of the peculiarities of the social and professional composition of the population, its life and work preferences, value orientations in the course of a rapid (revolutionary) economic and social turn to market relations led to the fact that market relations in a certain way came into conflict with national tradition, culture and social relations.
Illusions about the possibility of a quick mechanical transfer of Western experience to Russian soil are caused by the absolutization of the Western concept of the development of economic relations, proposed at the dawn of capitalism by Adam Smith, according to which a person was considered easily controlled, selfish, striving only for wealth and profit, whose interests and goals can be easily manipulated. .
This type of personality or "economic man", aimed only at money, profit, greed, could not and cannot quickly fit into the system of social, economic, human relations of the bulk of Russian society.
The past decade of reforms has shown that, in its purest form, the Western type of motivation for activity in Russia runs into a contradiction in the Russian mentality. Most likely, in the sphere of labor and social relations, market structures are developing on Russian soil, demonstrating entrepreneurial charity, social support, and social partnership.
This type of labor, socio-economic relations in society is called paternalism(paternity). This direction of development of the market system in Russia is vigorously declared by power structures at all levels, but the statements of intent of "big" and "small" leaders are most often not implemented, although the illusions of caring for the bulk of the population, which has not yet been able to fit into the new real conditions of life and labor relations give rise to hopes and expectations.
Thus, the tightening and pragmatization of relations and management in the economy, the social sphere, the criminalization of economic activity in energy-intensive and service sectors, and mercantilization (over-thrift, self-interest, peddling) in life relations, by and large, have not yet affected the deep foundations of the Russian mentality, which in economic relations is slowly retreating from communal psychology, and does not "lose its head" from the American or Western European pragmatic, individualistic liberal approach.
The formation of market relations
At the same time, precedents of adventuristic or "Chicago" capitalism have been developed in Russia, freeing the subject of activity from the need for creative, rational management and moral and ethical responsibility for the nature and consequences of their activity.
Both of these trends in the development of the Russian market appear to be extremely polarized. On the one hand, society has matured a willingness to get out of uncertainty, from a protracted restructuring of the socio-economic and political system, at the beginning of which inflation is artificially suppressed, empty stores, motivation for productive activity is practically destroyed, on the other hand, recovery after shock reforms gradually adapted some part population to market conditions, another, smaller part led to significant benefits, but the majority of the population at the same time lost their social status and life orientations. Without imposing any specific recipes on the reader, the common sense and logic of the development of the world economic system and the peculiar conditions for the development of market relations in Russia point to a special way to overcome the economic lag behind the West, not by breaking the historically established personality stereotype, but on the basis of the originality of his type of motivation. activities, common sense and respect for one's own people, leadership reform management. There are many examples in the world when the preservation of national traditions in the country does not prevent a breakthrough into a post-industrial society (Japan, South Korea, China).
Studies conducted in Russia in recent years by various social institutions, which we use to assess attitudes towards economic reform, to various forms of ownership, assess the economic situation of enterprises, business entities, their adaptation to market relations, make it possible to trace the dynamics of the economic state and, especially , activity motivations, behavior that a modern Russian manager or management specialist faces.
Attitude towards reforms: tendencies of social
differentiations
population
Changes in the social, economic and political life of the country could not but affect attitudes towards reform, consciousness and behavior, assessments of the prospects for their own lives and activities of different segments of the population. The adherence to the very idea of the need to reform the economy has been preserved and even increased in almost all categories of society. At the end of the 90s, 66.4% (15.4% more than at the beginning of the reforms) of people believe that market reforms are necessary.
At the same time, the number of opponents of reforms increased to 26.5% (by 9.5%), but mainly due to those who did not have an opinion or evaded assessments in the initial period (33.8%). By the end of the 1990s, only 6.2% could not clearly express their attitude towards the reforms.
It is important to note that the largest number of reformers live in medium and large cities (75.5%), but the most significant changes have occurred among rural residents. At the beginning of the reforms, 43.4% of the villagers did not have their own opinion on this issue, but subsequently the majority of those who were undecided moved to the camp of supporters of reforms, which increased in the village to 63.1%, while opponents were in the minority - 28.6%.
The most actively supporting the reforms are the able-bodied villagers employed in agricultural production, ordinary workers, but the leaders were very skeptical about economic reforms.
A high commitment to reforms remains among young people, among people with incomplete and higher education, among management workers it approaches 90%, among the industrial intelligentsia - more than 80%. Naturally, 100% of entrepreneurs and businessmen, the very birth of which only became possible thanks to the reform, are its supporters.
So, the positive attitude of the population of the country to the transformations in the economy and the social sphere is not only preserved, but also increasing. It is associated with the opened opportunities to meet individual needs, change the financial situation, social status.
Free business international contacts, liberalization of trade, investments, permitted circulation of financial flows, including foreign exchange, helped some part of the population not only maintain, but also improve their standard of living.
Another part of the population (large) is adapting to market reforms due to the fading of the initial euphoria, illusions about the rapid and massive growth of well-being (we will immediately become like in the developed countries of the West), which were associated with the market.
Another category of the population felt positive changes due to the increase in jobs in the market sector of the economy, trade and services, the increase in the status and value of their labor, feeling the difference in income in the public and private sectors. The level of assessments of market transformations is especially high among management workers in various areas of management.
At the same time, the market economy has not yet been able to adequately protect the most vulnerable and economically weak groups of the population, which include pensioners, the disabled, families with many children, etc. Significant social losses for this category of the population are associated with low pensions (below the subsistence level), unguaranteed social benefits, and the lack of an effective state system of care for the poor.
Formation of a domestic entrepreneur
In general, it can be stated that the values of market transformations, even in a difficult transition period for the population, have an attractive force and receive the support of the most advanced social groups with a favorable attitude of the majority of the population.
The reality is that the manager of socio-cultural activities should see the constant and intense interaction of objective and subjective social, economic and personal factors that are filled with life orientations, goals and values of a person, his expectations, hopes, assessment of himself and his position in the social world, activity motivations.
Without going into details of the socio-economic, motivational and behavioral changes in society that took place during the years of perestroika, let us single out at the “output”, although intermediate (the market has not yet fully formed), but already significant results:
A new state was formed with its own organs of social organization, with a new elite that did not have the levers of the past command management;
There was a liberalization of the economy, prices were released;
Privatization and denationalization of property have been carried out, as a result of which there has been a sharp property stratification of society;
A new subject of economic relations has appeared - an entrepreneur, with an innovative form of behavior and thinking, focused on deepening reforms.
The role and importance of the subject of activity in the conditions of radical changes in society, gradually emerging from the characteristics of unregulated development processes into the area of predictable liberal market and state regulated activity, is increasing excessively.
In the conditions of market relations, the most energetic and business entities, thanks to persistent and purposeful activities, risking their own initial financial investments, created individual or corporate private structures, the organizational form of activity and management of which at the initial stage was reduced to a complete combination of the functions of the owner and employee in one person. .
The development and consolidation of business structures soon required a functional differentiation of roles: the owner-manager (owner-manager) and the executor (employee).
The transition from a planned to a liberal economy has greatly complicated the objects of the production, service and socio-cultural spheres of the public and private sectors, which also led to the complication of functions that ensure activity and management in these areas.
Now the state and its structures, the oligarchs, who own controlling stakes in the largest sectors of the economy, really act as owners. Both those and others hire managers, entrusting them with the management of the activities of the relevant sectors of the economy and areas of activity.
Consequently, the subject of activity, having risen to the level of a manager in the public or private sector of the country's economy, regardless of the hierarchical status occupied in a market economy, becomes an increasingly influential figure, on which not only the quality of management, but also the efficiency of a particular structure largely depends , her future.
Questions for self-examination
1. What are the reasons for the slow adaptation of some people to a market economy?
2. Describe the positive changes in attitude to entrepreneurship in Russia.
3. What are the prerequisites that determine the formation of an entrepreneur as a new subject of economic relations?
§ 2. The nature of socio-cultural management
In this paragraph, we will talk about the characteristic features of socio-cultural management, but first we will dwell on some issues that characterize an active person (personality of a manager). First of all, we will consider these issues on the basis of foreign experience in the development of management, which, in the course of a long history, has developed sustainable, traditional management models and continues to look for new approaches, solutions and methods that are adequate to the changing socio-economic conditions of life.
Today, there is little doubt that rational, efficient production, accompanied by the desire for profit and based on private property and individual entrepreneurial efforts, is the central principle of the modern economic system.
First of all, let's answer one important semantic question: Is management different from management? Most experts and scientists agree that management is a kind of management, but differs from it in that it is more applied and specific. Its utilitarian orientation is manifested in processes that ensure the integration and most efficient use of material and human resources in order to achieve goals.
The formation of management
Management is one of the most important areas for ensuring the life of an organization, but it largely depends on the qualifications, professionalism, and psychological qualities of managers. This causes a reasonable high attention of specialists to the analysis of the place and role of managers in the process of ensuring the effectiveness of the organization.
The role of the manager in the activities of the organization should be considered as a direct, personified expression of the management process, as its most important structural part.
The study of the theory and practice of socio-cultural management, those forms, methods and management systems that are rapidly developing in Russian reality, will not be effective if we do not turn to the history and mechanisms of their formation.
Without detailing the historical facts and events of the formation and development of management as such, we note two fundamentally important provisions:
1) in each specific type of activity, be it industrial production, trade, household services, social, socio-cultural spheres, culture, etc., management has its own characteristics and specific features;
2) the nature and type of management are associated with the mentality of people of different eras, with systems of religious beliefs, with forms of government and types of legislation, types of industrial relations.
The first written documents, revealing the forms of labor organization, go into a deep history. The organization of labor in medieval Christian monasteries, in the workshops of a medieval European artisan, work and life in the household of Ancient Greece is described in Xenophon's Domostroy, Medieval Russia's Domostroy, the political organization of society and its management system - in the "Laws" and " State" by Plato, in the work "On the City of God" by Aurelius Augustine, in the work "The Sovereign" by Nicolo Machiavelli.
In modern educational and scientific literature, in particular, "Social Management". M., MGSI, 1998; Elfinesh H.E. "Social regulation of cultural processes (historical tradition and modernity)": Abstract of the thesis. dis. on sois. uch. step, Ph.D. cultural studies. M., 2001 and others, the management development process is often grouped into certain stages, which are called "revolutions in management". There are five such "revolutions". The periodization of "revolutions in management" sets a certain formal scheme that is convenient to use for a brief analysis of the genesis of management as a whole.
However, the fixation of some historical and economic fact, although the first of its kind (even the oldest known to us), but purely local in its influence (even within the framework of the whole state), which are the descriptions in the above-mentioned works, can hardly be called revolutions. .
Another thing is when a certain phenomenon is fixed in society, which becomes a turning point for all of humanity or a region of the Earth, such as, say, the emergence of Christianity in the history of religion, the birth of capitalism, social, political and economic transformations, the revolutionary nature of which is confirmed by radical transformations.
Thus, the ascent of management from its first manifestations in the ancient world to the modern level can be viewed as certain stages, the evolutionary accumulation of signs of management, consistent with the nature of socio-political and industrial relations.
first stage as the beginning of the emergence of management can be associated with the civilization of Ancient Egypt and, to a greater extent, with the clergy (beginning of the 3rd millennium BC). In many cultures of the Ancient World, separate human sacrifices are known, associated with special requests to the gods - when laying temples, palaces and fortresses, in cases of natural disasters, etc.
As a gift in primitive society and in the Ancient World, people who were ritually killed could be used, and later material values \u200b\u200bthat were irretrievably destroyed in fire, water, broken, buried in the ground could be used. This procedure of presenting gifts to the gods could not bring any wealth to the temples and priests.
Not being some kind of "economic entities", the priests, nevertheless, performed a number of managerial functions, which were determined by the status of intermediaries between people and gods. Interpreting to people the causes of various kinds of misfortunes as divine punishment, and unusual natural phenomena as signs and messages of the gods, the priests had the opportunity to manipulate public consciousness, directing people's activities in the direction they needed, to regulate the norms of social life and the rules of behavior.
This activity was characterized more as "socio-political" management than as "economic". But the priests were not the only leaders, since along with the religious, there was also secular power, in the person of emperors, kings, leaders, who often performed religious functions, posing as vicegerents of the gods. And under secular rulers, the priests served as advisers, teachers, but not as economic leaders.
The beginning of the active economic activity of the priests is associated with the strengthening of temples and their transformation into large economic entities. The transformation of Christian monasteries and churches into owners of huge land plots and farms in the Middle Ages brought the priests to the rank of economic leaders, who began to manage the activities of other priests (lower in rank), the work of slaves, supervised the peasants who worked on temple lands, artisans of temple workshops.
Temples played a huge role in the economic management of states; firm measures of weight, distance, volume, interest rates on loans and interest-free loans were established in their economic activities. We can say that the economic activity of the temples became the progenitor of the first functionaries-managers, in essence, the ancestors of the current managers.
The second stage of the accumulation of signs of management is associated with the emergence of secular options for management and the emergence of the first formal systems for organizing and regulating relations between people. This is due, for example, to the publication of the "Code of King Hammurabi" (beginning of the second millennium BC), the laws of the "12 tables" in Ancient Rome (III century BC), the laws of Solon in Athens and the laws of Lycurgus in Sparta (I century BC), etc.
And if the "Code of King Hammurabi", which consisted of 285 laws, basically still pointed out the duties of people to gods and temples and divided society into "noble people", "free commoners" and "slaves", fixed social inequality between people, then in later periods, "written laws became formally binding on everyone, but for other ethnic groups in the same countries," unwritten laws "were also in force."
Thus, in most ancient and medieval civilizations, at certain stages of development, codes of "written laws" appear, which served as the main formally recognized form of organization and regulation of relations in society.
The third stage of managerial innovations dates back to the 6th-5th millennium BC. and is associated with the activities of the king of New Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II, who introduces production control systems in textile factories and granaries by labeling products.
Approximately in these time frames in Ancient Rome, Egypt, the system of territorial administration and the administrative organization of the Roman Catholic Church is being introduced, with the allocation of administrative and economic districts, military administrative districts headed by satraps (governors) and military leaders.
With the birth of capitalism, the beginning of industrial revolutions, the emergence of hired managers as a special layer of managers who are not owners, the fourth stage of the formation of management in the 17th-17th centuries is connected. They collected taxes, built temples and palaces, monitored the condition of roads, irrigation facilities, oversaw the work of peasants on royal and state lands, workshops, but now this type of workers is beginning to form into an independent caste of managers, indispensable in large private and state farms, primarily agricultural.
This was also typical for Russia, when the owners of large estates, plants and factories were by no means always engaged in economic activities themselves and, living in the country's major cultural centers, hired managers to manage all economic and production affairs.
The fifth stage, which can be called "revolution", is characterized by the rapid development of equity, industrial, banking and corporate capital. An administrative worker appears in the field of management, who exercises control over the activities of people in production in the interests of private and state property. The owner, due to the scale of production, is no longer able to perform managerial functions and is forced to transfer them to hired managers.
Thus, the origins of management originate in religious and cult relations and economic, organized forms of people's activity.
Social, economic-production, commodity-money relations constitute the natural basis of management, which in the process of civilization development gradually acquires the features of social, economic, administrative, economic, socio-cultural and other types of management.
The most clear and scientifically based ideas about management as a profession based on the achievements of interdisciplinary sciences and practice were formulated at the beginning of the 20th century in the concepts of "scientific management" by F. Taylor, "ideal bureaucracy" by M. Weber, "science of administration" by A. Fayol, who proposed a model of rigid rationalism in management. However, rationalism in management, with all its achievements, turned out to be far from the only, and in many cases not the best method of management.
Already in the 30s of the same century, the limited rationalism of management in science and practice gives way to another direction - behavioral, which includes psychological, social, cultural factors as new management mechanisms, which is called "human relations", "human factor".
Deepening and expanding the personalized role functions of management makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of management both in individual organizations and in more complex social systems. In foreign management, in connection with this, a special term has appeared "management by bestsellers", that is, "management by goals"or" variance control".
Specificity of socio-cultural management
Socio-cultural activity refers, as you know, to the non-productive sphere, that is, it does not produce material products that form the national economic potential of the country, but it produces a special type of product that has a consumer property.
The non-production sphere, according to the state classifier "Industries of the national economy", introduced in 1992, includes activities in the field of: culture and art, education, health care, physical culture and social security, science and scientific support, public associations, housing and communal services , non-production types of consumer services, management, finance, credit, insurance, pension provision.
It is easy to see that socio-cultural activities included in the non-productive sphere are only a part of it, since such areas of activity as, for example, housing and communal services, consumer services, finance and credit, are difficult to correlate with socio-cultural activities.
Non-material production in socio-cultural activities, most likely, can be represented as "spiritual production" or the production of cultural, spiritual and social values and products.
But these values and products are not only intangible, some of them relate to material values and products, just as culture itself carries spiritual intangible principles (knowledge, intelligence, morality, aesthetics, worldview, ways and forms of communication between people, etc.). .d.) and material (monuments of history and culture, paintings, sculpture, masterpieces of writing, museum valuables, etc.).
The basis of material and spiritual cultures, which are in organic unity, is, of course, the development of material production. However, the material values of culture do not directly relate to the economic category of material products that form, as noted, the country's economy, but represent the highest value - the cultural and national heritage of society.
Spiritual and material products of culture have characteristic value-emotional qualities, thanks to which the cultural, spiritual needs of people are formed and satisfied.
Economic and political transformations in the country, the emergence of private property and market relations have pushed enterprises and organizations to commercial activities.
Commercialization also affected the socio-cultural sphere. In 1995, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted the Law "On non-profit organizations". Non-profit organizations include: state organizations, municipal institutions, public and religious organizations, consumer societies, foundations, etc.
At the same time, the status of non-profit socio-cultural organizations in the market economy is confirmed under the condition of their activities for the following purposes: social, cultural, charitable, educational, scientific, meeting spiritual needs, developing physical culture and sports, health protection, management, etc. Naturally, all subjects included in the socio-cultural system received the status of a non-profit organization.
At the same time, non-profit organizations, including those of the sociocultural sphere, are allowed to engage in entrepreneurial activities, but only within the framework of the goals for which they were created. In addition, the income received by these organizations from paid activities has a strictly regulated nature of use. In this case, one should not confuse such economic categories as income and profit.
Income is a source of funds to improve the efficiency of the institution and is fully directed to ensure the development of the types of activities predetermined by the goals of the non-profit organization and cannot be classified as profit and distributed among the employees of the institution.
For example, the income of a higher educational institution, received from the paid education of students, is directed exclusively to the development of the educational and material base, the provision of educational, methodological and scientific literature, the involvement of highly qualified teachers, the acquisition of electronic learning tools, in other words, to improve the entire educational process and increase it. efficiency. The income of the club institution is used to strengthen the material and technical base, purchase stage costumes and props, musical instruments, technical equipment, etc.
Income from paid activities is fully reinvested in the development of the organization's targets. Profit how the economic category is a converted form of surplus value and can be used at the discretion of the organization. Income of non-profit organizations is taxed no more than the taxes of a state enterprise.
But, as soon as a certain amount of funds appears in the "profit" column in the accounting report of this non-profit organization to the tax authorities, it will immediately be subject to tax sanctions applicable to commercial structures, and sanctions prohibiting the implementation of commercial activities by a non-profit organization.
Hence, this organization will either be forced to re-register into the status of a commercial organization and go beyond the status of a socio-cultural organization, or to self-liquidate.
Entrepreneurial activity of non-profit organizations, therefore, is only half a permitted good. The income received can only be used for the benefit of the organization itself.
But the direct organizers and initiators of entrepreneurial activity are actually separated from the income of entrepreneurial activity. Their salaries are still calculated in the size of the state tariff scale of the position they hold, sometimes with a small additional payment from non-budgetary funds.
The truncation of entrepreneurial activity in terms of the use of earned funds does not contribute to the retention of personnel, low wages, poor material conditions for cultural workers reinforce the generally low social status and prestige of this profession.
The mechanism of entrepreneurial activity in the socio-cultural sphere does not work at full strength, market relations and entrepreneurial activity in this area exclude the personal interest of employees in expanding paid activities and obtaining more income.
Management mechanisms in the socio-cultural sphere are divided into disparate fragments of planning, control, reports. The lack of a coherent system of management mechanisms, the lack of coordination of tasks, the lack of a target setting and guaranteed wages, the amount of which would correspond to the labor contribution of each individual employee, significantly hinder the development of normal market relations and the necessary management mechanisms.
Questions for self-examination
1. Outline the main periods of evolutionary accumulation of signs of management.
2- What is the specificity of socio-cultural management?
3. Non-commercial nature of the socio-cultural sphere.
4. Specificity of entrepreneurial activity of non-profit organizations.
§3. Sociocultural management as a component of cultural policy
Optimization of the management of socio-cultural activities is updated by the fact that in the new state, which is Russia today, a new attitude to socio-cultural activities and culture in general, which is determined by state policy, is just beginning to form.
Politics as a philosophical category in the literal sense (Greek Politike) of the word is the art of government. The sphere of politics includes issues of the state structure, determining the forms, tasks, content of the state's activities, governing the country, and managing socio-political processes. Politics also expresses the relations between nations and states.
Political ideas and their corresponding institutions are the expression of the economic system of the state. But political ideas, politics are not a passive reflection of the economy, their transforming power lies in the exact reflection of the development of the material life of society. In one case, politics can hinder the progressive development of society, in the other, on the contrary, contribute to this.
A policy that relies on the support of the majority of the population and, of course, meets the fundamental interests of the people is promising. Politics can acquire a scientifically substantiated character only if it is based on knowledge of the laws of social development and uses them in the interests of society.
The policy of the state, as you know, extends to all spheres of human life in society, and, of course, it cannot but cover such an important area as culture.
Culture and politics
The role of the state in the development of culture in all periods of history has been great. It could not be otherwise, since culture covers a huge spectrum of the spiritual life of society, through which not only cultural-creative, spiritual ideas were passed, but also political ideology (in certain historical periods with different intensities), political ideas, often leading to destructive phenomena in the culture itself.
Culture has always been of interest to politics and politicians, it has been and is a powerful means of solving political issues. It is no coincidence that during the period of election campaigns for local, federal authorities, the president, culture (content, forms, methods, authority of cultural figures) has always been used as a tool to give authority, weight and significance to one or another candidate.
It goes without saying that the development of culture, the maintenance of the spiritual health of the nation, the state (to a greater or lesser extent) keeps or tries to keep in its hands, pursuing a state cultural policy.
Cultural policy, as an integral part or link in the chain of state policy, is included in the system of worldviews, theories and ideas about the ways of developing the economic, social, and spiritual life of society that exist in a particular society.
Cultural policy, as a rule, always strives to correspond to the level of the country's socio-economic development, its goals and objectives are mediated by the priority settings of the state.
The state carries out the implementation of cultural policy through a system of social institutions that reproduce, by their own forms, methods and means, cultural, educational, creative and moral activities that correspond to the social and value guidelines of the state.
Cultural policy can be viewed as a system of relations "culture and society", "culture and power", "culture and management". A retrospective look at the development of national culture and statehood shows that cultural policy should not be attributed only to the pre-October, post-October (1917), Soviet and post-Soviet periods. Its origins, the formation of management institutions as a manifestation of cultural policy, have deeper historical roots than is commonly believed.
An analysis of many historical and cultural materials shows that the origins of Russian culture, which was regarded as "intellectual and moral education," were spiritual organizations represented primarily by the Russian Orthodox Church, the royal court and private individuals.
The formation and development of state bodies was accompanied by the creation of cultural management institutions and the development of administration.
Zemstvo institutions - provincial, city, county councils, as well as public organizations and individuals, were directly involved in local cultural issues.
Cultural institutions in the localities enjoyed complete independence, including in finding financial resources, but, however, the central departments approved the charters of cultural institutions, and in the course of their subsequent activities exercised censorship control over them.
Thus, the content of the activities of the first cultural institutions in Russia fell under state control, the state pursued its cultural policy through them.
Although the care for the organization, welfare and development of local cultural institutions and various societies lay entirely on them, the exercise of their right to self-government was combined with a duty to report to state bodies.
Thus, the cultural policy of the state in the 19th and early 20th centuries was quite definite and purposeful. Despite the strict regulation of the activities of state and public cultural institutions, social movements and creative unions, the main types of cultural institutions, the concepts of cultural and creative activity, which were developed in the 20th century, were formed in the country.
So, despite numerous difficulties and problems in the development of national culture, thanks to the cultural policy of the Russian state in the country in the 19th century, an extensive network of cultural institutions was created that contributed to the increase in education and enlightenment of the people, a developed network of social movements was created in support of culture, a huge the number of masterpieces of culture and art, literature, art, theater, libraries, clubs, art and music schools, etc. developed. All this spiritual and material potential of culture was created thanks to the cultural policy of the state.
The change in the socio-political structure of Russian society, the economic and economic policy of the state has also changed the guidelines for cultural policy.
In an effort to achieve quick and effective results in the transformation of culture, the state cultural policy was carried out in a differentiated manner. Particular attention was paid to the culture of the village.
Today, the negative consequences of the "cultural revolution", the dispossession of the peasantry, the "re-education" and "reforging" of the Russian peasant, the struggle against small-ownership psychology, pressure on the traditional peasant way of life, way of life, peasant spiritual values, and his religiosity are known.
In essence, the whole huge mechanism of ideological and cultural-educational influence was aimed at the formation of an executor of commands from higher authorities. At the same time, it was forgotten that the restructuring of human consciousness is a complex, contradictory and lengthy process.
In the post-war period, one of the main tasks of cultural construction was the restoration of a network of cultural institutions. The essence of cultural policy in working with the population is revealed, for example, in the "Regulations on the village club"1, developed in 1946 by the Committee for Cultural and Educational Institutions under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.
It regulates the work of cultural and educational institutions as: clarification of current political events, political and scientific and educational propaganda, advice on economics and law, all-round assistance to political self-education, organization of cultural recreation, development of amateur art.
Based on this, we can conclude that the propaganda of political and scientific knowledge, the education of political activity, political literacy, and ideological stability were put in the first place in the activities of club institutions.
Such a cultural policy aimed at the formation of a "new man" subjugated not only the content of the activities of cultural and educational institutions, but also the media, the repertoire of theaters, the ideology of concert programs, literature and art.
The "merits" of the cultural policy of this period include concern for the "purity" of the ideals concentrated in the well-known party resolutions "On the magazines Zvezda and Leningrad", "On the repertoire of drama theaters and measures to improve it", "On the film "Bolshaya life" etc.
A characteristic feature of these documents was the desire to impose on society their own ideas and views on literature and art.
Cultural policy begins to change with the debunking of the cult of personality and the emergence of some democratic freedoms. In culture, they meant a turn from the principles of coercion to persuasion, voluntariness, and consciousness.
The goals and objectives of cultural policy have shifted towards the mobilization of people to achieve higher production rates and the widespread promotion of economic knowledge.
As a result of the increased educational and professional level of people, many ceased to be just objects in the cultural process and themselves showed their abilities in cultural activities, which contributed to the development of artistic and technical creativity.
The structure of creative teams, the content of their activities approached more lively and mass forms, and aesthetic trends appeared.
A noticeable revival in the creative life of the country, including rural amateur groups, came when the internal political situation in the country changed. The creative teams of many leading theaters began to look for ways to get closer to the life of the people, to establish contacts with rural workers.
The help of professional city theaters, which traveled to the most remote rural areas, brought great benefits to rural amateur artists, both in terms of improving their professional skills and the ideological and artistic level of the work being done.
Departure of professional artists with performances and concerts also contributed to the development of artistic taste and the best human traits among rural viewers, many of them for the first time got the opportunity to watch real artists.
The main feature of the cultural policy of the state in the consumption of cultural and spiritual values was their availability. Where cultural services for the population were well organized - a library with its own collection of books, a club with a set of cultural programs and amateur art groups were provided freely, only you had to buy a ticket to watch a movie and a concert of professional artists.
There were complex problems: the absence or lack of cultural institutions, especially in the countryside, hindered the development of culture.
It is impossible not to see that, despite the considerable lag behind the city in terms of the level of cultural services, the network of rural cultural institutions as a whole in the country was already sufficient for those who wished to be able to study in a club, use the services of a library or cinema; the level and content of the work of cultural institutions could not be high due to their constant limited funds, weak material base.
But at the same time, the criterion of equal accessibility worked as such a mechanism in culture, which required targeting an audience not even of the middle, but of the lower level.
On the one hand, the principle of residual allocation of funds for cultural construction was affirmed, which predetermined the systematic lag in the cultural level of the population; on the other hand, it was required that works of culture and art correspond to this level.
Built on formal schemes, the so-called "sectoral" models of cultural policy reproduced the uniformity of the functioning of cultural patterns and developed technologies for their achievement.
Thus, the orientation (in the 60-70s) towards "leveling the cultural level of various groups gave rise to a universal model of the functioning of art, the main advantages of which were "accessibility" and "ease of perception". As a result, the indicators of "mass" and "artistic" became mutually exclusive .
Utopian ideologemes of "equal distribution of cultural goods" (the well-known models of "optimal rations" of consumption of "cultural trends" and other developments of cultural programs) can also be attributed to such cultural orientations.
The adoption of these samples of "dosed" culture was seen as a "growth dynamics" of the cultural level of the population, thus confirming the idea of authoritarian power that culture can be "managed".
However, one should not categorically deny the achievements in the development of culture in the Soviet period in the field of education, education, science, art, folk art, although it should be recognized that the cultural policy of this period was far from optimal.
Landmarks of cultural policy
An analysis of cultural policy in different periods of Russian history shows that it appears to be a historical phenomenon.
But besides the fact that it undergoes changes at temporary historical stages, cultural policy, at the same time, is also variable, that is, it is built taking into account the historical traditions of territories and regions.
Cultural policy always comes into contact with specific types of culture, which not only replace each other, but can also exist simultaneously in different periods, as well as as a dominant and a secondary one within the framework of one socio-cultural system.
Domestic and foreign researchers pay great attention to issues of cultural policy, interpreting its meaning and content in different ways. Some people reduce the cultural policy of the state mainly to the financing of culture, the economic support of culture, for example, they consider it as a comprehensive government program to support culture and art, the humanities through the distribution of subsidies, as the regulation of cultural processes through a system of tax benefits.
Cultural policy is not independent, but financially it is completely dependent on the state.
Other scientists see cultural policy as a procedural body for developing goals and building a mechanism for their implementation. Attention should be paid to the documents adopted by the UN Congress, in particular, to the program of this organization "World Decade of Culture" (1987-1997), which contains the following provisions that define the functions, rights and responsibilities of states in the field of cultural policy:
No international and national social development programs lead to success if they do not take into account the needs of the cultural development of peoples and do not include cultural aspects;
Any uniform, unified world models of cultural development are impossible, because they ignore the cultural identity of peoples, threaten their national and cultural identity and for this reason are deformed or consciously rejected by them;
The preservation and use of cultural heritage, the creation of conditions for the familiarization of all citizens with cultural values or other cultural activities and conditions for the free activity of "creative workers" is the same area of responsibility of any state as the provision of decent living conditions, health care, conservation of the natural environment, national safety.
Cultural policy should be understood as an activity that ensures: forecasting and designing the main trends of cultural processes in society, creating political and economic conditions for the formation and development of self-regulating and self-developing cultural institutions based on the creative needs of public organizations and individuals, state guarantees for the protection of culture from the negative effects of the elements of market relations, the introduction of new scientific technologies in cultural activities, the creation of a system of guarantees for the participation of the entire population in cultural processes.
Under the conditions of the new socio-political system, cultural policy cannot adequately meet the tasks of the state, therefore, the content of cultural policy changes taking into account the new subjects and objects that fill it.
The presence of a plurality of subjects of cultural policy, actually existing and actively operating along with state subjects, is becoming a reality of today, and their coordinated interaction among themselves on the basis of partnership and contractual relations creates conditions for the development of collective subjects of cultural policy.
An important aspect of cultural policy is the system of mechanisms for the implementation and implementation of its goals and objectives. The central problem here is the principle of centralized management of culture, when mainly departments, the state apparatus act as a subject of cultural policy. The indestructible "sectoral" principle of approaches to the development of culture destroys the foundations of culture.
In the modern model of cultural policy, culture is represented only through those phenomena that, in purely administrative logic, are attributed specifically to culture.
If culture is assigned to the "branch" of culture, and education - to the "branch" of education, then, consequently, education is not culture, since it belongs to another ministry.
At its core, the existing model of cultural policy is normative; it considers culture as a final, complete whole, as a culture for achieving external indicative goals. In it, culture is represented by the sum of entities that are strictly isolated on the basis of subject matter: art, philharmonic society, club, library, literature, park, folk art, folklore, amateur performances, etc.
Following this, a logically natural desire arises to infinitely multiply the corresponding administrative divisions of management. Which, by the way, is happening both at the level of related ministries and in the Ministry of Culture itself, represented by its central departments and departments.
Because of this, the bureaucratic model of culture management is represented by organizing and controlling functionaries representing culture through the functioning of cultural institutions.
Moreover, a heated discussion about the functions of the state in the management of culture, which flared up in the early 1990s, boiled down to issues of limiting the role and rights of the state in this area. Things have come to the point that in recent years, voices have begun to be heard more and more often in various government, public and scientific circles that culture cannot be controlled at all.
In fact, we should not talk about the direct management of the creative, spiritual processes of creators, cultural figures who create creations, cultural samples and cultural values, and the processes of mastering them by the individual.
We can talk about a thin specific area of support and creation of the necessary conditions for spiritual, creative activity, and about the management of socio-cultural activities, where the spiritual and material foundations of culture are broadcast, replicated, restored, developed, in other words, management extends to the sector of the socio-cultural process, which includes production and consumption.
Thus, the historical experience of the development of national culture teaches that the following dominants form the basis of cultural policy: cultural policy as an expression of socio-political the system of any society exists as a systemic attribute of the national policy; the degree of liberalism or authoritarianism of cultural policy is subordinated to the level of development of democratic principles and freedoms in society; cultural policy has well-established standard mechanisms for the implementation of its cultural priorities and values; social and value orientations of the cultural policy of the state are formed by the norms, values and ideals of a particular society; the essence of the cultural policy of the state lies not so much in financing cultural institutions, strengthening the material base of cultural objects, but in social value orientations, readiness to provide opportunities for the cultural self-development of the individual, the development of social movements and formations in the field of culture.
Questions for self-examination
1. Cultural policy as part of state policy
2. Mechanisms for the implementation of the cultural policy of the state in its historical retrospective.
3. Departmental approach to the implementation of the goals and objectives of cultural policy.
4. The functions of the state in the management of the social sphere.
§ 4. Sociocultural activity as an object of management
In market conditions, socio-cultural activities become even more variable. Commercial, entrepreneurial activities are rapidly developing, new types of private institutions of socio-cultural services with nightclubs, casinos, entertainment, information, cultural and leisure centers, etc., have opened up diverse organizational, legal and economic opportunities for the development of socio-cultural models of activity.
Management of socio-cultural activities Speaking in economic terms, supply and demand ultimately stimulates, and sometimes hinders the creation and development of cultural products, which explains the nature of changes in the management of socio-cultural activities.
Consequently, the management of socio-cultural activities is the management of the socio-economic conditions of cultural activities, the conditions for the creation and consumption of cultural values.
Such conditions can be direct - material, freedom of creativity, moral incentives, and indirect - the budget of free time, the development of means of communication, the level of education of creators and consumers.
Modern managerial culture should be built on the principles of "openness" of the cultural system, the transition from vertical power ties in its management to horizontal voluntary public management methods.
Actually, the term "management" harmonizes little with the concepts of "spirituality", "cultural values", "norms", "ideals", that is, those categories that make up the essence of culture.
So, it is possible to manage enterprises producing musical instruments, car clubs, theatrical costumes, amusement park equipment, etc., collectives of cultural institutions.
The bodies that ensure the implementation of the cultural policy of the state can create conditions for the development of culture, ensure the activities of cultural institutions economically, financially, methodically, technologically, and thus manage the development of culture, but managing spiritual and material culture is inherently absurd.
Sociocultural activity management is a conscious activity of state institutions to regulate subject-object relations in all their diversity in order to achieve certain sociocultural goals.
The specific features of the management of socio-cultural processes are that management is concentrated on the mechanisms for regulating socio-cultural activities in accordance with the norms and principles, goals and objectives of cultural policy, including the regulation of financial, legal, organizational and managerial, personnel and other processes of functioning and development of socio-cultural activities .
The wisdom of public administration of the socio-cultural sphere in the post-Soviet society can be manifested in the optimal convergence of traditional and innovative approaches in the development of culture, which are: focusing on the new, taking into account tradition; using tradition as a prerequisite for modernization; secular organization of socio-cultural life, which does not exclude the significance of religion and mythology in the spiritual sphere;
The value of the selected personality, and, at the same time, the use of existing forms of collectivity;
A combination of ideological and instrumental values;
The democratic nature of power, recognizing authorities in politics;
The combination of the psychological characteristics of a person of traditional and modern society;
Effective use of science in the implementation of traditional value socio-cultural orientations of a person.
The implementation of this will lead to the conclusion that that in modern Russian society there is an active process of acculturation - socio-cultural changes, the interaction of traditional and modern culture as a result of socio-economic transformations, the modernization of society, which is the basis of the country's socio-cultural development.
Models management
Analysis of the model of socio-cultural management of the period of democratic transformations shows that the state, represented by the bodies of culture management, has not departed from the previous schemes of cultural policy based on utopian figures and other similar indicators of cultural planning, from the departmental paradigm representing culture as a "sectoral" system.
The optimal model for managing socio-cultural activities should not bypass the content of culture itself, the composition of its values, it is not enough just to state and recognize the "plurality of cultures", but at the same time declare the inability to ensure the development and support of this "plurality", leaving out of attention the traditional aspects of culture and not giving priority to what is useful for the development of a national multinational culture,
The optimal model of cultural policy cannot allow a simplified approach to the content of culture, reducing it only to designation in purely sectoral categories: a set of regulators for the arts, education, heritage funds, upbringing; interaction between federal, regional and local management structures; legislative and financial regulators; procedures for developing concepts, programs, software technologies.
This approach can be called instrumental (technological), but it should not dominate the content side of socio-cultural activity, its value orientations.
A worthy place in the priorities of the state's cultural policy should be occupied by cultural institutions attended by numerous groups of the population - clubs, houses of culture, museums, theaters, philharmonic societies, art schools and art schools, libraries and other cultural institutions associated with folk traditions, rituals, customs.
At the same time, a culture that has the status of "classical" should be returned to society, it must occupy a monopoly position and, as an "official" culture, disseminate and develop the diversity of cultural patterns and forms of existence of domestic culture.
Possible ways of further development of culture can be found by solving a number of conceptual managerial problems.
1) The role of the state in the field of culture should be based, first of all, on the recognition of the plurality of subjects of cultural policy. It is necessary to create a system of collective subjects of cultural development, within which conditions for coordinated interaction would be formed on the basis of partnership and contractual relations, including representatives of various formations, creative workers, potential sponsors, and cultural institutions. This will make it possible to move from the vertically linear principles of managing culture to the principles of self-development.
2) A new management philosophy can be based on the attitude in the field of culture as an "open system", its successful development will largely depend on the ability to adapt to a new socio-economic situation. Under these conditions, institutions and management systems of the industry should be aimed at identifying new problems and developing new solutions.
The openness of culture presupposes the presence of socio-cultural guidelines for choosing directions for the cultural development of society. The development of culture and the spiritual renewal of society will be scientifically based in the presence of: long-term projects and forecasts of the main trends in cultural processes; conditions for the development of self-regulating systems of cultural institutions; systems of state guarantees for the protection of the cultural sector and employees of cultural institutions from the negative impacts of market relations; technical equipment of the industry.
3) Renovation of management functions, transition to "partnership" relations, designing situations of close interaction is predetermined by the "diversity" of culture, diversity and equality of subjects of cultural activity.
The basic principle of the new cultural policy is from management to a system of regulation.
With the creation of a system of collective subjects of culture regulation, the real influence of the culturally active population on the formation of state cultural policy is expanding. The rigid type of administrative management is replaced by "coalition management of cultural processes based on the dialogue of the people with the state.
4) With the emergence of a new social and state mechanism, the formation of a management model creates the prerequisites for changing the type of management and the structure of the functions of managing culture with an increase in the functions of advanced management over operational dispatch; perspective development of the sphere of culture; regional differentiation of cultural policy, support for local structures of socio-cultural activities; development of national-territorial cultural communities, communities, clubs, communities, etc.
5) In our opinion, the following can be considered as the main guidelines for public and state administration in the field of social protection of cultural workers themselves: the development and adoption of packages of legal and tax regulations that enable society, enterprises, organizations to profitably invest in culture and use other material possibilities; rejection of the principle of costly financing of the construction of cultural institutions, especially in regions where already existing "capacities" remain poorly developed; development and implementation of socio-cultural projects of museum, club, library, concert, exhibition, park and other forms based on modern technologies of cultural activities; adoption of a special legislative document for the protection of the rights of culture and cultural workers.
Thus, socio-cultural activity is amenable to management and regulation, in the role of which are federal, regional (subjects of the federation) and district cultural management bodies, ensuring the implementation of the cultural policy of the state.
At the same time, sociocultural activity is a special type of activity, the essence of which is determined by the human factor, interpersonal communications, the nature of the interaction of people as subjects of sociocultural relations.
The structure of state management of culture, in general, has changed little over many decades. There are still the same federal bodies for managing culture represented by the Ministry of Culture, regional bodies represented by committees for culture and art, municipal departments and departments of culture.
However, the nature and functions of vertical management have changed significantly, they have become less rigid and more liberal, as mentioned above. This led to a change in the internal structure of the Ministry of Culture, its departments
Offices and departments, as well as to change functions.
The structure of the governing bodies of the Ministry
The modern structure of departments of the ministry is both a vertically subordinated hierarchy and an interacting system of departments. The ministry is headed by a general manager (minister) hired for the civil service by the Government of the Russian Federation.
His immediate associates are: two first deputies, a secretary of state, with the rank of deputy minister, four deputy ministers, six advisers to the minister and an assistant minister. The structure of the Ministry of Culture includes the following departments:
State regulation and development of cinematography with departments of the state register and resources, financial and economic analysis and forecasting, state organizations and property relations, technical policy;
State support for the arts and the development of folk art with departments for supporting the creativity of masters of art and individual projects, support and coordination of all-Russian and international creative programs and projects, public relations, support and coordination of the activities of state art organizations;
State support of cinematography with departments for the formation of creative programs, support for the production of national films, promotion of national films;
On the preservation of cultural property with departments of expertise and control over the export and import of cultural property, licensing and control over the sale of antiques, organizational and analytical department, department of displaced cultural property;
Science, education and development of socio-cultural infrastructure with departments of education, science, ethno-cultural programs, economic analysis and education financing, for work with government bodies in federal districts and subjects of the federation, cultural and regional cooperation;
Economic and investment policy, in the structure of which there are a consolidated economic department, a consolidated financial department, departments for financing programs, investments, extra-budgetary sources, labor and wages;
Case management with office work department; - management of international cooperation with departments of the CIS, cultural cooperation, cooperation in the field of cinematography;
Department of accounting and audits with departments for control and audit work, reporting on budgetary institutions, reporting on self-supporting institutions and enterprises;
Department of Libraries;
Human Resources and Awards Department;
Department of Museums;
Department (Inspection) for the Protection of Immovable Monuments of History and Culture;
Special department;
Maintenance department;
Legal department.
Services for ensuring the activities of the Ministry of Culture, organizations of federal jurisdiction:
State Unitary Enterprise Main Information and Computing Center (GUP GIVTs), which includes the department of statistics, the Internet class of the ministry, the reference and information fund, the teletype room, the computer maintenance group, and operational printing;
Office for buildings and structures (HOZU) with the department of operation and logistics, security services, service.
Organizations of federal jurisdiction work under the patronage of the Ministry of Culture:
International Cultural Center of Festivals and Competitions;
State theater-tour and festival center;
Republican inspection for control over the safe operation of attractions and labor protection;
Russian State Academic Chamber "Vivaldi Orchestra";
Russian State Theater Agency;
Russian state concert company "Sodruzhestvo";
Library;
Art Salon at the International Art Fund.
It is easy to see that in the structural subdivisions of the ministry, the very names of departments, departments and divisions predetermine a significant liberalization of managerial functions that manifest regulation, support, development, coordination, investment, promotion, preservation and other similar relationships with the bodies of culture of the regions, in culture and socio-cultural activities.
The activities of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the Ministries of Culture of the republics, the committees for the culture of territories and regions, departments, departments of culture of the districts are supplemented by leadership from the legislative and executive authorities, both at the federal and regional levels, which develop the legal framework and determine the strategy of socio-cultural activities.
Questions for self-examination
1. Traditional and innovative approaches in the development of culture.
2. Worldview and technological aspects of managing socio-cultural activities.
3. What are the modern conceptual management problems?
4. Structure of federal culture management bodies.
§ 5. Socio-cultural activity as a self-governing process
The subjective nature of sociocultural activity is determined, first of all, by the content of this activity, and it is completely connected with the sociocultural activity of people, cultural creativity, meaningful sociocultural activities, leisure, etc., but this process itself is fundamentally sociocultural.
Socio-cultural activity by its nature is a system of subject-object relations, which is manifested in bilateral relations, in mutually directed processes of activity; where the socio-cultural system and its elements (organizations) are a kind of product of human activity and the person himself.
Having such a connection sociocultural activity acts informactivities to stimulate and revitalize people's activities.
In other words, socio-cultural activity is an activity for the implementation of activities
Manager as a subject of management
Like culture, sociocultural activity is a self-developing system. The socio-cultural system functions due to the activities of its constituent institutions, while the activities of the latter are conditioned by human activities. The intensity of the impact of the system of institutions and a person provides one or another level of sociocultural activity
The degree of development of the socio-cultural system depends on two major factors: (optimal in content and intensity) management and regulation by external actors; the level of development of the subject - object relations within the system itself and its institutions.
The subject of cultural policy, as noted, are. management bodies (federal, regional, district) of cultural institutions, personnel - managers, cultural specialists working in socio-cultural bodies and institutions at all levels.
The diverse nature of the activities of managers and specialists in different levels of socio-cultural bodies and institutions makes it possible to consider managers, cultural specialists as aggregate subjects of socio-cultural policy and as a specific subject, taking into account its qualification characteristics, determined by the nature of subject activity.
The manager of socio-cultural activities as an aggregate subject of socio-cultural processes plays an important role in the activities of professional and amateur culture-forming organizations and institutions.
At the same time, he acts in two roles: as a regulator and organizer, adviser and prompter in sociocultural self-organization, self-development and self-expression of a person in various forms of sociocultural creativity; as a carrier of cultural and valuable reference samples, the creator and translator of these samples, cultural forms and values that make up the content of socio-cultural processes.
In this sense, a professionally trained manager of socio-cultural activities acts as an organizer of creative activity in culture and as a creator of its values.
The manager often combines these functional roles (due to the lack of diversified specialists), but in other cases, these functions are performed by different specialists with a specific qualification.
Here it is necessary to dwell on one significant explanation concerning the relationship between the manager as a subject of the sociocultural process, on the one hand, and the personality of the person entering into these relationships, on the other hand.
So, the subject-manager and the person (visitor, participant)
- participant in the cultural process. It was previously established that
society is a collective subject of sociocultural
processes, cultural policy, but adjusted state
authorities (subjects
Consequently, the individual as a component of this society must also be the subject of the cultural process. But in this case, a natural question arises: who is the object of cultural processes and do they exist? In this fundamentally important issue, the truth should be sought in the depths of the cultural process itself, where people interact with each other, and the nature of these interactions often has a different color.
If society, as a subject of cultural policy, feels a certain corrective influence of state power structures, then it can be assumed that society in this relationship with the state acts as an object, and, consequently, a public person in certain
relationships with the subjects of culture takes the status of an object.
The polyactivity of the relationship between the subject and the object
Being both an object and a subject of cultural policy, society acts as a self-organizing and self-developing socio-cultural a system continuously adapting to changing conditions of existence (first of all, by changing its cultural and value orientations, which in many respects stimulate changes in utilitarian social needs, determined not least by considerations of social prestige, fashion, values, etc.).
Methodological, functional, prognostic, axiological and other categories should be identified in the system "manager of sociocultural activity as a subject of sociocultural processes".
It is also necessary to consider the types, types, forms, results, specific features and characteristics of the activities of the manager-subject in the institution of culture and the individual - a participant in the cultural process, but not separately, but in interaction at the empirical-socio-cultural level.
Here it is necessary to turn to one of the key problems, which has not yet received an adequate solution. This is a dilemma: who is the personality in the sociocultural process - the subject, the object, or, in different situations, both in turn
By the nature of their activities, Palaces and Houses of Culture, clubs, libraries, etc., are constantly in contact with significant masses of the population, that is, those socio-cultural institutions that provide everyday socio-cultural, leisure, creative activities.
The work of mass cultural institutions over the past few decades has been carried out according to the principle of the subject-object theoretical model, where the specialist of the cultural institution acted as the subject, and the visitor, listener, participant in the cultural process acted as the object.
In this model, a person is presented not as a subject reproducing and realizing his own needs and aspirations in the cultural process and, moreover, as a subject of the cultural-historical process, but as an object of influence and influence.
The subject-object model of relationships in the cultural activities of cultural institutions is quite stable in modern practice, even in the context of the expansion of democratic freedoms, the elimination of prohibitions and checks.
Some researchers believe that the first task of restructuring the theory of socio-cultural activity is the rejection of the subject-object model and the transition to a fundamentally different - subject-subject - theoretical model of organizing the cultural activities of the population.
In this model, the person himself is the subject of organizing his own leisure. Employees of institutions that carry out cultural processes are also subjects, but of a different kind.
Through their activities, they create the most favorable conditions (psychological, pedagogical, organizational, financial, economic, regulatory, etc.) necessary for the development of creativity, socio-cultural, leisure activity of people. Thus, one of the noticeable contradictions in the activities of mass cultural institutions is the discrepancy in the ratio of "sociocultural institution - personality."
The rationale for the transition to the subject-subject model of interaction in mass cultural institutions can be the classical definition of K. Marx, which indicates that in society and nature there is a "universal process of processing nature by people and the process of processing people by people." In fact, cultural institutions are created by people for themselves, to realize their cultural needs and needs.
The interaction of people with each other, "processing people by people" in the process of mastering culture, artistic creativity, art in the democratic cultural environment of the club, determine their status as "subject-subject".
However, in the club as a social institution, there is another cumulative subject - the manager. Its subjective status presupposes a certain interaction with subjects-personalities and, in fact, the nature of this interaction, depending on the types of activities of a cultural institution, builds, in our opinion, the systems "subject-subject", "subject-object", "subject-object- subject".
Thus, the nature of the relationship of the club audience, visitors to each other and their relationship with cultural specialists is quite complex, but it is determined, first of all, by the nature of the ongoing cultural process. The club as a mass cultural institution is by its nature a unique phenomenon.
Socio-cultural processes in a cultural institution are of a dual nature: on the one hand, its activity is institutional, because each club institution is either state or departmental, or, more rarely, trade union, which implies a certain vertical subordination and manageability; on the other hand, the club acts as a social organization, the main function of which is to create conditions for the cultural and creative self-development of the individual.
This natural duality of mass institutions of culture contains many distortions and deformations, more often associated with excessive or absolute formalization of cultural processes or the absence of any controllability in them.
The definition of clear boundaries in the activities of cultural institutions, in our opinion, is hampered by the fact that, due to the ambivalence of culture, the presence in it of multi-valued and multi-level meanings, contents, types and forms incorporates a whole range of various social functions in which a special regulation of socio-cultural processes.
Subject-object relations, regardless of their hierarchy, presuppose a certain mode of activity, determined by the external vertical and horizontal relationships of a cultural institution that ensure its life and internal horizontal relationships that determine the state of the interpersonal intergroup "climate". Due to the versatile nature of interrelations and relationships, the activities of a cultural institution are systemic in nature.
Specialists and scientists from different positions consider the essence of the organization of the activities of institutions. However, almost all of them stand on the positions of a rigid model of organizing the activities of cultural institutions, in which there is practically no room for socio-cultural self-organization, because all activities are based on a socially normative vertical scheme.
Organization of the activities of socio-cultural institutions
Of the variety of interpretations and definitions of the term "organization of activity" one can give preference to the definition, where "organization" is presented as a system of interrelated elements - subjects, objects, orderliness and activity.
However, this definition is of a general nature and does not reflect the essence of any particular process, especially the activities of cultural institutions and forms of its organization.
Thus the concept "organization of activities"cultural decision is a process of realizationpurposes using such means and methods of culturalpolicies that comply with the principles of socio-cultural self-organization and socio-normative identification of the individual in the context of socio-cultural activities.
The phenomenon of duality in the activities of socio-cultural institutions is not their "invention", it is based on the variety of approaches in defining the concept of culture itself, where the researchers' points of view are concentrated on two variants of culture.
One group of scientists interprets it as a technology, a way of human activity, others - as a personal aspect of human existence, in which there are "essential human powers", "creativity", "spiritual wealth".
Despite the outward opposition of approaches - "technological" and "personal" one cannot but see in them the similarity and the presence of points of contact, which suggests that culture is a complex and multifaceted social phenomenon.
The "technological" aspect of culture associated with the "processing of nature by people" can most likely be correlated with the social and normative function of cultural institutions, and the "personal" as "the processing of people by people" - with the function of the socio-cultural self-organization of the individual.
Of course, such a comparison is of a relative, approximate nature, but, nevertheless, such a dependence, in our opinion, exists.
The desired trend in the development of "two cultures" is the convergence of "technological" culture (as a way of human activity) with personal humanized culture, the formation of the subject and object of social-normative (technological) cultural activity of high spiritual and intellectual potential.
Thus, the functions of mass cultural institutions can be represented by two large blocks that characterize the main directions of their activities:
The functions of socio-cultural self-organization - the development of interest in the whole diversity of human culture, spiritual and intellectual enrichment, overcoming national, confessional, socio-political alienation; development of spiritual and value potential, production of humanitarian knowledge as a rational component of humanitarian culture; formation of a scientific worldview, value orientations, assessments and norms; development of artistic and creative activity, preservation and development of traditional folk cultures, historical memory
Social and normative functions - integration, unification of people, the formation of social normative social deeds and actions, the development of a communicative culture, education and upbringing, the development of social and social activity, the system of social and value orientations of a person.
So, the functions of socio-cultural institutions, covering the types of activities associated with the socio-cultural self-organization of the individual, develop mainly in the model of subject-subject relations, in which the cultural specialist as a subject is excluded from the system of relationships of this model.
Its functions are deployed towards the object - a cultural institution, through which the specialist creates the conditions for the interaction of subjects.
In other words, a cultural specialist as a subject participates in the cultural process indirectly, influencing only the object of culture, in which the cultural self-organization of subjects-personalities is carried out.
Functions associated with social normative activities develop in a model of subject-object relations, where a person "consumes" culture: he is engaged in artistic creativity groups, studies in creative studios, classes, etc.
In this case, a cultural specialist acts as a teacher, director, leader, that is, as a subject, and the personality already acts as an object of influence.
The functioning of mass cultural institutions is a unique and inimitable field of activity, which is distinguished both by a wide variety of connections with reality and by the particular complexity of the relationship between the components of its internal structure. The artistic-creative and "human-creative" principles that arise here take on very subtle and complex forms.
In addition, the individual and collective nature of communication in the process of activity, which predetermines, in combination with great spiritual and intellectual tension and a high, as a rule, emotional tone of work, the need for deep personal contacts between a specialist and his subject, forms a generalized idea of the uniqueness of the activity of a sociocultural activity manager.
Thus, sociocultural activity is controlled by subjects, represented by federal, regional, district governments, and acts as an object of management.
At the same time, as a self-regulating system, as a product and result of people's activities, sociocultural activity acts as a subject of management, both within the entire sociocultural system and social institutions.
Questions for self-examination
Expand the content and meaning of the provision "sociocultural activity - there is an activity for the organization of activities."
Why is the personality the subject of the socio-cultural process?
Expand the dual nature of socio-cultural processes6 manageability and self-organization.
What is the need for organizing the activities of cultural institutions?
1. The system of organs and organization of state. education department.
2. The system of bodies and organization of state administration in the field of social protection of the population.
1. The state management of the education system is carried out by federal executive authorities and executive authorities of the federal subjects of general and special competence:
1) Government of the Russian Federation, Art. 114 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (p. c, k)
2) Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
a) develops and approves national standards, exemplary plans and curricula.
b) exercise control over the implementation of federal legislation in the field of education.
c) finance universities and other educational institutions of federal significance.
d) issues normative legal acts within its competence, etc.
3) Other federal executive bodies in charge of higher and special educational institutions of vocational education.
(Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Social Development of the Russian Federation, etc.)
4) executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as bodies of industry competence (Main Department of Education)
5) local self-government bodies - for the implementation of the rights of citizens to receive basic general education.
The law of the Russian Federation "On Education" is in force, as amended on 13.01.96.
The legal status of the university is determined by the Federal Law of August 22, 1996 "On higher and postgraduate professional education."
Universities are independent in the selection and placement of personnel, the implementation of educational and scientific work and other activities in accordance with the charter of the university. The management of the university is carried out by the rector's office by secret ballot headed by the rector. A rector elected at a general meeting by secret ballot for a period of up to 5 years and approved by the relevant education authority. The rector is the chairman of the academic council of the university, whose members are also elected. The academic council is entrusted with the general management of the higher educational institution.
Other educational institutions (secondary specialized educational institutions, schools) must be registered by the founder with the relevant state body. They must be licensed to operate their business. The state status of a state institution is given by accreditation, which confirms its right to issue state documents to graduates. The management of a state institution is carried out by its head, who is elected by the collective or appointed by the founder. In the management of educational institutions, the one-man command of the head is combined with such forms of self-government as the council of an educational institution, the teachers' council, etc.
2. Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Labor)
It heads the system of executive authorities in charge of issues of social protection of the population at the state or regional level.
Management of the municipal system of social services is carried out by local governments. This ministry heads the federal state employment service and the service for the settlement of collective labor disputes, manages the federal labor inspectorate, the republican federal fund for social support of the population, the inspection of non-state pension funds, etc.
Management is understood as a system of activities that ensures the successful functioning of a wide variety of social institutions - organizations designed to carry out certain socially significant activities.
Activities in the socio-cultural sphere are carried out by organizations, institutions, enterprises of various departmental affiliation (state, municipal, private, public organizations) and forms of ownership, as well as individuals. Further, a firm is any institution of the social and cultural sphere.
Management in the socio-cultural sphere is of particular interest to us.
Firstly, because its technological content reveals all the wealth of management in general - as already mentioned, a variety of firms operate in the field of culture.
Secondly, the prospects for such consideration are important for understanding the possibilities of cooperation with the sphere of culture in other areas of business activity. The main feature of management in the socio-cultural sphere is that money in this area is earned mainly not on the basis of simple commerce, but on the basis of attracting funds from interested donors: sponsorship, patronage, charity.
Thirdly, another circumstance is even more obvious - the growing requirements for the competence of specialists and workers in the socio-cultural sphere.
Usually, the specifics of management in the sphere of culture are associated with the peculiarities of "spiritual production". The "products" of such activity are not so much of a material nature as they are associated with the phenomena of consciousness (perception, understanding, etc.), they are not amenable to direct direct calculation, storage.
Their production often coincides with their consumption (watching a play, a movie, listening to a concert, reading a book, etc. A book that is not read, a picture that is not viewed, etc., are not artistic values).
Moreover, in contrast to the products of material production that are destroyed in the process of consumption (boots wear out, apples are eaten), cultural values increase their value in the process of consumption (the more people read a book, saw a picture, heard a concert, etc., the more higher their social significance).
However, cultural services can and should now be understood not only as services directly to visitors, but also to donors who are ready to allocate funds and support these activities. The sphere of culture is a sphere of predominantly non-commercial activity. The main feature of management in the field of culture is that money in this area appears mainly not on the basis of commerce, but on the basis of raising funds, involving the interests of various forces and instances: authorities in charge of budgetary funds, sponsors, charitable organizations and other income . Non-profit does not mean "unattractive" for business. The non-profit sector is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy worldwide.
Moreover, non-commercial activity is of a more general nature, it may include commercial as part of it. For example, a museum can be engaged in entrepreneurial activities, open a souvenir production, a printing house, repair shops, etc.
