3 Problems of culture in the “philosophy of life”

“Philosophy of Life” is a direction in Western European philosophical thought that developed in the last third XIX century in Germany. It is characterized by a sharp protest against the panlogical truncation of the universe, which hypertrophied rationality and abstract rationalism, which turned out to be largely untenable in the face of the demands of the time. Within the framework of this direction, the idea was put forward that philosophy should not rely solely on the natural sciences when constructing a picture of the universe, that priority should be given to artistic vision, which, to a greater extent than the exact sciences, is capable of capturing the variability of the world, the movement of life itself. In addition, attention was paid to the person and his real life problems. In general, the “philosophy of life” can be considered as a reaction to the rational age of the Enlightenment, the main pathos of which was the opposition to reason of the forces of life itself, irrational and inaccessible to rational comprehension.

Its representatives set themselves the task of building a holistic worldview, relying exclusively on the concept of “life”; with the help of this concept, an idea was created of the world as something whole, of ways of comprehending it, of the meaning of human life and the values ​​that give it this meaning. Based on the fact that human life is a value, it was considered only from the standpoint of completeness life manifestation. Due to the fact that the concept of life is rather vague, various interpretations have arisen: biological, psychological, cultural. Since the direction under consideration is an irrationalistic worldview, non-rationalistic forms of cognition of the world, which are in many ways close to the Eastern worldview, are especially attractive in it.

“Philosophy of Life” had a huge impact on European culture and identity in the 20th century. This direction is represented by the names of Nietzsche, Dilthey, Spengler, Bergson, Simmel.

F. Nietzsche and his “philosophy of life”.

The largest representative who laid the foundation for the “philosophy of life” and gave a prologue to a new cultural and philosophical orientation is F. Nietzsche (1844-1900). The world of life is one, integral, eternal, he argued, which does not mean its stability, but, on the contrary, implies an eternal flow, formation, return. In the teachings of Nietzsche, the concept of “two worlds”, characteristic of many movements of philosophy not only of the past, but also of the present, received a negative assessment. “To divide the world into “true” and “apparent,” the thinker asserted, “whether in the spirit of Christianity or in the spirit of Kant (after all, an insidious Christian), is only the suggestion of decadence - a symptom of a descending life. .."1. The “apparent” world is the only one: the “true world” is only attached to it...”2 Within the framework of this initial idea of ​​the world, the philosopher considers knowledge, truth, science, art and, ultimately, culture as a whole.

In his early work “The Birth of Tragedy, or Hellenism and Pessimism” (1872), Nietzsche turns to the analysis of ancient culture, while interpreting art as something that is a full-blooded embodiment and manifestation of true life, spontaneous, not determined by anything except the will and instincts of the artist , the process of life outpouring. Art arose before science in the history of mankind, and thanks to it “...only as an aesthetic phenomenon are being and the world justified in eternity.” An appeal to ancient culture is necessary for a philosopher in order to understand his contemporary culture, the peculiarity of which is its focus on science and, in his opinion, a deep hostility to life. The thinker explains this by the fact that culture now relies on a schematizing mind, deeply alien to the fundamentally instinctive life. He proposes to abandon the cult of science and scientific truth created by the philosophy of the New Age, since the world, as a result of the “persistent progress of science,” appeared to us as the result of many delusions and fantasies that are inherited by humanity as the accumulated treasure of the entire past.

In the same work, the ideas of Apollonian and Dionysian principles, previously present in the texts of Goethe, Schelling, and the Romantics, are further developed. They are considered as fundamentally different fundamental forces: active, active, and counteracting, reactive.

The philosopher rejects the theory of progress, developing the concept of “eternal return,” which remains unclear. The idea of ​​“eternal recurrence” was expressed by him in the work “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, there are some hints in “The Gay Science”, as well as mentions in “Beyond Good and Evil” and “Esse Nomo”.

M. Heidegger turned to the interpretation of this idea, connecting it with another fundamental and primary concept of Nietzsche’s philosophy - the will to power, which for him constitutes the main feature of all things. This being itself, according to Heidegger, is not infinite, forward movement to some specific goal, but the constant self-renewal of the will to power, restoring itself in its nature. J. Deleuze proposed a different interpretation of the idea of ​​eternal return, emphasizing that it differs from all previously known cyclic models in that it is not the same that returns, but only the different. Both Heidegger and Deleuze saw in Nietzsche's concept the highest form of affirmation of life's fullness, which is possible only through repetition, which brings the joy of difference and diversity of life itself. This and many other Nietzschean ideas received later life in modern cultural studies, philosophy, artistic practice and art criticism.

V. Dilthey: hermeneutics, or the art of interpreting texts.

V. Dilthey (1833-1911) also adheres to the “philosophy of life”, but unlike other representatives of this direction, for example Nietzsche, his “life” is, rather, the life of culture. Culture precedes thinking and science, therefore thinking, as secondary and derivative of the spirit, cannot understand feelings, as well as art, religion, philosophy. This position became the starting point in his formulation of the problem of different types knowledge, about the distinction between the concepts of “explanation” and “understanding”. Dilthey denies the possibility of explanation in the humanities: “We explain nature, but we must understand man.” Understanding is achieved through “getting used to”, “empathy”, “feeling”. However, it is one thing to understand modern culture, and quite another to comprehend the now “dead” cultures of the ancient Incas and Egyptians. To understand the cultures of the past, he develops and describes techniques and methods of interpretation, which he calls hermeneutics, or the art of interpretation, explanation and understanding of texts of various contents. The term “hermeneutics” itself, translated from ancient Greek, means interpretation or interpretation associated with understanding.

Many provisions of Dilthey’s theoretical concept are developed by G. Simmel.

G. Simmel on the essence of culture and the significance of fashion in the history of culture.

G. Simmel (1858-1918) is a world-famous thinker, author of 30 books and numerous articles on philosophy and sociology of culture. The sharpness of the creative mind, breadth of intellectual interests, subtle psychological observations, emotional energy of the presentation style and unusual plots and reflections on life characteristic of his works provide a powerful impetus for the study of cultural phenomena.

G. Simmel's sphere of interests includes a variety of episodes, but they exist in life, and he strives to give them a philosophical and cultural explanation. He wrote articles about contemplation of nature and the meaning of travel, about the role of chance and unexpected adventures in human life. Deep meaning full of articles about religion and the personality of God, about the philosophy of history and culture, about love and fate. Unexpected are the discussions about the philosophy of money and wealth, about stinginess and generosity, about death and immortality, about fashion and its inconstancy, about male and female culture... The thinker enriched cultural studies with new ideas and prophetic insights. He proposed many new and original problems in cultural studies.

His works about I. Kant and F. Nietzsche, I. Goethe and Michelangelo are devoted to the secrets of creative individuality and the personality of a genius. G. Simmel was more of an initiator of the philosophical understanding of culture than a consistent analyst. But the scientific initiative to discuss vital problems belonged to him, and this is his significance for the development of science. Interest in it continues to this day, although it does not always remain the same.

From a wide range of problems in the philosophy and sociology of culture of G. Simmel, we will focus on two issues that are interesting for cultural studies:

• 1). definition of the concept and essence of culture; historical change in cultural forms; conflicts and cultural crisis;
• 2). social meaning and significance of fashion in the history of culture; the relationship between tradition and innovation.

The philosophy of culture is set out in the articles by G. Simmel “The Concept and Tragedy of Culture”, “On the Essence of Culture”, “Changing forms logically every new fashion it is perceived as if it is going to last forever. Therefore, its new models seem especially attractive, although when purchasing them, a person must understand that very soon they will become outdated and will require replacement.

In this whirlpool of fashion changes, the classics remain relatively stable. It represents a relatively stable concentration of fashion elements “around a resting center.” Classic is harmonious and stable, does not allow extreme variations and imbalance. It is also fashion, but at the same time it maintains its integrity, not obeying the momentary impulse.

Fashion like social phenomenon not only natural in life, but also completely natural, because it corresponds to a person’s aspirations for renewal and isolation, the use of originality to emphasize individuality and belonging to a certain group. Fashion has a broad impact on culture, involving various layers in the circle of changes, becoming a symbol of novelty in a changing world.

A. Bergson about the problems of cultural studies.

A prominent representative of the “philosophy of life” is the French thinker A. Bergson (1859-- 1941), whose teaching largely outlined the cultural problems of the first half of the twentieth century and significantly determined the development of art in the modernist period. Bergson reflected on the meaning of evolution, the place of man in a changing world, the contradictions in the development of science and technology, a special form of expression of spiritual content, the dangers of technocratic aspirations in modern society. His views were directed against positivism, which absolutized facts, the scope of which did not include such phenomena as internal dialogue of consciousness, autonomy of values, personal freedom, and artistic creativity.

In his early works, Bergson examines the problems of culture in connection with the problem of freedom, which he interprets as the original state of man. Only by realizing one’s inner “I” can a person feel truly free. Freedom and culture mutually determine each other, since culture arises on the basis of freedom and is impossible without it. Bergson outlines a holistic consideration of man and culture in the system of all reality: “The philosophy of life, the direction of which we adhere to ... will present to us the organized world as a harmonious whole.”

Intelligence is characterized by a natural lack of understanding of life, Bergson is convinced.

Societies that lack these principles are called “closed societies” by him, since they actually lack freedom and are dominated by the need to “bind oneself into habits” that more or less meet the needs of the community. “Closed societies” have lost the impetus for development, they are static , within them the same forms and institutions of culture coexist. This concept of Bergson was further developed in cultural studies.

Adjacent to the “philosophy of life” direction is the concept of Spengler (1880-1936), which was formed under the influence early representatives this direction: Nietzsche, Bergson, and also Schopenhauer.

The term "culture" ( lat. cultura - cultivation, processing, veneration) has long been used to designate what is made by man, as a synonym for social, artificial, as opposed to natural, natural. In the meaning of an independent concept culture appeared in the works of the German lawyer S. Pufendorf (1632–1694). He used it to denote the results of the activities of a social person, contrasting culture with the natural, or natural, state of man. This meaning of something extra-natural, developed and cultivated by man has been retained by the concept of culture to this day. Complex, multifaceted and unique cultural phenomena that permeate all spheres of social life have been studied and are being studied by many sciences (archaeology, history, ethnography, anthropology, linguistics, semiotics, etc.). Each of these disciplines forms an idea of ​​culture as a subject of its own research, therefore the “image of culture” in various sciences looks unique. In modern literature there are more than 250 definitions of culture, fixing its various aspects, features, manifestations, modifications, etc.

However, the list of these features does not allow us to develop a holistic idea of ​​culture as a systemic characteristic of society, giving it qualitative certainty. Revealing the essence and significance of culture as a special social phenomenon and fixing its universal definition is possible only by means of philosophical analysis. It is quite obvious that the world of culture evolves historically, is modified regionally, locally-geographically, nationally-ethnically, etc. It is also obvious that culture contains invariant characteristics that give it universal properties, which are revealed even when studying this phenomenon from the standpoint of various ideological principles and methodological settings. To fix these invariant characteristics, to identify the nature of cultural universals, the mechanisms of transformation of their content core and thereby rise from the intuitive feeling of the integrity of culture to its theoretical understanding is the task philosophy of culture as a relatively independent area of ​​philosophical knowledge. (The term “philosophy of culture” was introduced into scientific circulation in the beginning of the nineteenth V. German romantic A. Muller).

The formation of the philosophy of culture as a special conceptual system of ideas about culture was stimulated by the awareness of the fact of the diversity of paths of cultural evolution of mankind, the discrepancy between historical and cultural development, as well as crisis phenomena in the culture of the twentieth century. The organic connection inherent in the philosophy of culture of epistemological, axiological and projective angles of view on its subject distinguishes the latter from cultural studies – an interdisciplinary field of humanitarian knowledge that studies culture in the totality of its specific historical forms using typological, comparative, structural-functional and other methods. Culturology does not set itself the task of revealing the essential foundations and universal principles of culture as such. Whatever amount of knowledge about culture is obtained by a set of sciences that study its specific types and forms (for example, ancient and medieval, mass and elite, scientific and artistic), revealing certain mechanisms of the functioning of culture (economic and technical-technological, sociological and social -psychological, semiotic and pedagogical), it does not contain answers to a number of essential questions: What is culture as a whole? Why and for what purpose did it arise? What is its invariant structure? What laws govern its functioning and dynamics? How are the destinies of culture and the life of nature, changes in social relations and transformations of human consciousness connected in this process? These questions do not exhaust the problematic field of philosophy of culture, but they are fundamental. The conceptual vision of these problems allows the philosophy of culture to perform the function of a general methodology in relation to the entire complex of cultural disciplines, a coordinator of their efforts and an integrator of the information they obtain. In other words, the philosophy of culture, firstly, reflects on culture as a whole; secondly, this reflection is of a rational-theoretical nature; thirdly, the task of philosophical reflection is to identify the meaning and purpose of culture as a totality.

Despite the fact that the formation of the philosophy of culture as an independent field of knowledge began in the 19th century, the study of the essence, nature and functions of culture is a traditional philosophical problem (it was already recognized by the sophists, who formulated the antinomy of the natural and the moral).

In the course of philosophical understanding of the phenomenon of culture, the following conceptual models were formed: naturalistic, classical, non-classical, postmodern.Naturalistic The model, formed in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, considered culture as a logical link in natural evolution, embodying the development of the abilities of a “natural person”, and saw in it a human continuation of nature. French enlighteners used the concept of civilization instead of the concept of culture, interpreting the latter as a project of an ideal social structure based on reason, justice and morality. German educators associated the concept of culture with the personal development of a person, and the concept of civilization was used to characterize the socio-political life of society. Classical The cultural model that emerged in the 19th century marks a rejection of naturalistic tendencies. Man, the subject of culture, within the framework of this model is proclaimed a creator of culture free from religious and natural dependence. The latter is identified here with the forms of spiritual and political self-development of man and society, based on the recognition of the many forms and types of culture, located in a certain historical sequence and forming a single line of human evolution. The culture of an individual is derived from supra-individual cultural reality. This model is based on the principles of humanism, rationalism, historicism, and Eurocentrism. Interpretation of culture as a purely spiritual formation, embodied in the progress of moral ( Kant), aesthetic ( Schiller) or philosophical ( Hegel) consciousness, received a materialist interpretation in Marxist philosophy. This interpretation is based on the postulate that culture cannot be understood from itself, but only in connection with society and the process of objective and practical human activity. In this understanding, culture is not only a set of results, but also the very process of human activity aimed at creating necessary conditions(primarily material) for the comprehensive and holistic development of man. Non-classical The (modernist) model emerges in the twentieth century. as a reaction to the difficulties of rationalistic knowledge of culture, the inconsistency of claims to strict scientific objectivity in its study, doubts about the linear progressiveness of cultural development, fixation of the fact of the relative independence and self-worth of each culture. This model of culture focuses on the everyday life of a person and considers cultural reality as an object of experience, rather than rational comprehension. The modernist model of culture is characterized by pessimism, the idea of ​​the absurdity of existence, the refusal to systematize and orderly modeling the world, and the use of hermeneutics as a method of understanding the fixed manifestations of spiritual culture in its historical patterns. Postmodern The cultural model rejects the possibility of an absolute subject of cognition and reproduction of cultural reality. It is based on the postulate that attempts to creatively transform the world are futile, on the principle of rejecting attempts to systematize it, and on reducing all manifestations of culture to some fundamental principle, focusing on their self-sufficiency. As a result, the subject of culture as the center of the system of ideas about the world disintegrates, and new type understanding culture – philosophizing without a subject. Within the framework of such a model, culture turns out to be oriented towards a certain normative image lying in infinity, which is defined as an unarticulated intention of the consciousness of an individual or group of individuals. The diversity and multifunctionality of culture were the real grounds for the formation of various theoretical approaches to its study and definition in the philosophy of the twentieth century: axiological, activity-based, semiotic, structuralist, sociological, humanitarian etc. Each of the noted approaches focuses on essential aspects of the cultural phenomenon, therefore they complement each other, contributing to the development of a deeper and more complete understanding of it. Together, it can be argued that the most fruitful in the formation of a generalized and holistic understanding of culture are the following areas of its philosophical analysis:

• 1. An activity approach, in which culture appears as a specific way of human life, a system of historically developing supra-biological programs of human activity, behavior and communication, which act as a condition for reproduction and change social life in all its main manifestations. Culture as a system organized activity ensures and regulates the reproduction of the entire diversity of forms of social existence of a particular type of society, and also programs its dynamics and forms of organization. By focusing on the procedural nature of culture, this approach does not allow us to strictly distinguish between culture and society and is distracted from the subjective and personal side of culture, which is of fundamental importance for its philosophical interpretation.
• 2 . Semiotic approach captures the extra-biological sign as an essential characteristic of culture mechanism storage and transmission of social experience (sociocode), ensuring social inheritance. Within the framework of this approach, culture is a world of symbolic forms that captures the total historically developing social experience and transmits it from generation to generation in the content of various semiotic systems. Any fragments can act as such semiotic systems human world, acquiring the function of signs (objective human actions, language, technology, household items, works of art, scientific knowledge, philosophical ideas, religious ideas, etc.).
• 3 . Axiological(value) approach, which interprets culture as a complex system of material and spiritual values, a hierarchy of ideals and meanings that are the result of the entire diversity of human activity and are significant for a specific social system. The axiological interpretation of cultures makes it possible to differentiate culture from nature and at the same time does not allow us to identify it with society, although it does not remove the problem of their relationship. Considering the world of culture from the point of view of its significance for humans, this approach faces serious difficulties in understanding the nature of values, their origin and dynamics, and the criteria of universal significance.

Thus, the phenomenon of culture appears:

as a measure of a person’s mastery of the objective-material world, his inclusion in his own semantic field;

as a complex, multi-level system of values;

as a set of embodied means and methods of human life;

as a set of semiotic systems that program, regulate and target people’s life activities;

a source of social dynamics and the most important indicator of people’s attitude towards their natural habitat;

the sphere of manifestation of the generic essence of man;

form historical movement humanity to freedom and progress.

Thus, culture is a specifically human activity, objectified in material and spiritual values, to the degree of embodiment of the wealth of social experience in the spiritual world of the individual, and, consequently, to the extent of his self-development as a universal being.

In the structure of culture there are traditionally material And spiritual forms of existence. Material culture arises in the process of human mastery of the objective world and includes a set of material values. Objects of material culture created by people, on the one hand, satisfy their practical needs, and on the other, act as means of consolidating, storing and transmitting socially significant information. Spiritual culture is the processes, states and results of human creative activity, objectified in spiritual values. Preserving, improving and moving freely in social space and historical time, the values ​​of spiritual culture program, regulate and stimulate the system of social life, allowing a person to build complex and multi-level systems of orientation in the world. A systematic view of culture allows us to see in it a complex interaction of material and spiritual components. Social features cultures are diverse. The main ones are the function of mastering and transforming the world, communicative, normative, significative, the function of accumulating, preserving and transmitting social information.

The system of modern humanitarian knowledge includes philosophy, sociology, history, psychology, philology and many other disciplines. There are also scientific disciplines that deal with the actual study of culture, such as theory and cultural history. There are a number of subjects that arose at the intersection of sciences - cultural anthropology, philosophy of culture, sociology of culture. Nevertheless, cultural studies occupies a special place in this series.

Today there are at least three main views on cultural studies. The first sees in cultural studies a complex of sciences that study culture. The second assigns cultural studies the place of an auxiliary section within disciplines related to the consideration of cultural problems. And the third point of view, which is closest to us, believes that cultural studies is an independent science, with its own subject, methodology and a certain place in the system of humanitarian knowledge.

There are a number of reasons that led to the emergence new science about culture among the many already existing ones. In the system of knowledge about culture for a long time cultural philosophy prevailed, but in the twentieth century the massive increase in empirical material revealed the impossibility of its full processing within the framework of the existing philosophy of culture. On the other hand, the development of extensive cultural ties and the expansion of national cultures beyond their borders, the powerful advance of a fairly unified mass culture have proven the need to develop unified approaches to the study of culture, in particular in order to help national cultures preserve your unique individuality. Another important reason can be called the further rationalization of human thinking, the growth of technocratism, the emergence of a dangerous view of the subjects of the humanitarian cycle as something secondary and even hindering the further development of civilization. In this regard, cultural studies in the future may well be able to act as a significant humanitarian counterbalance to such ideas, helping to increase the level of spirituality of man and humanity.

The problems solved within the framework of cultural studies include the following: determining the place of culture in the system of being; identifying the relationship of culture to nature, society and man; study of the multidimensional structure of culture, determined by its functions in the life and development of mankind; manifestation of the essence of culture in its existence, i.e. in the variety of specific cultures that exist in social space and social time, phylogenesis (development of the world as a whole) and ontogenesis ( individual development organism); description of cultural phenomena; affirmation of the uniqueness of cultural worlds; relationship between culture and civilization, etc.

In modern cultural knowledge, there are several leading directions, each of which studies cultural problems, relying on its own methodological base:

I. Psychoanalytic direction. The foundations of this school were laid by the Austrian psychiatrist, psychologist and philosopher Sigmund Freud, a great explorer of the depths of the human unconscious. In his works “The Future of an Illusion” and “Discontent in Culture,” he showed that culture has not only a positive, but also a negative meaning in a person’s life. On the one hand, it restrains human instincts and makes our life safe from the destructive forces of the human unconscious. But, on the other hand, culture suppresses many creative inclinations in a person, creating an “average person.” Representatives of late psychoanalysis criticized Freud, but still developed the main paths indicated by him. One such person can be called Erich Fromm.

II. Formational approach. The founders of this trend are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In their view, the movement of history is a change of socio-economic formations, while culture follows, adapting and serving certain social and economic relations. Thus, the main postulate of Marxism about the primacy of being over consciousness is realized.

III. Line “philosophy of life”, begun by Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche, was continued by the German cultural philosopher O. Spengler. In his work “The Decline of Europe” he presented and argued his vision of the problems of cultural development and the causes of the crisis European civilization. In his opinion, every culture has its birth, its climax and its death, that is, it goes through stages of formation as a living organism. Moreover, the stage when culture freezes, stops its development and growth, loses its spiritual potential, and materializes, Spengler defined it with the term “civilization.” And the crisis Western culture the very fact is that it has entered the stage of civilization, that is, it is approaching the end of its existence. In a similar methodological vein, the Englishman Arnold Toynbee examines the movement of culture in his fundamental twelve-volume work “A Study of History,” although he is also close to the sociological school.

IV. Sociological direction. Its most prominent representative is Pitirim Sorokin, a Russian emigrant who lived in America. In his works, he presented the history of mankind as a succession of integral sociocultural super-communities, internally connected by a certain unity of values ​​and meanings. The crisis of modern culture is connected, in his opinion, with the loss of spiritual values ​​in favor of materialism, rationalism, and technicalism. Other representatives include Alfred Weber and Talcott Parsons.

V. Semiotics of culture. The youngest direction in cultural studies, the emergence of which is associated with the strengthening of the symbolic side of culture. Man creates the world around himself, but this creativity becomes more and more symbolic. Culture loses its direct connection with objects, forming a sign-symbolic system. The central figures here, of course, can be called Ernst Cassirer, who wrote “The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,” Leslie A. White, who developed Ernst Cassirer’s theory, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, the creator of structural anthropology.

3 History of the term “culture”.

The problem of defining the concept of “culture”.

Culture is one of the two or three most difficult words, used in our practical and scientific life. This is partly because it has a complex and intricate linguistic history, and partly because it is used to denote extremely complex concepts in various scientific disciplines and, moreover, in the most diverse systems of thought.

In all cases of early use, the word culture meant the process of cultivating, growing something, usually animals and plants. This led to the emergence of additional meanings of the word, such as the English coulter - ploughshare, derived from the Latin culter, meaning the same tool. Further evolution is obviously connected with the transfer of ideas about cultivation, cultivation from natural processes to human development, and the agricultural meaning was preserved for a long time. Thus, Francis Bacon spoke about “culture and fertilization of minds,” and in the middle of the 18th century an English bishop, complaining about the shortcomings modern education, wrote that “people of noble birth and upbringing do not want to raise their children for the church” (with the words “people...birth...and upbringing” I tried to convey the phrase “persons of either birth or culture”).

Let us try to summarize the linguistic development of the word culture over several centuries. In modern European languages, one can distinguish (if we exclude agricultural and natural science terminology, for example, vetch culture, microbial culture) four main meanings of the word culture:

Abstract designation of the general process of intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic development;

Designation of the state of society based on law, order, gentleness of morals, etc.; in this sense, the word culture coincides with one of the meanings of the word civilization;

An abstract indication of the features of a way of existence or way of life characteristic of some society, some group of people, some historical period;

Abstract designation of forms and products of intellectual and, above all, artistic activity: music, literature, painting, theater, cinema, etc. (that is, everything that the Ministry of Culture does); Perhaps this is the meaning of the word culture that is most common among the general public.

At the beginning of the 19th century. the word "culture" was used either as a synonym for the word "civilization" or as its antonym. The word "civilization" comes from the Latin word civilis (citizen), and at the end of the 18th century. in French and English languages it denoted a progressive process human development, a movement directed from barbarism and savagery to order and sophistication, citizenship. The use of the words "culture" and "civilization" as synonyms in English and French reflected the faith of the French and English late XVIII- the beginning of the 19th century, that their era is advanced and the development of mankind is progressive.

4 The place of cultural studies in the system of humanities: the structure of cultural studies (history of culture, sociology of culture, cultural anthropology, applied cultural studies, etc.)

The interdisciplinary nature of cultural studies expresses a general trend modern science, strengthening of integrative processes, mutual influence and interpenetration of various fields of knowledge when studying a common object of research. Logics scientific research leads to the synthesis of a number of sciences, the formation of a dialectically interconnected set of scientific ideas about culture as an integral and diverse system. Each of the sciences with which cultural studies comes into contact makes it possible to deepen knowledge about the phenomena that is the necessary component and social background for the development of cultural achievements, discoveries, and ingenious creations with which the cultural heritage is so rich.

Philosophy opens the way to knowledge and explanation of the essence of culture, and sociology reveals the laws of the process of functioning of culture in society, the features cultural level various groups. Psychology makes it possible to better understand the specifics of human cultural and creative activity, his perception of cultural values, and the formation of the spiritual world of the individual.

Ethnography promotes awareness of the national-ethnic identity of the culture of the peoples of the world, the role of culture in interethnic relations.

Art history and aesthetics reveal artistic culture in its originality, uniqueness and emotional power of influence on people.

Related sciences are not only a breeding ground, but also a necessary foundation for cultural studies.

Culturology as an independent branch of science consists of six interrelated sections: the history of world and domestic culture; history of cultural studies as a science; philosophy of culture; sociology of culture; cultural anthropology; applied cultural studies. Each section has its own object of study, differs in the specifics of analysis, methods and practical recommendations, used to solve specific problems.

Cultural history explores the real process of continuity of cultural development of different eras, countries and peoples. It provides rich material testifying to the diversity of cultural achievements and values, the contribution of peoples to the world culture of mankind, the difficulties and contradictions of the cultural-historical process, the fate of the “great civilizations” of Europe, Asia/India, Russia, China and other regions of the world.

History of cultural studies studies the process of development of theoretical ideas about culture and its laws.

The science of culture has a long history. For many centuries, scientists and writers have sought not only to explore the culture of certain peoples, but also to understand the trends of its development, to find those main springs or patterns that govern this rich and diverse phenomenon.

Philosophy of culture explores the concept, essence and structure of culture, determines its function in society; clarifies the relationship between culture and nature, culture and civilization; the role of mass media in the dissemination of culture; studies the plurality of linguistic and symbolic forms of culture; the historical unity of humanity and the process of mutual influence of cultures; global problems of our time and the role of culture in their resolution. Culture covers all means and mechanisms of human activity, values ​​and creative potentials. In the broadest and rather abstract sense, culture is a way of realizing the essential powers of man.

Sociology of culture explores the process of functioning of culture in society; trends in sociocultural development, manifested in the consciousness, behavior and lifestyle of various social groups.

IN social structure society there are groups of different levels. Macrogroups are classes, strata, nations and ethnic groups. Each of them has its own cultural characteristics, value preferences, tastes, style and lifestyle. Along with them, there are many microgroups that form various subcultures. Subcultural communities can be distinguished according to a number of characteristics: age subcultures of children, youth, and the elderly; confessional - depending on religion; professional, which emphasizes belonging to a certain type of work activity and the commonality of interests and needs associated with it. The emergence of group forms of culture is possible in political parties, movements. Groups with deviant behavior also form their own structure. There are subcultures of mafia and criminal groups.

The multiplicity of structures creates a “mosaic” picture of sociocultural life. The sociology of culture recreates this diversity, reveals the dynamics of their development, the reasons for consolidation or disintegration, dissolution in general trends or the crystallization of new value orientations.

An important direction in the sociology of culture is the study of the sociocultural consequences of such processes as the democratization of society, the influence on the state of minds of openness and freedom of speech, economic and political reforms, changes in cultural needs and human interests in conditions of urbanization, migration, environmental and spiritual crisis. The sociology of culture makes it possible to present a typology of personality depending on the attitude to the current social situation.

Cultural anthropology- explores the relationship between man and culture, the processes of formation of the spiritual world of the individual, the formation and implementation of abilities, gifts, talents, the embodiment of creative potentials in activities and their results. The socio-cultural evolution of personality occurs throughout life, but at the same time special role play in childhood and youth, when the foundations of value positions and interests are laid. Cultural anthropology reveals the “nodal* moments of human socialization, the specifics of each stage life path, studies the influence of the sociocultural environment, the education and upbringing system, family, peers, generation. Particular attention is paid to the psychological foundation of such cultural phenomena as life, soul, death, love, friendship, faith, meaning, spiritual world men and women.

Applied cultural studies explores the organization and technology of cultural life of society; activities of cultural institutions, cultural centers leisure, amateur and initiative interest groups; methodology for conducting mass holidays, festivals, forums. The main focus is the development of cultural policy; economic, political and spiritual support for the implementation of cultural programs. Applied cultural studies studies the interests of the public, motives for engaging in culture, and forms of organizing leisure time.

Activities of theaters, cinemas, video salons, museums, concert and exhibition halls, clubs and palaces of culture, libraries; educational work of creative unions and foundations, the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments, as well as other public organizations and associations - all this is the object of scientific analysis.

Applied cultural studies is practical in nature, and specialists have organizational skills that contribute to the realization of the spiritual needs of various categories of the population.

Topic 2 Morphology of culture: structure and functions of culture

Modern culture its structure is divided into three components:

1. material culture;
2. spiritual culture;
3. art culture.

Culture did not always have such a structure. Initially, material and spiritual cultures were inseparable, because material form stored and transmitted spiritual content. With the emergence of religious and mystical consciousness, a stratification of material and spiritual cultures occurred. The importance of spirituality in human life began to increase.

1) Material culture is a phenomenon of human activity that covers material goods; "earthly" culture. Its peculiarity: doomed to aging, destruction, destruction. Material culture appears in the form of 3 forms.

a. Physical culture covers medical, gaming, sports influences on the human body and cultural attitudes towards one’s own body.

b. Technical culture is aimed at creating things intended for the development of material production, the economy, for the creation of food products and consumption, for the development of new technologies. Its peculiarity in the 21st century. is ahead of all other types of crops in development.

c. Social-organizational culture covers independently existing institutions, institutions, enterprises, and the culture of the place of residence.

Material culture is the result, means and condition of human activity. Its content is not limited to the fact that it satisfies the material needs of people, it is more diverse and multi-valued. It acts as a means of transmitting social experience, therefore it also contains a national principle by which its origin can be established. Material culture reflects the processes of mutual influence of peoples and their cultures up to the displacement of its individual elements. For example, in Russia in the 18-19 centuries. National clothing was replaced by Western European clothing, gradually becoming global.

Objects of material culture are specific to an era, a social group, a nation, and even to an individual. This means that it can act both as a social sign and as a cultural monument.

Sources for studying material culture:

Real items(include archaeological and ethnographic monuments; preserved architecture; non-functioning equipment; all functioning material culture).

Their images(include works visual arts, drawings, other graphic works; photo and film documents).

Layouts and models corresponding to the original (include models and models known since antiquity. These are small copies of real objects, often forming part of a funeral cult, children's toys, etc.).

Written sources (written sources contain a wide variety of information - about objects of material culture, their production technology, etc. They can be used to judge the development of material culture).

Many monuments of material culture are a symbol of the era (certain brands of cars, tanks, and Katyushas symbolize the Second World War for several generations).

Ships- also symbols of the era: sailing - a symbol of Peter the Great's era; caravel - Columbus discovered America.

An important part of material culture is the buildings- residential, industrial, household, religious, etc. Historically, the first among them was human housing.

The fire, as the first “cultural” source of heat and light, became the center of attraction and unification of ancient people. Thus, even before the appearance of buildings, the idea of ​​a house arose, which was an important milestone in the development of society.

Housing- this is an artificial, less often natural structure that protects from unfavorable external environment; on the other hand, it creates social space, in which production and household activities can be carried out.

In addition, a home is protection from attacks on the life and property of its inhabitants (fortress houses were built).

With the development of society and culture, housing acquires new functions. The emergence of social and wealth inequality

2) Spiritual culture- this is a phenomenon of human activity, covering the spiritual life of man and society; “heavenly”, sublime culture. Its features:

a. achievements of spiritual culture are not subject to any physical, chemical, mechanical or biological influences;

b. The achievements of spiritual culture can be mastered through upbringing and education. Contradictions that arise between material and spiritual cultures are resolved with the help of artistic culture.

3) Art culture is a phenomenon of human activity that gives rise to sensory perceived values. Its features:

a. artistic culture through works of art provides a person with the opportunity to take part in the formation of his spiritual culture;

b. In line with artistic culture, material culture turns into spiritual culture and vice versa.

Thus, culture is an intense sphere of interaction between three main components: material culture, spiritual culture, artistic culture.

Man is the only living creature distinguished by spirituality. Spiritual culture synthesizes the conscious and natural, affective and cultural. Affective states have a natural, artificial basis.

Spiritual culture includes 5 components:

1. customs;
2. norms;
3. values;
4. knowledge;
5. meanings.

1. Custom is a form of regulation of activities and relationships between people, which is perceived from the past, is generally accepted, and is reproduced in time and in a certain place. The customs are not explained, they are simply introduced to them “That’s how it should be.”

Custom is a habit that is associated with unique biographical experiences and individual behavior.

Custom ≠ a ritual that is associated with formal behavior, has symbolic meaning, devoid of immediate expediency, strengthens ties in related groups.

Custom ≠ tradition, which is a very wide range of cultural phenomena.

2. Norm is a form of regulation of activities and relationships between people, which expresses ideas about what is proper and desirable. A person voluntarily and consciously accepts norms and follows them. standards are not absolute and may change. The standards are variable and mandatory (in production).

3. Value is a form of regulation of activities and relationships between people, which involves a subjective choice of need, goal, state, object. Values ​​form the basis of morality.

Axiology is a science that studies values.

Thus, values ​​are the result of a person’s understanding of his own place in the world around him.

Classification of values ​​(conditional)

ь Vital (life, health, quality of life, natural environment, etc.)

ь Social: social status, status, hard work, wealth, profession, family, tolerance, gender equality, etc.

b Political: freedom of speech, civil freedom, legality, civil peace, etc.

b Moral: goodness, goodness, love, friendship, duty, honor, decency, etc.

b Religious: God, divine law, faith, salvation, etc.

b Aesthetic: beauty, ideal, style, harmony.

According to the degree of prevalence, spiritual values ​​can be universal, national, class-class, local-group, family, individual-personal.

Universal values ​​are characterized by the fact that they are recognized by the largest number of people both in time and in space. These include all the most important everyday truths, all the masterpieces of world art, stable moral standards (love and respect for one’s neighbor, honesty, mercy, wisdom, desire for beauty, etc.). Many moral commandments coincide in world religions, uniquely reflected in fundamental human rights .

National values ​​- occupy the most important place in the life of any people and individual. But here it is necessary to remember the words of Leo Tolstoy: “It is stupid when one person considers himself better than other people; but it’s even more stupid when an entire people considers itself better than other peoples” (L.N. Tolstoy, The Way of Life. M., 1993, p. 157).

In contrast to universal human values, national values ​​are more specific and more materialized; for the Russian people this is the Kremlin, Pushkin, Tolstoy, the works of Lomonosov, the first satellite, etc.; for us - the Belarusian nation - St. Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk, the cross of Euphrosyne of Polotsk, the work of F. Skorina (Bible), etc., for the French - the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, etc.

This means that national spiritual values ​​are everything that makes up the specific culture of a particular people.

Estate-class values ​​are associated with the interests and worldview of individual classes and social groups. In the post-revolutionary years, they were vividly embodied in the activities and ideology of the Prolet-cult (1917-1932). His main idea- hatred of the “exploiting” classes, exaltation of physical labor as opposed to spiritual labor, denial of previous cultural heritage. Estate and class values ​​of the previous cultural heritage. Estate-class values ​​are less stable and diverse than national, and even more so universal, values.

Local group values ​​unite relatively small groups of people both by their place of residence and by age.

They reflect some socially typical preferences in the sphere of culture and, unfortunately, often in the sphere of anticulture. These are various “brotherhoods”, sects, castes or associations such as “rockers”, “punks”, “lubers”, etc. Here we can talk mainly about specific youth and age values.

Family values. The family, according to V. Hugo, is the “crystal” of society, its foundation. This is a society in miniature, on the physical and moral health of which the prosperity of all mankind depends. Hence the huge role in the formation of culture passed on from generation to generation family values. These include all positive family traditions (moral, professional, artistic or even purely everyday).

Individual personal values ​​include ideas and objects that are especially close to an individual person. They can be borrowed from the surrounding socio-cultural environment or created as a result of individual creativity.

The mobility of cultural values ​​lies in the fact that they can move from one level to another, from individual-personal ones to rise to universal values. Thus, the works of great thinkers at the time of creation were of individual and personal value, but gradually “rose” through the local-group, estate-class and national levels to universal recognition, becoming factors in world civilization.

4. Knowledge is a form of regulation of activities and relationships between people, which reveals the results of knowledge of the surrounding world. From the many forms of knowledge, the following forms of knowledge have been identified:

a. practical took a person out of the framework of biological behavior;

b. spiritual enshrined in myths, legends, monuments of art, philosophy, artistic images and religion;

c. empirical formed on the basis of sensory-experimental experience;

d. theoretical explores knowledge itself;

e. mystical based on intuition.

5. Meaning – that for the sake of which human activity unfolds; what he strives for.

So, the components of spiritual culture are associated with the transformative, value-based and cognitive activity of a person.

The functions of culture are the roles that culture performs in relation to the community of people.

Basic functions of culture

Corporality is a sociocultural phenomenon of the inclusion of the human body in the cultural and social environment; it is a transformed human body, endowed with meanings and meanings in a cultural and social environment.

The human body enters culture through play, work and ritual. The human body is always a certain form (organism) and its corresponding content.

Basic concepts: culture, material culture, spiritual culture, civilization, type of culture, objectification, deobjectification.

1. The concept of culture contains a complex of different meanings. The word culture was first used by the philosopher Cicero (c. 45 BC), denoting the impact of philosophy on the human mind - “culture of the mind is philosophy.” Until the beginning of the twentieth century. its definition as cultivation, cultivation was more commonly used. To date, there are already more than 500 definitions that can be divided on three grounds: anthropological, sociological and philosophical. The anthropological approach arose in the struggle against Eurocentrism, where European culture was put forward as a standard and the independent cultural development of other peoples was denied. The anthropological approach removes the question of the level of development, assessment, and progress of the culture of human society, considering it as a way of existence of humanity.

Close to the anthropological interpretation, the content of culture is determined by S. Freud (see the work “Dissatisfaction with Culture”). Culture in his understanding is what distinguishes our life from the life of our ancestors from the animal world and serves two purposes: protecting humans from nature and regulating relations between people. Culture turns nature to the benefit of man and serves as a means of achieving higher forms mental activity: intellectual, scientific, artistic, and also regulates social relations to achieve the ideals of justice.

In general, it should be noted that the anthropological approach interprets culture as everything material and intangible created by man, distinguishing man from animals (production relations, public life).

The sociological approach identifies a certain part of social life and relates it to culture. E. Tylor defined culture as something that is made up of knowledge, beliefs, laws, art, customs, and morals that are acquired by a person as a member of society. The Marxist definition, which relates culture to a phenomenon of a superstructural order, “fits” within the framework of the sociological approach. This approach is guided by the enumeration of the elements of the whole.

A feature of the philosophical approach is a high degree of abstraction. Within the framework of the traditional philosophical approach, the content of culture includes the totality of material and spiritual values ​​created by man. (Values ​​are material and spiritual objects that can satisfy a person and society as a whole). The definition of culture by most modern philosophers evokes a number of critical comments, the essence of which boils down to the following.

Firstly, a prerequisite is created for a subjective evaluative approach, since what to include within the framework of culture is influenced by the views and tastes of the researcher himself. This, in turn, leads to the elitism of culture.

Secondly, there is a sharp distinction between material creativity and spiritual creativity. It does not take into account the fact that any material object created by man first arises in the mind and then is materialized.

Thirdly, this definition gives rise to a static approach to culture, which makes it difficult to understand it as a process, while culture is the process itself, a form of activity.

Thus, it is necessary to pay attention to culture as a multifunctional social phenomenon. If we consider culture as a process, the main thing is activity. The processes of objectification (material culture) and deobjectification (spiritual culture) are recorded in culture. Moreover, the definition of culture can include any activity as a universal way of human life. Culture must take into account the efforts of man and his achievements, which are aimed at transforming himself and the nature around him.

It should be borne in mind that culture is not a part of the life of society, but its essential value characteristic. Human activity is the reason for the existence of culture. The content of culture records the method of human activity, its results, and their influence on the process of human formation and development.

2. There are 2000 languages ​​in the world. But culture differs not only in language. To determine the type of culture, it is necessary to know its dynamics and relationships with all aspects of social life.

One of the first to raise the question of the typology of cultures was N.Ya. Danilevsky (see work “Russia and Europe”). He studied the peculiarities of the development of cultural and historical types. The criterion for distinguishing them was cultural activity, of which Danilevsky counted four types: religious (man’s relationship to God), cultural proper (man’s relationship to the outside world), political (relationships between people as members of a national whole), socio-economic (relations people among themselves in relation to the conditions of use of objects of the external world. In accordance with them, Danilevsky identifies the following cultural and historical types:

Primitive (autochthonous). These include Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Babylonian, Iranian cultures that carry out the preparatory work.

Monobasic cultures based on one type of activity. Jewish - on the religious, Greek - on the cultural, Roman - on the political.

A dual-core culture in which previous activities converge. This is a Romano-Germanic type, where socio-economic activities of a scientific and industrial nature develop.

The four-basic Slavic cultural type, where a synthesis of all aspects of cultural activity should take place.

Cultures may develop under similar conditions and in similar ways, but the developmental sequences of all cultures are only slightly similar. Each culture is based on a certain model, which absorbs what corresponds to its character and characteristics. Models regress and die. For example, for Northrop, the type of culture is determined by the forms and methods of cognition; they dictate the organization of experience that dominates society. Forms of cognition are associated with intuition or intellect.

O. Spengler (see O. Spegler’s work “The Decline of Europe”) puts forward the position of complete independence of the development of individual cultural formations. For him, humanity is an empty word; the only reality is possessed only by individual ethnic and cultural communities. The strength of closed civilizations is the spiritual elite, leading the “inert majority.” Each culture has its own possibilities of expression, its own ideas, its own life and death. The only similarity between cultures that Spengler allows lies in the stages of development: birth, youth, old age and death. Spengler's method allows one to interpret the phenomena of mental life, styles of art and “types of moods”, but does not allow one to establish patterns of development of human communities.

In Marxist philosophy, typology is considered in accordance with socio-historical formations. The formational approach is based on the principle of the determining role of the mode of production, both material and spiritual. Culture is mediated by the socio-economic and socio-political system of production of material and spiritual values, in the process of creating which the achieved level of intellectual, emotional, sensory and physical development of both the individual and society as a whole is revealed. The formational approach explains the progressive nature of the development of culture, as a result of the creation and creative activity of people. Progressive development is a general trend for all of humanity, within which recessions and destruction are possible. The formational approach ensures historicity and continuity, although it does not explain the specifics of cultural eras.

3. The distinction between culture and civilization has become popular since the time of O. Spengler. Before him, the concepts of civilization and culture were identified. Spengler gave civilization and culture a chronological meaning and considered them in the context of changing eras. He believed that every culture has its own civilization. Civilization has become the inevitable fate of culture. Spengler reduces culture and civilization to the concepts of soul and intellect, people and masses, and notes that the energy of a cultured person is directed inward, and that of a civilized person is directed outward. This point of view has many critics. The main remark is that in a certain sense, civilization is older and more primary than culture; culture is formed later. The Latin word civilization indicates the social nature of the process being designated. Civilization denotes a more socially collective process, while culture denotes a more individual one. In civilization, the masses and technology predominate, in culture - spiritual acts, the victory of form over matter. Although humanity has been using the term civilization for a long time, a common philosophical understanding of it has not been formed. There are several approaches that characterize civilization as

a certain stage of development of the culture of individual peoples of the world as a whole, the nature of which is determined by production relations (for example, ancient civilization);

the stage of development of society following barbarism and characterized by the formation of classes, states, the emergence of writing, urbanization;

the state of culture in a particular area of ​​human activity (for example, technocratic civilization);

the nature of the integrity of all cultures, emphasizing their universal unity (civilized way of life);

material activity, and culture as a spiritual sphere of activity.

Despite the difference in approaches, the unifying point in understanding civilization is the presence of connection and interaction with culture. The highest indicator of the development of a civilized society is the degree of progress of its culture. Culture is a measure of human development, civilization is the degree of self-propulsion of culture. Culture, having emerged at a pre-civilized stage of people’s lives, acquires conditions for progressive development in civilization.

B. 4. The main problems of the philosophy of culture (review)

The problem of the origin and evolution of the meanings of the terms “culture” and “civilization” is their relationship to each other.

The term “culture” comes from the Latin cultura, which means “cultivation,” “processing,” “care.” Accordingly, “culture” also meant farming as such, agriculture. But at the same time, “culture” meant “upbringing,” “education,” “development,” and here we were talking about a person, about the development of his abilities and natural inclinations. And the last meaning is “worship”, “veneration”, which indicates the closeness of the Latin terms “cultura” and “cultus” (cult). Thus, culture is something created by man, i.e. transformed nature.

European cultural studies developed in line with ancient traditions and their subsequent rethinking, so we can say that the entire historical field of cultural ideas, to one degree or another, has an image of ancient culture. Antiquity, the Middle Ages, Modern Time, Modern Time - four eras, each of which understood culture in its own way, and this understanding fit into the mental space of the era, correlated with ideas about man, his purpose and meaning of life, about higher (transcendental) values. Each of these eras seemed to return anew to the original ideas about culture that were proclaimed by antiquity, and each such return was a crisis when a reassessment of values ​​took place, sometimes such a period became an independent era, such as the Renaissance.

In antiquity, for the first time, the specifics of culture were realized, concepts and categories were introduced to designate it, and the first philosophical theories of culture emerged. The ancient understanding of culture contains an idea of ​​the naturalness of man. And although ancient man could have been antisocial, neither man nor God could have been supernatural, from which follows the unity of man with nature.

In the medieval era, along with the Christian principle of creation “out of nothing,” comes the affirmation of the personal absolute (God, as a supreme being, creates the world out of nothing of his own free will). Deeper dimensions of culture emerge: conscience, faith, hope, love.

New times turn to the ideas of reason, freedom, justice, which found expression in the culture of the Enlightenment. Philosophers substantiated the ideals of historical progress and formulated questions about the goals, driving forces and meaning of historical development. This is how the classical model of culture is formed, which considers culture as the result of the historical development of mankind. The classical model of culture received a fundamental justification in German classical philosophy, in particular in the works of I. Kant and in its most complete form - in the works of Hegel.

In modern times, postclassical theories of culture have been created, which were based on disappointment in the possibilities of reason, the harmony of nature and man, the reasonable reorganization of society, overcoming contradictions in public life and the harmonious development of man.

The term “civilization” (from the Latin civilis - civil, state, political, worthy of a citizen) was introduced into scientific circulation by French enlighteners to designate a civil society in which freedom, justice, and the legal order reign. The word “civilization” first appears in Mirabeau’s “Friend of Men” (1756), where it characterizes not only a certain stage in the development of society, but also carries an evaluative meaning, i.e. indicates which society is worthy of being called a “civilization.” Civilization is, first of all, a certain level of moral development of humanity, a stage of realization of not imaginary, but genuine virtue.

The formation of civilization is associated with a fairly high level of division of labor, the formation of the class structure of society, the formation of the state and other political and legal institutions of power, the development of written forms of culture, a developed common religion, etc. Consequently, civilization is a specific sociocultural phenomenon, limited by a certain spatiotemporal framework and having clearly defined parameters of spiritual, economic and political development.

Each civilization is unique, lives its own life, has its own historical destiny, its own institutions and values. Interacting with each other, civilizations do not lose their own uniqueness; possible borrowing of any elements from other civilizations can only speed up or slow down, enrich or impoverish them.

For the first time, Russian Slavophiles began to contrast culture and civilization. Continuing these traditions, N.A. Berdyaev wrote about civilization as “the death of the spirit of culture”; culture is symbolic, but not realistic.

In Western cultural studies, a consistent opposition between culture and civilization was carried out by O. Spengler in the book “The Decline of Europe,” where he described civilization as the final moment in the development of culture, meaning its “decline” or decline.

Unlike Spengler, Jaspers identified culture and civilization. Culture is the core of civilization.

The problem of the relationship between the concepts of “culture” and “civilization” can find an acceptable solution if we understand civilization as a certain product of culture. Civilization presupposes the assimilation of patterns of behavior, values, norms, etc., while culture is a way of mastering achievements.

Culture as self-awareness of man-in-the-world: a position of aspiration towards the past (golden age) or towards the future (the Kingdom of God).

The problem of the method of origin of culture.

The relationship between culture and cult.

When considering culture, we can distinguish two sections of its vision: secular and religious. Within the theological tradition, the term “culture” itself goes back to “cult” - faith, higher meaning Genesis. Russian philosopher P.A. Florensky believed that culture arose entirely from cult. A cult is a bud of culture, from which it grows. The entire system of cultural values ​​is derived from cult, determined by religious action and sacred text. A. Men argued that belief in a higher meaning is the core that gives internal unity to any culture.

A secular attitude to culture is built outside and apart from cult, on the foundations of rationalistic thinking based on the productive findings of science.

The problem of the time of emergence of reflection on culture (philosophy of culture).

The relevance of philosophical understanding of culture arises when the center is the individual, whose life world is self-sufficient and does not require justification from the outside.

Philosophy of culture (cultural philosophy) is a philosophical discipline focused on the philosophical comprehension of culture as a universal and comprehensive phenomenon. The term "cultural philosophy" was used at the beginning of the 19th century. representative of German romanticism A. Muller. As an independent sphere of philosophical understanding of culture, the philosophy of culture was formed at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. However, individual thoughts and intuitions related to culture can be traced at all stages of the development of European consciousness.

The philosophy of culture developed rapidly in the 20th century. Many new interpretations of the phenomenon itself have emerged. The understanding of culture continued in line with the creativity of various representatives of the philosophy of life. Thus, Bergson distinguished between closed, closed cultures, in which instincts play a decisive role, and open cultures, characterized by a high level of spiritual communication and a cult of the sanctity of individual freedom.

A prominent representative of the philosophy of life, Spengler rejects traditional Eurocentrism, where history develops linearly, according to the scheme “antiquity - the Middle Ages - Modern times,” and which ends with the triumph of the European mind. His name is associated with the emergence of “non-classical concepts” of the historical process within the framework of Western European philosophy. History breaks down into the life of independent cultural organisms (Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Western European, Mayan cultures), where no single cultural organism has superiority over another. Spengler sees a natural dynamic unity in the historical transformations of various cultures. At the same time, each culture has unique and stable features that are protected at all stages, the possibility of morphological (search for the universal) and cultural (identification of the unique) study of history.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. philosophy of culture refers to the philosophical understanding of the various phases or stages of the evolution of human culture. An idea arises to designate a special science that would deal with culture. It becomes obvious that culture requires a specific approach to the study of its phenomena. Representatives of neo-Kantian philosophy Windelband and Ricker radically distinguished between the “sciences of culture” and the “sciences of nature.” Based on cultural and philosophical attitudes, researchers began to distinguish between culture as an organic integrity and civilization as a form of mechanical and utilitarian attitude towards the world.

The theory of civilization was developed by A. Toynbee; he develops the concept of self-closed units - civilizations into which the historical existence of mankind is divided. P.A. also tried to explain the periodicity of sociocultural changes. Sorokin. He carried out a grandiose systematization of modern civilizational concepts.

Within the framework of existentialism, a huge amount of historical and cultural material was used in his works by Jaspers, who put forward the concept of the genesis of great ancient cultures, the Axial Age, etc. In the works of French existentialists A. Camus, J.-P. Sartre, G. Marcel developed the problems of confrontation between culture and man, countercultural tendencies. The problem of the crisis of modern culture has become particularly acute.

In the works of German and French existentialists, who created their own concept of the relationship between man and modern culture, for example, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger sharply opposed the dictatorship of facelessness, forcing a person to obey certain circumstances external to him. It is in this subordination of a person to things, objects, and popular opinions that, according to Heidegger, lies the main trouble of Western culture, which breaks the personality and its originality.

A person who submits to culture is alienated from himself, depersonalized and hostile towards everyone and everything, his being becomes inauthentic, false, he mythologizes his life. In the struggle for authentic existence, representatives of this direction of existentialism believe, a person must discard things, symbols, culture that suppress his will and return to the original structure of human natural speech, turn to life associated with overcoming the fear of death, guilt and abandonment, thereby gaining freedom as the main basis of one’s true essence.

Developing the ideas of existentialism, the French philosopher and public figure Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) believed that any culture leads a person to destruction, since the main thesis of existentialism - “man is freedom” presupposes an eternal problem for a person - the problem of choosing his action, his life, his destiny. A person is always in a situation of choice, he is condemned to this and chooses his own existence. Human freedom is opposed to the entire society, its culture, the entire civilization. All human actions, Sartre claims, are not determined by environment, heredity or upbringing, but are determined by the person himself. By choosing his actions, a person creates himself, creates his own world and becomes the way he creates himself.

A special place among modern concepts of culture is occupied by the philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which also has a sharply negative attitude towards contemporary Western culture, believing that it, with its undoubted advantages of comfort, security, convenience of life, also gives rise to repressive tolerance of people, their “one-dimensionality”, their integration into bourgeois existence, and therefore creates a reluctance to fight against the existing, for the free development of individuality, the manifestation of one’s own identity, self-realization. The struggle for the freedom of human existence, according to the representative of this school G. Marcuse, should begin with general negation, and this tactic can only be carried out by those people who stand on the margins of modern society, not integrated into the system of repressive tolerance - primarily young people, declassed elements, ghetto people.

Values: an axiological approach to the study of culture.

That which has some meaning for a person and awakens his interest is value. The world of such values ​​and their production constitutes culture.

Values ​​are generally accepted beliefs about the goals to which a person should strive. They form the basis of moral principles. Different cultures may give preference to different values ​​(heroism on the battlefield, artistic creativity, asceticism), and each social system establishes what is a value and what is not.

With the axiological approach, culture is understood as a set of values ​​recognized by humanity, which it purposefully creates, preserves and develops. Here culture is understood as a factor in organizing the life of society. Society creates cultural values, and they subsequently influence the development of this society: language, beliefs, aesthetic tastes, knowledge, professional skills, etc.

Axiological (or value), defined as a complex of certain values ​​that form the cultural core. The role of values ​​in the structure and functioning of culture is beyond doubt, since they organize reality and introduce evaluative moments into its understanding: They correlate with the idea of ​​the ideal, and give meaning to human life.

The problem of ways of symbolically substantiating culture in non-classical philosophy.

Symbolism of culture.

Symbol as an object, sign, image.

The problem of understanding.

Traditional (religious) and philosophical hermeneutics.

Game problem. Aesthetic, sociological and psychological concepts of play.

In modern Western European cultural theory there is a significant amount of research studying the play principle in culture. Various versions of the game element noted:

Plato (“game space”);

I. Kant (theory of the “aesthetic state of play”);

I.F. Schiller (“the path to freedom leads only through beauty, and the essence of the latter lies in play”);

K. Marx (“transformation of labor into a game of human physical and intellectual forces”);

G. Gadamer (“history and culture as a kind of game in the elements of language”), etc.

But, perhaps, the most profound and consistent concept of the game was formulated and presented by the Dutch culturologist I. Huizinga in the book “Homo ludens” (“Man Playing”) - 1938. The author places not only art, but also science in the “game space” jurisprudence, life, military affairs of various cultural eras of the past. The playful behavior of people is most often realized in various kinds of holidays, carnivals, mysteries, festivals, shows, competitions, competitions, etc.

According to Huizinga, play is older than culture. Human civilization, which shaped the very concept of culture, “did not add any essential feature to the general concept of the game.” All the main features of play are present in animal games. Huizinga argues that culture is the product of "man at play." In this case, the scientist does not mean that culture comes from play as a result of the process of evolution. In the early stages of human history, gaming culture manifested itself in mythology and rituals. In archaic ritual forms, play performed the function of communication between a person and the world around him, expressing the desire to understand it, take root in it, and make it acceptable and safe for oneself.

J. Huizinga's thoughts on culture as a game influenced cultural studies of the 20th century. and contributed to the emergence of a number of studies of its gaming aspects. In this regard, the interpretation of gaming moments in the culture of the 20th century, undertaken by the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gaset, deserves attention. The philosopher developed an elite cultural concept. The elite is the “minority creating a new culture” of society, which opposes the ordinary social majority. The culture of the “aristocrats of the spirit” (elite) is concentrated in the sphere of gaming activity, in which there is no utilitarianism, pragmatism, ordinariness of human existence, and the essence consists of spontaneity, impulsiveness, impulse, vital activity, and elevation above nature. This is where the phenomenon of culture arises.

Game models of culture were the subject of understanding by F. de Saussure, E. Fink, L. Wittgenstein, S. Lem, G. Hesse; J. Derrida and several others. The main thing that attracted and attracts researchers to this problem is that the rules established in the game are conditional. The game has a lot of random options, allowing for a lot of choice. The playful nature of culture allows a person to regulate the strategy of his behavior in constantly changing life situations.

The problem of elite and mass culture.

Mass culture (from the Latin massa - lump, piece and cultura - cultivation, education) - in its most concentrated form, is a set of cultural phenomena of the 20th century, characteristic of the economy, management, leisure, communication, and especially for the sphere of artistic culture.

These phenomena include:

Features of the production of cultural values ​​in industrial and post-industrial society;

Designed for mass consumption of this crop. The emphasis is also on the “average” level of development of the mass consumers of these products themselves.

The term “mass culture” was first designated by the German philosopher M. Horkheimer in 1941 and the American scientist D. MacDonald in 1944. In terms of content, it is quite contradictory, because it implies not only “culture for everyone,” but can also mean “not quite culture."

The definition of “mass culture” emphasizes:

Prevalence and general accessibility of spiritual values;

They are easy to assimilate and do not require particularly developed, refined taste and perception.

The basis of the modern decoding of this category, as a rule, implies the activities of the media and new, so-called “technical forms of art,” primarily screen ones (cinema, television, video).

At the same time, it is incorrect to consider mass culture as anticulture. At present, both at the level of theories and in the practical situation, there is a tendency to abandon the view of this form of social movement of culture as an area of ​​“bad”, or at best, “different” taste.

Today, many people realize that the intensity of the spread of mass culture in society largely depends on:

The ability of people to adapt to the conditions of a market economy;

React adequately to sudden situational social changes.

Psychological stability of the population in a difficult social situation;

Increasing his involvement in political events;

The achievements of science and technology are made accessible to many.

In the modern understanding, mass culture is an objective indicator of the state of society, its misconceptions, typical forms of behavior, cultural stereotypes and real system values.

Works of mass artistic culture call on the individual to integrate into the social system, seeking his place in it, and not to rebel against it. Mass artistic culture successfully embodies the most desirable human myth - the myth of a happy world. At the same time, she does not invite her viewer, listener, reader to build such a world; her task is different - to offer the recipient (that is, the same viewer, listener, reader) refuge from reality.

There are a number of points of view regarding the origins of mass culture in cultural studies:

The prerequisites for mass culture have been formed since the birth of humanity, or at the dawn of Christian civilization (for example, a simplified version of the Holy Book “The Bible for the Beggars”);

The origins of mass culture are associated with the appearance in European literature of the 17th - 18th centuries. adventure, detective, adventurous novel, which significantly expanded the readership due to huge circulations. For example, the work of two writers: the Englishman Daniel Defoe, the author of the widely known novel Robinson Crusoe, and our compatriot Matvey Komarov, the creator of the sensational bestseller of the 18th - 19th centuries. "The Tale of the Adventures of the English Mylord George";

The law on compulsory universal literacy, adopted in 1870 in Great Britain and then supported in a number of leading European countries, had a great influence on the development of mass culture, which allowed many to master the main type of artistic creativity of the 19th century. - novel.

The consciousness formed by mass culture is characterized by conservatism, inertia, and limitations. It cannot cover all processes in all the complexity of their interaction and development. In the practice of mass culture, mass consciousness has specific means of expression. Mass culture is more focused not on realistic images, but on artificially created images and stereotypes. In mass culture, the formula (and this is the essence of an artificially created image - an image or a stereotype) is the main thing.

In popular artistic culture, genres such as detective, western, melodrama, musical, comic book, and thriller are used. It is within these genres that simplified “versions of life” are created that reduce social evil to psychological and moral factors. The task of modern mass art is to work on extremely primitive material in an extremely professional manner. The center of the plot of a mass-produced work of art, its driving force is mystery.

Despite its apparent vacuity, mass culture has a very clear ideological program, which is based on the philosophical foundations of positivism, Freudianism, and pragmatism.

Many cultural scientists consider elite culture as the antipode of mass culture. The producer and consumer of elite culture, from the point of view of representatives of this trend in cultural studies, is the highest privileged layer of society - the elite (from the French elite - the best, the chosen, the chosen).

There is an elite in every social class and social group. It represents the most capable of spiritual activity part of society, gifted with high moral and aesthetic inclinations. It is the elite that ensures social progress, so artistic culture should be focused on meeting its demands and needs. The main elements of the elitist concept of culture are contained in the philosophical writings of Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.

In his fundamental work “The World as Will and Representation,” A. Schopenhauer sociologically divides humanity into two parts:

“people of genius” (i.e. capable of aesthetic contemplation and artistic and creative activity);

“people of benefit” (i.e., focused only on purely practical, utilitarian activities).

In the cultural concept of F. Nietzsche, the elitist concept manifests itself in the idea of ​​the “superman”. This "superman", enjoying a privileged position in society, is endowed with a unique aesthetic sensibility.

In the 20th century the ideas of A. Schopehauer and F. Nietzsche were summarized in the elitist cultural concept of Jose Ortega y Gaseta. He considered the problems of distinguishing between old and new art. The main difference between new art and old art is that it is addressed to the elite of society, and not to its masses. Therefore, art does not necessarily have to be popular, i.e. it should not be generally understandable, universal. On the contrary, new art should alienate people from real life. The elite, according to Ortega, is that part of society that has a special “organ of perception.” It is this part of society that contributes to social progress. And it is precisely this that an artist should address with his works.

Culturological theories that contrast mass and elite cultures with each other are a reaction to the processes that have developed in art. A typical manifestation of elite culture is the theory and practice of “pure art” or “art for art’s sake,” which is embodied in a number of trends in Russian and Western European culture. For example, in Russia at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. The ideas of elite culture were actively developed and implemented by the artistic association “World of Art”.

Basic concepts.

The problem of the fate of culture.

Culture as a set of meaning-forming paradigms (logical schemes).