Cultural dialogue. Three examples of the dialogue of cultures in modern society

(Issues of philosophy 2014 № 12 with.24-35)

Annotation:

In the article, the authors introduce a new concept of the dialogue of cultures and attempt to reveal its content. From their position, it is impossible to talk about the dialogue of cultures without a culture of the dialogue, since any phenomenon in society involves its culture. The same dialogue of cultures are two ideas: the idea of \u200b\u200bculture as a field of interaction and the idea of \u200b\u200bthe diversity of cultures.

In Article The Authors Enters New Concept of Dialogue of Cultures and Makes An Attempt to Open Its Contents. With its position, IT IM IMPOSSILE TO SPEAK ABOUT DIALOGUE OF CULTURES WITHOUT CULTURE OF DIALOGUE Any Phenomenon in Society Assumes The Culture. AT The Heart Of Dialogue of Cultures There Are Two Ideas: Idea of \u200b\u200bCulture As Field of Interaction and Idea of \u200b\u200bVariety of Cultures.

Keywords: culture, dialogue of crops, culture of dialogue, communication, variety of crops, spirituality, ethnos.

Key Words: Culture, Dialogue of Cultures, Culture of Dialogue, Communication, Variety of Cultures, Spirituality, Ethnos.

The dialogue of cultures in human history is inevitable, since culture cannot develop apart, it should be enriched at the expense of other cultures. Since, "Communicating, people create each other" (D.C. Likhachev), the dialogue of cultures is developing various cultures. The culture itself is dialogic and involves the dialogue of cultures. Culture lives in a dialogue, including a culture dialog that is not just enriching their interaction. But the dialogue is needed by every culture and to realize its uniqueness.

The main provisions of the concept of the dialogue of cultures were developed by M.M. Bakhtin and in-depth in the works of V.S. Bibler. Bakhtin determines the culture as a form of communication of people of different cultures; He claims that "culture is there, where there are two (at least) culture, and that the self-consciousness of the culture is the form of its existence on the verge of a different culture" [Bible 1991, 85].

Bakhtin says culture as a whole exists only in a dialogue with another culture, or rather on the border of cultures. "There is no internal territory in the cultural domain, it is all located on the borders, the boundaries take place everywhere, after every moment of it." The presence of many cultures is by no means an obstacle to their mutual understanding; On the contrary, only under the condition that the researcher is outside the culture he studies, he is able to understand it [Fatahova 2009, 52].

Culture is a "form of communication of individuals" [Bible 1990, 289]. The basis of the communication of individuals in the culture and the cultures themselves is the text. Bakhtin in "Aesthetics of verbal creativity" wrote that the text can be represented in different forms: like a human speech; As speech, captured on paper or any other carrier (plane); Like any sign system (iconographic, directly real, activity, etc.). In turn, each text is always dialogue, as it is always directed to another, relies on the preceding and subsequent texts created by authors who have their own world-painting, their picture or the image of the world, and in this hypostasis the text bears the meaning of past and subsequent cultures, he always On the verge. This is exactly what indicates the contextual nature of the text that makes it a work. According to the expression V.S. Bible, text, understood as a work, "lives contexts ..., all its content is only in it, and all its content is out of it, only on its borders, in its non-existence as text" [Bible 1991, 76]. The work is different from the product of consumption, from the thing, from the instrument of labor by the fact that the Being of a person dismissed from him is embodied. In the work embodied the integral being of the author, which may be meaning only in the presence of a destination.

The dialogue implies communication, but they are not identical: not always communication is a dialogue. As part of the dialogue concept of culture, not every household, moral and even scientific dialogue relates to the dialogue of cultures. In the "dialogue of cultures", we are talking about the dialogue of the most truth (beauty, goodness), that the understanding of another person involves mutual understanding of "I - you" as ontologically different personalities, which are relevant or potentially different cultures, the logic of thinking, various meanings Truths, beauty, goodness ... Dialogue, understood in the idea of \u200b\u200bculture, is not a dialogue of various opinions or ideas, it is always a "dialogue of various cultures" [Bible 1990, 299]. Thus, the dialogue of cultures is their interaction. It represents a "variety of intercultural interaction, which involves the active exchange of culture-counterparties while maintaining their identity" [Lebedev 2004, 132]. The culture dialogue is thus the condition for the development of culture.

but dialogue of cultures assumes the culture of the dialogue itself . The dialogue of cultures cannot be carried out without a culture of the dialogue.

What we would say, we must keep in mind culture. For, everything in the human world is actually culture. Nothing in the human world can exist without culture, including the culture dialog itself. Culture acts as an personification of the content of public life [Melikov 2010]. The whole world of man is fully accommodated in the world of culture. The world of man is essentially the world of culture. All cultural items are a certain person, with its strength and energy. Culture items reflect what is and acting a person. What a person is also culture. And, on the contrary, what a culture, such and a person.

Society is always a form of joint life of people. It does not consist of the simple amount of individuals, this is some of the form of joint existence on their individual being. Society is superfialy and therefore in relation to individuals abstract and formally. And it would remain and remains always an abstract form, a formal abstract of the being of people, if the latter do not join and do not turn on through culture.

Public being is an external world of man. No matter how significant and saturated society, it remains an external factor, the external human life condition. It is not capable of penetrating into the inner world of man. The power of society is precisely in ensuring the external circumstances of life. The inner life of a person in the power of culture.

Culture has first internal, intimate character, and then external. It is the unity of the inner and outer side of life with the domination of the inner. If it comes down to the outside, it turns into a "shut-off" and always looks and dramatic and comical at the same time. All cultural needs come from the inner world, primarily from the heart, and not from one mind. The outer side of cultural life is always only an expression of the corresponding depth of internal, mental life, which is hidden and unavailable to a ignorant look. The man of culture lives not only an external life, but also by the life of the inner. "... Public being there is a two-party ... inner spiritual life with its external incarnation", according to S. Frank, "Cattle" and "Foreign Public" [Frank 1992, 54]. It is a culture that suits the formal sociality with a specific real internal content, through it a person is socialized, becomes a member of society. Without it, he is an alienated element of society. He is alienated from society, and society becomes alien to him. Culture determines the meaning and content of public life. Without it, a person does not understand his life in society, does not see the values \u200b\u200bof society and the values \u200b\u200bof social life, does not understand why and why he lives in society that it gives him. A man without culture becomes the path of denial of public life, but with the culture - its defender, keeper and creator. For for a person who has introduced to culture, the value of public life is the value of the culture itself. He himself is already in the world of culture, and therefore society in his understanding is a condition for the preservation and enrichment of this world of culture.

In the Marxist philosophical sociological literature, above all the places social factor and therefore differing sociocentrism, it is customary to talk about the social conditionality of culture. According to Marxism, what are the social conditions, what is the society, such as culture. This can be adopted if only proceed from the fact that the culture is a product of society, as they consider Marxists. But if you proceed from the fact that culture is the content of public existence, it is necessary to recognize that not culture is determined by society, but, on the contrary, society is determined by the culture. It is an external formal factor, external conditions and circumstances of culture, and culture itself is an internal content of public life. First of all, as it is known, it is always the content that determines the form, and not the opposite. Of course, the form affects the content, but it is secondary. What is culture, such and society. The development of culture serves as the basis of social progress, and not vice versa. It is the progress of culture that the progress of social life always pulls. Everything happens in the framework of culture, and the social form is configured to cultural content. The orchestra is determined primarily by the talent of the musicians entering it, and only then depends on how they are cleared during the concert.

Culture, not economics or politics, according to our contemporaries, not only Marxists, is the foundation of public positive development, because the economy and politics are only the surface of the culture. At the heart of economic progress, there is again economic culture, the progress in politics is the political culture, and at the heart of public progress in general - the culture of society as a whole, the culture of social life. At the heart of the progress of society is not an abstract social system, but a person himself, live tissue of human relations. The state of public life depends on the person himself. Social life is primarily a person's life. Therefore, progress and development of society are associated with the human basis of society. This human basis of society and reflects culture. Cultural is the same social, but reflected through the individual.

In the culture embodies all the wealth of human relationships in public exisions, all the content of the human being, all heights and all the depths of the human world. Culture is a revealed book of all a variety of human essential forces. Culture is the expression of the human content of public life, and not distracted by its form. As V.M. Intereev, culture - this is "the whole world in which we discover find themselves, which contains the conditions and the necessary prerequisites of our truly human, i.e. Always and in all public, existence "[between 1987, 329]. Culture is a measure of human in man, indicator of human development as a person embodying the image and similarity of the highest spiritual world. Culture shows how much the person revealed in himself, spiritualized his world and cleared the spirit. The essence of culture is the development of a person as a spiritual being and the development of the Spirit in human existence. It combines spirituality and humanity as two inseparable sides of the human being.

It is through the culture that all goals of social life are carried out. Culture is the content of society, therefore the meaning of public life, primarily the spiritual, and then all others, cannot be realized outside the culture. In itself, society and, accordingly, social life has no purpose or meaning. They contain culture in themselves. All good meanings, all positive functions social life performs, only filling with cultural content. Take the culture from society, and it will lose the purpose and meaning. Therefore, social life outside the culture turns, ultimately, into a negative phenomenon and absurdity. Any negative phenomenon occurs only when culture falls out of the public form. And where culture is missing in public life, the social life itself turns into a nonsense. Having lost its goal, losing a landmark, such a social life as a goal sets itself, respectively, and serves itself. The power also serves only to support himself, the economy - for the sake of economics, politics - for the sake of the political process, art - for the sake of art, etc. etc. But the goals of the society itself and the individual parties are out of society, above society. Therefore, such a society and loses the good meaning of its existence and becomes absurd.

Since all the good sense of society is carried out through culture, it can be said that the meaning of the existence of society and all social life in the culture itself. The meaning and purpose of all social life is to maintain and develop culture. Performing this task, social life will be able to achieve all its goals and may not care anything at all. Culture will develop - will certainly be progress in public development. Moreover, another way to achieve public progress is simply not. Because N.A. Berdyaev writes: "In the life of a public, spiritual primacy belongs to culture. Not in politics and not in the economy, and the goals of society are carried out in the culture. And the high quality level of culture is measured by the value and quality of the public "[Berdyaev 1990, 247]. Indeed, thanks to only culture and economic activity and management of society can perform their functions. Culture is the basis of society, power and economy, and not the opposite. In the culture of society as a whole, the power and economy in particular, they find and can find themselves, but not the opposite.

The main function of culture is the upbringing of a person, a change, transformation of its nature. Living in society, a person cannot constantly not change, but, speaking, otherwise, not to be brought up and not self-bridge. Otherwise, he will rejust the social life. And the culture is, with the help of which public education is carried out. Public education is the acquisition and mastering of the norm of culture. Education both in a wide and the narrow sense of the word is always carried out on the basis of culture. Actually, education has an attachment to culture, entry into it. Education always acts as human malturing. Culture, forming the human content of public life, acts as an educational and raising phenomenon through which socio-pedagogical activities are being implemented. Mastering culture, a person changes its worldview and, accordingly, behavior in society. It is due to the attachment to culture that a person tries to behave adequately "in humans", does not give will excessive emotions. It is the culture that pushes a person in society if not to be, then at least seem better. Culture, educating a person in society, opens the way for him to overcome the alienation from spiritual being. In a natural state, a person is alienated from the spiritual world. Genesis of man does not come into contact with the being of the spiritual world. Culture reconciles and unites them. In the culture, the Being of a person meets with the spiritual beginning and it finds his abode. Through the culture, a person overcomes his biological nature and becomes a spiritual being. In the world of culture, a person is no longer just as a natural and earthly creature, but a creature that elevated over his earthly existence. As J. Hasing, a sign of culture - this is domination of his kind.

The culture is spiritually evident a man's earthly life and makes it part of the universal life of the spiritual world, manifestation of a universal spiritual life. Culture, spiritualizing man, does not deprive his earthly life, and this earthly life deprives the limited basis and subordinates the spiritual beginning. Thus, the culture acts as a transformed, spiritualized earthly life of a person. If the nature of a person resembles a non-land-in-law on which somewhere does not grow anything, and somewhere growing wild forest with different, useful and useless plants, where cultivated plants are mixed with weeds, then culture is similar to the cultivated and treated land on which it is well Well maintained garden and where only cultural plants grow.

Therefore, as emphasized by D.S. Likhachev, "Preservation of the cultural environment - the task is no less significant than the preservation of the surrounding nature. If the nature is necessary for a person for his biological life, the cultural environment is just as necessary for his spiritual, moral life, for his "spiritual somewar", for his attachment to his native places, for its moral self-discipline and sociality "[Likhachev 2006, 330]. Of course, in history, dialogue and interaction of cultures can be carried out without a culture of dialogue. Like any dialogue, the culture dialogue can occur at the cultural level and without that and even inexpexly. Let's say when one people adopt cultural achievements or religion of their political enemy.

However, it should be borne in mind that the dialogue is the path to understanding. The dialogue of crops, respectively, is the path to understanding the dialogue of cultures. The dialogue of cultures involves an understanding of the culture and understanding of the dialogue itself. Both culture and the dialogue of cultures live in understanding.

As evidenced by the study of issues of cultural interaction, the content and results of diverse intercultural contacts largely depend on the ability of their participants to understand each other and to achieve agreement, which is mainly determined by the ethnic culture of each of the interacting parties, the psychology of peoples that dominate in one or another culture of values.

What should this understanding should be? The culture of the dialogue of cultures seems to be two ideas: the idea of \u200b\u200bculture as the field of interaction and the idea of \u200b\u200bthe unity of the variety of cultures.

Each culture is unconditional, unique and distinctive. This is the value of each crop. However, the historical process indicates that each culture occurs not in an empty place, not apart, but in cooperation with other cultures. Whatever deep culture, it is not self-sufficient. The necessary law of its existence is the constant appeal to the experience of other cultures. No culture could be established if it was completely isolated and is isolated. In a closed system, the synergetics asserts, entropy is increasing - measure of the mess. But to exist and be stable, the system must be open. Therefore, if the culture becomes closed, it enhances destructive elements in it. And the interaction with other cultures is developing and strengthens creative and creative principles in it. Based on this, we can say that culture - field of interaction . Moreover, it remains so at all stages of its existence - both at the stage of formation and operation and development.

For culture, interaction is necessary. Any new in culture occurs at the junction, in the border situation. Similarly, in science, new discoveries are made at the junction of science and the development of one culture is carried out in cooperation with other cultures.

Culture is largely determined by communication. Culture is a developing system, the source of which is the interaction. Interaction is a development, expansion. And the interaction involves the exchange, enrichment, transformation.

The interaction leads to overcoming the monotony, to the implementation of manifold, which is a sign of sustainability. Disconnection is not vital and easily leads to destructive phenomena and entropy processes. Monotonous systems have fewer links between the elements, so their structure is easily destroyed. Only complex multiple systems are homeostatical, i.e. Sustainable and can resist external influences. And only their existence is directed to some kind of higher goal and becomes appropriate.

The manifold occurs on the basis of the corresponding energy, it is a sign of strength and power. Monotony - a sign of weakness. The manifold involves a more complex organization, more complex order. And the order exists on the basis of energy. Therefore, the variety in culture is accompanied by energy accumulation.

Developed culture has many images. And the more difficult and diverse the culture, the more meaning it embodies in itself. A variety makes a culture of consumer meaning. Culture exists on the basis of, of course, not physical and not even social, but spiritual energy, which is generated exclusively in the space of meaning. In turn, there is a sense that feeds the culture, gives and enriches its energy. The manifold generated by the interaction of crops becomes the personification of various and various faces of spiritual meanings in culture.

Another foundation of the culture of the dialogue is, as it seems, the idea of \u200b\u200bunity of the variety of cultures. Cultures are diverse, and there will be no full-fledged dialogue and interaction between them if they are considered outside their unity. The culture of the dialogue is built on the understanding and recognition of the unity of the variety of cultures. As V.A. notes Lecturer, "... There are many different cultures in the world and that instead of these cultures are somehow connected between them, i.e. Come on some unity. Each is clear that the unity of cultures is desirable, since today humanity has faced such problems that concern all people inhabiting land. At the same time, their diversity is also important, as it is the basis of all development. Full cultural homogenization would be a threat to the future "[Lecturer 2012, 195]. But with all the variety, different cultures are united in its essence. And the unity of cultures is just carried out through their diversity.

The unity of culture is in her spiritual essence. This is emphasized by many philosophers who have in the spotlight. In particular, Russian philosophers S. Bulgakov and N. Berdyaev speak about it.

They derive culture and, accordingly, its meaning from the meaning of the word "cult", thereby emphasizing the religious, spiritual roots of culture. N. Berdyaev, one of the hottest fans of this position, argues it as follows: "Culture was born from a cult. The origins of it are sacral. It was conceived around the temple and the organic period was associated with the life of religious. So it was in great ancient cultures, in the culture of Greek, in the culture of medieval, in the culture of early rebirth. Culture - noble origin. She was transferred to the hierarchical nature of the cult. Culture has religious bases. It must be considered established from the most positive scientific point of view. Culture is symbolic in nature. Symbolism it received from the cult symbolism. In culture is not realistic, and spiritual life is symbolically expressed. All achievements of culture by nature are symbolic. It gives not the latest achievements of being, but only symbolic signs. Such is the nature of the cult, which is a prototype of the divine secrets "[Berdyaev 1990, 248]. It is essential that the discretion of the sources of culture in a religious cult is largely symbolic. Culture is not real, but symbolically grows out of religious cult.

It must be said that not only the initial stages of the formation of human culture are connected with religious life. And today, the heights of the culture are associated, one way or another, with spiritual and religious activities.

In the same spirit, I. Kant argues, which was one of the first philosophers who attempted to understand the phenomenon of culture. The basis of the Cantian philosophy is the placement of nature and freedom. Kant comes from the fact that the nature of the blind and indifferent to the goals of human existence, since it moves the need deprived of any sense. A person as a reasonable creature belongs, according to Kant, to the history of not nature, and freedom, which is something fundamentally different in relation to the first. The intelligence of a person consists in his ability to act regardless of nature, even contrary to it, i.e. in freedom. The main thing is that characterizes a person - this is the ability to act by virtue of the goals, which he himself puts in front of him, i.e. The ability to be a free creature. Such ability indicates the presence of a man of mind, but by itself it does not mean that a person correctly applies his mind, in all respects it comes reasonable. However, in any case, this ability makes the fact of culture. This suggests that a person not only adapts to the external circumstances of his life is similar to all other living organisms, but adapts them to themselves, to their diverse needs and interests, i.e. acts as a free creature. As a result of such actions, he creates a culture. Hence the famous Kantian definition of culture: "The acquisition of a reasonable creature is possible to put any goals in general (it means, in its freedom) is a culture" [CANT 1963-1966 V, 464].

But at the same time, freedom, according to Kant, inseparable with morality. The man in its very nature is elaborate, but he still has to become such. The purpose of humanity is not so much in physical as in moral development. With the development of culture, humanity loses as a physical order, but it wins as a moral. The culture, understood as the development of the person of its natural deposits, contributes to the ultimately its moral development, to achieve a moral goal. According to Kant, culture is a necessary condition for the moral improvement of a person - the only possible path, going through which humanity is only able to achieve its final destination.

The history of culture begins with the exit of humanity from the natural state and is completed by its transition to the moral state. In these borders, all the work of the culture is deployed: by raising a person over nature, developing his deposit and ability, it should lead it to consent to come, curb his selfish interest, to subjugate moral debt. The purpose of culture is to turn a person from a physical being into moral. Culture contains the need for moral perfection, "Moral culture in us", which is to "execute their duty, and moreover from a sense of debt (so that the law is not only a rule, but also the motive of the act)" [CANT 1963-1966 IV (2), 327].

According to Kant, morality is not a product of culture, but its purpose given by reason. Culture can be guided by other purposes, for example, external liction and decency. Then it appears as a civilization. The latter is not on freedom, but on a formal discipline regulating the behavior of people in society. She does not relieve a person from the power of egoism and selfishness, but only gives him an external respectability in the sense of courtiness and good manners.

Based on the specified features of the culture, such a picture is evaporated. Culture is a whole spiritual phenomenon. Therefore, in human activity, it can only be attributed to culture, which has spiritual and moral content. Culture is not any activity, not any product of activity, but only those activities and those products that are blessing, good, morality. It is the involvement of spirituality that makes the culture of freedom of freedom, that area where a person acquires freedom and ceases to depend on the world of necessity.

However, there is another, more common interpretation of culture, according to which the phenomenon of culture is associated with the Latin word "Cultura", which literally denotes "cultivation", "processing". In this context, the culture is considered as an inevitable and natural product of human activity. Human activity is similar to the work of the agriculture, which processes and cultivates the land. As the farmer cultivates land, a person converts nature. All that does not make a person is based on nature. There is no other material and another medium. Therefore, his activities appear as a process of transforming nature, the result of which is culture. Human activity and culture are inseparable. The activity itself is the phenomenon of culture, and the culture is included in the structure of activity. Any activity of cultivne, i.e. Belongs to the world of culture, and the culture itself has an active character. And once the human activity is the process of converting nature, then culture as a result of this transformation acts as nature involved in the human world. The person thus has, and not only around, but also inside himself, two nature: natural, actually nature, nature and as it were, artificial, human, i.e. Culture. And culture is something that in a certain way opposes nature, although it will certainly be built on it. This confrontation can lead to contrasting and antagonism, but may not lead. In this case, it is not fundamentally. But it is definitely what this idea of \u200b\u200bculture led to the fact that many thinkers, both in the past and in the present, absoluting the opposite of culture and nature, are distinguished by their negative attitude to culture. According to their ideas, culture deprives a person of its naturalness and becomes a detrimental for him. Therefore, they preach the rejection of culture and returning to the Lono of Nature, to a natural lifestyle, return to simplicity and naturalness. So, in particular, representatives of Taoism, J.Zh.zh. Rousseau, L.N. Tolstoy. Z. Freud, who saw the cause of the origin of mental disorders and neuroses in culture.

The essence of this interpretation of culture is reduced to the fact that the culture includes all the products created and all the activities of the human activity. Whatever a person has created, everything is entirely the area of \u200b\u200bculture. Does a person creates products of the spiritual category that serve the moral growth of people, or products that decompose human morality - all this is equally related to culture. Invents life rescue or sophisticated murder weapon - also culture. Regardless of what is the result of human activity, good or evil is the area of \u200b\u200bculture. This essence of this presentation of culture at the same time indicates its limitation in understanding the phenomenon of culture. And its limitations consists in the fact that it is based regardless of the spiritual and moral side of being and does not affect it. Meanwhile, as soon as it is based on the genuine the essence of all the phenomena of human life, including culture.

These two interpretations reflect the fullness of the existence of culture. They actually consider the essence and existence of culture, its own essence and how it is implemented and, otherwise, expressing the origins and results of culture.

At the first interpretation, it is certain, of course, the essence of culture, its source, the beginning that creates the culture. The focus is the origin of culture. And this beginning is the spiritual principle, morality. Therefore, this position connects culture with spirituality, with religion, with its transcendental grounds. And for her, the immutable truth is that any culture keeps the memory of the spiritual origin. What is meant during the second interpretation? Of course, it is implied not the essence, but only the existence of a culture, not its depth, and the surface, how it appears what is embodied. Here the center of attention is why there is no spiritual world, but the person himself. It is from a person that depends on what will be the result of cultural activities. It can be both moral and immoral, both spiritualized and underly. In this context, there is no longer a transcendental basis of culture, but a pretentious, its earthly side. If the origin of culture is certainly spiritual, its growing, its fruits can be both spiritual and confused, because the culture is considered regardless of spiritual and moral problems.

So, both approaches reveal various sides of the culture and mutually engraving each other in understanding the holistic phenomenon of culture. Although representatives of these approaches most often do not recognize this and are in confrontation, the cause of which is the initial non-randomness of religiosity and idealism on the one hand and atheism and materialism - on the other. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction regarded between them, despite the fact that religiosity will never be able to reconcile with atheism: but in this context the intransigence of these initial positions remains in the second plan.

There is no contradiction and the fact that culture is always spiritual origin, and its results may be poorless and immoral. Contradiction, antagonism here is present in the ontological plan, relative to the very existence of culture. This is a contradiction between the spiritual essence of culture and its possible illuminum. However, in the gnoseological terms, in the sphere of understanding of culture, there is no contradiction here, because this approach states only the existing state of affairs. But this state of affairs also in turn requires clarification and understanding. The fact is that the culture growing from the bowels of the spiritual world and determining involvement in Him gives a person according to both freedom. Through the culture and in culture, a person approaches the transcendent world, to the spiritual origin. In culture, a person realizes his likeness to God. In culture, a person overcomes itself, its limited naturalness and is attached to the absoluteness of the spiritual world. Culture is always evolving through creativity, and human creativity is, speaking by the language of religious philosophy, imitating the activities of God. Together with the development of culture, the acquisition of spiritual energy, a person gets both freedom, because freedom is the very being of the spiritual world, without which he cannot exist. A person approaches the spiritual primacy of the Universe, and in turn, in turn, approaching a person to himself, can not do not endow his freedom, for the endowment of freedom and there is the essence of this approximation. But freedom is ambiguous relative to the spiritual world and about a person. Freedom in spiritual and moral terms and freedom of human representation is not the same. Freedom, which is the natural property of the spiritual world, for a person acquires already as two characteristics: it is natural, of course, it reflects its essence, but on the other hand it is unnatural, because it coexists with the vicious nature of man. Because the freedom, which a person acquires in culture, is fraught with its abuse, in evil, i.e. subordinate to her under-school purposes. And as a result, the culture acts as a person's face at all, as the face of mankind: the essence of the spirituality, and in existence the spirituality is intertwined with confusion; The foundation is spiritual, and the building is indifferent to spirituality. In a word, culture is as follows. Culture is a man's mirror. She shows all his being, all his being, all his existence.

With a similar approach to the phenomenon of culture, the issue of negative phenomena and human activity has been allocated. Related to culture negatively estimated from the position of morality phenomena has a deep philosophical meaning. For in everything that is the result of human activity, one way or another, there is spirituality. The basis of any activity is spiritual energy, for another energy having a creative nature is simply not. Only spiritual forces allow man to act and create something. Being on the basis of human activity, they cannot not be embodied in its results. Negative cultural products are becoming as a result of the abuse of spiritual energy and subordination to its immoral goals, but the potential embodied in the works of culture, is definitely spiritual. Therefore, even in negative phenomena culture, spirituality is still present. But not the negative phenomena themselves and works relate to culture, but only the spirituality that is embodied in them. Spiritual energy and the potential of spirituality is present in all created by the person. And it is this spirituality that is a phenomenon of culture, and thanks to it, all products of human activity relate to culture. Seeing in the works of human culture a negative direction, we turn away and ignore that spiritual power that makes them the basis. Of course, their negative destination suppresses their spiritual side, but, nevertheless, it only suppresses and diminishes, but does not destroy it. Because from the point of view of the culture itself, we usually overestimate the negative side of the human activity. But the spiritual side is hidden behind it, which becomes especially visible and available after time. Weapons are primarily a means of murder. And in this regard, it has a negative, inherent nature. But no one will object to the museums are a spiritual phenomenon. However, it is a weapon that is almost always the main exhibit of museums. The museum seems primarily not the deadly side of the weapon, but the spirit, then the skill, those talents that are embodied in it, i.e. The spiritual side. When weapons are used for direct purpose, its negative meaning is perceived. When the weapon is in the museum, then its spiritual origin is revealed and exposed. In the museum we are on weapons are different than in life. In life, because it is woven in our being, we are too biased. The museum comes with a challenge of negativity, and we perceive it as a work of culture. And there must be enough time so that we will fail to consider the fruits of human activity, consider them as works of culture.

Thus, when the culture includes negative sides and products of human activity, they are not included in its composition. The culture includes only spirituality, which is embodied in them. From their actually negative side in culture are abstracts, they do not determine their exement in culture. As a result, it turns out that the first approach is not only contrary to and does not just complement, but deepens and enriches the second, for it also seems to be in culture ultimately only one phenomenon is spirituality. Both approaches suggest the same spiritual essence of culture, which in turn is the personification of the content of public life.

Thus, even in its negative manifestations, culture retains unity. So, there is no contradiction between cultures, as often represent in our time. The opposition of cultures is not coming from the cultures themselves, but from a policy that is built on confrontation. In fact, the division line passes between culture and blessing.

The dialogue suggests on the one hand the separated existence of cultures, but at the same time also interpenetration and full interaction. When preserving identity and independence, the dialogue involves the recognition of the diversity of cultures and the possibility of another embodiment of the culture. The dialogue is based on the ideas of pluralism and tolerance.

Of course, the dialogue may be different. The ideal of the dialogue is not only communication, but also friendship. In friendship, the dialogue reaches the goal. Therefore, when a dialogue, beginning usually with formal communication, rises to the level of friendly communication, we can talk about the full interaction of cultures.

Culture as such is a measure of freedom of society. Therefore, the dialogue of cultures is the way to expand freedom in culture. Freedom is the movement of deep into the spiritual basics, this is a manifestation of freedom of spirit. But the depth creates opportunities for latitude. Depth provides latitude, but latitude - depth background. Thus, the dialogue is an indicator of the latitude and openness of the culture, and at the same time freedom of society.

In the dialogue of cultures, there is not so much dialogue as the culture of the dialogue. For dialogue - interaction - always occurs. Cultures somehow interact and penetrate each other. This is a natural historical process that can leak and without the will of a person. However, the highest manifestation of culture is a relationship to another culture. And it is it that develops and spiritually evolves the culture itself, elevates and engraves a person as a carrier of culture. The attitude to someone else's culture is an indicator of the development of the culture itself. This needs not so much alien culture as its own. The culture of attitudes towards someone else's culture is part of the culture itself.

LITERATURE

Berdyaev 1990 - Berdyaev N. Philosophy of inequality. M.: Ima-Press, 1990.
Bible 1990 - Bibller V.S. From the nutrition - to the logic of culture: two philosophical introductions in the twenty-first century. M.: Politicize, 1990.
Bible 1991 - Bibller V.S. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or poetics and culture. M.: Progress, 1991.
Kant 1963-1966 - Kant I. Op. At 6 t. M.: Thought, 1963-1966.
Lebedev 2004 - Lebedev S.A. Science philosophy: Dictionary of main terms. M.: Academic Project, 2004.
Lecturer 2012 - Lecturer V.A. Philosophy, knowledge, culture. M.: Canon +, Row "Reasonation", 2012.
Likhachev 2006 - Likhachev D.S. Ecology of culture // Selected works in Russian and world culture. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of SPbGUP, 2006.
Mezhuev 1987 - Interleev V.M. Culture as a problem of philosophy // Culture, man and picture of the world. M.: Science, 1987.
Melikov 2010 - Melikov I.M. Culture as an impersonation of public life // Scientific Notes of RGSU. M., 2010. No. 3. P. 17-25.
FATOVOVA 2009 - FATOVOVA R.M. Culture as a dialogue and dialogue in culture // Vestnik VEU. 2009. No. 1 (39). P. 35-61.
Frank 1992 - Frank S.L. Spiritual basis of society. M.: Republic, 1992.

Dialogue of crops

Dialogue of crops

The dialogue of cultures - who received wide walking in philosophical journalism and essistics 20 V. Most often is understood as, influence, penetration or repulsion of different historical or modern cultures, as the forms of their confessional or political coexistence. In the philosophical works of V. S. Bibler, the concept of the dialogue of cultures is extended as a possible basis for philosophy on the eve of 21 V.

The philosophy of the new time from Descartes to Gusserly is clearly or implicitly determined as its basis as. The cultural existing in it is definitely expressed by Hegel - this is the idea of \u200b\u200bdevelopment, (itself) of the formation of a thinking spirit. This, removed in the forms of the existence of science, which is characteristic of a completely defined culture-culture of the new time. However, in reality, the culture is built and "developing" is quite a friend, so that the science itself can be seen on the contrary, as the moment of holistic culture.

There is no way that does not fit into the development scheme, it is. It cannot be said that Sofokl "filmed" Shakespeare, and Picasso "Specific" (richer, meaningful) Rembrandt. On the contrary, the artists of the past are open with new faces and meanings in the context of modern art. In the art "earlier" and "later" simultaneously. There is no "climbing", but the composition of the dramatic work. With the appearance on the stage of the new "character" - works, author, style, the old epochs do not leave the scene. Each new character reveals new qualities and internal intentions in the characters that have previously published on the scene. In addition to the space, the work of art involves another existence: the active relationship of the author and reader (viewer, listener). The work of art facing the possible reader is the work of the dialogue through the century - the answer of the author to the imaginary reader and him to him as a partner of human being. Composition, the structure of the work, the author also produces its reader (viewer, listener), the reader understands the work, only since it fulfills it, fills the meaning, speculates, refuses, understands the "Message" of the author by himself, its original being. He co-author. The unchanged work contains in itself every time a new executable communication. Culture turns out to be a form in which a historical person does not disappear along with the civilization that has breeding it, but remains fulfilled by the universal and inexhaustible meaning of the experience of human being. Culture is my being separated from me, embodied in the work facing others. The feature of the historical existence of art is only a visual universal phenomenon-being in culture. The same dramatic relations exist in philosophy. Plato, Nikolai Kuzansky, Descartes, Hegel goes with (Hegelev's) staircase "Development" for a single scene of the World Philosophical Symposium (as if the Frames of the Athenian School of Rafael were infinitely expanded). The same opens in the sphere of morality: moral peripetias concentrated in the inner dialogic collision, concentrated in different cultural images: the hero of the antiquity, the password of the Middle Ages, the author of his biography of the new ... Moral requires inclusion in the personal opinion of the most important issues of the existence of people of others cultures. In the same key of culture, it is necessary to understand the science itself, which is 20 V. It is experiencing a "ground crisis" and focuses on its own principles. It is again puzzled by elementary concepts (space, time, many, event, life, etc. d.), with respect to which equal competence of Zenon, Aristotle, Leibnia is allowed.

All these phenomena are acquired only as a single organon of culture. Poet, philosopher, hero, theorist, mystic - in every epocal culture they are associated as the characters of a single drama and only in this capacity can enter the historical one. Plato is contemporary Kant and maybe his interlocutor only when Plato is understood in its inner communication with Sofokl and Euclide, and Cant-in communication with Galileem and Dostoevsky.

The concept of culture, in relation to which the concept of cultures dialogue has only to makes sense, it is necessary to include three aspects.

(1) Culture There are simultaneous being and communication of people of various-past, present and future cultures. Culture becomes culture only in this simultaneity of communication of different cultures. Unlike the ethnographic, morphological and other concepts of culture, one way or another, who understands it as a closed study, - the concept of dialogue culture is understood as an open SU \u200b\u200b& LEK of possible communication.

(2) Culture is a form of individual self-determination in the personality horizon. In the forms of art, philosophy, morality removes the finished, who have agreed with its existence of a communication scheme, understanding, ethical decision, focuses at the beginning of being and, where all certainty of the world are only possible, where other principles are opened, other definitions of thought and being. These faces of culture converge at one point at the point of the latest issues of being. Two regulatory ideas are mounted here: the idea of \u200b\u200bthe personality and the idea of \u200b\u200bthe mind. Reason, because the question is about being being; Personality, because the question is about being the very life of my being.

(3) The world of culture is "the world for the first time." Culture in his works allows us to re-generate, being of objects, people, our own being, being of our thought from the plane of the canvas, chaos of paints, rhythms of verse, philosophical aquaries, moments of moral catharsis.

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe culture dialogue makes it possible to understand the architectonic structure of the culture.

(1) You can talk about the dialogue of cultures only if the culture itself is understood as the scope of works (not products or guns). Only the culture embodied into the work can be a place and a form of a possible dialogue, since the work carries the composition of the author's dialogue and reader (viewer, listener).

(2) Historical culture There is a culture only on the verge of the dialogue of cultures, when it is understood as one holistic work. As if all the works of this era were "acts" or "fragments" of a single work, and one could assume (imagine) a single author of this holistic culture. Only if this may make sense to talk about the culture dialogue.

(3) Being a product of culture means to be in the field of attraction of some prime, initial concept. For antiquity, this is the "number" of the Pythagoreans, the "Atom" of the Democritus, the "idea" of Plato, the "form" of Aristotle, but also the tragic poets, sculpture, ... so, the work of "antique culture" suggests that the author, but At the same time, the infinite multiplicity of possible authors. Each philosophical, artistic, religious, theoretical work of culture is a kind of focus, the center of the entire cultural polyphony of the era.

(4) The integrity of the culture as works of works implies one - the dominant - the work that allows us to understand the variety of works as an architectonic one. It is assumed that for ancient culture such a cultural microcosm is the tragedy. Being a culture for an ancient person meant to be included in the tragic situation Hero-Corbog-viewer, testing. For the Middle Ages, such a "culture microsocience" is "Genesis-V- (O) of the Circle-Temple", which allows you to draw into one mysterlery peripetia and theological, and the actual cult, and craft, and shops ... Definitions of medieval civilization as culture.

(5) Culture as a dialogue suggests a certain concern of civilization, fear for his disappearance, as if the internal exclamation "Save our souls," addressed to future people. Culture, it became formed as a request to the future and former, as to everyone who hears, conjugates the latest issues of being.

(6) If in the culture (in the work of culture), a person puts himself on the edge of non-existence, it comes to the latest issues of being, he somehow approaches the questions of philosophical and logical universality. If culture assumes a single subject, creating culture as a multi-acting work, thus the culture pushes its author outside the cultural definitions itself. The subject, creating a culture, and, understanding it from the side, stand as if behind the walls of culture, comprehending it logically as an opportunity at points where it is not yet or no longer. Antique culture, medieval culture, Eastern culture is historically in charge, but in the exit to the sphere of the latest issues of being, they are not comprehended in the status of reality, but in the status of the possibility of being. The dialogue of cultures is possible only when the culture itself is understood in the limit - in its logical start.

(7) The idea of \u200b\u200bthe dialogue of cultures involves a certain interval, a kind of "drawing field", through which the crop roll is. So, with the culture of antiquity, the dialogue is carried out by revival as if through the middle ages. The Middle Ages is included in this dialogue, and removes it from it, finding the possibility of direct communication of the new time with an ancient culture. The very concept of dialogue has a certain logic. (1) The culture dialogue logically implies an expectation outside of any given culture to its beginning, opportunities, occurrence, to its non-existence. It is not the mygility of wealthy civilizations, but a conversation of different cultures in doubt about their own opportunities to think and be. But the sphere of such opportunities is the scope of logic began thoughts and being, which cannot be understood in semiotics of values. The logic of the dialogue of cultures is a logical, in which dialogue-based logic arise in their logical definition, regardless of their cash (or even possible) historical being.

(4) "Dialogic" is implemented as a paradox logic. The paradox is a form of reproduction in the logic of off-and criminal definitions of being. The being of cultures (culture) is understood as the implementation of certain possibilities of infinitely possible mysterious, absolute existence and (b) as the possibility of relevant being of the subjects that conserve in the opening of the riddles of being.

"Dialogue of Cultures" is not a concept of not abstract cultural studies, but philosophy seeking to comprehend the deep displacements of the culture; At the turn of 20-21 centuries. This is a projective concept of modern culture. The time of the dialogue of cultures is the present (in its cultural projection for the future). The dialogue of crops is the form (possible) of the culture of 21 V. The 20th century is the culture of the undertaking of culture from the chaos of modern being, in a situation of permanent return to the beginning with the painful awareness of his personal responsibility for culture, history,. Culture 20 V. Extremely activates the collaborator role of the reader (viewer, listener). Works of historical cultures are perceived therefore at 20 V. not as "samples" or "monuments", but as the undertakings - to see, hear, speak, understand, - see; Cultures reproduced as a modern dialogue of cultures. Cultural claim (or opportunity) of modernity - to be co-temporal, co-fatality, the dialogic co-society of cultures.

Lit.: Bibller V.S. from scientifications to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions in the twenty-first century. M., 1991; He is Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics of Culture. M., 1991; He is On the faces of the logic of culture. The book is elected. Essays. M., 1997.

V. S. Biblel, A. V. Akhutin

New philosophical encyclopedia: 4 tt. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stupina. 2001 .

In a number of all difficult understood concepts, everything connected with the "culture" is probably the most incomprehensible for the guys who will take. And the culture dialogue, especially when it is necessary to give examples of such a dialogue - so generally cause stupor and shocks in many. In this article, we will analyze this concept of understandable and is available so that you do not experience stupilities on the exam.

Definition

Dialogue of crops - means such an interaction between carriers of different values, in which some values \u200b\u200bbecome the domain of representatives of the other.

At the same time, the carrier is usually a person, a person who has grown in the framework of this system of values. Intercultural interaction can occur at different levels using different tools.

The easiest such dialogue is when you, a Russian, communicate with a person who grew up in Germany, England, USA or Japan. If you have a common language of communication, then you, aware of or not, will broadcast the values \u200b\u200bof the culture in which you grew up. For example, by asking a question to a foreigner, whether they have a street jargon in the country, you can learn a lot about the street culture of another country, and compare it with yours.

An art may serve as an interesting interesting channel of intercultural communication. For example, when you watch any Hollywood family or any other movie, then you may seem strange (even in dubbing), when, for example, the mother of the family says Father: "Mike! Why didn't you take a son at the weekend on baseball?! But you promised!". At the same time, the father of the family, blushing, pale and generally behaves from our point of view very strange. After all, the Russian father will simply say: "It did not come together!" Or "not we are, life is like that" - and will leave the ravis in their affairs.

This, like a small situation, shows how serious about promises (read to your words) in an overseas country and in ours. By the way, if you disagree, write in the comments, with which it is.

Also, any forms of mass interaction will be examples of such a dialogue.

Levels of cultural dialogue

There are only three levels of such interaction.

• First ethnic levelwhich occurs at the level of ethnic groups, read the nations. Just an example when you communicate with a foreigner will be an example of such an interaction.
• The second level is national. In truth, it is not very true to allocate it, because the nation is also an ethnic. It is better to say - the state level. Such a dialogue occurs when some cultural dialogue is built at the state level. For example, students come to Russia from the exchange of neighboring countries and long-term abroad. While Russian students go to study abroad.
• Third Level - Civilizational. What is civilization, see this article. And in this you can familiarize yourself with the civilizational approach in history.

Such interaction is possible as a result of which civilizational processes. For example, due to the collapse of the USSR, many states made their civilization selection. Many were integrated into Western European civilization. Others began to develop originally. Examples, I think, you can lead if you think.

In addition, the following forms of cultural dialogue can be distinguished, which can manifest themselves at its levels.

Cultural assimilation - This is a form of interaction, in which some values \u200b\u200bare destroyed, and others come to replace them. For example, in the USSR there were human values: friendship, respect, etc., which was broadcast in films, cartoons ("Guys! Let's live together!"). With the collapse of the Union to replace the Soviet values, others came - capitalist: money, career, man is a wolf and everything in such a spirit. Plus computer games in which cruelty is sometimes higher than on the street, in the very criminal area of \u200b\u200bthe city.

Integration - This is a form at which one value system becomes part of another value system, as it were, as if the interpenetration of cultures.

For example, modern Russia is a multinational, polycultural, and polyconfessional. In such a country, as ours, cannot be a dominant culture, since they are all united by one state.

Divergence - It is very simplistic when one value system is dissolved in another, and affects it. For example, through the territory of our country, many nomadic hordes were paved through the territory of our country: Khazara, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, and all of them donkeys here, and eventually dissolved in the local value system, leaving their contribution. For example, the word "sofa" was originally called the Small Council of the Khanov in the Empire of Genghisids, and now it is just a piece of furniture. But the word is preserved!

It is clear that in this small post, we will not be able to reveal all the faces necessary for the surrender of the social science for high scores. Therefore, I invite you on our training courses where we reveal all the topics and section of social studies, as well as working on the analysis of tests. Our courses are a complete opportunity to pass the exam for 100 points and enroll in the university to the budget!

Sincerely, Andrei Puchkov

As is known, the culture of internally heterogeneous - it disintegrates into many unrestricted cultures united in the main national traditions. Therefore, often, speaking of culture, we specify: Russian, French, American, Georgian, etc. National cultures Can interact in various scenarios. One culture may disappear under pressure of another, stronger culture. Culture can give way from increasing pressure, which imposes averaged international culture based on consumer values.

The problem of interaction of cultures

Insulation of Culture - This is one of the options for confronting the national culture of the pressure of other cultures and international culture. The insulation of the culture is reduced to the ban of any changes in it, the violent suppression of all alien effects. Such a culture is preserved, ceases to develop and eventually dies, turning into a set of banalities, capital truths, museum exhibits and fakes under the objects of folk crafts.

For the existence and development of any culture, like anyone, communication, dialogue, interaction is needed. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe dialogue of cultures implies the openness of cultures to each other. But this is possible when performing a number of conditions: equality of all cultures, recognition of the right of every culture for distinction from others, respect for someone else's culture.

Russian Philosopher Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975) believed that only in the dialogue Culture approaches the understanding of himself, looking at the eyes of another culture and overcoming its one-sidedness and limitation. There are no isolated crops - they all live and develop only in a dialogue with other cultures:

Alien culture only in the eyes other Culture reveals itself more fully and deeper (but not in its entirety, because other cultures will come, which will see and understand even more). One sense reveals his depths, having met and touching with another, someone's sense: between them begins as if dialoguewhich overcomes the closure and one-sidedness of these meanings, these cultures ... With such a dialogic meeting of two crops, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open Integrity, but they are mutually enriched.

Cultural manifold - An important condition for a self-knowledge of a person: the more cultures he finds out, the more countries to visit, the more languages \u200b\u200bwill learn, the better he will understand himself and the richer will be his spiritual world. The culture dialog is the basis and an important prerequisite for the formation and strengthening of such values, as, respect, mutual assistance, mercy.

Levels of interaction of culture

The interaction of crops affects a variety of groups of people - from small ethnic groups consisting of several dozen people, up to billions of peoples (such as the Chinese). Therefore, when analyzing the interaction of cultures, the following levels of interaction are distinguished:

• ethnic;
• national;
• civilization.

Ethnic level of interaction of cultures

Dual tendencies appear in this interaction. The mutual assimilation of cultural elements, on the one hand, contributes to integration processes - strengthening the contacts, the spread of bilinguals, an increase in the number of mixed marriages, and on the other, is accompanied by an increase in ethnic self-awareness. At the same time, more small and homogeneous ethnic groups more persistently protect their peculiarities.

Therefore, the culture of the ethnos, providing its stability, performs not only an ethnicient function, but also an ethniferentiating, which is expressed in the presence of values \u200b\u200bspecific for this culture, norms and stereotypes of behavior and is fixed in the self-consciousness of the ethnos.

Depending on the various internal and external factors, the interaction of cultures on the ethnic level can take various forms and lead to four possible embodiments of ethnocultural contacts:

• the addition is a simple quantitative change in the culture of an ethnic volume, which, facing another culture, masters some of its achievements. So was the impact of Indian America to Europe, which enriched its new types of cultivated plants;
• the complication is a qualitative change in the culture of the ethnos under the influence of a more mature culture, which initiates the further development of the first culture. An example is the impact of Chinese culture on Japanese and Korean, the latter is considered to be a subsidiary in relation to Chinese culture;
• reference - loss of own skills as a result of contact with a more developed culture. This quantitative change is characteristic of many nonsense peoples and often turns out to be the beginning of the degradation of culture;
• deletion (erosion) is the destruction of culture under the influence of the outside, which is due to the absence of a rather stable and developed own culture. For example, Culture of Ainov is almost completely absorbed by the Japanese culture, and the culture of American Indians has been preserved only in reservations.

In general, ethnic processes occurring in the interaction on the ethnic level can lead to different forms of both the unification of ethnic groups and their cultures (assimilation, integration) and their separation (transculturation, genocide, segregation).

Assimilation processesWhen members of ethnocultural education lose their initial culture and assimilate a new one, actively proceed in economically developed countries. Assimilation is carried out by conquest, mixed marriages, a focused policies for the dissolution of small people and culture in the environment of another larger ethnos. It is possible:

• one-way assimilation, when the culture of the minority iodine by pressure of external circumstances is completely displaced by the dominant culture;
• cultural mixing when elements of the cultures of most and minorities are mixed, forming quite stable combinations;
• complete assimilation is a very rare phenomenon.

It usually takes a large or smaller degree of market of minority culture under the influence of the dominant culture. At the same time, the norms and values \u200b\u200bof culture, language, behavior occur, as a result of which the representatives of the assimilated group change cultural identity. The number of mixed marriages is growing, minority representatives are included in all social society structures.

Integration - Inside the country or some major region of several substantially different in the language and culture of ethnic groups, in which they have a number of common features, in particular, elements of a common self-consciousness based on long-term economic, cultural interaction, political ties, but peoples and cultures preserve Your originality.

In cultural studies, integration is defined as the process of coordination of logical, emotional, aesthetic values \u200b\u200bwith cultural norms and the real behavior of people, as the establishment of functional interdependence between different elements of culture. In this regard, several forms of cultural integration are distinguished:

• configuration, or thematic, integration by similarity, based on a single "topic", asking human activity. Thus, the integration of Western European countries was based on Christianity, and Islam became the basis for the integration of the Arab-Muslim world;
• stylistic - integration based on uniform styles - era, time, places, etc. Uniform styles (artistic, political, economic, scientific, philosophical and TL.) Promote the formation of common cultural principles;
• logical - integration of cultures based on logical coordination, bringing the consistent state of scientific and philosophical systems;
• connective - integration at the level of direct interconnection of components of culture (cult P), carried out with direct contact of people;
• functional, or adaptive, integration in order to increase the functional efficiency of a person and the entire cultural community; Characteristic for modernity: world market, global division of labor, etc.;
• regulatory - integration in order to resolve or neutralizing cultural and political conflicts.

On the ethnic level of interaction of crops, the separation of ethnic groups and cultures is also possible.

Trankuyuturation - A process in which a relatively small part of the ethnocultural community due to voluntary migration or violent resettlement moves to another habitat, where the inoculture environment is or completely absent, or is slightly presented; Over time, there is a transition of the separated part of the ethnos into an independent ethnicity with its own culture. Thus, the English Protestants that moved to North America became the basis of the formation of the North American ethnos with its specific culture.

The national level of interaction of cultures arises on the basis of existing ethnic relations. The concept of "nation" should not be confused with the concept of "ethnos", although in Russian these words are often used as synonyms (ethnomation). But in international practice, in the UN "Nation" is understood as political, civil and state community.

National unity arises on a mono-ethnic or polyethnic basis through general economic activities, a non-political regulation, is supplemented by the creation of the state language, which is in the polyethnic states and the language of inter-ethnic communication, ideology, norms, customs and traditions, i.e. National culture.

The leading element of national unity is the state. Regulating inter-ethnic relations within its borders and interethnic in relations with other states. Ideally, the state should strive to integrate the peoples and nations that are part of the state and for good-neighborly relations with other states. But in real policies, decisions are often made on assimilation, segregation and even genocide, causing response outbreaks of nationalism and separatism and leading to wars as within the country and abroad.

Difficulties in interstate communication often arise there, where government boundaries were carried out without taking into account the natural settlement of people and separated the uniform ethnic groups, which gives rise to the desire of divided peoples to the formation of a single state (this contradicts modern international documents on the inviolability of existing borders), or, on the contrary, connected within Unified states of the warring peoples, which leads to clashes between representatives of the warring peoples; An example can serve a periodically flashing feud among the peoples of Tut and and Bhutto in Central Africa.

National and cultural relations are less stable than ethnocultural, but they are also necessary as ethnocultural contacts. Today without them it is impossible to communicate cultures.

Civilization level of interaction. Civilization In this case, it is understood as an association of several neighboring peoples associated with the overall history, religion, cultural features and regional economic relations. Cultural ties and contacts inside civilizations are stronger than any external contacts. Communication at the civilization level leads either to the most significant results in the exchange of spiritual, artistic, scientific and technical achievements, or to conflicts, which differ from particular cruelty at this level, are sometimes underway until the participants are completely destroyed. An example is the crusades, which Western Europe first sent against the Muslim world, and then against the Orthodox. Samples of positive contacts between civilizations serve to borrow the medieval European culture from the Islamic world, from the culture of India and China. Intensive exchange took place between Islamic, Indian and Buddhist regions. The conflict of these relations was replaced by peaceful coexistence and fruitful interaction.

Back in the 1980s. The most famous Russian culturalologist Grigory Solomonovich Pomerance (Rod. 1918) allocated the following options for intercivilizational cultural contacts:

• european - openness of cultures, rapid assimilation and "digestion" of inocultural achievements, enrichment of their own civilization due to innovation;
• tibetan is a steady synthesis of elements borrowed from different cultures, and then frozen. Such is Tibetan culture resulting from the synthesis of Indian and Chinese cultures;
• yavansky is a slight perception of inocultural influences with a rapid obligation of the past. Thus, Polynesian, Indian, Chinese, Muslim and European traditions have historically replaced on Java;
• japanese - the transition from cultural closetness to openness and assimilation of someone else's experience without refusing to own own traditions. Japanese culture once enriched through the assimilation of Chinese and Indian experience, and at the end of the XIX century. She turned to the experience.

Nowadays, it is a relationship between civilizations, as government boundaries are becoming increasingly "transparent", the role of sustained associations increases. An example is the European Union, in which the highest body is the European Parliament who has the right to make decisions affecting the sovereignty of Member States. Although national states are still the main actors on the world arena, but their policies are increasingly dictated by civilization features.

According to S. Huntington, the appearance of the world is increasingly dependent on the relationship between civilizations; He allocated eight civilizations in the modern world, between which various relationships are developing, - Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox-Slavic, Latin American and African. The results of contacts between Western, Orthodox and Islamic civilizations are especially important. On the map of the world, Huntington struck the lines of faults between civilizations, along which civilizational conflicts arise two species: on the micro level - the struggle of groups for land and power; At the macro level - rivalry of countries representing different civilizations for influence in the military and economic spheres, for control over markets and international organizations.

Conflicts between civilizations are due to civilizational differences (on history, language, religion, traditions), more fundamental than differences between states (nations). At the same time, the interaction of civilizations led to an increase in civilizational self-consciousness, the desire to preserve its own values, and this in turn increases conflict in relations between them. Huntington notes that although at the superficial level, much of Western civilization is characterized by the rest of the world, but on the deep level this does not occur due to too much difference of value orientation of different civilizations. Thus, in the Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu and Orthodox cultures, such Western ideas, as individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, freedom, the rule of law, democracy, the free market, are almost no response. Attempts to force these values \u200b\u200bto cause a sharp negative reaction and lead to strengthening the values \u200b\u200bof their culture.

Any culture is organic integrity, all elements of which are interrelated, conjugate, agreed among themselves. Culture throughout the life of not one, but even several generations retains its core, remains stable, sustainable social education. And this conservatism of culture is justified, it allows culture to identify himself. The prosperity of culture is the expression of its self-sufficiency, coupling and the proportionality of its various elements. The crisis of culture is the disintegration of its permanent nucleus, the mismatch of the elements, the loss of self-identity. The desire of culture to preserve, sustainability, its traditionalism is one trendsociocultural process.

No less important is another trend - Culture ability to change, modernization.

Changes in culture can occur in two ways. Firstly, Through the self-development of culture. It can go both spontaneously and more or less conscious when, as a result of trial and errors, the advantage of the new and it is introduced into the culture system, is fixed in it. A focused conscious activity on the change in obsolete cultural norms, samples, the introduction and dissemination of new ones is possible. SecondlyChanges in culture can occur through the borrowing of samples of culture of one group by another social group.

The second path of modernization of culture is associated with the interaction of crops when borrowing occur through social ties, regular contacts, the exchange of cultural values \u200b\u200bbetween nations. Cultural interaction system can be built voluntarily (for example, selective borrowing of Western technologies in Japan), forced For example, as a result of migration processes, or through the forced imposition of the samples of one culture of another. Borrowings are particularly tangible and relatively painless on the periphery of cultures. An example of this is fashion for clothes, behavior style, means of movement, etc. As for the core of culture, culture with a strong social immunity rejected those innovations that are trying to destroy it. Social immunity is a protective reaction from the invasion of deep layers of the culture of foreign, alien. This is evidence of the care of people about the preservation of its original, unique culture, the loss of which will mean the disintegration of this society.

Dialogue of crops in modern communication space. In the modern world, the interaction of crops is becoming increasingly important. The problem of the culture dialogue becomes relevant. As a result of the scientific and technical revolution, cardinal changes in the communication space occurred, in which the interaction of cultures occurs. If earlier the communication field was a means of dialogue between traditional, relatively local, stationary crops, then as a result of the scientific and technical revolution, it became an independent force that strongly affects the nature of the intercultural dialogue.

The dialogue makes sense if cultures are entering, different from each other. During the dialogue, efforts are made to understand the meanings, values, the language of another culture. Such a dialogue mutually engrants cultures. If two cultures are absolutely the same, their meanings and meaning coincide (there is a semantic identity), then the dialogue between such cultures is either trivial, or is generally excess. Crop differences provides a dialogue.

Now in communication space as a result of the introduction of new information and computer technologies, integrative language trends, general stereotypes, general assessments begin to dominate. The consequence of this is the expansion of the sphere of the identity, uniform in the culture and the narrowing of the sphere of various, unequal. There is a subordination of national cultures of a certain artificial (computer) culture with a single language, dissolving less developed crops in more developed. The world begins to speak the language of those countries that dominate it. The dialogue as a result of these processes is carried out according to the principle of knowledge of the available semantic structures, at the level of coincidence of meanings. This is a communication for communication, without saturation with meanings, without mutual enrichment. Such a semantic simplification of the dialogue deprives the dialogue of any meaning.

The general communication field, without having borders and linguistic barriers, leads to the erosion of traditional, local-stationary crops, to the loss of cultural identity, and this gives the basis of a number of scientists to make a pessimistic forecast for the death of culture in our time. Along with this, other scientists express confidence that it is unlikely to happen. Molds of communication are changed, changes in culture are inevitable, but culture is a system enough flexible and self-organizing system. And there are always structural connections and relationships that determine its integrity and non-profitability, ensure its fundamental meaning.

Dialogue of the West and East. There are many cultures on Earth and each of them can contribute to the World History. It is impossible to extols some cultures as the most valuable and developed, and others evaluate both peripheral and historically significant. The idea of \u200b\u200bequality of cultures matured in public thought gradually. At first there was an idea that Europe (West) was the leader among other cultures. Creating culture created in the West should be a model for the whole world. In the 60s of the 20th century, Eastocentrism has strengthened its influence - the worldview of which is the East, and not the West is the center of world culture and civilization. The question of the most significant culture is in principle illegal. You can talk about typology of cultures and one of them is based on the allocation of Western culture and Eastern. In the literature, the distinguishing of the West and the East is far from the only thing in identifying types of cultures, but one of the most interesting and fundamental.

For the antithesis "West-East" costs not geography, but different historical fates of peoples, different socio-cultural features of each of the public systems.

American scientist D. Febbleman in the book "Understanding Eastern Philosophy. The popular opinion of the Western World "wrote about the next three differences of the" Wet Man "from the" man of the East ".

1 . On the West, the man, confessing Judaism or Christianity, is afraid that the soul is not immortal, but she wants her to be immortal.

"Hindu - Buddhist,", on the contrary, fears that the soul is immortal, and wants her to be immortal.

2 . The Western. The West is constantly seeking to fully approve themselves, multiply their knowledge.

The man of the East hopes to lose herself, to forget about their knowledge, to go into oblivion, dissolve in the universe.

3 Founder wants to control his environment, Wednesday, i.e., external in relation to it; His spiritual potency was incarnation in science.

East man prefers to control himself; His spiritual potential is implemented in religion.

Some sociocultural characteristics of the West and the East can be distinguished, relying on four criteria.

one). The nature of the communication "Man - Society".

Anthropocentrism is pronounced in the West. In the foreground - individuality, autonomy of the person. The state must be improved because it ensures the existence of an "atomized" person. Society is open.

In the east, priority is given to society, the team. The autonomy of the individual is poorly expressed, the state acts as a all-word institution, and society is distinguished by the closeness of the outside world.

2). Socio-psychological plants.

In the West, an active attitude towards the existing, dissatisfaction with the present, already achieved, a non-residential search for a new one. The confidence is supported in the fact that the new one is always better than the old one.

In the East, the contemplative attitude towards the world dominates. Eastern man prefers content with what is. The equilibreence and harmony is most valued. The presentation is that the new and old should balancing each other.

3). Feces of spirituality as a value content of consciousness.

In the West, rationality is triumphant, the desire for the knowledge of the world. The formula is produced: "I think, therefore, exist." Belief prevails in science, technique, the possibility and necessity of reorganization of the world. Attitude towards nature is based on utilitarianism.

In the East, faith remains in spiritual and moral values, the desire for the sensual emotional experience of the world. The emphasis is placed on the humanistic dimension of scientific and technological progress. In the tradition of culture, the principle of internal unity of man with nature is dominated.

four). The nature of the development of the sociocultural system.

In the West there is a fast, often a jump-shaking change of social structures. New denies old in the most essence of sociocultural processes. The theoretical substantiation of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe revolutionary nature of social changes, scientific revolutions is obtained.

The gradual, evolutionary type of development prevails in the east. For a long period, relative stability remains, the stability of the spiritual basis of society. The main components of the social system demonstrate the ability to adapt new without the destruction of previous structures and connections. Cultural traditions are transmitted from generation to generation.

As soon as the sociocultural difference of the West and the East was aware, the problem of comparing two different types of sociocultural development of mankind arose: which one is better? As a result of many discussions, conversations of representatives of Western and Eastern cultures prevailed the opinion that the West was a head, and the East is the heart of human civilization, the well-being of future generations depends on the good work of which. The unity of human history is achieved not on the basis of the merger of two types of socio-cultural development, but on the basis of their mutual influence, complementance, mutual enrichment while maintaining the identity and independence of each.