Forms of culture (material, spiritual)

The main forms of culture: mythology, art, morality, religion, law, ideology, economics, science, philosophy.

Mythology is one of the most early forms culture, and it included myths, fairy tales that reflected the spiritual and psychological life of the people of ancient society. The earliest was a form of totemic mythology: people believed that they were related by family ties with animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena and form a single totem. Later, with the transition of people to agriculture, a chthonic mythology arose): people believed that there were powerful creatures with a human-animal appearance. For example, the ancient Greeks believed in the Minotaur (a man-bull associated with underworld), all Egyptian gods were bestial. And only later the chthonic animal-like gods are supplanted by the Heavenly gods with a human appearance ( Greek myths about the Olympic gods - Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Venus, etc.).

Morality is a form of culture that includes people's ideas about good and evil, conscience and shame, guilt and justice, prohibitions on bad deeds and actions of people (already in primitive culture the first moral prohibitions arose - taboos).

Art is a form of culture that arose already in primitive society and reflected the reality and spiritual life of people in artistic images.

Religion is a form of culture that reflects a person's striving for life in unity with a mighty God who embodies the highest perfection. Depending on the idea of ​​people about God, religions are divided into: monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, - belief in one God); pagan religions (polytheism - belief in many gods, oriental cults); philosophical teachings transformed into religion (Buddhism, Confucianism). According to the degree of prevalence in the world, there are: world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam), which are widespread; local religions, the influence of which is limited to a certain region or people (Judaism, Taoism).

Law is a form of culture, the content of which is the activity of the state to regulate social relations of people on the basis of specially developed social norms- laws that are binding on all citizens of a given society. The law is formed together with the state, it is a sign of the civilized way of life of people.

Ideology is a form of culture, a system of vital, socio-cultural, political ideas, in which the attitude of people to each other, to society, and the world is generalized and realized.

Science is a form of culture that produces new knowledge about the world and man.

Philosophy is a form of culture that formulates a generalized picture of the world and a conceptual-categorical structure of people's thinking. Philosophy arose in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. in three regions of the world: Hellas, India, China. The first philosophers tried to discover the fundamental principles of life, the same for all peoples, for the entire universe.

Economy is a form of culture, the content of which is material security public life a person in society as a result of human impact on nature, management of the economy by certain methods.

Material culture has a rather complex structure. Its basis is subject-productive elements. The latter, in turn, include the culture of production, life support and military production.

Industrial culture is tools of labor, machines, technical systems and vehicles.

The culture of life support is made up of buildings, household items, clothing.

Armament and military equipment is a special area of ​​material culture.

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 meaningful. Material culture acts as a means of transferring social experience, therefore, it also contains a national principle by which it is possible to establish its origin, reflects the processes of mutual influence of peoples, their cultures up to the displacement of its individual elements. For example, in Russia in the ХУШ-ХГХ centuries. national clothing was supplanted by Western European, gradually becoming global.

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

Sources of studying material culture:

• * real objects (archaeological and ethnographic monuments; preserved architecture; non-functioning technology; all functioning material culture);
• * their images (works of fine art, drawings, other graphic works; photo and film documents);
• * layouts and models corresponding to the original (layouts and models known from antiquity. These are reduced copies of real objects, often part of the funeral cult, children's toys, etc.);
• * written sources (written sources contain a wide variety of information: about objects of material culture, the technology of their production, etc. They can be used to judge the development of material culture).

Many monuments of material culture are symbols of the era (certain brands of cars; tanks; "Katyushas" "as a symbol of the Great Patriotic War for several generations).

Ships are also symbols of the era: a sailboat is a symbol of the Peter's era: a caravel-symbol of the times of Columbus, who discovered America.

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

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

A dwelling is an artificial, less often natural structure that shelters from an unfavorable external environment; at the same time, it creates a social space in which production and household activities can be carried out. In addition, a dwelling is protection against encroachment on the life and property of its inhabitants (for example, a fortress house).

With the development of society and culture, housing acquires new functions. The emergence of social and property inequality led to the fact that houses began to differ in size, number of rooms, and level of comfort. Buildings of special social purpose appeared - the house of the leader, the palace of the ruler, which, in addition to the utilitarian role, play a prestigious presentation, which marked the beginning of a new type of art - architecture. Non-utilitarian buildings were erected, primarily religious ones, as well as those associated with the system of state power and administration. As time went on, housing changed, multi-storey buildings were built, but most people have always dreamed of living in their own house.

Clothes differ in a variety of functions and social content. Its main purpose is to protect the body from the adverse effects of the external environment. But it also serves as a social, socio-demographic, national-religious distinction. By the clothes in the past, they could determine the social status of its owner (nobleman, merchant, clergyman, military man).

Great importance they also had separate elements of clothing - a belt, a headdress. In Russia, the height of his hat testified to the social status of a person. The more noble, the higher the hat.

Clothing has long been a sign of tribal or nationality. In modern conditions, when society has switched to "European dress", some nationalities retain some kind of national element in their clothes (an embroidered shirt, a hat, a skullcap).

With the development of fashion, clothing has become a means of social self-affirmation. In the middle of the XX century. youth fashion began to play an independent role. Previously, young people dressed in the same class and national clothes as adults. Currently, the youth fashion industry has gained tremendous scope.

Military weapons have a special social significance. This is a part of material culture associated with armed violence in society. With the emergence of a manufacturing economy and the emergence of reserves of grain, herd livestock, which could be appropriated as a result of a successful military raid, weapons were required for protection. Military clashes have become regular. Over time, weapons for many peoples (Germans, Romans of the republican era) became a kind of "tool of labor", a source of income.

Development military equipment contributed to technological progress generally. Combat weapons have always been a condition and attribute political power... Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt were often depicted with weapons in their hands. In ancient China, the ability to control a war chariot was considered a sign " noble husband"And today, unfortunately, saber rattling is regarded as a symbol of state power. Of all the achievements of material culture, weapons are perhaps the most controversial and dubious value.

The basic elements of spiritual culture include:

• * customs;
• * morals;
• * the laws;
• * values.

Customs, morals, laws are a variety cultural norms and form the normative system of culture. It prescribes to members of society what to do, how and in what situations they should do so, and not otherwise.

Manners, etiquette, code are also included in the normative system of culture, but as its additional elements. In any society there are customs, manners and laws, but not every society has manners, etiquette and code (duel - a cult complex that refers to etiquette, is (was) not everywhere).

Values ​​do not belong to the types of cultural norms, but are included in the normative system of culture, performing a special function. They indicate, but do not prescribe, what should be honored, respected and preserved in the culture.

Customs, morals, laws - it is in this order that the basic elements of the normative system should be built, since the degree of severity of the sanctions that society uses in relation to violators is increasing.

A custom is a traditionally established order of behavior, enshrined in collective habits.

Habit is an everyday aspect of social reality, customs are a rarer, "festive" aspect of it. The custom of celebrating the New Year, respecting elders, etc. Habits are society-approved mass patterns of action that are encouraged to be followed. Informal sanctions are applied to violators - disapproval, denial. Some customs are close to etiquette. Customs are also traditionally reproducible elements of culture.

Morals are customs that acquire moral significance.

In ancient Rome, this concept denoted the most respected and sacred customs. They were called toges - morals. This is where the word "morality" came from - a set of cultural norms that received an ideological foundation in the form of the ideals of good and evil, justice, etc. It is immoral to offend people, offend the weak, etc. But in Sparta it was quite moral to throw a physically weak child into the abyss. Thus, what is considered moral depends on the culture of the given society.

Law is a normative act adopted by the highest body of state power in the manner prescribed by the constitution. He is the highest variety social and cultural norms, requires unconditional obedience. There are two types of laws:

• * customary law - a set of unwritten rules of conduct in a pre-industrial society, sanctioned by the authorities;
• * legal laws enshrined in the constitution protect the most precious and revered values: human life, state secrets, property, human rights and dignity. Violation of laws is subject to criminal penalties.

At a higher level, the cultural regulation of human activity is carried out through a system of values ​​that do not prescribe, but indicate that it is necessary to honor, respect, and preserve.

There is a classification of values ​​(conditional):

• * vital (life, health, quality of life, natural environment, etc.);
• * social: social status, status, hard work, wealth, profession, family, tolerance, gender equality, etc .;
• * political, freedom of speech, civil freedom, legality, civil peace, etc .;
• * moral: good, good, love, friendship, duty, honor, decency, etc.;
• * religious: God, divine law, faith, salvation, etc.;
• * aesthetic: beauty, ideal, style, harmony.

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

General human 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 norms of morality (love and respect for one's neighbor, honesty, mercy, wisdom, striving for beauty, etc.) Many moral commandments coincide in world religions, in a peculiar way reflected in the basic human rights ...

National values ​​occupy the most important place in the life of any nation 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 is even more stupid when a whole nation considers itself better than other peoples."

Unlike universal human values, national values ​​are more concrete and more materialized, for the Russian people these are 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 activities of F. Skorina (Bible), etc .; for the French - the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, etc.

This means that national spiritual values ​​are all that make up the specificity of the culture of a particular people.

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

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 anti-culture. These are various "brotherhoods", sects, castes or associations such as "rockers", "punks", "lyuber", etc. Here we can speak mainly of specific youth, age values.

Family values. The family, in the words of V. Hugo, is the "crystal" of society, its foundation. This is a miniature society, on whose physical and moral health the prosperity of all mankind depends. Hence the enormous role in the formation of the culture of family values ​​passed down from generation to generation. These include all positive family traditions (moral, professional, artistic, or even purely domestic).

Individual and 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.

In the proposed classification, it is easy to see that values ​​usually have two qualities: relativity and mobility, i.e. the ability to reevaluate and move from one level to another (in the former socialist countries there was a reassessment of the "teaching" about the dictatorship of the proletariat; in our country, the role of the church, the attitude to property).

Mobility cultural property lies in the fact that they can move from one level to another, from individual-personal to rise to universal. Thus, the works of great thinkers at the time of their creation were an individual and personal value, but they gradually "rose" through the local-group, estate-class and national levels to universal recognition, becoming factors of world civilization.

When considering the five listed levels of cultural values, several more regularities are revealed:

• * first, the fact that their relativity and mobility are decreasing! as they become the property of all more people. General human values ​​are the most stable over time and do not depend on politics. At the same time, individual and personal values ​​are constantly changing during the course of human life;
• * secondly, spiritual values, in comparison with their material incarnations, are distinguished by a special durability, since an idea, an image is much more difficult to destroy than a sculpture, a painting;
• * thirdly, people's needs for spiritual values ​​are unlimited, there is no satiety.

Exaggeration, fanatical advocacy of the special role of any kind of value is fraught with the danger of turning it into an idol. An adherent of only universal human values ​​can turn into a cosmopolitan or a person without a homeland; an excessive admirer of national values ​​- into a nationalist; class - into a revolutionary or terrorist; group - marginalized or bohemian, etc. That is why it is authentic cultured person should not go to extremes.

Thus, the diversity of human activity is the basis for dividing culture into material and spiritual, between which, however, there is close interaction.

With all the variety of typologies of human needs, they have in common the identification of two types of needs - material and spiritual. Material needs are the needs of the human body - for food, shelter, clothing, etc. Spiritual needs are the needs of the human spirit. The main ones are associated with striving for the highest cultural values, which are truth, goodness, beauty, and mutual understanding.

In accordance with the distinction between the spiritual and material needs of a person, culture can also be divided into two types - material and spiritual. The first is associated with the satisfaction of material needs, the second - spiritual.

Each of them, in turn, can be subdivided into several spheres, in accordance with the variety of both material and, especially, spiritual needs.

So, material culture is subdivided into physical education and household.

The function of physical culture is cultivation, that is, in accordance with the original meaning of the word "culture", it is cultivation, processing, improvement of the human body.

The functions of everyday culture are to satisfy human needs for food, housing, clothing and other items, without which the very physical existence of a person is impossible. Thanks to everyday culture, the adaptation of man and society to the surrounding nature is carried out. Hence, there are significant differences in the everyday culture of different peoples.

Spiritual culture is also subdivided into a number of spheres - art, science, religion, etc., each of which satisfies certain spiritual needs and, in accordance with this, is concentrated around certain main values.

The question of the possibility of dividing culture into material and spiritual is highly controversial. Many thinkers believe that the concept of "material culture" is absurd and similar to concepts such as "fried water", "hot ice", etc. In this case, they refer, firstly, to the fact that there are no spheres in culture, not connected in one way or another with spirituality, and, secondly, on the fact that in all spheres of culture the spiritual principle plays a decisive, leading role.

It should be noted that the truth of each of these provisions cannot be disputed.

Indeed, in culture, everything is permeated with spirituality. Take physical education, for example. It would seem that the name itself speaks of its belonging to material culture. However, the cultivation of a healthy, beautiful body requires a lot of knowledge, developed aesthetic needs and other qualities that depend on the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. The same can be said about everyday culture. All its components - clothing culture, food culture, home culture - are densely saturated with spirituality. From the way a person dresses, how he eats, from the decoration of his house, one can get a complete picture of his spiritual appearance.

However, in order to draw a conclusion about the meaninglessness or, on the contrary, the legitimacy of the concept of "material culture", it is necessary to take into account one more circumstance. It was already discussed above, when it was said that the distinction between material and spiritual culture is carried out on a functional basis. In accordance with this, it makes sense to single out material culture as an element of the cultural system, since its basic the function is to satisfy material needs - in a healthy body, food, clothing, home.

This is its difference from spiritual culture, the main function of which is to satisfy spiritual needs - in truth, goodness, beauty, etc.

It is the difference between spiritual and material culture that makes it possible to talk about how widely and how the spiritual culture is represented in the material one, about how spiritualized the material culture is.

Thus, despite the fact that everything in culture is really permeated with spirituality, the distinction between material and spiritual culture on a functional basis still makes sense. However, we must not forget that it is very arbitrary.

Another argument that opponents of the concept of "material culture" cite, as mentioned above, is that the spirituality plays a decisive role in culture. As you can easily see, this argument takes the conversation to another logical plane. Here we are not talking about the legitimacy of the concept of "material culture", but about how what in culture, it is primary - a spiritual or material principle, spiritual or material culture.

It should be noted that this is a matter of principle. In the recent past, during the years of the dominance of Marxism, often dogmatized and distorted, most Russian thinkers considered it their duty to assert that material culture is primary in relation to spiritual culture. This, they believed, necessarily follows from the fundamental principle of materialist philosophy, according to which matter is primary in relation to consciousness, being determines consciousness, social being determines social consciousness.

However, the adherents of this point of view forgot or did not know that the classics of Marxism-Leninism themselves did not formulate the initial principles of materialist philosophy so categorically. First, they never tired of talking about the fact that matter is primary in relation to consciousness, ... ultimately, in the world-ordering sense of the word. If we consider individual fragments of being, human activity, for example, we will see that here consciousness is primary in relation to matter. Secondly, the classics of Marxism-Leninism considered their philosophy not just materialistic, but dialectical-materialistic. According to the principles of dialectics, the element being determined (in this case, spirit, spiritual, consciousness) has an active opposite effect on the defining element (in this case, matter, material being). It is quite legitimate to assume that this influence intensifies and becomes primary in certain areas of life, in certain epochs.

Thus, even from the point of view of Marxism, the thesis of the primacy of material culture in relation to spiritual culture did not seem indisputable and unambiguous. Now, when theoretical thought has freed itself from the shackles of dogmatism, it looks like a clear anachronism.

In deciding the question of the primacy of spiritual or material culture, the decisive role is played not so much by arguments of a logical nature, that is, conclusions from some general principles how much the history of culture itself. She convinces that culture as a whole has always been built and should be built in accordance with the hierarchy of spiritual values.

The conclusion about the primacy of spiritual culture is of fundamental importance, since it allows us to talk about the programming function of culture in the development of society.

The culture of everyday life

The close interweaving of spiritual and material cultures, the impossibility of strictly separating one from the other gave rise to the need to consider as an independent formation that layer of culture where the interpenetration of the spiritual and the material is especially acute. This education has received the name "culture of everyday life". Scientific interest in it has arisen relatively recently. The history of studying the culture of everyday life can be roughly divided into three stages.

The first of them began in the middle of the 19th century. and was associated with the works of such authors as A. Tereshchenko, N.I. Kostomarov, I.E. Zabelin and others.

The modern researcher V.D. Leleko identifies the following areas of study of the culture of everyday life in the works of the above authors:

Macro- and micro-habitat: nature, city, village, dwelling (its connection with environment and interior space, including interior, furniture, utensils, etc.);

The body and cares about its natural and sociocultural functions: nutrition, physical exercise, hygiene, medicine, costume;

Personally and socially significant moments in a person's life, ceremonially formalized birth (baptism), family creation (wedding), death (funeral);

Family, family relationships;

Interpersonal relationships in other microsocial groups (professional, confessional, etc.);

Leisure: games, entertainment, family and social celebrations and ceremonies.

The next stage in the study of everyday life is associated with the publication of a book by the Dutch historian and culturologist Johan Heizinga (1872 - 1945). "Autumn of the Middle Ages" and the emergence in France of the so-called "School of Annals" (formed around the journal "Annals of Economic and Social History, published since 1929), headed by Marc Bloch (1886 - 1944) and Lucien de Fevre (1878 - 1956) ...

In the brilliant book by J. Heizinga, a vivid panorama of the daily life of people is developed different classes who lived in the late Middle Ages. It should be noted that the study proceeded approximately along the lines discussed above.

As for the Annals school, an idea of ​​its methodology can be obtained, for example, from the book of one of its representatives E. Le Roy Ladery “Montogayu. Occitan village "(1294 - 1324).

As the third stage in the study of everyday life, one can consider the period when it became a subject. philosophical understanding... Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976) especially clearly emphasized the importance of everyday life, defining it as "presence in one's neighbor's existence." Thus, he tied together the concepts of "everyday life" and "being", which before him were considered incomparable, diverse and diverse.

In our country, the culture of everyday life attracted close attention not only of researchers, but also of the general public in the 90s of the XX century. At present, the discipline "Culture of Everyday Life" is included in the federal component of the State Educational Standard for the specialty "Culturology". This can be seen as a turning point in which the tendency towards humanization of our society was manifested.

It should be noted that until recently the attitude to the culture of everyday life in our country was at best inattentive, at worst - negative. In this regard, P. Ya. Chaadaev noted with bitterness: "In this indifference to the blessings of life, which some of us impute to ourselves as a merit, there is truly something cynical." This was due to many circumstances, among them many important role played a kind of prejudice, which consisted in the opposition of everyday life, which meant everyday life, and being. At the same time, it was believed that a person striving to the heights of spiritual culture not only has the right, but is almost obliged to look down on the ordinariness, everyday life. True, the catch phrase of A.S. Pushkin: “You can be an efficient person and to think about the beauty of nails "was and is in wide circulation, but things did not go beyond" nails ". The "desolation" of the Russian intelligentsia is a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, the position of M. Heidegger, who connected everyday life with being, as discussed above, is of fundamental importance. Indeed, everyday life is one of the main realities of human existence, “near being”. And without a neighbor, as you know, there is no distant.

The significance of everyday life lies in the fact that in this area the two-sided nature of the interaction between man and culture is most clearly manifested: man creates culture, culture creates man. The point is that the home, clothing, daily routine, etc., that is, everything that is clearly the result of the activities of people has the ability to have an active opposite effect on them. Churchill's formula is widely known: "First we equip our home, and then our home equips us."

Accordingly, a shabby, uncomfortable dwelling makes the inner world of its inhabitant just as shabby and uncomfortable. And vice versa, a house, in the creation of which love and a striving for beauty are invested, harmonizes the spiritual world of those who created it.

The same can be said for clothing. In practice, each person has the opportunity to make sure that in one piece of clothing he feels like a creature who has nothing to hope for in this world, while in another, on the contrary, he feels in himself the ability to conquer the peaks. In this case, the commercial price of the thing does not matter.

A special role in a person's life, relationships play with the "inner circle" of people - relatives, neighbors, colleagues. The hysterical or rude tone of communication, the "authors" of which are all its participants, boomerang back to them in the form of mental disorder and even physical illness. Conversely, friendly, benevolent communication results in mental health, a sense of joy in life.

Thus, everyday life is one of the main spheres of manifestation of human creative activity, on the one hand, and the human-creative force of culture itself, on the other. Not everyone goes to the theater, museums, libraries, but everyone deals with everyday life. Therefore, the managerial impact on culture can consist not only in improving the work of those organizations that are usually called "cultural institutions", but also in cleaning the streets, renovating houses, planting trees, etc.

So, theoretical comprehension of the category “culture of everyday life” is very important. It made it possible to "reconcile" spiritual and material culture, showing that with the leading role of spiritual culture, material culture has the ability to actively reciprocate.

It is in the sphere of the culture of everyday life that the "power of things" and at the same time the "power of the spirit" over them are clearly demonstrated.

Spheres of culture

Morality

One of the most important needs of society is the regulation, ordering of relations between people. This is also the most important need of each individual person, since life in a chaotic society, where everyone seeks to satisfy his own interests, regardless of the interests of others, is impossible. Therefore, one of the oldest and most important spheres of spiritual culture is morality. Its function is to regulate relations between people. In the sphere of morality, not only are the rules and norms of interaction between people developed and formulated, but also methods are developed to encourage those who obediently follow them, or, on the contrary, punish those who violate them.

The highest value of this sphere of culture is good.

When asked what is good, people of different cultures answer differently. However, already in antiquity, attempts were made to identify the norms of universal human morality. One such attempt is the famous 10 Biblical Commandments.

The issue of universal human morality is still one of the most pressing. The answer to it, as to others, which are equally important in a practical sense, can be given by the theory and history of culture.

The emergence of morality in time coincides with the emergence of culture, since moral regulation is regulation not in accordance with the biological instincts of a person, but often in spite of them.

In the sphere of morality, the main issue of social regulation is solved and, therefore, the main issue of culture - who is the other person for a person. So, if he acts as an impersonal member of the collective, then we have a primitive collectivist morality, if a member of the polis - polis, civic morality, if the servant of God - religious morality, if the means of achieving one's own benefit - individualistic morality, if the highest value - truly humanistic morality.

The content of all other spheres of culture is built in accordance with moral values ​​and norms. Therefore, morality is the pivotal sphere of culture of any type.

In the synergetic aspect, morality appears as a cultural attractor, that is, a subsystem around which the order is “tied”, which determines the state of the system as a whole.

Communication

Direct interpersonal spiritual communication is one of the most ancient spheres of spiritual culture. It should be borne in mind that communication as such is a side of all spheres of cultural and social life. It can be direct and indirect. For example, when a group of friends and acquaintances communicates with each other - (talking, singing songs, etc.) - this is direct communication. When the same friends communicate via the Internet, this is indirect communication. The artist communicates with the viewer, the writer with the reader - both through his works. It is also indirect communication.

This section will focus on direct interpersonal spiritual communication.

The paramount importance of communication as a sphere of culture is associated with its main function, social in its meaning, - ensuring the integrity of society and individual collectives. The anthropological function of communication lies in the fact that it satisfies the most important human need - the need for another person. In accordance with this, the main value, to which the participants in communication strive, is mutual understanding. If it is absent, then communication does not fulfill either its social or anthropological function.

Reaching mutual understanding allows communication to perform another anthropological function - hedonistic. L. Tolstoy called the pleasure received from communication "lunch from the non-material side." An important anthropological function of communication is also the cultivation of human emotions, primarily moral feelings.

True, the same function is performed by art, but it does it by other means specific to it. There is a complementarity between communication and art: a person cultivated by art, on the one hand, is enriched as a subject of communication, and on the other, a sociable person is more open to art, more receptive to it; in addition, art itself is one of the most powerful means of communication, and communication, being one of the the most complex types creativity, in which intuition, imagination, fantasy, imaginative thinking (the ability to catch the image of the interlocutor and create your own image) play an important role, is rightly regarded as a kind of art.

Communication is an important factor in the spiritual development of the individual also because it allows you to satisfy the need for self-affirmation. It has been established that in some socio-demographic groups (for example, adolescents) this need prevails over others, and the dominant way to satisfy it is direct communication with peers.

The most important anthroposocial function of communication is the socialization of the younger generation in communication with peers.

Finally, spiritual interpersonal communication also performs an informational function, but it is perhaps the least characteristic of it: other types of communication and other spheres of culture perform this function more successfully.

Upbringing and education

One of the most important spheres of culture, which allows culture to fulfill its life-supporting functions, is upbringing the younger generation. People paid attention to this already at the earliest stages of their development.

Researchers of primitive society note that even among the tribes, the most primitive in terms of the level of development in comparison with all the relict tribes and peoples known to us, the upbringing of youth is one of the three most important tribal affairs, the first of which is the provision of food and the protection of the inhabited area, forage areas.

Let us think about this: the ancient people already understood that the upbringing of the younger generation is just as important a matter as the provision of food and the protection of the territory, which can serve as a source of these means of subsistence. In other words, the ancients already understood that the tribe would perish if it did not properly educate the younger generation, just as it would perish without food.

So, the upbringing of the younger generation is one of the most important spheres of culture that performs life-supporting functions.

The function of upbringing is to reproduce the person required by this particular community. This refers to the entire set of basic human traits and qualities, that is, a person in his entirety. Education, therefore, is the sphere of culture where the anthropological structure of a given culture becomes visible, since in it the requirements for a person by a given culture, that is, certain human standards, are enclosed in a system of rules and regulations that have a varied, but always a fairly definite shape.

Common to all historical, regional, national types upbringing is that the main integral value of this sphere of culture is compliance with certain requirements, the totality of which is built on the idea of a certain type a person needed by this society. And since different societies differ significantly from one another, because they live in different conditions, they have different history and so on, then the requirements for a person needed by a given society also differ. Accordingly, the values ​​characteristic of education as a cultural sphere also differ.

For example, in a society with an object paradigm, that is, where a person is thought of mainly as an object of external influences - the state, church, family, etc., the most important value of upbringing is obedience, that is, submissive execution of orders, rules, regulations, adherence to traditions, repetition of samples.

In a society with a subjective paradigm, that is, where a person is viewed primarily as a subject, that is, a source of activity, thoughtless obedience cannot be a value. These are initiative, responsibility, and a creative approach to business. But since without doing certain rules no society can live, then conscious discipline and self-discipline become a value.

In the same way, the attitude towards other essential forces of a person and their combination with each other varies. Forms and institutions of upbringing also vary.

Education as a sphere of culture, it has much more modest tasks than education. Its function is to transfer the knowledge necessary for a person as a member of this community.

Thus, if education deals with a person as a whole, then the function of education is the cultivation of only one of the essential forces of a person - the one that we have designated by the term "rational". It includes such components as the ability to think, the ability to rationally, that is, expediently, to act and, finally, knowledge. Based on this, we can conclude that education is correctly considered as part upbringing, since an integral person is impossible without such an essential force of his as rational.

However, the increase in the amount of knowledge that each subsequent generation had to assimilate in comparison with the previous one led to the separation of education from upbringing and, moreover, to the diminution of the role of upbringing.

This trend became especially noticeable by the middle of the 20th century, and at the same time its destructive consequences became especially noticeable. They were expressed in one-sided, one-sided development of a person - hypertrophy of the rational principle in him, moreover, in the form of poor rationalism with a purely utilitarian bias, and atrophy of the emotional principle, reaching complete insensibility. The result of this is moral deafness, since morality is not only knowledge about the rules of behavior, but also a moral feeling, and this requires a developed emotional sphere. In this regard, the most urgent task of our time is the synthesis of upbringing and education. It is only possible if main goal and the value of this two-fold system will be an integral person in all the fullness of the development of his essential forces.

Mythology and religion

One of the most ancient spheres of culture is religion (from lat. religare- connection). Many researchers even believe that this is the most ancient sphere of culture.

There are usually two reasons for this view. One of them is logical and etymological. It is associated with a certain interpretation of the concept of "culture" and a certain idea of ​​the etymological origin and meaning of the word "culture" itself. So, supporters of this point of view believe that religion is the most important sphere of culture, expressing its essence. In their opinion, if there is no religion, then there is no culture. And they consider the word "culture" itself to be derived from the word "cult", which denotes a phenomenon inextricably linked with religion.

Thus, etymology, that is, the very origin of the word, serves for the supporters of this point of view as a confirmation of the initial position of their culturological concept.

It should be borne in mind that not only the interpretation of the essence of religion, but also the interpretation of the etymological meaning of the word "culture" is in this case very controversial. As you know, the overwhelming majority of researchers associate the etymological meaning of the word "culture" not with the word "cult", but with the words "processing", "cultivation", "improvement".

Another argument in favor of the idea of ​​religion as the most ancient sphere of culture is historical. Supporters of this point of view argue that irreligious peoples have never existed and never exist.

Historical arguments refuted by historical facts, they say that religion, requiring a fairly high level of development of consciousness, was preceded by a myth, or rather myths, in connection with which this sphere of culture is called mythology, meaning that the myths of any culture are united into a certain system, i.e. have their own logo.

So what is myth and how is it different from religion?

Mythology. The main feature of the myth is syncretism. All researchers of primitive mythology (A.F. Losev, F.H. Kessidi, M.I.Steblin-Kamensky, E.M. Meletinsky, E.F. it is reality and fantasy, subject and object, nature and man, personality and collective, material and spiritual. Thus, the myth is a reflection of the underdevelopment and, accordingly, the unconsciousness of social and cultural contradictions. And in this he radically differs from religion, which arises when these contradictions begin to manifest and become aware, and is an illusory way of resolving them.

The cultural function of the myth is that it gave primitive man a ready-made form for his attitude and perception of the world. The main function of the myth is "social and practical, aimed at ensuring the unity and integrity of the collective." The myth could fulfill this function due to the fact that it is "a product of the collective and is an expression of collective unity, universality and integrity."

Since there is no difference between the real and the fantastic in myth, it lacks the problem of faith and unbelief, faith and knowledge, so tragically perceived by religion. The myth does not form any ideal, its principle is “what was - that was, what is - that is,” and, therefore, there is no problem of conformity to the ideal. Finally, the myth is impersonal: individuality in it is completely dissolved in a spontaneous collective force, which means that there is no problem of personal responsibility, personal guilt.

Religion. Religion was the first sociocultural phenomenon that required professionalization of activities for its functioning. It arose in the development of mythological consciousness as its derivative, a later and qualitatively higher stage. If a myth is a reflection of the underdevelopment and unconsciousness of social and cultural contradictions, then religion, on the contrary, appears when these contradictions already take place and begin to be realized. One of the first signs of religious consciousness is the absence of mythological syncretism between subject and object. Realizing the contradiction between the subject and the object, in particular, between man and the nature around him, religion decides it in favor of external forces independent of man, which thus become the subject (deity), and man is thought of as an object of their influence.

The absence of primitive worldview anarchism in understanding the relationship between subject and object is a sign of even the most primitive religions. More developed religions rise to the realization of other contradictions of human existence.

Religion serves the same function as myth. Chief among them is integrative, that is, the rallying of certain communities around the same gods. It should be borne in mind that the integrative function of religion should not be absolutized: rallying around their gods or god often leads to separation from those who profess a different faith, worship other gods.

Another important function of religion, which it inherited from myth, is ideological. But religion also performs this function differently from myth. A more developed religious worldview covers a wider sphere of reality, includes solving the problem of a person's place in the world around him and his capabilities.

On the basis of the myth, as has already been shown, not only a solution, but also a formulation of this problem is impossible. However, the functions of religion in comparison with myth have expanded significantly.

In addition to the functions that the myth performed (and continues to perform), religion began to perform a number of important functions.

One of them is the function of sanctifying moral standards. The status of "holy, sacred" in any culture is given to the highest values ​​of this culture. Thus, sanctifying moral norms is giving them the status of the highest value. In addition, the sanctification of moral norms on a religious basis allows us to refer to God as a source of moral precepts, as an omnipresent and omniscient observer of how they are executed, and as the supreme judge who passes his judgment on moral sins (“God is your judge ! ”), And, finally, as the executor of their sentences (to heaven or hell).

Thus, the religious basis makes moral norms extraordinarily effective and imperative. Moreover, there is a very persistent conviction that morality cannot exist outside of a religious basis. "If there is no God, then everything is allowed."

Religion also successfully fulfills an aesthetic function. Architecture and interior decoration of the temple, musical accompaniment services, the clothes of priests and parishioners - all this is saturated, permeated with beauty and therefore produces an extraordinary aesthetic effect.

Religion also successfully fulfills the communicative function, that is, the function of communication. At the same time, it is able to significantly expand the circle of communication of each individual individual: not only parishioners of a particular church are included in it, but also co-religionists - compatriots, co-religionists living in other countries, all previous generations of people who professed a particular religion, and finally, every religion gives a person an absolutely perfect partner (or partners) in communication - the god (or gods) of this religion - to whom you can turn with prayer and be quite sure that it will be heard and understood.

The psychotherapeutic function of religion is also connected with this - an appeal to God heals mental ailments, helps to cope with internal disorder.

The variety of functions of religion is closely related to its essence, deeply revealed by L. Feuerbach, a philosopher whose work is the final stage in the development of German classical philosophy.

In his works, and first of all, in his most famous work "The Essence of Christianity", L. Feuerbach showed that the god of any religion is the ideal of man, as he appears to people of this or that era, of this or that culture, of this or that people. Therefore, the gods are endowed with such traits as power or even omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. In fact, these are traits that people themselves would like to have and which they possess, but only ideally, and not in real life.

Thus, according to L. Feuerbach, people seem to tear away, alienate from themselves their own essence, ascend it to heaven and worship it.

Based on this idea of ​​L. Feuerbach, it is possible to explain the diversity of religions, since it is associated with the diversity of the ideals of human perfection characteristic of different peoples and depending on the conditions of their life and historical path passed by them. Therefore, the fulfillment of the functions of religions in their entire rich spectrum is possible only in relation to believers. As for non-believers, atheists, it is obligatory for them to respect the feelings of believers, to understand the deep cultural rootedness of religion and the diversity of its functions.

In addition, every cultured person should understand that there are no good or bad religions, but there are people who are capable of distorting the initial principles of any religious teaching beyond recognition and thereby turning it into an instrument of enmity, disunity of peoples.

Art

Art in its developed forms is a vast sphere of human activity, a powerful concentration of values, without which it is impossible to imagine culture. The specificity of the anthropological function of art lies in the fact that it cultivates the emotional component of human spirituality, that is, it affects its feelings.

This also determines the social function of art: it gives society a “sentient person”. A person deprived of the ability to feel cannot be not only a full-fledged producer, but also a full-fledged consumer of cultural values, since value consciousness has a dual nature - emotional-rational or rational-emotional. This is especially important in the sphere of morality: an insensitive person is flawed as a subject of moral activity, since the stimulus of moral activity is not so much knowledge of moral norms as moral feelings: compassion, love, aversion to evil, etc. Thus, a low level of development of emotionality as components of human spirituality weakens the impact of such a powerful regulator of social life, as morality.

The role of art is also great in the functioning of other spheres of culture - communication, education, religion, etc., etc.

Thus, the social function of art lies in the fact that it is one of the powerful factors in the self-regulation of social life, the action of which is determined by its focus on the emotional sphere of human spirituality.

The specificity of art from a semiotic point of view lies in the fact that it uses the language of artistic images, which are a model of this or that phenomenon in its entirety. An integral feature of an artistic image is its emotional saturation, which distinguishes it from the models that are used in science. Due to the peculiarities of artistic images, a person who perceives a work of literature, as it were, "sees" what is narrated in it. As for the works of visual art, the very purpose of which is to give a visible image of this or that phenomenon, here the role of the artistic image is to help a person see the invisible. So, drawing a flower in a biology textbook gives an accurate idea of ​​the shape of a flower, its color (if the drawing is colored). A drawing of a flower made by an artist allows one to "see" the author's experiences, his joy or sadness, admiration for the beauty of the flower and awe before its fragility and defenselessness, etc., etc.

The general cultural function of art is to give a visible image of a particular culture, and above all a visible image of a person of a given particular culture, in all its hypostases and situations. This does not mean that art only reflects, fixes “what is”. Since any culture is impossible without ideals that orient people towards what is needed, what should be, and what one should strive for, then art is impossible without this ideal component. Therefore, the references of the authors of "chernukha" and "porno" to the fact that "such is life" only indicate that they do not understand the purpose of art.

In the axiological aspect, art is also very specific. The main value cultivated in the arts is beauty. It is one of the backbone values ​​of any culture. And in accordance with this, one of the most important functions of art is to provide a visible standard of beauty. However, the idea of ​​beauty in different cultures are significantly different: what is considered beautiful from the point of view of one culture may be perceived as ugly in another. Therefore, the standard of beauty, presented in the art of one people, can cause at least bewilderment on the part of another culture.

At the same time, there is something in common in the understanding of beauty by different peoples. It consists in bringing the concept of "beauty" closer to the concept of "harmony". However, new difficulties arise here. They consist in the fact that the concept of "harmony" is no less ambiguous than the concept of "beauty", and thus, instead of an equation with one unknown, we get an equation with two unknowns.

To solve it, it is useful to turn to the etymological meaning of the word "harmony". It is characteristic that originally in the ancient Greek language it meant "scrapie". It is in this concrete meaning that it is used, for example, even in the "Odyssey": Odysseus, building a ship, upholstery it with "nails" and "harmonies". Thus, the ancient Greeks thought of harmony as a way of permanently connecting various parts into something integral, organic. As you know, they saw an example of harmony in human body... They also thought of it as an example of beauty.

This understanding of beauty and harmony is one of the fundamental ideas of Russian cultural philosophy. Thus, the outstanding Russian thinker KN Leont'ev wrote that "the fundamental law of beauty is diversity in unity." Thus understood beauty is identical to harmony, and harmony, according to KN Leont'ev, "is not a peaceful unison, but a fruitful, fraught with creativity, at times a fierce struggle."

The merit of the development of another category, which designates one of the most important values ​​cultivated in the field of art, belongs to Russian thinkers - this is true. N.K. Mikhailovsky, one of the rulers of the thoughts of Russian youth last third XIX century., Noted that the Russian word "truth" in all its full meaning is untranslatable into any other language. At the same time, as noted by N.K. Mikhailovsky, there are two main meanings, the combination of which gives an approximate idea of ​​what the people of Russian culture understand by the word "truth".

One of these meanings is "truth-truth." It corresponds to the concept of "truth", which can be defined as knowledge that corresponds to reality. This understanding of truth reflects the moment of objectivity as an integral feature, in the absence of which it ceases to be such.

Another meaning of the concept "truth" is "truth-justice". This understanding of truth, in contrast to the first, reflects the moment of subjectivity, a relationship from the standpoint of justice, which includes a personal relationship. In the absence of this moment, the truth also ceases to be true and remains only the truth.

This idea of ​​Russian philosophy seems to be of lasting importance for understanding the axiological specifics of art. Apparently, it will be correct to consider not only beauty, but also the truth as one of the backbone values ​​cultivated in the field of art. This refers primarily to the truth of human feelings.

Clarification of the semiotic and axiological specifics of art allows a deeper understanding of exactly how art performs its main anthropological, general cultural and social functions, which was discussed at the beginning of this section.

Art also performs a number of other functions, which, together with it, are performed by other spheres of culture. The specificity of art lies in this case in the way these functions are performed.

Thus, art fulfills a cognitive function. It is more typical for another sphere of culture - science. But art makes it possible to learn and see what is inaccessible to science. Thus, the novel in verses by Alexander Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" is rightfully considered an encyclopedia of Russian life in the first third of the 19th century, the epic of O. Balzac " Human comedy"- an encyclopedia French life about the same period, D. Galsworthy's novel "The Forsyte Saga" - an encyclopedia English life late XIX - early XX centuries. etc. But, as already mentioned above, art not only reflects reality, but also constructs new, its own, worlds in accordance with the ideals of beauty, goodness, truth. Hence the constructive-programming function of art.

Art is one of the most important means of intercultural and intracultural communication and thus performs a communicative function, and often more successfully than other means of communication. This is due to the fact that the language of images is more understandable than other languages ​​of culture. So, for example, the fine arts of this or that nation gives an idea about the ideal of beauty, which the people of this culture are guided by, and about the problems that worry them, and even about ways of solving these problems.

Art is also effective remedy education. Standards of behavior, in artistic form presented in works of art have a very great educational impact precisely because of their appeal to human feelings. Have no less effect and negative images that turn a person away from unworthy behavior. The educational function of art is also based on the fact that in a figurative and artistic form it gives a picture of an intense, at times tragic struggle between good and evil, the arena of which is not only the world as a whole, but also the soul of each individual person.

The function of socialization and acculturation of the personality performed by art is also of great importance. It is carried out due to the fact that art in an artistic-figurative form gives a person an idea of ​​the set of social roles that exist in society, the requirements for them, the basic values ​​and norms of a given culture.

We must not forget also about the hedonistic function of art. The pleasure that a person receives from the perception of a highly artistic work of art is unparalleled.

The closely related relaxation and entertainment functions of art are also of great importance.

Unfortunately, in modern culture there is a tendency that all the variety of functions of art is reduced to relaxation and entertainment. This is especially true for mass culture - the most simplified, primitivized version of mass culture.

To fulfill all the diverse functions of art, professionals working in this sphere of culture develop and apply various methods and techniques. Their combination at one stage or another in the development of a particular culture forms a kind of systemic unity, which is called the artistic method.

This or that artistic method is characterized by the following main distinctive features.

First, a certain certainty of the content of works of art made in accordance with one method or another. This feature of the artistic method is directly related to the main value attitudes of a particular culture, the semantic centers of which are, as has already been said more than once, the ideal of a person, characteristic of a particular culture, at a particular stage of its development. In addition to this meaningful moment, objective in relation to the artist himself, different artistic methods are characterized by a different degree of involvement in the content of the work of the subjective moment, that is, the artist's personal position, his attitude to the values ​​and ideals prevailing in society.

Another hallmark a particular artistic method is a set of certain formal features characteristic of the expression of the content of a work of art.

It should be noted that the unity of form and content is one of the universal laws of being. Its action is especially clearly manifested in all cultural phenomena. But it has a special, unprecedented significance in art.

Since the impact on human feelings is carried out primarily due to the form of the work, then the form is often perceived as something independent, and the content of the work - as something secondary.

However, this is not the case. For all the great importance that the form of a work of art has, it still depends primarily on its content. In figurative form, this dependence of form on the content of a work of art was remarkably expressed by KN Leont'ev, already quoted by us, when he noted that form is an expression of the inner despotism of an idea.

But the peculiarity of a work of art, if it is art, is that under the yoke of the “despotic power” of the content, the form does not become a slave, but retains its active role and complements the content, makes it full-blooded, vital and vivid, which ensures its impact on the feelings of the listener , viewer, reader, etc.

The set of formal features characteristic of a particular direction in the art of a particular era or for the work of a particular artist is called a style. However, one should not think that the concept of "style" is associated only with form. It is quite understandable that given the special role that form plays in a work of art and the specificity of its connection with content, the concept of "style" cannot but include the idea of ​​content-related moments characteristic of a particular style. However, taking into account all these considerations, it should nevertheless be emphasized that the cognitive and methodological meaning of the concept of "artistic style" is due to the fact that it, to a somewhat greater extent than the concept of "artistic method", fixes attention on the form of works of art. rather than their content.

It should be noted that the concept of "style" is applicable not only in art. For example, one often hears the expression: "A person is a style." It also applies to culture as a whole. In this case, they speak of the "style of culture", meaning those semantic accents that are characteristic of the concept of "style" in general. They consist in the fact that, as already mentioned above, it allows us to pay primary attention to the formal signs of a particular phenomenon, without ignoring its content.

Returning to art, I must say that different styles can coexist within the framework of a particular artistic method.

« Artistic method"- this is a very capacious concept that allows the most meaningful characterization of the most important features of art as an element of the culture of a particular people, a particular era, a particular stage of development.

Another, no less capacious concept, which can serve as a tool for analyzing the state of art, is the concept of "artistic picture of the world." It includes the idea of ​​the "image of the world", which is created by the collective efforts of artists of a particular culture. In contrast to the scientific picture of the world, which for a long stage in the development of science remained "deserted", in the artistic picture of the world, created in the art of all times and peoples, there has always been a person in the center. However, his attitude to the world and the attitude of the world to a person, the very image of the world and the image of a person in different artistic pictures of the world appear in different ways, and this serves as one of the most important sources of knowledge of a particular culture.

The science

Science is a relatively young sphere of culture. Its function is to provide a person and society with knowledge about the objective laws of the surrounding reality. The source of knowledge is not only science, but also other spheres of human life, which provide knowledge about many useful and necessary things.

Scientific knowledge differs from other types of knowledge precisely in that it is knowledge about laws, i.e., necessary, repeated connections between things, processes, phenomena, while ordinary knowledge is knowledge about individual phenomena, processes, things, etc. ...

In addition, scientific knowledge differs from non-scientific types of knowledge in that it has a systemic character, that is, its individual elements are interrelated and interdependent, while unscientific knowledge is often fragmented.

In addition to knowledge about laws, science includes knowledge about methods of obtaining and verifying the truth of knowledge.

Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about problems, that is, about unsolved problems that arise in a particular field of science. However, it would be wrong to define science only as a special kind of knowledge. A special kind of knowledge is the goal and result of the functioning of science, and a means of achieving this goal is a special kind of human activity. Thus, science as a cultural sphere is a unity of a special kind of knowledge and activities to obtain this knowledge.

The axiological specificity of science lies in the fact that the highest value of this sphere of culture is true, objective knowledge that corresponds to reality.

In the sphere of science, that side of human activity, which is designated by the concept of "rationality", is especially clearly manifested. It is defined as a set of methods and results of optimization of human activity in accordance with the set goals. It follows that the anthropological function of science is to cultivate human rationality. This is the functional difference between science and art, which is designed to cultivate human emotionality.

On this basis, we can conclude that the complementarity of art and science and the senselessness of disputes about which is more needed - science or art. But it is important to keep in mind that the prerogative of cultivating human rationality does not belong only to science.

Its rationality is also characteristic of different areas human activity, in connection with which we can talk about a rational element in morality, art, politics, etc. In all these areas there is a specificity in setting goals, choosing means, assessing the results of activities. It is in this regard that one can raise the question of the specifics of scientific rationality. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is, firstly, a characteristic of human activity within the framework of science as a sphere of culture and, secondly, the side of human activity in any other areas where the use of science is possible: for example, in politics there is its rationality, regardless of whether science is used there, if science is used, then this gives the right to speak not only about rationality in politics, but also about scientific rationality in politics.

So, scientific rationality differs from other types of rationality in that it is based on knowledge about the objective laws of reality. The acquisition of such knowledge is the goal of human activity in the field of science. The means to achieve the goal are also specific - they are combined into the concept of "scientific methodology".

The criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge, like knowledge in general, is practice. However, in science there is a specific kind of practice - a scientific experiment. Its meaning lies in the fact that in order to test the truth of his assumptions, a researcher, on the basis of his knowledge of the objective laws of a particular area of ​​reality, creates artificial conditions. If, under these conditions, the objects under study behave in a pre-predicted manner, then the probability of recognizing the initial statements as true increases.

But in science there are no truths established once and for all, in science everything is always checked, questioned and criticized. Scientific thinking is fundamentally the opposite of dogmatism.

Thus, scientific rationality differs from all other types of rationality in terms of goals, means, methods of verifying the results obtained, and the type of thinking that serves it. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is not something immutable, given once and for all, established. It is the culturological approach to the analysis of science that made it possible to see that science is changing and developing along with the change and development of culture as a whole. In connection with the above, we can talk about different types of science and about different types of scientific rationality.

To be convinced of this, it is necessary to make a short excursion into the history of science.

Science as an independent sphere of culture declared itself only in modern times. Therefore, some researchers consider it possible to assert that the history of science begins in the 17th century, and the previous periods should be considered prehistory. As we have seen, this kind of view has some basis.

Be that as it may, from the 17th century. the fact of the existence of science should be recognized as indisputable. Moreover, science has gradually taken a dominant place in the new European culture. This is due to the fact that the branches of production, fertilized by science, through technology, give immeasurably greater profit in comparison with those that science bypasses its attention. Thus, the impetus for the development of science comes from society, or rather, from the economy.

However, this fully applies only to certain stages in the development of science. Meanwhile, science, like the modern European culture as a whole, is evolving.

So, until recently it was generally recognized to distinguish two periods in the development of modern European science: classical and non-classical. The well-known Russian philosopher V.S.Stepin, who is fruitfully engaged in the study of science precisely in the cultural context, suggested and quite reasonably distinguished not two, but three periods: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science. Periodization is based on differences in the ideals and norms of scientific research, the scientific picture of the world, the philosophical principles of scientific activity, and communication with practice. All this, taken together, is the basis for identifying three types of scientific rationality - classical, non-classical and post-non-classical.

Among the ideals and norms of scientific research, V.S.Stepin singles out such a side of science as its orientation towards the object or subject of research. Accordingly, it is stated that classical science focuses only on the object and puts out of the brackets everything that relates to the subject and the means of activity. Non-classical science is characterized by the idea of ​​the object's relativity to the means and operations of activity. Finally, post-nonclassical science "takes into account the correlation of knowledge by object not only with means, but also with value-target structures of activity." Thanks to the inclusion of an axiological aspect in a science that was previously considered fundamentally disaxiological, a new, "humanized" methodology appears.

The question may arise whether there is a discrepancy between the logic of human development and the logic of the history of science. So, speaking about the development of the essential forces of a person in capitalist society, we stated that it followed the subjective-object line - the search for a synthesis of the subjective and the object. And in science, it seems, the situation was strictly the opposite: orientation to the object of study, then to the subject, and now, again, the search for a synthesis between the correspondence to the object and the value orientations of the subject. If you look deeper, you can see that there are no discrepancies between these two lines. After all, the orientation of classical science towards the object of study was nothing more than a manifestation of an unshakable belief that man is an all-powerful subject of knowledge, fully capable of unraveling the plan of God in the order of the world. The transition to non-classical science in this sense can be seen as a person's abandonment of his scientific pride and coming to the conviction that a person can cognize the world "as far as". And, finally, post-non-classical science poses the problem of synthesizing two previously identified tendencies: both the orientation towards scientific objectivity and the inclusion of a value-based, i.e. subjective, component in all elements of scientific activity.

Evolution scientific methodology manifested itself and manifests itself not only in changes in the orientations of scientific activity towards an object or subject, but also in other directions. So, classical science considered mathematics and physics as a model and, accordingly, mathematical methods... Non-classical science has reached "epistemological anarchism" based on the belief that the process of cognition is a field for the application of various creative abilities, or rather, the arbitrariness of the cognizing object.

Postnonclassical science is trying to follow the path of combining the principle of pluralism of methods with the principle of scientific accuracy, which, however, is also understood in a completely new way. As K. A. Svasyan rightly notes, "cultural space is a gradation of methods, each of which has the right to self-determination without forcibly equating the excellent students of the physics and mathematics service."

As for the issue of the orientation of science towards practice, it should be emphasized that a purely pragmatistic approach to science was a general cultural phenomenon for the new era. It was characteristic of both scientists and philosophers. The words of T. Hobbes are remarkable in this respect: “Knowledge is only the path to power. Theorems (which in geometry are a way of investigation) only serve to solve problems. And all speculation ultimately aims at some action or practical success. "

Cartesian analytical philosophy also had a pragmatic orientation. Emphasizing this circumstance, V. N. Katasonov notes: “Newton in this sense, in spite of the polemic with Descartes, says the same thing: in geometry, the main concept is constructions. Newton, on the other hand, prefers to preserve the “freedom of hands”, but at the same time focuses on the pragmatics of geometry. The ancient understanding of geometry is re-emphasized: contemplation is relegated to the background. Its “lower” part, “related to crafts” ... the geometry of constructions comes to the fore. " V. N. Katasonov rightly sees the connection of this phenomenon with all other aspects of the culture of modern times. “The new geometry was inseparable from the new culture, the new, emerging formation, the new man,” he emphasizes. And further: "New organon" by F. Bacon and the experimental method of G. Galileo, and "social engineering" by T. Campanella, and the indomitable will of the dramatic heroes of P. Corneille - all testified to the birth of a new person, active, active, first p and w o w w e g about the world ".

Non-classical science has given rise to a kind of "opposition" of scientists regarding the principle of pragmatism. It was at this time that statements such as the well-known assertion appeared that science was a way to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist at the expense of the state.

Postnonclassical science poses the problem of clearing the principle of connection between scientific activity and practice from narrow utilitarianism, into which it is often reborn. This is due to the need not only for a broader, humanistic understanding of practice, but also with its real humanization. And this already goes far beyond the boundaries of science.

As for the analysis of the process of development of science of new and modern times in the light of the cultural category "scientific picture of the world", it will give us another triad. So, a mechanical picture of the world corresponds to classical science, non-classical science is characterized by a plurality of pictures of the world - along with the physical, biological, chemical, etc. appear. Post-non-classical science strives to synthesize them and create a single, integral picture historical development nature, society and man himself. This is the inclusion of a person in scientific picture the world is, perhaps, the most striking manifestation of the changes taking place in modern science: the “deserted” picture of the world becomes an anachronism for it.

The process of changing the philosophical foundations of science of new and modern times is also triadic: classical science relies on metaphysical philosophy, non-classical science not only gives due credit, but also hypertrophies the principle of relativity, post-non-classical science seeks to synthesize the scrupulousness of analysis, which is based on the principles of metaphysical philosophy, with flexibility of thinking, mobility and breadth views derived from the principle of relativity.

Along with the one discussed above, in Russian literature there is another point of view on the periodization of the history of science, in accordance with other principles. It was proposed by G. N. Volkov, substantiated in a number of his works, published in the 60s - 80s of the XX century, but did not find a wide response and support either then or at the present time. Meanwhile, his approach allows, it seems, to highlight important features and characteristics of science.

G.N. Volkov proposes to consider as a criterion for periodization the orientation of science towards a person or towards other goals that are outside of a person. Accordingly, he distinguishes three periods in the development of science: the first - from the emergence of science in Ancient Greece until the 17th century, the second - from the beginning of the 17th century. until the middle of XX, the third - from the middle of XX century. Until now.

The first period is characterized by a human orientation of science. Science seeks to explain to man logos, that is, the laws of the world around him. The second period in the development of science is characterized by the orientation of science towards technology. The leaders are the sciences of the physical and mathematical cycle, the methods of these sciences are becoming absolutized, and the dehumanization of science takes place. In the third period of the development of science, a reorientation of science begins again from technology to man. This is reflected in the growing role of the humanities and the humanization of scientific methodology as a whole, in expanding the range of methods used and in the increasing role of the value moment in the process of obtaining, especially in the process of applying scientific knowledge.

As it is easy to see, GN Volkov's periodization has certain features of similarity with V.S.Stepin's periodization. More precisely, it can be noted that different approaches to the periodization of the history of science, which make it possible to highlight different aspects of this process, nevertheless ultimately yield similar results, which apparently testifies to the reliability of these results.

In particular, the characteristics of the third period in the development of science (according to the theory of G. N. Volkov) reveal features of similarity with classical science. In the characterization by G. N. Volkov of the modern period of the development of science, the features of post-non-classical science with its humanizing methodology are guessed.

Summing up, it should be said that the third stage in the development of science of modern and recent times, associated with its deep humanization, is just beginning, the contours of the new science are still barely outlined. The principle of scientism, which consists in the fetishization of the norms and ideals of classical science and their transformation into general cultural norms, is still one of the critical factors that shape the modern cultural situation in Western countries. This creates tension in the relationship between science and other spheres of culture.

Philosophy

One of the most important spheres of culture is philosophy (from the Greek. filo- I love, sofos- wisdom). Since its inception, it has performed and continues to perform a number of functions. Some of them are only capable of performing philosophy, the other part it performs together with other spheres of culture, but in other ways accessible only to philosophy.

The most important cultural and anthropological function of philosophy is the worldview. Philosophy satisfies a person's need for a holistic idea of ​​the world around him and a person's place in it. Before the advent of philosophy, this need was satisfied by mythology and religion. But neither one nor the other provided an explanation and substantiation of worldview positions, did not answer the questions "why?", "Why?" and whether other views and other solutions to worldview problems are possible. The desire to provide answers to these questions led to the emergence of philosophy.

Similar information.

Material and spiritual culture are two types of culture that are opposite in their specific characteristics.

Material culture- the embodiment of materialized human needs, these are the material results of human labor (artifacts) - houses, household items, clothing. It realizes the desire of mankind to adapt to living conditions. Material culture includes: technical structures (tools, weapons, buildings, household equipment, clothing), technology; physical aspects of human development (physical education and sports; culture of a healthy lifestyle); various institutions.

Spiritual culture- those phenomena that are associated with the inner world of a person, with his intellectual, emotional activity. As a rule, it includes ideology, science, morality, art and religion, which, in turn, include: norms, rules, patterns, standards, models and norms of behavior, laws, values, rituals, symbols, ideas, customs, traditions , language, myths, etc.

In general, spiritual culture acts as an activity aimed at the spiritual development of a person and society.

Mass and elite culture

Mass culture is the culture of everyday life, represented by the most wide audience... The mass is a specific form of a community of people, which is characterized by aggressiveness, primitive aspirations, low intelligence and heightened emotionality, spontaneity, willingness to obey a strong-willed shout, changeability, etc.

Popular culture - (pop culture) is tasteless, cliché, simplistic, entertaining and very fashionable. It was born in the United States at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries; Hollywood businessmen are considered the founders. Popular culture is commercial in nature, targeted at the general public.

Specific traits: 1) popular culture belongs to the majority; it is the culture of everyday life;

2) mass culture is not a culture of social “lower classes”, it exists apart from and “above” social formations;

4) standard and stereotyped;

5) is unable to quickly and adequately respond to changes in culture;

6) is more often of a consumer nature, forms a special type of passive, uncritical perception of this culture in a person;

Spheres of manifestation: Mass media, the system of state ideology (manipulating consciousness), mass political movements, general education school, the system of organizing and stimulating mass consumer demand, the system of forming an image, leisure, etc.

Elite culture- higher culture. Created by a privileged part of society or by its order by professional creators. It includes fine arts, classical music and classical literature. As a rule, an elite culture is ahead of the level of its perception by an average educated person. The motto of elite culture is "Art for the sake of art."

Specific features:

1) has a marked character; deliberately opposes the culture of the majority;

2) distinguishes high level innovations;

3) the cultural elite does not coincide with the government and often opposes it.

Spheres of manifestation: art, religion, science.

In general, the elite culture acts as an initiative and productive beginning in any culture, performing a predominantly creative function in it.

Folk culture Is a culture addressed wide circles society and includes a wide variety of elements: myths, legends, fairy tales, songs, dances, ditties, etc. Folk culture: Folklore - describes the past. Popular - describes today's. Folk art - songs, fairy tales, trades. There is folk medicine, folk pedagogy.

Subculture. Since society splits into many groups (national, demographic, social, professional, etc.), each of them gradually forms its own culture, i.e. system of values ​​and rules of conduct. Such small cultural worlds are called subcultures. They talk about the youth subculture, the subculture of the elderly, the professional subculture, the subculture of national minorities, urban, rural, etc. The subculture differs from the dominant one by language, outlook on life, and behavior. Such differences can be expressed very strongly, nevertheless, the subculture does not oppose the dominant culture.

Counterculture. A subculture that not only differs from the dominant culture, but opposes it, is in conflict with the dominant values, is called a counterculture. The subculture of the underworld is opposed to human culture, and the "hippie" youth movement, which became widespread in the 60-70s. in Western Europe and the United States, denied the dominant American values: social values, moral norms and moral ideals of a consumer society, profit, political loyalty, sexual restraint, conformism and rationalism.

Material culture is associated with a historical approach. Ancient cultures are most often considered in this regard. Spiritual culture - science, morality, morality, law, religion, art, education; material - tools and means of labor, equipment and structures, production (agricultural and industrial), ways and means of communication, transport, household items.

Material culture is one of the parts of an integral human culture, embodied in the form of a thing, the spirituality of a person, the results of creative activity, in which a natural object and its material are embodied in objects, properties and qualities and which ensure the existence of a person. Material culture includes a variety of means of production, energy and raw materials, tools of labor, production technology and infrastructure of the human environment, means of communication and transport, buildings and structures for household, office and entertainment purposes, various means of consumption, material-subject relations in the field of technology or economy.

Spiritual culture is one of the parts of an integral human culture, the cumulative spiritual experience of mankind, intellectual and spiritual activity and its results, ensuring the development of a person as a person. Spiritual culture exists in various forms. These are customs, norms, patterns of behavior, values, ideals, ideas, knowledge that have developed in specific historical social conditions. In a developed culture, these components turn into relatively independent spheres of activity and acquire the status of independent social institutions: morality, religion, art, politics, philosophy, science, etc.

Material and spiritual culture exist in close unity. In fact, everything material, obviously, turns out to be the realization of the spiritual, and this spiritual is impossible without some material shell. At the same time, there is a significant difference between material and spiritual culture. First of all, there is a difference in the subject. It is clear, for example, that the tools of labor and, say, musical works are fundamentally different from each other and serve different purposes. The same can be said about the nature of activities in the sphere of material and in the sphere of spiritual culture. In the sphere of material culture, human activity is characterized by a change in the material world, and a person deals with material objects. Activities in the field of spiritual culture presuppose a certain work with the system of spiritual values. This also implies the difference in the means of activity and their results in both spheres.

For a long time in Russian social science the point of view dominated, according to which material culture is primary, and spiritual culture has a secondary, dependent, "superstructure" character. Meanwhile, an unbiased examination will immediately reveal the very artificial nature of this subordination. After all, this approach assumes that a person must first satisfy his so-called "material" needs, in order to then move on to satisfying "spiritual" needs. But even the most elementary "material" needs of a person, for example, food and drink, are fundamentally different from the seemingly exactly the same biological needs of animals. An animal, by absorbing food and water, really only satisfies its biological needs. In humans, in contrast to animals, these actions, which we have chosen quite arbitrarily for an example, also perform a sign function. There are prestigious, ceremonial, funeral and festive dishes and drinks, etc. This means that the corresponding actions can no longer be considered the satisfaction of purely biological (material) needs. They are an element of sociocultural symbolism and, therefore, are related to the system of social values ​​and norms, i.e. to spiritual culture.

The same can be said about all other elements of material culture. For example, clothing not only protects the body from adverse weather conditions, but also indicates age and sex characteristics, the place of a person in a community. There are also working, everyday, ritual types of clothing. The human dwelling possesses multilevel symbolism. The listing can be continued, but the examples given are quite enough to draw a conclusion about the impossibility of isolating purely biological (material) needs in the human world. Any human action is already a social symbol with a meaning that is revealed only in the sphere of culture. And this means that the position on the primacy of material culture cannot be recognized as justified for the simple reason that no material culture in its "pure form" simply does not exist.

Thus, the material and spiritual components of culture are inextricably linked with each other. After all, creating the objective world of culture, a person cannot do this without changing and transforming himself, i.e. not creating oneself in the process of one's own activity. Culture turns out to be not only an activity as such, but a way of organizing activity. And such an organization is impossible without a complex and ramified system of social symbolism. A person as a person cannot perform even the most elementary action without weaving it into a chain of symbols. The symbolic meaning of an action is often more important than its purely practical result. In this case, it is customary to talk about rituals, i.e. about such types of activity, which in themselves are completely inappropriate, but are connected with purposeful activity purely symbolically.

All human activity becomes the content of culture, and the division into material and spiritual culture looks rather arbitrary. The main thing that is created as a result of the development of culture is a person as a generic being. Everything that a person does, he does ultimately for the sake of solving this problem. At the same time, the development of a person appears as the improvement of his creative powers, abilities, forms of communication, etc.

Culture, if viewed in a broad sense, includes both material and spiritual means of human life, which are created by the person himself.

Material and spiritual realities created by human creative labor are called artifacts.

At present, culture is being studied systematically, which means that in its cognition, ideas about probable and random processes are used.

The peculiarities of the system analysis is that the systematic approach makes it possible to present the culture in a holistic manner, and not in parts, to reveal the specifics of the influence of different spheres of culture on each other.

This approach makes it possible to use the cognitive capabilities of a wide variety of research methods created by representatives of sciences that study culture and are highly heuristic.

Finally, the systematic approach is a flexible and rather tolerant concept that does not allow the conclusions drawn to be absolutized, and even more so to oppose other conclusions obtained by other methods.

It was the systematic approach that made it possible to understand the culture itself as a specific form and system of human life, highlighting the areas of culture in it, cultural institutions, the principles of social ties, cultural patterns that determine the structure of culture.

An important role in the spiritual culture of society belongs to art... The specificity of art, which makes it possible to distinguish it from all other forms of human activity, lies in the fact that art assimilates and expresses reality in an artistic and figurative form. It is the result of a specific artistic and creative activity and, at the same time, the realization of the cultural historical experience of mankind. The artistic image appears not just as an external resemblance to reality, but manifests itself in the form of a creative attitude to this reality, as a way to speculate, supplement real life.

An artistic image is the essence of art, it is a sensual recreation of life, made from a subjective, author's standpoint. The artistic image concentrates in itself the spiritual energy of the culture and the person that created it, manifesting itself in the plot, composition, color, sound, in one or another visual interpretation. In other words, an artistic image can be embodied in clay, paint, stone, sounds, photography, word and at the same time realize itself as musical composition, a picture, a novel, as well as a film and a play in general.

Like any developing system, art is flexible and flexible, which allows it to realize itself in different types, genres, directions, styles. The creation and functioning of works of art takes place within the framework of artistic culture, which combines artistic creativity, art history, art criticism and aesthetics into a historically changing whole.

Art enriches culture with spiritual values ​​through artistic production, through the creation of subjective ideas about the world, through a system of images symbolizing the meanings and ideals of a certain time, a certain era. Hence, art has three dimensions: past, present and future. In accordance with this, differences are possible in the types of values ​​that art creates. These are retro values ​​that are oriented towards the past, realistic values ​​that are “precisely” oriented towards the present, and, finally, avant-garde values ​​that are oriented towards the future.

The role of art in the development of culture is controversial. It is constructive and destructive, it can educate in the spirit of lofty ideals and vice versa. In general, art, thanks to objectification, is able to maintain an open value system, an open search and choice of orientation in culture, which ultimately fosters a person's spiritual independence, freedom of spirit. For culture, this is an important potential and a factor in its development.

However, the core basis of spiritual culture is religion. In religion, as a form of spiritual and practical development of the world, a mental transformation of the world is carried out, its organization in consciousness, in the course of which it is developed definite picture the world, norms, values, ideals and other components of the worldview that determine a person's attitude to the world and act as guidelines and regulators of his behavior.

The main thing in almost any religion is belief in God or belief in the supernatural, in a miracle, which is incomprehensible to reason, in a rational way. All the values ​​of religion are formed in this vein. Culture, as a rule, modifies the formation of religion, but, once established, religion begins to change the culture, so that further development culture comes under the significant influence of religion. E. Durkheim emphasized that religion operates mainly with collective ideas and therefore cohesion and connection are its main regulators. The values ​​of religion are accepted by the community of co-religionists, therefore religion acts primarily through the motives of consolidation, through a uniform assessment of the surrounding reality, life goals, the essence of a person. The basis of religion is one or another cult system, that is, a system of ritual actions associated with certain ideas about the supernatural and the ability to communicate with it. In the course of historical development in society, the institutionalization of cult systems takes place, they acquire the form of one or another organization. The most developed form of religious organizations is the church - an association of believers and ministers of worship on the basis of a certain creed and under the leadership of the higher clergy. In a civilized society, the church acts as a relatively independent social organization, spiritual power, performing a number of important social functions, among which in the foreground is the formation of certain goals, values ​​and ideals among its members. Religion, establishing a gradation of values, gives them holiness and unconditionality, this leads to the fact that religion orders values ​​along the "vertical" - from earthly and everyday to divine and heavenly.

The requirement of constant moral perfection of a person in line with the values ​​offered by religion creates a field of tension of meanings and meanings, falling into which a person regulates his choice within the boundaries of sin and justice. Religious consciousness, unlike other worldview systems, includes in the “world-man” system an additional mediating formation - the sacred world, correlating with this world its ideas about being as a whole and the goals of human existence. This gives rise to a tendency towards the conservation of values ​​and cultural traditions, which can lead to social stabilization, but at the expense of restraining secular values. Secular values ​​are more conventional, they are easier to transform and interpret in the spirit of the times. The general tendency manifests itself here in the fact that in the development of culture, the processes of secularization are gradually intensifying, that is, the liberation of culture from the influence of religion. These processes are primarily associated with the increasing need of people to create their own picture of the world, through its comprehension and comprehension. This is how another structural element of culture appears - philosophy, which seeks to express wisdom in the forms of thought (hence its name, which literally translates as "love of wisdom").

Philosophy arose as a spiritual overcoming of myth and religion, including where wisdom was expressed in forms that did not allow for its critical comprehension and rational proof. As thinking, philosophy tends to rational explanation of all being. But, being at the same time an expression of wisdom, philosophy turns to the ultimate semantic foundations of being, sees things and the whole world in their human (value-semantic) dimension. Thus, philosophy acts as a theoretical worldview and expresses human values, human attitude to the world. Since the world, taken in the semantic dimension, is the world of culture, philosophy acts as an understanding, or, in Hegel's words, the theoretical soul of culture. The diversity of cultures and the possibility of different semantic positions within each culture lead to a variety of conflicting philosophical teachings.

Spiritual evolution through myth, religion and philosophy has led humanity to science, where the authenticity and truth of the knowledge obtained is tested by specially developed means and methods. This is one of the new institutions in the structure of culture. However, its importance is growing rapidly, and modern culture is undergoing profound changes under the influence of science. Science exists as a special way of producing objective knowledge. Objectivity does not include an evaluative attitude to the object of knowledge, thus, science deprives the object of any value value for the observer. The most important result of scientific progress is the emergence of civilization as a system of rationalized and technitized forms of human existence. Science expands the space for technocratic attributes, enriches human consciousness with technocratic meanings and meanings - these are all elements of civilization. It can be argued that in the history of mankind, science acts as a civilizing force, and culture as an inspiring force. Science creates, according to V. Vernadsky's definition, the noosphere - the sphere of reason, rational living. Rationality does not always fit into the requirements of morality. For this reason, modern culture is not harmonious and balanced. The contradiction between rationality and morality has not been resolved to this day, therefore, in a sense, civilization and culture are incompatible. Technitized forms of human being are opposed to the inner principles (values ​​and ideals) of the spiritual essence of man. However, science, giving rise to civilization, is associated with culture into a holistic education and the modern history of mankind is already inconceivable without science. Science has become a fundamental factor in the survival of humanity, it experiments with its capabilities, creates new opportunities, reconstructs the means of human life, and through this changes the person himself. The creative possibilities of science are enormous, and they are transforming culture ever more profoundly. It can be argued that science has a certain cultural role, it gives culture rationalistic forms and attributes. The ideals of objectivity and rationality in such a culture are becoming increasingly important. Therefore, we can say that the value of scientific knowledge is proportional to its usefulness. Science, giving knowledge to man, arms him, gives him strength. "Knowledge is power!" - F. Bacon asserted. But for what purposes, and with what sense is this power used? Culture must answer this question. The highest value for science is truth, while the highest value for culture is man.

Thus, only with the synthesis of culture and science is it possible to build a humanistic civilization.

Summing up, we can say that culture is a complex multi-level system that absorbs and reflects the contradictions of the whole world, which are manifested:

• 1. in the contradiction between socialization and individualization of the individual: on the one hand, a person inevitably socializes, assimilating the norms of society, and on the other, he strives to preserve the individuality of his personality.
• 2. in the contradiction between the normativity of culture and the freedom that it represents to a person. Norm and freedom are two poles, two struggling principles.
• 3. in the contradiction between the traditional character of culture and the renewal that takes place in it.

These and other contradictions constitute not only the essential characteristic of culture, but are also the source of its development.

The formation and development of the culture of a particular society or its individual groups are influenced by the most different factors... So each culture absorbs the social or demographic characteristics of life, depends on natural and climatic conditions, as well as on the level of development of society as a whole. Within various social groups, specific cultural phenomena are born. They are fixed in the special features of people's behavior, consciousness, language, a worldview and mentality is formed, which is characteristic only of specific carriers of culture.

The first structural element of culture is material culture, which is objective, material forms of expressing spiritual meanings.

Material culture is a set of methods of production of material goods and values ​​created by human labor at each stage of the development of society.

Value- this is the positive significance of objects, phenomena and ideas. Objects and phenomena become a blessing if they satisfy positive human needs and contribute to social progress. Material culture is based on a rational, reproductive type of activity, is expressed in an objective and objective form, satisfies the primary needs of a person.

Economic culture - This is an activity aimed at creating material conditions for human life as a creator of the "second nature". It includes, first of all, economic activity - the means of production, methods of practical activity for their creation (production relations), as well as the creative moments of the daily economic activity of a person.

Economic culture should not be reduced to material production, it characterizes it from the point of view of influence on a person, creating conditions for his life and the development of abilities, their implementation in the economic life of society. This culture is embodied not just in production, technology, but in the implementation of the creative principle of human material activity.

Traditionally, culturologists distinguish labor culture as objects (forms) of material culture - equipment, structures and tools, means of production, communication systems - ways and means of communication (transport, communications); the culture of everyday life - items of clothing, everyday life, food.

All these cultural objects are carriers of cultural information that create an artificial environment for humanity and are a process and result of human material activity. All these phenomena are associated with the content of productive forces or production relations. However, material culture, being a side of material production, is not identical to it. It characterizes production from the point of view of creating conditions for human life, its development, as well as the realization of a person's abilities in the process of material activity.

v Spiritual cool.

Spiritual culture - a set of spiritual values ​​of mankind (ideas, perceptions, convictions, beliefs, knowledge); intellectual spiritual activity and its results, ensuring the development of a person as a person at every stage of the development of society.

Spiritual culture is based on a rational, creative type of activity, is expressed in a subjective form, and satisfies the secondary needs of a person.

Spiritual culture includes forms focused on the development of knowledge and values ​​in the spiritual sphere - it is a complex of ideas, knowledge, perceptions, experiences, motives, drives, beliefs, norms, traditions of human existence. Spiritual activity has a complex structure and includes the following forms of culture:

Religious culture (religious teachings, traditional confessions and denominations, modern cults and teachings);

Moral culture (ethics as a theoretical understanding of morality, morality as its public expression, morality as a personal norm);

Aesthetic culture (art, its types, trends and styles);

Legal culture (legal proceedings, legislation, executive system);

Political culture (traditional political regime, ideology, norms of interaction between subjects of politics);

Intellectual culture (science, philosophy).

By type of activity, all of them are included in cognitive activity (science, philosophy), value-oriented activity (morality, art, religion), regulating activity (politics, law).

Cognitive activity is based on human cognition of nature, society, himself and his inner world. This activity is most adequately represented by scientific activity. The science- a specialized area of ​​culture focused on cognition. The main functions of science are to form a system of logically ordered knowledge based on a specially organized theoretical and empirical study of reality; building rational forecasts; control of the investigated processes on the basis of the experiment.

Traditional knowledge passed from generation to generation, accepted as a "dogmatic platitude" that is not questioned, with the emergence of a new intellectual environment - scientific - ceases to dominate the minds of people, lead to sharp leaps in the development of the entire culture. Thus, in any society, a system of obtaining, storing, transferring information and knowledge is formed, independent of the individual individual.

Value-oriented human activities include morality (moral culture), art (artistic culture) and religion (religious culture). A meaningful nature of cognition, understanding of the world presupposes not just knowledge about it, but an understanding of the value of the person himself as a subject of activity, the value of his knowledge, creations, the values ​​of the very world of culture in which a person lives. The human world is always a world of values. It is filled with meanings and meanings for him.

The first most socially significant sphere of culture is moral culture, which gives a normative value orientation of the attitude of individuals and social groups to all aspects of society and to each other.

Moral culture - this is the level of humanity achieved by society and the individual, humanity in the relations of social subjects, the attitude towards a person as a higher goal and value in itself . The moral culture of a person is manifested as a culture of an act: a motive corresponding to the concepts of good and evil, justice and human dignity. The moral culture of an individual is based on morality and conscience.

The second form of spiritual culture associated with value activities is artistic and aesthetic culture. Art culture - it is a specific sensory-emotional sphere of cognition, assessment and artistic transformation of the world according to the laws of beauty. Artistic culture is based on an irrational, creative type of activity, is expressed both in an objective-objective and in a subjective form, satisfies the secondary needs of a person (see art in the system of spiritual culture).

The third form of spiritual culture, associated with value activities is religious culture based on religious activity as a person's ascent to God . Religious culture is embodied by cult and confessional actions, the meaning of which is determined by the corresponding system of values, the main of which is God as the spiritual and moral Absolute.

In spiritual culture, two more forms can be distinguished that are focused on the regulatory form of activity - this is politics ( political culture) and law (legal culture) associated with the state and its institutions and the legal system of society.

Spiritual culture grows up as the ideal side of material activity. However, under certain conditions, fixed in the mechanisms of social memory spiritual culture advocatesas a stable matrix of spiritual life, stereotype of perception and thinking, mentality of society. It can play a leading role at different stages of the development of society.

To the peculiarities of spiritual culture, which is focused on the generation of knowledge and values, it is necessary to include the following:

1. Spiritual culture is a special spiritual world created by the power of human thought, which is richer than the real, material world (for example, the art of painting - the direction of surrealism - the artist S. Dali).

2. Spiritual culture gives a person the greatest freedom of creativity (conscious human creativity is what distinguishes the world of culture from the natural world).

3. Spiritual culture is needed by itself, and not for the sake of achieving any goals.

4. Spiritual culture is the most "fragile" area of ​​culture, it is more sensitive to changes in the socio-cultural space, more than any other area it suffers during social cataclysms and needs the support of society.

It should be noted that the concept of "spiritual culture" also includes material objects that include the world of spiritual culture: libraries, museums, theaters, cinemas, concert halls, educational institutions, courts, etc. Any object of material culture is the embodiment of certain human intentions, and in real life the material and the ideal in culture are always intertwined.