Domestic culture of the Soviet and post-Soviet era. Culture of the USSR: from socialist realism to freedom of creativity Domestic culture of the Soviet and post-Soviet era introduction

29.06.2020

Characteristics of the hero from the comedy "Minor" D

Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, the main character of the story

The image and characteristics of svidrigailov in the novel crime and punishment dostoevsky composition

The image and characteristics of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin's "The Minor": the description of Mitrofan Prostakov

General remarks

Post-Soviet culture should be characterized by covering the period 1985-1991, which went down in history as the period of "perestroika and glasnost". Speaking about post-Soviet culture, one cannot ignore such historical events as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, economic liberalization, signs of freedom of speech that have appeared, and most importantly, the Communist Party has ceased to be a political monopoly.

In addition, the usual planned economy collapsed, and the people began to rapidly become impoverished. The coming to power of B. Yeltsin had a significant impact on the cultural situation in the country: such celebrities as M.L. Rostropovich, G. Vishnevskaya (musicians), A. Solzhenitsyn and T. Voinovich (writers), E. Unknown (artist). At the same time, thousands of professionals left Russia, mainly in the technical field, which was associated with a huge reduction in funding for science.

Remark 1

The fact that our scientists were received by the most famous foreign scientific centers indicates that Soviet science in previous years was at the forefront.

The high adaptability of Russian culture was manifested in the fact that, for example, despite the reduction in funding for culture, in the dashing 90s, about 10 thousand private publishing houses appeared, which literally in the shortest possible time published almost all the books that were banned in the USSR and which could be " get it "only in" samizdat ". Many so-called thick journals appeared, which published interesting analytical works.

Religious culture has also returned. This was manifested not only in the number of believers, by the way, this can be attributed to fashion, but also, most importantly, in the restoration and restoration of churches, cathedrals and monasteries. Orthodox universities also began to appear. But painting, architecture and literature of the 90s were not marked by bright talents.

Somehow, positively or negatively, it is impossible to characterize the culture of Russia in the 90s - too little time has passed. Now we can only outline the cultural realities of that time.

So, after the collapse of the USSR, a single culture split into 15 national cultures, which “disowned” both the common Soviet culture and the cultural traditions of each other. All this led to sociocultural tensions, often expressed in military conflicts.

Remark 2

And yet, the threads that bind the culture cannot be torn so easily, but only they were refracted in a peculiar way.

First of all, culture was influenced by the disappearance of a single cultural policy, i.e. culture lost its guaranteed customer and got out of the dictate of the state. It was necessary to choose a new path of development, and this choice caused heated discussions.

On the one hand, opportunities appeared for the development of spiritual culture after the fall of ideological barriers, and on the other, the economic crisis caused the commercialization of culture, which led to the loss of its national characteristics and the Americanization of many branches of culture.

We can say that the current stage of development of Russian culture is a transitional one. In just one century Russia has experienced twice a cultural revolution, i.e. some cultural values that did not have time to form, are rejected and new ones begin to emerge.

At the present stage, mutually exclusive tendencies are manifested in Russian culture:

subordination of Russian culture to Western standards;
progressive, based on the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, which have always been professed by the peoples of Russia.

The struggle between them determines the development of Russian culture in the third millennium.

Remark 3

Today's Russian culture is a very complex and ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it determines the directions of the world socio-cultural process, on the other, it is influenced by the culture of the West in the broad sense of the word.

A significant part of the population of Russia, having lost faith in the tsar and trust in the church, made Bolshevism their religion and made a revolution. However, there is a serious difference between Christian eschatology and Bolshevik utopia, well shown by the German philosopher G. Rormaser: “The fundamental difference between utopia, including socialist one, from Christian eschatology is that the latter is historically, politically realized as the present, and not as the future ! Christian eschatology contains no other meaning than the idea of how to make a person capable of perceiving the present, while utopian thinking draws the future as a result of the denial of the present. Utopia is realized in the process of rescuing a person from the present, when a person loses his present. Christian eschatology, on the other hand, brings a person out of the insane belief in the future that has taken possession of him, preoccupied with the fact that a person always only has to or wants to live, but never lives. This eschatology orients him to the present. " Thus, a future-oriented utopia sanction the destruction of the present. This is how the revolution is terrible.

The price of the revolution for Russia and Russian culture is high. Many cultural creators were forced to leave Russia. Russian emigration of the XX century. gave a lot to world culture and science. You can cite many names of people who worked in physics, chemistry, philosophy, literature, biology, painting, sculpture, who created entire trends, schools and showed the world great examples of the national national genius.

The contribution of the thinkers of the Russian diaspora to the world philosophical process, translations and editions of their works in the main languages of the world contributed to the recognition of Russian philosophy as highly developed and original. They have priority in the formulation of a number of problems in cultural studies, history of philosophy, philosophy of history. These include comprehension of the role of Orthodoxy in the development of the Russian people, analysis of the national specifics of Russian culture, reflections on the main features of the Russian nation in the 20th century, on the "Russian idea", etc.

Cultural life in Soviet Russia has acquired a new dimension. Although until the beginning of the 30s. there was a relative ideological pluralism, various literary and artistic unions and groupings operated, the leading was the installation to a total break with the past, to suppress the personality and glorify the masses, the collective. In artistic creation, there were even calls to “burn Raphael in the name of our tomorrow”, destroy museums, “trample the flowers of art”.

Social utopianism flourished, there was a powerful impulse for new forms of life in all its spheres, various technical, literary, artistic, architectural projects, including extravagant ones, were put forward. For example, they talked about the communist transformation of all life. It was planned to build such residential buildings in which there would be only small secluded bedrooms, and dining rooms, kitchens, children's rooms would become common for everyone.

The denial of the immortality of the soul led to the idea of the immortality of the body. The placement of Lenin's body in the mausoleum was also associated with the hope of someday resurrecting it. In the subconsciousness of the Russian people, there was always a glimmer of hope for the possibility of the immortality of the body. NF Fedorov considered the main problem of the "resurrection of the fathers". Communism, aiming to create the kingdom of God on Earth, received approval from the people also because it supported the belief in bodily immortality. The death of a child in A. Platonov's "Chevengur" is the main proof that there is no communism yet. The generation of people who grew up in the conditions of Soviet mythology was shocked by the physical death of Stalin, isn't it from here such a grandiose "great farewell", and did not belief in communism collapse after this death on a subconscious level?

Bolshevism brought to its logical end the formation that took shape in European thought of the 18th-19th centuries. the idea of active transformation, alteration of nature. Already in the first years of Soviet power, L. D. Trotsky declared that, having done away with class enemies, the Bolsheviks would begin to remake nature. In Maxim Gorky's 3-volume collected works, published in the 50s, you can find an article entitled "On the fight against nature." In other articles, Gorky argued that "in the Union of Soviets there is a struggle of the reasonably organized will of the working masses against the spontaneous forces of nature and against that" spontaneity "in man, which in essence is nothing but the instinctive anarchism of the individual." Culture, according to Gorky, turns out to be the violence of reason over the zoological instincts of people. Theoretical calculations were realized in practice in the post-war "great Stalinist plan for the transformation of nature." After Stalin's death, the construction of a large number of large objects was stopped, including the Main Turkmen Canal, the Volga-Ural Canal, the Volga-Caspian Waterway, the Chum-Salekhard-Igarka polar railway. The last echo of those times was the infamous project of diverting part of the flow of northern rivers to the south.

In the 30s. a new stage has begun in the development of culture. Relative pluralism was done away with. All workers of literature and art were united in a single unified unions. One artistic method has become firmly established - the method of socialist realism. Utopian impulses were ended. Some elements of the national cultural tradition were restored in their rights. A national model of totalitarianism has taken shape. A certain archaic state of society has been restored. The person turned out to be totally involved in social structures, and the lack of separation of a person from the masses is one of the main features of the archaic social system.

At the same time, despite the external similarity, for example, with the position of a person in the Muscovite kingdom, there were serious differences. The industrialization of society gave it dynamics, the stability of an archaic society was impossible. The instability of a person's position in society, his inorganic involvement in structures forced a person to value his social status even more. The need for unity with other people is a natural need for a person of any culture. Even in the individualistic culture of the West, the phenomenon of so-called escapism is known - an escape from freedom, noted by E. Fromm. This need, which has become the only and dominant one, is a powerful psychological root of social utopianism, a social support for designing an ideal society. Any such project leads to totalitarianism, which in the broadest sense of the word is the rule of the universal over the individual, the impersonal over the personal, all over one.

The "post-Stalinist" period of Russian history is characterized by a slow, gradual, with zigzags and retreats, the restoration of contacts and ties with world culture, the understanding of the role of the individual and universal human values is being rethought. The Soviet period had a serious impact on the way of thinking of the people, their mentality, typical personality traits of the Russian people. This was noted by prominent writers, "experts in human souls" M. A. Sholokhov, A. I. Solzhenitsyn. According to the testimony of M. A. Sholokhov's son, his father told him that pre-revolutionary people had a different attitude towards life: “as something infinitely strong, stable, incommensurate with human goals and capabilities ... blame yourself for your failures, not life. " A. I. Solzhenitsyn notes the loss of the people of such qualities as openness, straightforwardness, easygoingness, patience, endurance, "lack of pursuit" of external success, readiness for self-condemnation and repentance.

In our time, the conviction is growing that any people, any nation can exist and develop only if they preserve their cultural identity, do not lose the originality of their culture. At the same time, they are not fenced off by a wall from other peoples and nations, but interact with them, exchanging cultural values. In difficult historical and natural conditions, Russia withstood, created its own distinctive original culture, fertilized by the influence of both the West and the East, and in turn enriched the world culture with its influence. The modern domestic culture faces a difficult task - to develop its own strategic course for the future in a rapidly changing world. There is an important prerequisite for this - the achievement of universal literacy, a significant increase in the education of the people. The solution to this global problem is difficult and requires an awareness of the deep contradictions inherent in our culture throughout its historical development.

These contradictions constantly manifested themselves in various spheres of life, reflected in art, in literature, in the search for a high value-semantic content of life. There are many contradictions in our culture: between individualism and collectivism, high and ordinary, elite and popular. Along with them, in Russian culture there were always features of a very deep gap between the natural-pagan principle and Orthodox religiosity, the cult of materialism and adherence to lofty spiritual ideals, total statehood and unrestrained anarchy, etc.

The mysterious antinomy of Russian culture was described by N. A. Berdyaev in his work "Russian Idea". Russia, on the one hand, is the most stateless, most anarchist country in the world, and on the other, the most state-owned, most bureaucratic country in the world. Russia is a country of unlimited freedom of spirit, the most non-bourgeois country in the world, and at the same time - a country devoid of consciousness of individual rights, a country of merchants, money-grubbing, unprecedented bribery of officials. Endless love for people, the love of Christ is combined in Russians with cruelty and slavish obedience.

The time of troubles that our culture is now experiencing is not a new phenomenon, but our culture has always found certain answers to the challenges of the time, continuing to develop. It was in the most difficult periods of Russian history that the greatest ideas and works were born, new traditions and value orientations arose.

The peculiarities of the current "Time of Troubles" in Russia are that it coincides with the global world crisis, and the Russian crisis is part of the global crisis that is felt most acutely in Russia. The whole world found itself at a crossroads at the turn of the 21st century, we are talking about a change in the very type of culture that has formed within the framework of Western civilization over the past few centuries. Therefore, the thesis about the alleged “falling out of Russia” after the events of 1917 from the world civilization and the need now to return to this civilization seems to be controversial. World civilization is a set of civilizations of different countries and peoples that did not march in step at all. Among these civilizations - the Russian one, which also in the Soviet period of history contributed to the treasury of world civilization, it is enough to mention the role of our people in crushing Nazism and fascism, successes in space exploration, in social transformations.

In the last decade, new layers of spiritual culture have opened up, hiding earlier in unpublished works of art and philosophy, unperformed musical works, prohibited paintings and films. It became possible to look at many things with different eyes.

In modern domestic culture, incompatible values and orientations are combined: collectivism, conciliarism and individualism, egoism, deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc. Today, such mutually exclusive phenomena as the newly acquired cultural values of the Russian diaspora coexist on equal terms. , a re-interpreted classical heritage, the values of the official Soviet culture. A general picture of cultural life is emerging, characteristic of postmodernism, widespread in the world by the end of the 20th century. This is a special type of worldview aimed at rejecting all traditions, establishing any truths, focused on unrestrained pluralism, recognizing any cultural manifestations as equivalent. Postmodernism is not able to reconcile the irreconcilable, since it does not put forward fruitful ideas for this, it only combines contrasts as the starting material for further cultural and historical creativity.

The preconditions for the modern socio-cultural situation emerged several decades ago. The widespread introduction of the achievements of science and technology in the sphere of production and everyday life has significantly changed the forms of the functioning of culture. The widespread use of household radio technology entailed fundamental changes in the forms of production, distribution and consumption of spiritual values. "Cassette culture" has become uncensored, because selection, replication and consumption is carried out through the free expression of the will of people. Now a special type of so-called "home" culture is being created, the constituent elements of which are, in addition to books, a radio, a television, videotapes, and a personal computer. A kind of "bank of world culture" is being formed in the "memory of the apartment". Along with the positive traits, there is also a tendency of increasing spiritual isolation of the individual. The system of socialization of society as a whole is changing radically, the sphere of interpersonal relations is significantly reduced.

By the end of the XX century. Russia again faced a choice of path. Culture has entered the inter-time, fraught with different perspectives. The material base of culture is in a state of deep crisis. The crumbling libraries, the lack of theater and concert halls, the lack of appropriations aimed at supporting and disseminating the values of folk, classical culture, contrast with the explosion of interest in cultural values that is characteristic of many countries. A complex problem is the interaction of culture and the market. The commercialization of culture is taking place, the so-called “non-commercial” works of art go unnoticed, the possibility of mastering the classical heritage suffers. With the enormous cultural potential accumulated by previous generations, the spiritual impoverishment of the people occurs. This is one of the main reasons for many troubles in the economy, environmental disasters. On the basis of lack of spirituality, crime and violence are growing, and moral decline is taking place. The danger for the present and future of the country is the plight of science and education.

Russia's entry into the market has led to many unexpected consequences for spiritual culture. Many of the representatives of the old culture found themselves out of work, unable to adapt to the new conditions. The assertion of free speech deprived literature and other art forms of the important dignity they had before - to speak the truth, perfecting the Aesopian language in order to circumvent censorship. Particularly affected was literature, which for a long time occupied a leading place in the system of domestic culture and in which interest has now significantly decreased, besides, the speed of social changes was such that it was not easy to immediately grasp them.

If the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-making business, as an ordinary ordinary commodity, then it is not the striving for perfection, high spiritual ideals that prevails, but to get the maximum benefit at minimal cost. Culture is now forced to focus not on the spiritual man, but on the economic man, indulging his most base passions and tastes and relegating him to the level of an animal. A kind of "market personality" is being formed, which is characterized by one of the greatest philosophers of the XX century. E. Fromm wrote that "a person is no longer interested either in his own life or in his own happiness, he is only concerned not to lose the ability to sell." Determination of ways of further cultural development has become the subject of heated debate in society, because the state has ceased to dictate its requirements to culture, the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy have disappeared. One of the points of view is that the state should not interfere in the affairs of culture, since this is fraught with the establishment of its new dictate over culture, and culture itself will find the means for its survival. There is also another opinion: ensuring freedom of culture, the right to cultural identity, the state undertakes the development of strategic objectives of cultural construction and the responsibility for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support for cultural values. The state must realize that culture cannot be left to business, its support, including education, science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation.

The “crisis of spirituality” causes severe mental discomfort in many people, since the mechanism of identification with supra-personal values is seriously damaged. Without this mechanism, not a single culture exists, and in modern Russia all supra-personal values have become questionable. Despite the contradictory characteristics of Russian culture, society cannot afford to be separated from its cultural heritage, as this inevitably means its suicide. The disintegrating culture is not well adapted to transformations, because the impulse for creative change comes from values, which are cultural categories. Only an integrated and strong national culture can relatively easily adapt new goals to its values, master new patterns of behavior.

The process of cultural borrowing is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. Some borrowed forms easily fit into the context of the borrowing culture, others with great difficulty, and still others are rejected altogether. Borrowing should be carried out in forms consistent with the values of the borrowing culture. In culture, one cannot follow world standards. Each society forms a kind of value system. K. Levi-Strauss wrote about this: “... The originality of each of the cultures lies primarily in its own way of solving problems, the prospective placement of values that are common to all people. Only their significance is never the same in different cultures, and therefore modern etiology is increasingly striving to understand the origins of this mysterious choice. "

Unfortunately, modern Russia is again going through radical changes, accompanied by tendencies towards destruction or rejection of many of the positive achievements of the past. All this is being done for the sake of the earliest possible introduction of a market economy, which supposedly will put everything in its place. Meanwhile, a serious study of the history of other countries, including the most "market" ones, it turns out that it was not the market that created new values and patterns of behavior in them, but the national culture of these countries mastered the market, created both moral justifications for "market behavior" and and limiting this behavior to cultural prohibitions.

Analysis of the state of modern domestic culture reveals the absence or weakness of stable cultural forms that reproduce the social system, reliable connectivity of cultural elements in time and space. In our opinion, a fairly accurate description of the current state of Russia is contained in the words of the philosopher V. Ye. Kemerov: “Russia exists as an indefinite set of social groups, regional formations, subcultures, united by a common space, but weakly connected by the time of social reproduction, productive activity, ideas about prospects, etc. The modernity of all these formations remains a problem. " The collapse of the totalitarian regime quickly exposed the lack of clarity and lack of manifestation of many forms of our life, which was characteristic of Russian culture in the past and which some Russian thinkers defined as "a lack of the middle area of culture."

N.O. Lossky pointed out that "a lack of attention to the middle area of culture, no matter what justifying circumstances we may find, there is still a negative side of Russian life." Hence, an extremely wide range of good and evil, on the one hand - colossal achievements, and on the other - tremendous destruction and cataclysms.

Our culture can provide an answer to the challenges of the modern world. But for this it is necessary to switch to such a form of its self-awareness that would cease to reproduce the same mechanisms of irreconcilable struggle, tough confrontation, and the absence of a “middle”. We need to get away from thinking focused on maximalism, a radical upheaval and reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time.

Avoiding radicalism can be achieved through the creation of a sustainable system of social self-government and the formation of a middle culture that guarantees the participation of various social, ethnic and confessional communities. For the normal existence of society, a diverse self-organizing cultural environment is required. This environment includes socio-cultural objects associated with the creation and dissemination of cultural values, such as scientific, educational, artistic institutions, organizations, etc. However, the most important thing is the relations of people, the conditions of their daily life, the spiritual and moral atmosphere. The process of forming a cultural environment is the basis of cultural renewal, without such an environment it is impossible to overcome the action of social and psychological mechanisms that divide society. Academician D.S.Likhachev believed that the preservation of the cultural environment is no less important than the preservation of the surrounding nature. The cultural environment is just as necessary for spiritual, moral life, as nature is necessary for a person for his biological life.

Culture is an integral and organic phenomenon, it is not artificially constructed or transformed, and such experiments only lead to its damage and destruction. With great difficulty in the minds of many people, including scientists, the idea of the specificity and diversity of the development of different cultures is being affirmed, each of which in its own way is embedded in the global civilization process, relying on its deep spiritual and moral archetypes, which cannot be distributed over ranks into progressive and reactionary. The philosopher Yu. M. Borodai believes that “... where the earthly life of people developed more or less tolerably, it was built not on speculative speculation and calculations, but on sacred things, that is, on moral imperatives,“ prejudices ”, if you will, peculiar to each of the peoples, which makes them unique catholic personalities, social individuals. The human world is multicolored and interesting precisely because the basis of the culture of each of the peoples is formed by its own cult shrines, which are not subject to any logical justification and cannot be adequately translated into the language of another culture ”.

There are different cultures in the world, but they cannot be “better”, “worse”, “right”, “wrong”. A mistake is the desire to “correct”, “improve”, “civilize” them according to some model, idealize some model. Genuine universal human values can arise only in the dialogue of all earthly societies and civilizations.

The Soviet type of culture is a historically developed type of culture of the Soviet period (1917-1991), rather complex, full of contradictory trends and phenomena. The culture of the Soviet era is multifaceted and multifaceted, it does not boil down to the glorification of the "ideal present" and "bright future", to the praise of the leaders. It highlights the official, “permitted” and opposing “forbidden”, illegal culture, the culture of the Russian diaspora and the “underground” culture existing “underground”.

Significant changes in the sphere of culture manifested themselves immediately after the events of October 1917.The nature and direction of these changes were determined by the attitudes towards the creation of a new, socialist culture, which was to become an important element in building a socialist society. The purpose and functions of culture were likened to the leader of the revolution Vladimir Ilyich Lenin(1870-1924) scaffolding during the construction of the "building" of socialism. This determines the practical significance and utilitarianism in understanding culture in the Soviet period.

For the first time, the post-revolutionary years became one of the most important tasks in the field of culture overcoming the cultural backwardness of the population(educational program), the development of new artistic trends. The most radical representatives of the new art called for the destruction of bourgeois culture, the rejection of all "old". Got fame proletarian cult movement(proletarian culture) - a literary and artistic organization, the main goal of which was the creation of a proletarian culture, in opposition to its entire previous artistic culture.

The variety of forms of socio-economic development of the 1920s. accompanied by creative pluralism, the emergence of various associations - scientific, artistic, 308

cultural and educational. During these years, the "reflection" of the Silver Age falls.

In the late 1920s - early 1930s. increased control by the state authorities over the development of the spiritual culture of society. This leads to the curtailment of creative pluralism, the abolition of artistic groupings, the creation of united creative unions (the Union of Soviet Writers, the Union of Soviet Composers, etc.), with the emergence of which the relative freedom of artistic creation was eliminated. The main creative method was socialist realism, the main principles of which were partisanship, socialist ideology, which in practice led to the subordination of literature and art to ideology and politics. The regulation of artistic creation held back, but did not stop the development of literature, painting, music, theater, cinema. At the same time, the art of this period was characterized by idealization, embellishment of reality in accordance with ideological attitudes, it acted as a means of manipulating public consciousness, an instrument of class education. The use of technical means (radio, cinema) contributed to the dissemination of cultural achievements, making them available to wide layers of the population.

During the Great Patriotic War, culture became a means of integration, contributing to the cohesion of society into a single whole on the basis of a powerful rise in patriotic feelings. In the context of a common struggle with an external enemy, the contradictions of internal development recede into the background. Art became an expression of the will to win; the creation of outstanding works of artistic culture was facilitated by a certain weakening of administrative and ideological control in the field of literature and art.

But already for the first time in the post-war years, there is an increase in the interference of the party-state apparatus in the cultural life of society. Late 1940s marked by a number of ideological campaigns directed against those representatives of the creative and scientific intelligentsia, whose works were found to be inconsistent with the reflection of socialist reality. They were accused of promoting bourgeois ideology, admiration for everything Western, apolitical, formalism Mikhail Zoshchenko (1895-1958), Anna Akhmatova(1889-1966), Sergey Eisenstein (1898-1948), Sergei Prokofiev(1891 -1953), Dmitry Shostakovich(1906-1975) and many others.

The tendencies of the liberalization of social and political life that emerged in the second half of the 1950s - early 1960s gave a powerful impetus to the development of artistic culture. The thaw of the Khrushchev era was the beginning of spiritual renewal, a time for comprehending the events of previous years. Art includes the theme of repression, which began with the story Alexandra Solzhenitsyn(1918-2008) "One day of Ivan Denisovich". Many scientists and cultural figures are being rehabilitated, previously banned works by Russian and foreign authors that have been in oblivion for many years are published and performed. International cultural ties are intensifying - international competitions and festivals are being held in Moscow. New theaters (Sovremennik), art exhibitions are opening, new magazines are being published (Novy Mir).

Changes in socio-political processes in the second half of the 1980s. and in the 1990s. (post-Soviet period) opened the way for spiritual pluralism, the revival of the achievements of artistic culture that were previously unknown. The culture of the Silver Age was rediscovered, the culture of the Russian emigration, which, developing in emigration, became an integral part of Russian culture and made a great contribution to the development of world culture; there is an acquaintance of the general public with works of foreign art. Works, facts, documents, testimonies that open up new perspectives of national history and culture are becoming available.

However, in the new conditions, the contradictions of the modern cultural process also appeared: the commercialization of art, when preference is given to spectacular, entertaining forms of art that bring quick profits, there is a dominance of far from the best examples of Western mass culture. Only the realization and overcoming of this problem on a national scale will help preserve the cultural identity of Russia, will become the guarantee of its existence as a civilized world power.

The realities of the cultural life of the post-Soviet era. The beginning of the 90s was marked by the accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, which not only rejected the values of the common culture of the USSR, but also the cultural traditions of each other. Such a sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in socio-cultural tension, to the emergence of military conflicts and subsequently caused the collapse of a single socio-cultural space.

But the processes of cultural development are not interrupted with the collapse of state structures and the fall of political regimes. The culture of new Russia is organically linked with all previous periods of the country's history. At the same time, the new political and economic situation could not but affect the culture.

It has changed dramatically relationship with the authorities... The state ceased to dictate its requirements to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.

The common core of cultural life has disappeared - the centralized system of management and common cultural policy... Determining the paths of further cultural development has become a matter of society itself and the subject of sharp disagreements. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western patterns to apologizing for isolationism. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea is perceived by a part of society as a manifestation of a deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself by the end of the 20th century.

The elimination of ideological barriers has created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture. However, the economic crisis the country is going through, the difficult transition to market relations have increased the danger commercialization of culture, the loss of national traits in the course of its further development, the negative impact of the Americanization of certain spheres of culture (primarily musical life and cinema) as a kind of retribution for "familiarizing with universal human values."

The spiritual sphere is going through an acute crisis in the mid-90s. In a difficult transitional period, the role of spiritual culture as a treasury of moral guidelines for society increases, while politicization of culture and cultural figures leads to the implementation of functions unusual for it, deepens the polarization of society. The desire to direct the country on the rails of market development leads to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively need state support. The possibility of the so-called "free" development of culture on the basis of the low cultural needs of fairly broad strata of the population leads to an increase in lack of spirituality, the propaganda of violence and, as a consequence, an increase in crime.

At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between the youth environment and the older generation continues to deepen. All these processes are unfolding against the background of a rapid and sharp increase in the unevenness of access to the consumption of not only material, but cultural goods.

As market relations strengthen, most people are increasingly alienated from the values of the national culture. And this is a completely natural tendency for the type of society that is being created in Russia at the end of the 20th century. In a word, the modern period of development of Russian culture can be designated as a transitional one. For the second time in a century, a real cultural revolution... Numerous and very contradictory tendencies are manifested in modern domestic culture. But they can, relatively speaking, be combined into two groups.

First: destructive and crisis tendencies, contributing to the complete subordination of Russian culture to the standards of Western civilization.

Second: progressive tendencies, fueled by the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, traditionally understood and professed by the peoples of Russia.

The struggle between these tendencies, apparently, will determine the main direction of the development of the national culture of the third millennium.

Thus, the culture of Russia in modern times is a complex and controversial phenomenon. On the one hand, it has always determined the tendencies of the socio-cultural process in the world, on the other hand, it was influenced by Western culture in the broad sense of the word.

Domestic culture in the era of modern times has gone through several of the most significant stages: pre-Soviet (until 1917); Soviet (until 1985) and the modern stage of democratic reforms. At all these stages, a large role of the state in the development of culture, the relative passivity of the population, a large gap between the culture of the masses and its most prominent representatives were manifested.

Having embarked on the path of capitalist development later than the leading Western countries, Russia in the post-reform years managed to achieve a lot in the field of economics. Spiritually, Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries gave world culture a number of outstanding achievements. The contradictory nature of the development of culture during the Soviet period led to the accumulation of numerous contradictions, the resolution of which has not yet been completed.

The direction of cultural development in the future will be determined by many factors, first of all, liberation from external dependence, taking into account the originality of Russia and the experience of its historical development. At the turn of the millennium, Russia again found itself at a crossroads. But no matter how its fate develops, Russian culture remains the main wealth of the country and the guarantee of the unity of the nation.

Russian culture has proved its viability, confirmed that the development of democracy, moral purification are impossible without preserving and increasing the accumulated cultural potential. Russia is a country of great literature and art, bold science and a recognized education system, ideal aspirations for universal values, cannot but be one of the most active creators of a culture of peace.

Page 1

Her relationship with the authorities changed radically. The state has ceased to dictate its requirements to culture, and culture has lost its guaranteed customer.

The common core of cultural life - a centralized management system and a unified cultural policy - disappeared. Determining the paths of further cultural development has become a matter of society itself and the subject of sharp disagreements. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western patterns to apologizing for isolationism. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea is perceived by a part of society as a manifestation of a deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself by the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.

The elimination of ideological barriers has created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture. However, the economic crisis the country is going through, the difficult transition to market relations have increased the danger of the commercialization of culture, the loss of national features in the course of its further development, the negative impact of the Americanization of certain spheres of culture (primarily musical life and cinema) as a kind of retribution for "familiarizing with universal human values. ".

The spiritual sphere is going through an acute crisis in the mid-90s. In a difficult transitional period, the role of spiritual culture as a treasury of moral guidelines for society increases, while politicization of culture and cultural figures leads to the implementation of functions unusual for it, deepens the polarization of society. The desire to direct the countries on the rails of market development leads to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively need state support. The possibility of the so-called "free" development of culture on the basis of the low cultural needs of fairly broad strata of the population leads to an increase in lack of spirituality, the propaganda of violence and, as a consequence, an increase in crime.

In the socio-cultural situation that developed in Russian society by the mid-90s, a person, as a living system, representing the unity of the physical and spiritual, natural and socio-cultural, hereditary and acquired during his lifetime, can no longer develop normally. Indeed, as market relations strengthen, most people are increasingly alienated from the values of national culture. And this is a completely natural tendency for the type of society that is being created in Russia at the end of the 20th century. All this, which has become a reality over the past decade, brings society to the limit of the accumulation of explosive social energy.

In a word, the modern period of development of Russian culture can be designated as a transitional one. For the second time in a century, a real cultural revolution has taken place in Russia. Numerous and very contradictory tendencies are manifested in modern domestic culture. But they can, relatively speaking, be combined into two groups.

First: the tendencies are destructive, crisis, contributing to the complete subordination of Russian culture to the standards of Western civilization.

It is interesting:

Celebration on the occasion of the opening of the Caravanserai
August 30, 18th, the solemn day of the namesake of His Imperial Highness, the heir to Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich, was marked in Orenburg with a special kind of festival, which was on the occasion of the opening and worship in the ...

Artist image
Setting the task of glorifying, exalting a noble customer, the ceremonial portrait was widely presented in the 17th century in Western Europe. His understanding of painting is known, the confirmation of which is not difficult, it is so straightforward, n ...

Holiness in Orthodoxy
The specificity of the Russian understanding of holiness lies in the fact that for Russian culture, holiness presupposes striving for a single universal goal, the most cherished desire and the most intimate dream and hope - a holy kingdom for man in the world ...

Domestic culture of the Soviet and post-Soviet era. Culture of the USSR: from socialist realism to freedom of creativity Domestic culture of the Soviet and post-Soviet era introduction

Read also