The Russian people, and with them their culture, were born on the vast expanse of the East European Plain. This led to the constant influence of the geographical factor on the development of many elements of Russian culture. At the very beginning of the emergence of Russian culture, it was strongly influenced by Byzantine and Scandinavian cultural traditions. The first passed on the highest spiritual traditions to Rus', the second – political and military culture, the Rurik family. However, a complete merger of these two cultures never happened. Hence the inconsistency of Russian culture as a whole, the clashes between spiritual power and political power. The Russian people never wanted to give up their traditions and the people reacted to any attempts by the authorities to introduce any changes with bursts of uprisings and mass discontent. Conservatism is one of the main features of the culture of our country. Conservatism, in my opinion, characterizes one of the negative aspects of a person, namely, the habit of following the path of least resistance, fear of what you do not know, and, consequently, the inability to transform and progress. This largely explains the lag of the state at various stages of historical development. If changes are inevitable, then another side of the thinking of the Russian person was included, oriented towards maximalism, a radical revolution and the reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time. But this, as we know from history, did not lead to anything good.
Another feature of our people is deep faith. One of the fundamental factors of Russian culture has always been the concept of “model”. The Russian people have long lived according to Christian laws. A person was completely dependent on the church; everyday life had to be built according to the model and be guided by it in choosing forms, relationships, in finding one’s place in the world among other people. There was a strong belief that “people imitate monks, monks imitate angels, angels imitate God.” The entire Russian culture in all its manifestations was based on Christian laws.
Spiritual culture created models for everyday everyday culture. The house was built in the image and likeness of the temple, “Domostroy” dictated the ideal picture Everyday life person. Church and state were inseparable concepts. People depended on the authorities in every possible way and worked for the most part only for the benefit of the state. A stable division between the elite and the common people, between those who dictate the laws and those who must strictly follow them, has remained to this day in our country.
A special attitude towards work, Russian culture is characterized by utopianism (hope for the impossible, “maybe”), and communalism.
34/Social regulation as a way of society influencing the individual.
Personal behavior is externally observable actions, actions of individuals, their certain sequence, one way or another affecting the interests of other people, their groups, and the whole society. Human behavior acquires social meaning and becomes personal when it is involved in communication with other people. We are talking, first of all, about meaningful behavior, about the implementation in actions and deeds of such connections and relationships in which the subject of behavior participates as a rational being, consciously relating to his actions.
Social behavior is a system of socially determined actions by language and other sign-semantic formations, through which an individual or a social group participates in social relations and interacts with the social environment. Social behavior includes a person’s actions in relation to society, other people and the objective world. These actions are regulated by public norms of morality and law.
social regulation of individual behavior
IN In its everyday meaning, the concept of “regulation” means ordering, arranging something in accordance with certain rules, developing something with the aim of bringing it into a system, proportioning, establishing order. Personal behavior is included in a broad system of social regulation. The functions of social regulation are: formation, evaluation, maintenance, protection and reproduction norms, rules, mechanisms, means necessary for the subjects of regulation to ensure the existence and reproduction of the type of interaction, relationships, communication, activity, consciousness and behavior of the individual as a member of society. The subjects of regulation of the social behavior of an individual in the broad sense of the word are society, small groups and the individual himself.
External factors of behavior regulation.
The individual is included in a complex system of social relations. All types of relations: industrial, moral, legal, political, religious, ideological determine the real, objective, proper and dependent relations of people and groups in society. To implement these relations, there are various types of regulators.
A wide class of external regulators is occupied by all social phenomena with the definition “social”, “public”. These include:
· social production, · social relations (the broad social context of an individual's life), · social movements, · public opinion, · social needs, · public interests, · public sentiment, · public consciousness, · social tension, · socio-economic situation.
In the sphere of spiritual life of society, the regulators of individual behavior are morality, ethics, mentality, culture, subculture, archetype, ideal, values, education, ideology, means mass media, worldview, religion. In the sphere of politics - power, bureaucracy, social movements. In the sphere of legal relations – law, law.
Universal human regulators are: sign, language, symbol, traditions, rituals, customs, habits, prejudices, stereotypes, media, standards, labor, sports, social values, environmental situation, ethnicity, social attitudes, everyday life, family
35 social control
social control - methods and strategies. determining the behavior of people within society
types: formal and informal
Called formal outside control social institutions society - the state, the judiciary, prosecutorial supervision, police, authorities, churches.
Informal control- this is control exercised by public opinion, especially the opinion of the immediate environment - the primary group. Historically, informal control appeared much earlier than formal control (the process of mutual control of participants in any process, for example, buyers and sellers, members of the production team, as well as various forms of reaction public opinion on people’s behavior (judgment, refusal of contacts, etc.).
36 Social deviations
social deviations are violations of social norms that are characterized by a certain mass, stability and prevalence. This refers to such negative mass social phenomena as drunkenness, crime, bureaucracy, religious and ideological fanaticism, totalitarianism, etc.
Social deviations have the following characteristics: historical determinism, Negative consequences for society, relatively massive and relatively stable over time. Social deviations are characterized by direction and content. Society opposes social deviations with organized ways to combat them: legal, economic, moral sanctions. In some cases, social deviations are transitory. Examples of transient social deviations: material speculation, arranged marriage, dissidence. In parallel with this, measures of public influence in relation to social deviations are changing. Thus, according to the laws of pre-revolutionary Russia, religious moral and legal sanctions against drunkenness, drug addiction, suicide. In case of suicide, the traditional church burial rite was prohibited; the deceased was not buried in a common cemetery, e His expression of will (testament) was recognized as legally invalid, and in case of an unsuccessful suicide attempt, the suicider faced imprisonment.
37.concept of anomie
a concept introduced into scientific circulation by Emile Durkheim to explain deviant behavior (suicidal tendencies, apathy, disappointment, illegal behavior).
Durheim came up with the idea Anomie- a social condition that is characterized by the decomposition of the value system due to the crisis of the entire society and its social institutions, the contradiction between the declared goals and the impossibility of their implementation for the majority.
anomie is a state of society in which decomposition, disintegration and collapse of the system of values and norms that guarantee social order occur. A necessary condition for the emergence of anomie in society is a discrepancy between the needs and interests of some of its members, on the one hand, and the possibilities of satisfying them, on the other. It manifests itself in the form of the following violations:
1) vagueness, instability and inconsistency of value-normative prescriptions and orientations, in particular, the discrepancy between the norms defining the goals of activity and the norms regulating the means of achieving them; 2) the low degree of influence of social norms on individuals and their weak effectiveness as a means of normative regulation of behavior; 3) partial or complete absence of normative regulation in crisis, transitional situations, when the old value system is destroyed, and the new one has not taken shape or has not established itself as generally accepted.
Further development of the concept of anomie is associated with the name of Robert Merton.
38Deviations and development of society.
In all societies, human behavior sometimes goes beyond what is acceptable by norms. Norms only indicate what a person should do and what he should not do; but they are not a reflection of actual behavior. The actual actions of some people often go beyond what others consider acceptable behavior. Social life is characterized not only by conformism, but also by deviation.
Deviation is a deviation from the norm, considered by most members of society as reprehensible and unacceptable.
Deviation cannot be said to be inherent in certain forms of behavior; rather, it is an evaluative definition imposed on specific behaviors by different social groups. In everyday life, a person makes judgments about the desirability or undesirability of a particular style of behavior. Society translates such judgments into positive or negative consequences for those who follow or do not follow such behavior patterns. In this sense, we can say that deviation is what society considers to be a deviation.
Characteristics of deviation (V.I. Dobrenkov):
1. Relativity of deviation.
Comparison of different cultures shows that the same actions are approved in some societies and unacceptable in others. The definition of behavior as deviant depends on the time, place and group of people. Example: If ordinary people break into crypts, they are branded as desecrators of ashes, but if archaeologists do it, then they are spoken of with approval as scientists pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Nevertheless, in both cases, strangers invade the burial sites and remove some objects from there.
2. Mechanism for securing definitions.
People have different definitions of what should and should not be considered deviant. Example: In 1776, the British branded George Washington a traitor; 20 years later he became President of the United States. In the 1940s British authorities in Palestine called Menachem Begin a terrorist; 30 years later, he headed the state of Israel and enjoyed great popularity. Who and what is defined as disruptive and deviant depends largely on who made the definition and who holds the power to enforce it. Behind last years styles of behavior such as homosexuality, alcoholism, and drug use, traditionally considered deviant in Russia and defined in terms of the criminal code, were subject to revision. It is increasingly believed that such behavior styles are medical problems and people are admitted to medical care. institutions where they receive treatment.
3. Zone of acceptable variations.
Norms can be represented not as a fixed point, but rather as a certain zone. Example: It is believed that a university professor is supposed to behave formally with students. But one professor at a large university has a habit of climbing up onto the lectern or sitting on its lid during a lecture. Many students laugh at the teacher at first, but then he wins over the entire audience. Then the students said that his behavior was part of an effective teaching technique.
In general, no one behavior style is a deviation in itself; deviation is a subject of social definitions.
Add. Example: showing up to work drunk is not normal, but at a New Year's party it is normal.
Two types of deviations can be distinguished:
1) Individual deviations, when an individual rejects the norms of his subculture;
2) Group deviance, considered as conformal behavior of a member of a deviant group in relation to its subculture.
However, in real life, deviant individuals cannot be strictly divided into the two indicated types. Most often, these two types of deviations overlap.
In addition, primary and secondary deviations are distinguished. This concept was first formulated and developed in detail by X. Becker.
Primary deviation means deviant behavior of an individual, which generally corresponds to cultural norms accepted in society. For example, manifestations of eccentricity, “little pranks”
Secondary deviation is a deviation from existing norms in a group, which is socially defined as deviant. In this case, the person is identified as a deviant.
39 Social institution - a social structure or order of social structure that determines the behavior of a certain set of individuals in a particular society
social institution is a form of human activity based on a clearly developed ideology, a system of rules and norms as well as social control for their implementation
Structure
G. Spencer was the first to use the term “social”. Institute,” continued Comte’s ideas. Identified a factor in the development of social institutions of society - struggle with neighboring communities and the environment. environment for existence. In the process of evolution, the community The structure of the body becomes more complicated and the need arises to form a coordinating subsystem. Social the body consists of 3 subsystems: regulatory, producing means of life, and distributive. Types of social institutions according to Spencer: kinship institutions, economic institutions, regulatory institutions. Thus, social the institution develops as a stable structure of social actions
The concept of a social institution presupposes:
· the presence of a need in society and its satisfaction by the mechanism of reproduction of social practices and relationships;
· these mechanisms, being supra-individual formations, act in the form of value-normative complexes that regulate social life as a whole or its separate sphere, but for the benefit of the whole;
Their structure includes:
· role models of behavior and statuses (instructions for their implementation);
· their justification (theoretical, ideological, religious, mythological) in the form of a categorical grid, defining a “natural” vision of the world;
· means of transmitting social experience (material, ideal and symbolic), as well as measures that stimulate one behavior and repress another, tools for maintaining institutional order;
· social positions - the institutions themselves represent a social position (“there are no empty” social positions, so the question of the subjects of social institutions disappears).
Functions inherent in all institutions:
·
The function of consolidating and reproducing social relations. Each institution has a set of norms and rules of behavior, fixed, standardizing the behavior of its participants and making this behavior predictable. Social control provides the order and framework within which the activities of each member of the institution should take place. Thus, the institution ensures the stability of the structure of society. The Code of the Family Institute assumes that members of society are divided into stable small groups - families. Social control ensures a state of stability for each family and limits the possibility of its disintegration.
· Regulatory function. It ensures the regulation of relationships between members of society through the development of patterns and patterns of behavior. A person’s entire life takes place with the participation of various social institutions, but each social institution regulates activities. Consequently, a person, with the help of social institutions, demonstrates predictability and standard behavior, fulfills role requirements and expectations.
· Integrative function. This function ensures cohesion, interdependence and mutual responsibility of members. This occurs under the influence of institutionalized norms, values, rules, a system of roles and sanctions. It streamlines the system of interactions, which leads to increased stability and integrity of the elements of the social structure.
· Broadcasting function. Society cannot develop without the transfer of social experience. Each institution for its normal functioning needs the arrival of new people who have mastered its rules. This happens by changing the social boundaries of the institution and changing generations. Consequently, each institution provides a mechanism for socialization to its values, norms, and roles.
· Communication functions. Information produced by an institution should be disseminated both within the institution (for the purpose of managing and monitoring compliance with social norms) and in interaction between institutions. This function has its own specifics - formal connections. This is the main function of the media institute. Scientific institutions actively perceive information.
40 table in the textbook
41. Institutionalization- this is the replacement of spontaneous, reflexive behavior with predictable behavior, which is expected, modeled, and regulated.
The process of institutionalization, as a result of which a social institution is formed, goes through several main stages:
The emergence of a need, the satisfaction of which requires joint organized action. This need must concern the establishment of order in a certain area of human activity;
the formation of common goals that should be pursued by a significant number of members of human society;
The emergence of social norms and rules in the course of spontaneous social interaction carried out by trial and error. Such norms are informal and extremely short-lived;
the emergence of procedures associated with norms and rules, which are ways to achieve group goals;
institutionalization of norms and rules of behavior, as well as institutional procedures, which is: a necessary condition for their consolidation in the behavior of members of society;
establishing a system of formalized sanctions to maintain norms and rules, their differentiation depending on individual social groups of society and application depending on various situations developing in society;
creation of a system of statuses and roles that should cover all members of a social institution without exception.
The process of institutionalization thus includes a number of aspects.
· One of the necessary conditions for the emergence of social institutions is a corresponding social need. Institutions are called upon to organize joint activities people in order to satisfy certain social needs. Thus, the institution of the family satisfies the need for the reproduction of the human race and raising children, implements relations between the sexes, generations, etc. The Institute of Higher Education provides training for the workforce, allows a person to develop his abilities in order to realize them in subsequent activities and provide for his existence, etc. The emergence of certain social needs, as well as the conditions for their satisfaction, are the first necessary moments of institutionalization.
· A social institution is formed on the basis of social connections, interactions and relationships of specific individuals, social groups and communities. But it, like other social systems, cannot be reduced to the sum of these individuals and their interactions. Social institutions are supra-individual in nature and have their own systemic quality. Consequently, a social institution is an independent social entity that has its own logic of development. From this point of view, social institutions can be considered as organized social systems, characterized by the stability of the structure, the integration of their elements and a certain variability of their functions.
· The third most important element of institutionalization is the organizational design of a social institution. Externally, a social institution is a set of organizations, institutions, individuals, equipped with certain material means and performing a certain social function. Thus, the institute of higher education is operated by a social corps of teachers, service personnel, officials who operate within institutions such as universities, the ministry or the State Committee for Higher Education, etc., who have certain material assets (buildings, finances, etc.) for their activities.
42. Traditional and modern social institutions.
Each social institution is characterized by the presence of a goal for its activity, specific functions that ensure the achievement of such a goal, a set of social positions and roles typical for a given institution, as well as a system of sanctions that ensure the encouragement of desired behavior and the suppression of deviant behavior.
The history of the evolution of social institutions is the history of the gradual transformation of institutions traditional type to modern institutions. Traditional institutions are characterized primarily by the fact that they are based on rules of behavior strictly prescribed by ritual and custom and on family ties. The clan and large family community are the dominant institutions primitive society.
As they develop, institutions become increasingly specialized in function. Some of them occupy a dominant position in the system of social institutions. In developed societies of modern times, values that affirm success and achievement are increasingly being developed. The dominant ones include the institutions of religion, economics, marriage, politics, science and mass higher education, which ensure the reproduction and dissemination of the values of competence, independence, personal responsibility and rationality, without the presence of which in the motivational structure of the individual the functioning of modern social institutions is impossible. A distinctive feature of the institutions of modern times is also their relatively greater independence from the degree of moral prescriptions; the choice of modes of behavior and acceptance or rejection of certain institutions becomes the subject of freer moral and emotional choice of individuals.
43 family - a social group whose members are related by marriage or adoption and live together, cooperating economically and caring for children. The family is one of the most ancient institutions. It arose much earlier than the religion of the state, etc.
family functions
1) reproductive (biological continuation)
2) educational (preparing the younger generation for life in society
3) economical housekeeping
4) spiritual, emotional, personal development, spiritual, mutual enrichment, support, friendly attitude
5) leisure organization of normal leisure time and recreation
6)sexual satisfaction of sex needs
structural needs of a person according to Maslow 1) physiological and sexual 2) for the safety of one’s existence 3) social needs for communication 4) prestigious for recognition) 5) spiritual for self-realization
44. Factors of social influence on family and marriage.
The main motives for divorce can be divided into three types:
1 - motives due to the influence of socio-economic factors: financial calculation at the time of marriage, frequent business trips of one of the spouses, dissatisfaction with housing and living conditions, conviction of the spouse with long-term imprisonment;
2 -motives determined by socio-psychological factors: differences in needs, interests, goals, interference of third parties, dissimilarity of characters, unreasonable jealousy, new love, betrayal;
3 - motives of a socio-biological nature: drunkenness and alcoholism of the spouse, adultery, illness, mental illness, inability or unwillingness of one of the spouses to have children, large age difference, real and imaginary sexual incompatibility.
Note that women are often the main reason for divorce consider material difficulties and drunkenness, and men - a new hobby, incompatibility and monotony family life. Young people more often see the reason for divorce in the incompatibility of characters, the emergence of new love, betrayal and everyday life of family life.
Divorce as a social phenomenon leads to complex and numerous consequences and manifestations of deformation in the life of the family. However, an equally important problem for socio-psychological analysis is the study of the situation before divorce. On the one hand, it is characterized by an increase in conflict in relationships, a decrease in satisfaction with family life, and a weakening of family cohesion; on the other hand, it is characterized by an increase in the family’s efforts aimed at preserving family life.
During its life cycle, a family constantly encounters various difficulties, unfavorable conditions, and problems. From a methodological point of view, researchers focus on two main areas of analysis on this topic.
The first is the study of families in difficult conditions, which arose due to the unfavorable influence of general large-scale social processes: wars, economic crises, natural disasters.
The second is the study of “normative stress”, i.e. those difficulties that occur in the lives of families in everyday conditions. These difficulties are associated with the passage of a family through the main stages of the life cycle. As well as problems that arise in cases where external factors lead to disruption of the functioning mechanism of the family institution: long separation, divorce, serious illness.
Let us consider the main points present in the occurrence and identification of family deformations.
Factors causing family deformations. We are talking about a fairly wide range of circumstances, features of the social environment, living conditions of the family, changes in the personality of one of the spouses, which can complicate the functioning of the family. All numerous problems problems that arise in front of a family can be divided according to the strength and duration of their impact. Two groups of family problems are of particular importance. Examples of the former include the death of one of the spouses, news of adultery, sudden changes in life and social status (for example, a sudden and serious illness). The second group of problems includes excessive physical and mental stress at home, at work, difficulties in solving housing problems, long-term and persistent conflict between family members, etc...
The following classification of problems faced by families can be given. There are two types: problems associated with a sharp change in the family's lifestyle (life stereotype) - for example, marriage, the beginning of family life, the birth of a child. And problems associated with cumulative labor, i.e. their overlap - for example, the need to make decisions on a number of problems after the birth of a child in the family, namely the completion of education, mastering a specialty, solving life problems, caring for a child, etc..
The so-called “normative stressors” pass through all stages of the family cycle, that is, those problems that are experienced by all families to varying degrees: those associated with mutual
housing problem, caring for and raising a child, etc. . The combination of the above problems at certain points in the family life cycle can lead to family crises.
Related information.
The phenomenon of Russian national culture occupies a very definite place in the system of historical typology of world culture. Its historical subject (creator and bearer) is the Russian people - one of the largest, most developed and creatively rich ethnic groups peace.
Russian culture acts in relation to the historical life of the people as a “second nature”, which it creates, creates and in which it lives as a socialized set of people, in other words, culture is the greatest value, environment and method of spiritual continuity and thereby meaningful activity in the infinite progressive development of the Russian people.
Having gone through a long and thorny path from a primitive community to a modern industrial society, having mastered socio-economic structures, the peoples of Russia have accumulated colossal experience in the field of material culture, which is in many ways instructive and valuable for the current and subsequent generations of people.
Another fundamental factor that historically determined the formation of both the Russian people and their culture was the endless struggle for their survival with various invaders. Russia, sacrificing millions and millions of lives of its sons and daughters, losing its cultural heritage in wars, closed the way to all conquerors with its breasts: it saved Europe from the Golden Horde hordes; the whole world - Europe and Asia including, from the fascist hordes. Only Russia was not defended or sacrificed in the name of the well-being of the Russian people - he himself alone had to think about his own fate. It is no coincidence that Emperor Alexander III said: “Russia has only two allies: the army and the navy.”
The most important feature of Russian national culture, as well as civilization itself, is that it did not develop within the continent, but at the junction of continents: West-East; South North.
As a result of the long historical interaction of the Russian and other peoples, Russia was formed as a complex multi-ethnic system of civilization with a unique multi-ethnic culture in its deep content.
Folk arts and crafts have always occupied a leading place in ethnic culture.
A significant role in the formation and development of Russian civilization as a whole, including Russian national culture, belongs to the Orthodox religion.
Many authors still insist that there is no single Russian culture; it is clearly divided in nature. Such well-known and widely published authors as A.S. Akhiezer, B.S. Erasov, B.G. Kapustin, I.V. Kondakov, Yu.M. Lotman and others write about this. And according to a number of researchers, in Russia has not developed a holistic, organic national culture at all. [ As evidence, supporters of this concept cite many serious arguments, namely:
Russia's border position between two continents and civilizational types - Europe and Asia, West and East;
the initial antinomy, expressed in the “polarization of the Russian soul”, in the cultural split between the ruling class and the masses;
constant changes in domestic policy from attempts at reform to conservatism, in foreign policy - transitions from a close alliance with Western countries to opposition to them in everything;
transitions of society through radical, in many respects catastrophic changes of the sociocultural type, through a sharp break and radical measures to deny and destroy the rejected past;
the weakness of the integrating spiritual principle in society, which led to its constant internal value and semantic separation;
stable features of a fundamental gap: between the natural pagan principle and high religiosity; between the cult of materialism and commitment to lofty spiritual ideals; between inclusive statehood and anarchic freemen; between the spirit of freedom and submission, etc.;
in a word, according to these authors, Russia found itself deprived of a stable, established and broad middle culture and became constantly torn apart by extreme orientations - Slavophiles and Westerners, “two cultures”, “fathers and sons”, “conservatives” and “revolutionaries”, “whites” and "reds", "democrats" and "patriots".
39. Main features of modern culture
The twentieth century demonstrated to humanity that culture, as an integrating principle of social development, covers not only the sphere of spiritual, but, to an increasing extent, material production. All the qualities of technogenic civilization, whose birth was marked just over three hundred years ago, were able to fully manifest themselves in our century. At this time, civilizational processes were as dynamic as possible and were of decisive importance for culture.
This conflict most acutely affected the cultural self-determination of an individual. Technogenic civilization could realize its capabilities only through the complete subordination of the forces of nature to the human mind. This form of interaction is inevitably associated with the widespread use of scientific and technological achievements, which helped the contemporary of our century to feel his dominance over nature and at the same time deprived him of the opportunity to feel the joy of harmonious coexistence with it.
Therefore, the problem of the crisis of modern culture cannot be considered without taking into account the contradictions between man and machine. It was with this title that in the 20s N. Berdyaev wrote an article in which he emphasized that the question of technology today has become a question of the fate of man and the fate of culture. Fatal role technology in human life is due to the fact that in the process of the scientific and technological revolution, a tool created by the hands of homo faber (a creature who makes tools) rebels against the creator. The Promethean spirit of man is unable to cope with the unprecedented energy of technology.
Machine production has cosmological significance. The kingdom of technology is a special form of existence that arose quite recently and forced us to reconsider the place and prospects of human existence in the world. This new form of organization of mass life destroys the beauty of the old culture, the old way of life and, depriving the cultural process of originality and individuality, forms a faceless pseudo-culture.
European culture came to this state quite naturally, since cultural maturation is cyclical in nature, and technogenic civilization is the last link of this development. The author of “The Decline of Europe” perceived cultures as living organisms that know birth, flourishing, withering and death. For O. Spengler, it is obvious that the civilizational process is favorable for the development of technology, but is destructive for great creations: art, science, religion, that is, culture itself.
Civilization is the last, inevitable phase of any culture. It is expressed in a sudden degeneration of culture, a sharp breakdown of all creative forces, and a transition to the processing of already obsolete forms.
There are a number of reasons that gave rise to a persistent sense of cultural crisis in cultural studies of the 20th century. The main thing is the awareness of new realities: the universal nature of vital processes, the interaction and interdependence of cultural regions, the common fate of humanity in the modern world, i.e. those realities that are the source of civilization and at the same time its consequence. The common destinies of various cultural regions are represented by “catastrophes” that engulfed not only individual nations, but the entire European community in the 20th century: world wars, totalitarian regimes, fascist expansion, international terrorism, economic depressions, environmental shocks, etc. All these processes could not take place locally without affecting the internal life of other peoples, without disturbing their style of cultural development. All this, from the point of view of O. Spengler, only proves the fallacy of the evolutionary path of the entire Western civilization.
The situation of violation of cultural integrity and severance of the organic connection between man and the natural foundations of life in the 20th century is interpreted by cultural scientists as a situation of alienation. Alienation is a process of transformation various forms human activity and its results into an independent force that dominates and is hostile to it. The alienating mechanism is associated with a number of manifestations: the powerlessness of the individual before the external forces of life; the idea of the absurdity of existence; loss of mutual obligations by people to maintain social order, as well as denial of the dominant value system; a feeling of loneliness, a person’s exclusion from social connections; the individual's loss of self.
From the point of view of A. Schopenhauer, in the process of long social evolution, man was not able to develop his body to a more perfect one than that of any other animal. In the struggle for his existence, he developed the ability to replace the activities of his own organs with their instruments. By the 19th century, the development of machine production actualized this problem. As a result, A. Schopenhauer believed, training and improving the senses turned out to be useless. Reason, therefore, is not a special spiritual force, but a negative result of disconnection from basic acts, called by the philosopher negation "will to live"
The huge world of culture created by man: the state, languages, science, art, technology, etc. - threatens to worsen the very essence of humanity. The cosmos of culture ceases to obey man and lives according to its own laws that go beyond the limits of spirit and will.
In the view of A. Schopenhauer's follower F. Nietzsche, the alienation of man from the cultural process has even more acute forms, since Nietzschean cultural philosophy is based on the denial of Christian values. Already in one of the first books, “The Origin of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music” proclaimed the primacy of the ideals of aesthetic greatness over moral convictions. Art appears as a complement and completion of existence. At the same time, the philosopher opposes the “tired culture” of his time, against the disunity of individuals and sees salvation only in the return of contemporary Europe to the traditions of antiquity.
Under the influence of the rationalization of social development, a person with his tireless thirst for knowledge turns into a pathetic “librarian” and “proofreader.” Now, F. Nietzsche believes, the gray mass of cultural producers will constantly strive to suppress the creative impulses of lone geniuses. The meaning of the world process lies only in individual individuals, “instances” of the human race, capable of creating new forms of life through the destruction of previous ones. Nihilistic in spirit, Nietzscheanism justifies the cruelty and anti-humanism of the superman, endowed with both the “will to live” and the “will to power”, with the great task of giving meaning to social history and the ability to create a higher culture.
40. Main cultural trends in the era of globalism.
Main cultural trends in the era of globalism.
Cultural globalization is characterized by the convergence of business and consumer culture between different countries of the world and the growth of international communication. On the one hand, this leads to the popularization of certain types of national culture around the world. On the other hand, popular international cultural phenomena can displace national ones or turn them into international ones. Many regard this as a loss of national cultural values and are fighting for the revival of national culture.
Modern films are released simultaneously in many countries around the world, books are translated and become popular among readers from different countries. The ubiquity of the Internet plays a huge role in cultural globalization. In addition, international tourism is becoming more widespread every year.
Globalization is a long-term process of uniting people and transforming society on a planetary scale. Moreover, the word “globalization” implies a transition to “universality”, globality, that is, to the interconnectedness of the world system. This is the awareness by the world community of the unity of humanity, the existence of global problems and basic norms common to the whole world. From a cultural point of view, the globalization of society means a new humanitarian revolution, as a result of which many traditional national and ethnic cultures will undergo significant changes, and some may be not only deformed, but also completely destroyed. At the same time, such values as social responsibility, patriotism, high morality and respect for elders are actively being replaced by new values placed at the service of individualism, the desire for material well-being and self-affirmation in society, based on the priority of consumption.
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION
AUTONOMOUS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
"Eurasian Open Institute"
Kolomna branch
Test
on the cultural studies course
on the topic: Peculiarities of Russian culture
2nd year student 24MV group
Kozlov Oleg Vladimirovich
Head Kruchinkina N.V.
Kolomna, 2010
Introduction
The culture of Russian civilization, its formation
Russian culture as an object of research
Significant features of Russian national culture
General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
History of Russian culture, its values, role and place in world culture in the early 90s. XX century aroused great interest both as a subject of scientific study and as a training course. A lot of scientific and educational literature has appeared covering our history and culture. Its understanding was mainly based on the works of Russian thinkers Spiritual Renaissance late XIX - first quarter of the XX century. However, by the end of the 90s. this interest began to wane. Partly because the sense of novelty of previously forbidden ideas has been exhausted, and a modern, original reading of our cultural history has not yet appeared.
The purpose of the work is to study the features of Russian culture.
Job objectives:
Study the formation of Russian culture;
Reveal the basic concepts;
Highlight the features of Russian national culture;
Study the development of Russian culture at the present stage.
The culture of Russian civilization, its formation
Our culture began to stand out as a special type within the framework of Christian civilization in the 9th-11th centuries. during the formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs and their introduction to Orthodoxy.
The formation of this type of culture was greatly influenced by the geopolitical factor - Russia's middle position between the civilizations of the West and the East, which served as the basis for its marginalization, i.e. the emergence of such border cultural areas and layers, which, on the one hand, were not adjacent to any of the known cultures, and on the other, represented a favorable environment for diverse cultural development.
The most frequently identified features of Russian civilization include the autocratic form state power or, as the historian M. Dovnar-Zapolsky defined this type of power, a “patrimonial state”; collectivist mentality; subordination of society to the state" (or "dualism of society and state power"), an insignificant amount of economic freedom.
As for the stages of development of Russian civilization, there are different points of view. Some scientists believe that from the 9th century. and to this day, in the area called Russia, there has been one civilization. In its development, several stages can be distinguished, distinguished by special typological features, which makes it possible to qualify them as independent historical and cultural communities: Ancient Rus'(IX-XIII centuries), Muscovy (XIV-XVII centuries), Imperial Russia (from the 18th century to the present day).
Other researchers believe that by the 13th century. there was one “Russian-European” or “Slavic-European” civilization, and from the 14th century. - another: “Eurasian” or “Russian”.
The dominant form of integration of the “Russian-European” civilization was (as in Europe - Catholicism) Orthodoxy, which, although it was accepted and spread in Rus' by the state, was largely autonomous in relation to it.
The Russian Orthodox Church was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople for a long time, and only in the middle of the 15th century. gained actual independence.
The ancient Russian state itself was a confederation of fairly independent state formations, politically consolidated only by the unity of the princely family, after the collapse of which at the beginning of the 12th century. they acquired full state sovereignty.
Orthodoxy set a common normative and value order for Rus', the only symbolic form of expression of which was the Old Russian language.
The Kyiv princes could not rely, like the Roman or Chinese emperors, on a powerful military-bureaucratic system or, like the Achaemenid shahs, on a numerically and culturally dominant ethnic group. They found support in Orthodoxy and carried out the construction of statehood to a large extent as a missionary task of converting pagans.
In the first centuries of Old Russian statehood, due to many formal-cultural and value-orientation features, it can be considered as a “daughter” zone of Byzantine culture. However, in most essential forms of socio-political structure and life activity, Old Russian civilization was closer to Europe, especially Eastern Europe.
With the traditional societies of Europe of that time, it had a number of common features: the urban character of the “titular” culture that marks society as a whole; the predominance of agricultural production; “military-democratic” nature of the genesis of state power; absence of the servile complex syndrome (universal slavery) when the individual comes into contact with the state.
At the same time, Ancient Rus' had a number of common features with traditional societies of the Asian type:
the absence in the European sense of private property and economic classes;
the dominance of the principle of centralized redistribution, in which power gave birth to property;
the autonomy of communities in relation to the state, which generated significant opportunities for socio-cultural regeneration;
evolutionary nature of social development.
In general, Old Russian civilization, on a Slavic-pagan basis, synthesized some features of European socio-political and production-technological realities, Byzantine mystical reflections and canons, as well as Asian principles of centralized redistribution.
Geopolitical as well as economic factors predetermined the emergence of several subcultures in ancient Russian civilization - southern, northern and northeastern.
The southern subculture was focused on the Asian “steppe”. The Kyiv princes even preferred to form a squadron of guards from mercenaries of the tribal association “black hoods”, the remnants of the Turkic nomads - the Pechenegs, Torks, Berendeys, who settled on the Ros River. During the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the Kiev subculture ceased to exist.
The Novgorod subculture was aimed at partners in the Hanseatic League, representing the trading islands of European civilization. If the Novgorodians resorted to mercenaries, then, as a rule, they were the Varangians. The Novgorod subculture, which survived during the Tatar-Mongol yoke and strengthened its European identity, degraded after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow in the 15th century.
Russian culture as an object of research
Concepts Russian culture , Russian national culture , Russian culture - can be considered as synonyms, or as independent phenomena. They reflect different states and components of our culture. It seems that when studying Russian culture, the focus should be on culture itself, the cultural traditions of the Eastern Slavs as a union of tribes, Russians, Russians. The culture of other peoples in this case is of interest as the result and process of mutual influence, borrowing, and dialogue of cultures. In this case, the concept Russian culture synonymous with the concept Russian national culture . Concept Russian culture broader, since it includes the history of the formation and development of the culture of the Old Russian state, individual principalities, multinational state associations - the Moscow state, Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Federation. In this context, Russian culture acts as the main system-forming element of the culture of a multinational state. The multinational culture of Russia can be typologized on various grounds: confessional (Orthodox, Old Believers, Catholics, Muslims, etc.); according to the economic structure (agricultural culture, cattle breeding, hunting), etc. Ignoring the multinational nature of the culture of our state, as well as the role of Russian culture in this state, is very unproductive.
Studying national culture is not only an educational task. It is closely connected with another - no less important - to raise carriers of Russian culture, successors of its traditions, which will contribute to its preservation as part of world culture, expanding the boundaries of Russian culture, and the dialogue of cultures.
Oh, bright and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are famous for many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak forests, clean fields, wondrous animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious commands, monastery gardens, temples of God and terrible princes, boyars honest, many nobles. You are filled with everything, Russian land, O Orthodox Christian Faith!
These lines, imbued with deep love for their land, constitute the beginning of an ancient literary monument A word about the destruction of the Russian land . Unfortunately, only a fragment has survived, which was discovered as part of another work - Stories about the life of Alexander Nevsky . Time of writing Words - 1237 - beginning of 1246
Each national culture is a form of self-expression of the people. It reveals the peculiarities of national character, worldview, and mentality. Any culture is unique and goes through its own unique path of development. This fully applies to Russian culture. It can be compared with the cultures of the East and West only to the extent that they interact with it, influence its genesis and evolution, and are connected with Russian culture by a common destiny.
Attempts to understand domestic culture, to determine its place and role in the circle of other cultures are fraught with certain difficulties. They can be divided into the following: a strong inclination of researchers towards a comparative approach, a constant attempt comparative analysis our culture and the culture of Western Europe and almost always not in favor of the first; ideologization of specific cultural and historical material and its interpretation from one point or another, during which some facts are brought to the fore, and those that do not fit into the author’s concept are ignored.
When considering the cultural and historical process in Russia, three main approaches are clearly visible.
The first approach is represented by supporters of the unilinear model of world history. According to this concept, all of Russia's problems can be solved by overcoming the civilizational, cultural lag or modernization.
Proponents of the second proceed from the concept of multilinear historical development, according to which the history of mankind consists of the history of a number of distinctive civilizations, one of which includes Russian (Slavic - N.Ya. Danilevsky or Orthodox Christian - A. Toynbee) civilization. Moreover, the main features or soul each civilization cannot be perceived or deeply understood by representatives of another civilization or culture, i.e. is unknowable and not reproducible.
The third group of authors tries to reconcile both approaches. These include the famous researcher of Russian culture, the author of a multi-volume work Essays on the history of Russian culture P.N. Miliukov, who defined his position as a synthesis of two opposing constructions of Russian history, of which one brought forward the similarity of the Russian process with the European one, bringing this similarity to identity, and the other proved Russian originality, to the point of complete incomparability and exclusivity . Miliukov occupied a conciliatory position and built a Russian historical process on the synthesis of both features, similarity and originality, emphasizing the features of originality somewhat more sharply than the similarities . It should be noted that Miliukov identified at the beginning of the 20th century. approaches to the study of the cultural and historical process of Russia retained, with some modifications, their main features until the end of our century.
Significant features of Russian national culture
Specific features of Russian culture from ancient times to the 20th century are identified:
Russian culture is a historical and multifaceted concept. It includes facts, processes, trends that indicate a long and complex development both in geographical space and in historical time. From a wonderful representative European Renaissance Maxim the Greek, who moved to our country at the turn of the 16th century, is an image of Russia that is striking in its depth and fidelity. He writes about her as a woman in a black dress, sitting thoughtfully “by the road.” Russian culture is also “on the road”; it is formed and developed in constant search. History bears witness to this.
Most of the territory of Russia was settled later than those regions of the world in which the main centers of world culture developed. In this sense, Russian culture is a relatively young phenomenon. Moreover, Rus' did not know the period of slavery: the Eastern Slavs moved directly to feudalism from communal-patriarchal relations. Due to its historical youth, Russian culture faced the need for intensive historical development. Of course, Russian culture developed under the influence of various cultures of Western and Eastern countries that were historically ahead of Russia. But by perceiving and assimilating the cultural heritage of other peoples, Russian writers and artists, sculptors and architects, scientists and philosophers solved their problems, formed and developed domestic traditions, never limiting themselves to copying other people's models.
A long period of development of Russian culture was determined by the Christian-Orthodox religion. For many centuries, the leading cultural genres were church building, icon painting, and church literature. Until the 18th century, Russia made a significant contribution to the world artistic treasury through spiritual activities related to Christianity.
The specific features of Russian culture are determined to a large extent by what researchers called the “character of the Russian people”; all researchers of the “Russian idea” wrote about this; faith was called the main feature of this character. The alternative “faith-knowledge”, “faith-reason” was resolved in Russia in specific historical periods in different ways, but most often in favor of faith.
General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture
One of the most important problems for modern culture is the problem of traditions and innovation in the cultural space. The sustainable side of culture, cultural tradition, thanks to which the accumulation and transmission of human experience in history occurs, gives new generations the opportunity to update previous experience, relying on what was created by previous generations. IN traditional societies the assimilation of culture occurs through the reproduction of samples, with the possibility of minor variations within the tradition. Tradition in this case is the basis for the functioning of culture, significantly complicating creativity in the sense of innovation. Actually, the most “creative” in our understanding of the process of traditional culture, paradoxically, is the very formation of a person as a subject of culture, as a set of canonical stereotypical programs (customs, rituals). The transformation of these canons themselves is quite slow. Such is the culture of primitive society and later traditional culture. Under certain conditions, the stability of a cultural tradition can be attributed to the need for the stability of the human collective for its survival. However, on the other hand, the dynamism of culture does not mean abandoning cultural traditions altogether. It is hardly possible for a culture to exist without traditions. Cultural traditions as historical memory are an indispensable condition not only for the existence, but also for the development of culture, even if it has great creative (and at the same time negative in relation to tradition) potential. As a living example, we can cite the cultural transformations of Russia after the October Revolution, when attempts to completely deny and destroy the previous culture led in many cases to irreparable losses in this area.
Thus, if it is possible to talk about reactionary and progressive tendencies in culture, then, on the other hand, it is hardly possible to imagine the creation of culture “from scratch,” completely discarding the previous culture and tradition. The question of traditions in culture and the attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only the preservation, but also the development of culture, that is, cultural creativity. In the latter, the universal organic is merged with the unique: each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about a work of art, an invention, etc. In this sense, replication in one form or another of what is already known, already created earlier is dissemination, not the creation of culture. The need to spread culture seems to require no proof. The creativity of culture, being a source of innovation, is involved in the contradictory process of cultural development, which reflects a wide range of sometimes opposing and opposing trends of a given historical era.
At first glance, culture, considered from the point of view of content, is divided into various areas: morals and customs, language and writing, the nature of clothing, settlements, work, education, economics, the nature of the army, socio-political structure, legal proceedings, science, technology, art, religion, all forms of manifestation of the “spirit” of the people. In this sense, cultural history becomes of paramount importance for understanding the level of cultural development.
If we talk about modern culture itself, then it is embodied in a huge variety of created material and spiritual phenomena. These are new means of labor, new food products, new elements of the material infrastructure of everyday life, production, and new scientific ideas, ideological concepts, religious beliefs, moral ideals and regulators, works of all types of art, etc. At the same time, the sphere of modern culture, upon closer examination, is heterogeneous, because each of its constituent cultures has common boundaries, both geographical and chronological, with other cultures and eras.
Since the twentieth century, the distinction between the concepts of culture and civilization has become characteristic - culture continues to carry a positive meaning, and civilization receives a neutral assessment, and sometimes even a direct negative meaning. Civilization, as a synonym for material culture, as a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature, certainly carries a powerful charge of technical progress and contributes to the achievement of an abundance of material wealth. The concept of civilization is most often associated with the value-neutral development of technology, which can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and the concept of culture, on the contrary, has come as close as possible to the concept of spiritual progress. The negative qualities of civilization usually include its tendency to standardize thinking, its orientation toward absolute fidelity to generally accepted truths, and its inherent low assessment of the independence and originality of individual thinking, which are perceived as a “social danger.” If culture, from this point of view, forms a perfect personality, then civilization forms an ideal law-abiding member of society, content with the benefits provided to him. Civilization is increasingly understood as synonymous with urbanization, overcrowding, the tyranny of machines, and as a source of dehumanization of the world. In fact, no matter how deeply the human mind penetrates into the secrets of the world, the spiritual world of man himself remains largely mysterious. Civilization and science by themselves cannot ensure spiritual progress; culture is needed here as the totality of all spiritual education and upbringing, which includes the entire spectrum of intellectual, moral and aesthetic achievements of mankind.
In general, for modern, primarily world culture, two ways to solve the crisis situation are proposed. If, on the one hand, the resolution of the crisis tendencies of culture is assumed along the path of traditional Western ideals - strict science, universal education, reasonable organization of life, production, a conscious approach to all phenomena of the world, changing the guidelines for the development of science and technology, i.e. increasing the role of the spiritual and moral improvement of man, as well as improvement of his material conditions, then the second way to resolve crisis phenomena involves the return of the human race either to various modifications of religious culture or to forms of life that are more “natural” for man and life - with limited healthy needs, a sense of unity with nature and space, forms of human existence free from the power of technology.
Philosophers of our time and the recent past take one position or another regarding technology; as a rule, they associate technology (understood quite broadly) with a crisis of culture and civilization. The mutual influence of technology and modern culture is one of the key problems to consider here. If the role of technology in culture is largely clarified in the works of Heidegger, Jaspers, Fromm, then the problem of the humanization of technology remains one of the most important unsolved problems for all of humanity.
One of the most interesting moments in the development of modern culture is the formation of a new image of culture itself. If the traditional image of world culture is associated primarily with the ideas of historical and organic integrity, then new image culture is increasingly associated, on the one hand, with ideas on a cosmic scale, and on the other hand, with the idea of a universal ethical paradigm. It is also worth noting the formation of a new type of cultural interaction, expressed primarily in the rejection of simplified rational schemes for solving cultural problems. All higher value acquire the ability to understand someone else's culture and points of view, critical analysis of their own actions, recognition of someone else's cultural identity and someone else's truth, the ability to include them in their position and recognition of the legitimacy of the existence of many truths, the ability to build dialogical relationships and compromise. This logic of cultural communication also presupposes corresponding principles of action.
In Russia, the beginning of the 90s of the last century is characterized by the accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, for which not only the values general culture USSR, but also each other’s cultural traditions. The sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in cultural tension and caused the collapse of a single socio-cultural space.
The culture of modern Russia, organically connected with previous periods of the country's history, found itself in a completely new political and economic situation, which radically changed many things, first of all, the relationship between culture and power. The state stopped dictating its demands to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.
Since the common core has disappeared cultural life As a centralized management system and a unified cultural policy, determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of intense disagreement. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western models to an apology for isolationism. The absence of a unifying cultural idea is perceived by part of society as a manifestation of the deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself at the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.
If, on the one hand, the elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture, then, on the other hand, the economic crisis experienced by the country and the difficult transition to market relations increased the danger of the commercialization of culture, the loss of national features during its further development. The spiritual sphere in general was experiencing an acute crisis in the mid-90s. The desire to direct the country towards market development has led to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively require state support.
At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between youth and the older generation continued to deepen. All these processes are unfolding against the backdrop of a rapid and sharp increase in uneven access to the consumption of not only material, but cultural goods.
Due to the above reasons, the first place in culture began to be occupied by the media, called the “fourth estate”.
In modern Russian culture, incompatible values and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, egoism, enormous and often deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc.
If it is quite obvious that one of the most important conditions for the renewal of society as a whole is the revival of culture, then specific movements along this path continue to be the subject of heated debate. In particular, the subject of dispute is the role of the state in regulating culture: whether the state should intervene in cultural affairs, or whether culture itself will find the means for its survival. Here, apparently, the following point of view has been formed: ensuring freedom of culture, the right to cultural identity, the state takes upon itself the development of strategic tasks of cultural construction and responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support of cultural values. However, the specific implementation of these provisions remains in question. The state, apparently, is not fully aware that culture cannot be left to business; its support, including education and science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation. Despite all the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow separation from its cultural heritage. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation.
Various opinions are also expressed regarding the ways of cultural development in modern Russia. On the one hand, it is possible to strengthen cultural and political conservatism, as well as stabilize the situation based on ideas about the identity of Russia and its special path in history. However, this is fraught with a return to the nationalization of culture. If in this case there is automatic support for cultural heritage and traditional forms of creativity, then, on the other hand, foreign influence on culture will inevitably be limited, which will greatly complicate any aesthetic innovations.
On the other hand, in the conditions of Russia’s integration under external influence into the world system of economy and culture and its transformation into a “province” in relation to global centers can lead to the dominance of alien trends in domestic culture, although the cultural life of society in this case will also be more stable for account of commercial self-regulation of culture.
In any case, the key problem remains the preservation of the original national culture, its international influence and the integration of cultural heritage into the life of society; integration of Russia into the system of universal human culture as an equal participant in world artistic processes. Here, state intervention in the cultural life of the country is necessary, since only with institutional regulation is it possible to fully utilize the cultural potential, radically reorient state cultural policy, and ensure the accelerated development of the domestic cultural industry within the country.
In modern Russian culture, numerous and very contradictory trends are manifested, partially outlined above. In general, the current period of development of national culture is still transitional, although it can be stated that certain ways out of the cultural crisis have emerged.
Conclusion
Russian national culture
Russian culture is undoubtedly a great European culture. It is an independent and distinctive national culture, the keeper of national traditions, values, and a reflection of the characteristics of the national character. Russian culture, in the process of its formation and development, was influenced by many cultures, absorbed some elements of these cultures, processed and rethought them, they became part of our culture as its organic component.
Russian culture is neither the culture of the East nor the culture of the West. We can say that it represents an independent type of culture. As a result of various reasons, Russian culture has not fully realized its capabilities and potential.
Unfortunately, the experience of various transformations in Russia is complicated by the fact that any changes were made by force or by a sharp breakdown, replacement, negation, or rejection of the existing cultural tradition. The cultural history of the country has repeatedly confirmed in practice the disastrousness of such an approach, which caused not only the destruction of the previous culture, but also led to a conflict of generations, a conflict of supporters new and antiquity. Another one the most important task- overcome the inferiority complex that has formed among part of our society in relation to their country and culture. It also doesn't help you move forward. The response to it is manifestations of nationalism and a sharp denial of any borrowing.
Russian culture testifies: with all the different interpretations of the Russian soul and Russian character, it is difficult not to agree with the famous lines of F. Tyutchev: “Russia cannot be understood with the mind, nor can it be measured with a common yardstick: it has become something special - one can only believe in Russia.”
Russian culture has accumulated great values. The task of current generations is to preserve and increase them.
List of used literature
1.Literature of Ancient Rus'. Reader. M., 2005.
2.Miliukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture: In 3 volumes. M., 2003. Vol. 1.
.Polishchuk V.I. Culturology: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2007. indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
2.1. "East-West"
When it comes to Russia, you can hear a wide variety of opinions about its culture, about its past, present and future, about the traits and characteristics of the Russian people, but everyone almost always agrees on one thing - both foreigners and Russians themselves. This is the mystery and inexplicability of Russia and the Russian soul.
True, the culture of any nation contains some paradoxes that are difficult to explain. Culture eastern peoples It is especially difficult for people of Western culture to understand. And Russia is a country lying at the junction of the West and the East. N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “The Russian people are not a purely European and not a purely Asian people. Russia is a whole part of the world, a huge East-West, it connects two worlds”1.
Undoubtedly, the geographical location of Russia, born in Eastern Europe and covering the vast expanses of sparsely populated Northern Asia, left a special imprint on its culture. However, the difference between Russian culture and Western European culture is not due to the “eastern spirit”, which is supposedly “naturally” characteristic of the Russian people. The specificity of Russian culture is the result of its history. Russian culture, unlike Western European culture, was formed on different paths - it grew on a land through which Roman legions did not pass, where the Gothic style of Catholic cathedrals did not rise, the fires of the Inquisition did not burn, there was no Renaissance, no wave of religious Protestantism, no era constitutional liberalism. Its development was associated with events of another historical series - with the reflection of the raids of Asian nomads, the adoption of Eastern, Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, liberation from the Mongol conquerors, the unification of scattered Russian principalities into a single autocratic despotic state and the spread of its power further and further to the East.
2.2. Christian-Orthodox beginning of culture
The Orthodox Church played a major role in the development of the self-awareness of the Russian people. By accepting Christianity, Prince Vladimir made a great historical choice that determined the fate of the Russian state. This choice, firstly, was a step towards the West, towards a European-style civilization. He separated Rus' from the East and from those variants of cultural evolution that are associated with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Secondly, the choice of Christianity in its Orthodox, Greek-Byzantine form allowed Rus' to remain independent from the spiritual and religious power of the Roman papacy. Thanks to this, Rus' found itself in confrontation not only with the East Asian world, but also with the Catholic Western Europe. Orthodoxy was the spiritual force that held together the Russian principalities and pushed the Russian people towards unification in order to withstand pressure from both the East and the West. If Kievan Rus had not accepted Orthodoxy, Russia would hardly have been able to emerge as a large independent state, and it is difficult to imagine what would be happening on its territory today.
The Baptism of Rus' in 988 brought along with Orthodoxy the rich cultural traditions of Byzantium, which was then the leader of European civilization. Slavic writing began to spread in Rus', books, monastic libraries, and schools at monasteries appeared, historical “chronicle writing” arose, church architecture and temple painting flourished, and the first legal code, “Russian Truth,” was adopted. The era of development of enlightenment and scholarship began. Rus' quickly moved to a place of honor among the most developed countries in Europe. Under Yaroslav the Wise, Kyiv became one of the richest and most beautiful cities in Europe; One of the Western guests called it “a rival of Constantinople.” The influence of Christianity on popular morality was especially important. The church fought against the remnants of pagan life - polygamy, blood feud, barbaric treatment of slaves. She opposed rudeness and cruelty, introduced the concept of sin into people's consciousness, preached piety, humanity, and mercy towards the weak and defenseless.
At the same time, ancient paganism did not disappear without a trace. Traces of it have survived in Russian culture to this day; some elements of paganism also entered Russian Christianity.
2.3. Byzantine-imperial ambitions and messianic consciousness
The Mongol invasion interrupted the cultural rise of Rus'. His traces are deeply etched in the memory of the Russian people. And not so much because he adopted some elements of the culture of the conquerors. Its direct impact on the culture of Rus' was small and affected mainly only in the sphere of language, which absorbed a certain number of Turkic words, and in certain details of everyday life. However, the invasion was a harsh historical lesson that showed the people the danger of internal strife and the need for a unified, strong state power, and the successful completion of the fight against the enemy gave them a sense of their own strength and national pride. This lesson aroused and developed the feelings and moods that permeate the folklore, literature, and art of the Russian people - patriotism, distrust of foreign states, love for the “Tsar-Father,” in whom the peasant masses saw their protector. The “Eastern” despotism of the tsarist autocracy is, to a certain extent, a legacy of the Mongol yoke.
The political rise of Rus', interrupted by the Mongol invasion, resumed with the rise and development of the Moscow principality. The fall of Byzantium in the 15th century made it the only independent Orthodox state in the world. The Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III began to be considered as the successor of the Byzantine emperor, revered as the head of the entire Orthodox East, and called “tsar” (this word comes from the Roman caesar - Caesar or Caesar). And at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, the monk Philotheus put forward a proud theory declaring Moscow the “third Rome”: “As two Romes have fallen, the third stands, but the fourth will not exist - the Christian kingdom will no longer remain.”
The national-state ideology formulated at the end of the 15th century determined the course of Russian history for many centuries to come. On the one hand, this ideology inspired the Byzantine-imperial ambitions and aggressive aspirations of Russian tsarism. The Russian state began to expand and turned into a powerful empire. On the other hand, under the influence of this ideology, all efforts were spent on mastering, protecting and developing vast territories and ensuring economic progress; there was no longer any left for the cultural development of the people. According to the Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the state was swelling, the people were frail.”
The integrity of the vast country, which annexed territories with a diverse ethnic composition of the population, rested on centralized autocratic power, and not on the unity of culture. This determined the special importance of statehood in the history of Russia and the weak attention of the authorities to the development of culture.
Over the course of five centuries, imperial ideology has gained a strong position in Russian culture. It penetrates the minds of aristocrats and simple peasants, consolidating itself as a cultural tradition glorifying “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” On its basis, messianic consciousness develops - the idea of the great destiny given by God for Russia in the history of mankind. In its extreme forms, messianism reaches the point of arrogant nationalism: it contemptuously condemns the “decaying” West with its lack of spirituality and the East with its passivity and backwardness, proclaiming the superiority of the Orthodox Russian “spirit” and its future triumph over the dark forces of world evil. A clear echo of messianism was also heard in Soviet propaganda, which painted an image of Russia walking “at the head of all progressive humanity” and fighting the “dark forces of reaction” for the “victory of communism throughout the world.”
In Slavophilism of the 19th century, attempts were made to develop messianic ideas in a moral and humanistic vein. Slavophile journalism spoke loftily about the Russian people as God's chosen bearer of special spiritual power, called upon to play a unifying role in building the future world community of peoples. In line with these ideas, heated debates arose around the “Russian idea,” that is, around the question of what the purpose and meaning of the existence of the Russian people are.
These disputes continue to this day - mainly in connection with the desire to define a special, “third” (neither Western nor Eastern, neither socialist nor capitalist) path of development for Russia.
“What did the Creator intend for Russia?” - this is how Berdyaev formulated the question about the Russian idea. This formulation of the question, however, carries in the subtext the idea of the existence of some specific task, for the solution of which God chose Russia and which no other people can solve. Similar ideas about the people being chosen by God have been put forward before, but now interest in them has been lost. The history lesson of the 20th century was not in vain: the “German idea” with which Hitler managed to seduce his people cost Germany and all of humanity dearly. Nowadays, Germans, French or Swedes are unlikely to argue heatedly about why God created their countries. In the end, the “idea” of all states is the same: to create conditions for prosperous and happy life their citizens (and for all citizens - regardless of their ethnic origin). And there is no need to invent any other “national idea” that assigns a special historical mission to any people.
2.4. From cultural isolation to integration with European culture
After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, the young Russian Orthodox state found itself surrounded on all sides by countries with a different faith. In these historical conditions Orthodoxy acts as an ideological force that contributes to the unity of the Russian principalities and the strengthening of a single centralized power. The concepts “Orthodox” and “Russian” are identified. Any war with another country becomes a war with non-believers, a war for shrines - “for faith, king and fatherland.”
But at the same time, Orthodoxy also becomes an isolating factor, separating the Russian people from other peoples of Europe and Asia. His opposition to Catholicism prevents cultural contacts with Western Europe. All cultural trends coming from there are presented as something “tainted” that does not correspond to the true faith, and therefore are condemned and rejected. This leaves Russia on the sidelines from the development of Western European culture. But alone, and even after the cultural destruction caused by the Mongol conquest, it cannot again rise to the level reached by that time by Western culture. Thus, the cultural gap with the West turns into the growing cultural backwardness of medieval Russia.
This backwardness is also facilitated by Orthodoxy’s inherent commitment to preserving traditions and rejection of “new learning.” In Catholic Europe of the late Middle Ages, theological and scholastic thought flourished rapidly, the network of universities quickly expanded, and the formation of experimental natural science began. Such innovations were perceived as evidence that the Catholic Church was increasingly falling into heresy. The Russian clergy of the Moscow period was dominated by “honest conservatism and almost schoolless fanaticism”1. When Peter I introduced compulsory education for candidates for the priesthood, many priests hid children and brought them to schools in shackles.
Thus, during the Moscow period of Russian history, neither the state nor the church were concerned with the development of education and science. Society as a whole - the boyars, the small nobility, the merchants, and the peasantry - did not particularly favor learning. By the end of the 17th century, the cultural, scientific, and technical backwardness of Russia turned into a serious problem, the solution of which depended on which path Russia would take: eastern or western. Peter I made a choice and turned Russia to the second path. Without this, Russia would most likely have suffered the same fate as India or China.
As V. O. Klyuchevsky emphasizes, Peter I’s goal was not simply to borrow the ready-made fruits of someone else’s knowledge and experience, but to “transplant the very roots onto their own soil so that they would produce their fruits at home”1. The development of Russian culture after him went precisely in this vein. Its soil turned out to be capable of accepting plants from any land and growing a rich harvest.
The openness of Russian culture, readiness for dialogue, the ability to absorb and develop the achievements of other cultures - this has become its characteristic feature since the time of Peter the Great.
Having cut a “window to Europe,” Peter I laid the foundation for Russia’s introduction to world culture. Russia is on the move. The sparks born from the collision of Russian culture with the culture of Western Europe awakened its rich potential. Just as a talented person, perceiving the thoughts of other people, develops them in his own way and as a result comes to new original ideas, so Russian culture, absorbing the achievements of the West, makes a spiritual leap that has led it to achievements of world significance.
The 19th century became the “golden age” of Russian culture. A galaxy of great Russian writers, composers, artists, scientists, whom there is no need to list - they are known to everyone, has turned it into one of the richest national cultures in the world. In architecture, painting, literature, music, social thought, philosophy, science, technology - creative masterpieces appear everywhere, bringing her worldwide fame.
2.5. Gap between ethnic and national culture
Peter understood perfectly well that Russia must make a sharp breakthrough to overcome economic and cultural backwardness, otherwise it would face the fate of a colossus with feet of clay, which would not be able to withstand the blows and would be thrown into the margins of world history. His genius was able to accurately select the decisive condition for such a breakthrough - the presence of knowledgeable, educated people, engineers, scientists and artists. But in Russia there were practically no professionals so necessary for the “carpenter king”. Therefore, Peter had to bring them from abroad and at the same time organize the training of domestic personnel. However, the dominance of the “Germans” caused dissatisfaction even among his associates. But among the Russians, secular, non-church education was not considered an occupation worthy of a noble person. Raise the prestige of knowledge in the eyes Russian society it was very difficult. When the Academy of Sciences with a gymnasium and a university was established in 1725, there were no Russians willing to study there. I had to expel students from abroad as well. After some time, the first Russian university (Moscow University was founded only in 1755) was closed due to lack of students.
A new type of culture began to take shape among a relatively narrow circle of people. It included mainly representatives of the noble elite, as well as Russified foreign specialists and “rootless” people who, like Lomonosov, managed, thanks to their abilities, to achieve success in science, technology, art, or to move up in the public service. Even the metropolitan nobility, in a significant part of it, did not go further than assimilating only the external side of Europeanized life. For the majority of the country's population, the new culture remained alien. The people continued to live by old beliefs and customs; enlightenment did not touch them. If by the 19th century, in high society, university education had become prestigious and the talent of a scientist, writer, artist, composer, or performer began to command respect regardless of a person’s social background, then the common people saw mental work as “lordly fun.” A gap arose between the old and new culture.
This was the price that Russia paid for the sharp turn in its historical path and exit from cultural isolation. The historical will of Peter I and his followers was able to fit Russia into this turn, but it was not enough to extinguish the force of cultural inertia that controlled the people. Culture could not withstand the internal tension created at this turn and fell apart at the seams that had previously connected its various guises - folk and master, rural and urban, religious and secular. The old, pre-Petrine type of culture retained its folk, “soil” existence, rejected alien foreign innovations and froze in almost unchanged forms of Russian ethnic culture. And Russian national culture, having mastered the fruits of European science, art, philosophy, during the 18th-19th centuries took the form of a master, urban, secular, “enlightened” culture.
The separation of the national from the ethnic, of course, was not absolute. For example, classical Russian literature or music seemed to build on its ethnic basis and use folklore and ancient folk tunes. But in the works of outstanding writers, poets, and composers, folk motifs acquired forms and meanings that went far beyond their original sound (take, for example, Pushkin’s fairy tales or Mussorgsky’s operas), and sometimes beyond the boundaries of common people’s perception (for example, in journalism, in instrumental music ).
“Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries did not live an organic life at all...,” wrote N.A. Berdyaev. - The educated and cultural layers turned out to be alien to the people. Nowhere, it seems, was there such a gap between the upper and lower layers as in Peter’s, imperial Russia. And not a single country lived simultaneously in such different centuries, from the 14th to the 19th centuries and even until the next century, until the 21st century.”1
The gap between ethnic and national culture left its mark on the life and morals of the Russian people, on the socio-political life of the country, on the relationships between different social strata of society. In social thought, it gave rise to ideological polemics between “Slavophiles” and “Westerners.” It determined the characteristics of the Russian intelligentsia, which painfully experienced its isolation from the people and sought to restore the lost connection with them. It is no coincidence that Russian culture in its pre-revolutionary “Silver Age” was permeated with decadent motives: the cultural elite, losing touch with the people’s “soil”, felt the approach of tragedy. Many of its influential spiritual leaders moved away from the problems of public life into the world of “pure art.” The crisis of Russian society, which ultimately led to the October Revolution of 1917, was prepared not only by the economic, but also by the cultural split between the “tops” and the “bottoms.”
2.6. The culture of Soviet Russia: up the stairs leading down
In the process of building socialism in the USSR, along with the politics and economy of the country, culture also underwent a radical transformation. Based on the development of the industrial economy, the growth of the urban population, and state support for science and art, a cultural revolution took place in the country. The historical merit of the Soviet government was the creation new system universal public education, the amazingly rapid elimination of illiteracy of the Russian population, the development of the press and the publication of unprecedentedly large circulations of fiction, scientific and educational literature, the familiarization of the broad masses with cultural values, the formation of a large layer of the new, Soviet intelligentsia. All this led to the fact that the historical gap between the cultural life of the “bottoms” and the “tops” of Russian society was largely overcome. The unity of Russian culture was restored. As a result, Russia over the course of several decades has become a country of universal literacy, a “reading” country, surprising foreigners with people’s thirst for knowledge and the high prestige of education, science, and art in the eyes of the entire society.
But it came at a high price. The departure from the country after the revolution and the death of many outstanding cultural figures from Stalinist repression, as well as the narrowly utilitarian focus of training specialists, significantly reduced the cultural potential of the intelligentsia. Some ethnic traditions of the Russian people (including moral and religious) were lost. And most importantly, culture was placed under strict party and state control. The totalitarian regime established by the party leadership of the USSR subordinated the entire culture to its ideological demands and made it its servant. The loyal glorification of the party and its leaders was put forward as a social order for artists. Any dissent was severely punished. Culture became monolithic, but lost freedom of development. Its unity increasingly turned into uniformity. In art, only “socialist realism” was allowed. In technology and science - only “planned” work approved by the relevant government authorities. In contrast to the official socialist culture, a cultural underground took shape - “samizdat”, “underground”, song creativity, political jokes. But any attempts to publish even hints of criticism of the “party line” were strictly suppressed by vigilant censorship.
The totalitarian unification of culture necessarily required the protection of its “ideological purity” from harmful foreign influences. Therefore, the Soviet government fenced off its socialist culture from abroad with the “Iron Curtain.” Once again, as was the case during the era of Muscovite Rus', Russian culture was isolated from the “pernicious” West. The cycle of its development, begun by Peter I, has ended.
An inevitable consequence of the unification and isolation of culture, as in the past, was the emergence and strengthening of stagnant tendencies in it. Having become detached from world culture, Soviet culture began to lag more and more noticeably behind the level of advanced countries - especially in the field of technology and science. Cultural officialdom in art, the education system, and scientific policy have lost their dynamics. Spiritual priorities were corroded, and the economy also began to falter. The highest cultural achievements, under the weight of a general decline in social indicators, lost their “lifting force” and only emphasized the inharmoniousness and one-sidedness of the country’s cultural life. The inherent vices of totalitarianism led culture to a dead end. To get out of it, she had to throw off the political and ideological chains of totalitarianism. This happened in the 1990s along with the collapse of the entire Soviet social system.
Russian culture again - for the third time (after Prince Vladimir and Peter the Great) - turned “towards the West”. At the crest of this new historical wave, she was again faced with the need to assimilate the experience of other cultures, “digest” it within herself and organically include it in the orbit of her own existence. The modern sharp turn in the development of Russian culture is being given to the people, perhaps no less hard than it was under Vladimir and Peter. But it takes place in completely different historical conditions and is associated with difficulties specific to them.
2.7. Traditional attitudes of Russian culture
There is extensive literature devoted to the description of ethnocultural stereotypes of the Russian people. These descriptions are very heterogeneous, and they cannot be reduced into a coherent and consistent picture of the “Russian soul.” A single national character that would be inherent to Russian people “in general” does not consist of them. However, based on the study of Russian culture in its historical development, it is possible to identify some traditional attitudes characteristic of it - general ideas, values, ideals, norms of thinking and behavior that are imprinted and stored in the national culture, receive approval in society and influence the lifestyle of its members. The most important of them include:
collectivism;
selflessness, spirituality, impracticality;
extremism, hyperbolism;
fetishization of state power, the belief that the entire life of citizens depends on it;
Russian patriotism.
Let's look at these settings in more detail.
Collectivism was developed as a cultural norm requiring the subordination of the thoughts, will and actions of the individual to the requirements of the social environment. This norm developed in the conditions of communal life and the patriarchal life of the Russian peasantry. On the one hand, it contributed to the organization of peasant labor and the entire way of village life (resolving issues “with the whole world”), and on the other hand, it received approval from those in power, since it facilitated the management of people. Many folk proverbs reflected the collectivist orientation of the behavior of the Russian person: “One mind is good, but two are better”, “One in the field is not a warrior”, etc. Individualism, opposing oneself to the collective, even simply a reluctance to maintain communication are perceived as disrespect and arrogance.
Russia did not survive the Renaissance, and the idea of uniqueness, self-worth human personality which he introduced into Western European culture did not attract special attention in Russian culture. A much more common motive was the desire to “be like everyone else,” “not to stand out.” The dissolution of the individual in the mass gave rise to passivity, irresponsibility for one’s behavior and personal choice. Only towards the end of the twentieth century did the idea that individualism has no less social value than collectivism gradually penetrate into our society. But even now it has difficulty mastering such concepts as human rights and personal freedom.
Unselfishness, elevation of spirituality, condemnation of the tendency to acquire, hoarding have always met with recognition in Russian culture (although it has not always actually served as the norm of life). Altruistic sacrifice, asceticism, “burning of the spirit” distinguish historical and literary heroes, which became models for entire generations. Of course, the high spirituality of Russian culture is associated with the Orthodox Christian cultivation of holiness and carries a religious origin.
The primacy of the spirit over the despised flesh and everyday life, however, turns into a contemptuous attitude towards everyday calculation and “philistine satiety” in Russian culture. Of course, Russian people are not at all alien to practicality and the desire for material wealth; “business people” in Russia, as elsewhere, put money at the forefront. However, in the traditions of Russian culture, “petty calculations” are contrasted with “broad movements of the soul.” What is encouraged is not calculating forethought, but action “at random”. The desire for the heights of spiritual perfection results in unrealistic good dreams, behind which there is “dear to the heart” practical helplessness, inactivity and simply laziness. The Russian people are sympathetic to reckless daredevils, drunkards who are ready to live from hand to mouth, just not to take on the hardships of systematic labor. Discussion of the famous question: “Do you respect me?” is built on the premise that respect is gained solely by outstanding spiritual qualities, which do not necessarily have to be manifested in outstanding deeds.
The vastness of Russia and the large population of it have constantly affected Russian culture for many centuries, giving it a tendency towards extremism and hyperbolism. Any idea, any business against the backdrop of the enormous Russian scale became noticeable and left its mark on culture only when it acquired enormous scope. Human resources, natural resources, diversity of geographical conditions, and distances made it possible to accomplish in Russia what was impossible in other states. Accordingly, projects attracted attention when they were grandiose. The faith and devotion of the peasants to the Tsar-Father was hyperbolic; national ambitions and hostility to everything foreign among the Moscow boyars and clergy; the acts of Peter I, who planned to build a capital city in a swamp in a few years and turn a huge backward country into an advanced and powerful power; Russian literature, which reached the deepest psychologism in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; fanatical acceptance and implementation of the ideas of Marxism; genuine popular enthusiasm and incredibly naive spy mania from the times of Stalinism; “huge” plans, “turns of rivers”, “great construction projects of communism”, etc. The same passion for hyperbolism and extremism is manifested today - in the protrusion of their wealth by the “new Russians”; in the boundless rampage of banditry and corruption; in the impudence of the creators of financial “pyramids” and the incredible gullibility of their victims; in the violent outbursts of fascist-nationalist sentiments and nostalgic love for “the order that existed under Stalin”, surprising for a country that went through the Gulag and the war against fascism; etc. The tendency to exaggerate everything that is done is perceived by Russian people as a cultural norm.
Since autocratic state power throughout the history of Russia has been the main factor ensuring the preservation of the unity and integrity of a huge country, it is not surprising that in Russian culture this power was fetishized and endowed with special, miraculous power. A cult of the state developed; it became one of the main shrines of the people. State power seemed to be the only one reliable protection from enemies, a stronghold of order and security in society. The relationship between the authorities and the population was traditionally understood as patriarchal-family: the “tsar-father” is the head of the “Russian family”, invested with unlimited power to execute and pardon his “little people”, and they - the “sovereign’s children” - are obliged to carry out his commands, because otherwise the race will decline. The belief that the tsar, although formidable, was fair, was firmly ingrained in the people's consciousness. And everything that contradicted this belief was interpreted as the result of the harmful intervention of intermediaries - the royal servants, boyars, officials deceiving the sovereign and distorting his will. Centuries of serfdom have taught the peasants that their lives are subject not to the law, but to the arbitrary decisions of the authorities, and that they must “bow” to them in order to “find the truth.”
The October Revolution changed the type of power, but not the fetishistic cult with which it was surrounded. Moreover, party propaganda adopted this cult and gave it new strength. Stalin was portrayed as the “father” of the people, a “luminary of science,” endowed with extraordinary wisdom and insight. His debunking after his death did not change the general tone of praise for the wisdom of the “collective leadership” and its “only true Leninist course.” During the holidays, children thanked the Central Committee of the CPSU “for our happy childhood.” The leaders were glorified like saints, and their images served as a kind of icons. Of course, many were skeptical about this whole parade. But dissatisfaction with the authorities also silently assumed its full responsibility for the ills of society. Protests against autocracy and arbitrariness of officials also stemmed from the belief in their omnipotence.
The fetishization of state power remains the attitude of public consciousness in today's Russia. The idea that the government is so omnipotent that both the happiness and misfortune of the population depends on it still reigns among the masses. Our government is responsible for everything: it is criticized for non-compliance with laws, non-payment of wages, high prices, rampant banditry, dirt on the streets, the breakdown of families, the spread of drunkenness and drug addiction. And it is possible that they will also thank the authorities for the growth of the economy and welfare (and sooner or later it will begin!). A cultural tradition developed by history does not give up its positions overnight.
The special character of Russian patriotism is historically connected with the cult of power and the state. The attitude that has developed in culture organically unites love for the homeland - the native land, natural landscape, with love for the fatherland - the state. The Russian soldier fought “for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland”: it goes without saying that these things are inextricably linked. But it's not only that.
Russia's centuries-old religious confrontation with the pagan East and Catholic West has taken its toll. Surrounded on all sides by “non-believers,” the Russian people (unlike the Western Europeans, who did not experience this) developed a sense of their uniqueness, uniqueness, and exceptional dissimilarity from other peoples. Messianic ideas, superimposed on this feeling, formed Russian patriotism as a cultural phenomenon that presupposes a special historical destiny of Russia, its special relationship with all humanity and responsibilities towards it. Thus, patriotism, along with its “internal” content, also acquires an “external”, international aspect. On this cultural basis, there was a rapid spread of Marxist ideas about the great historical mission of Russia, which is destined to lead the movement of all mankind towards communism. “Soviet patriotism” was the direct heir of Russian patriotism. The “fraternal assistance” of the Soviet Union to other countries following it seemed to be a difficult, but honorable burden - the fulfillment of the obligations that befell our country due to its exceptional role in the history of mankind.
The collapse of socialism became a difficult test for Russian culture. And not only because the financial and material support of cultural, educational, and scientific institutions from the state has fallen catastrophically. The transition to a market economy requires significant changes in the very system of cultural norms, values and ideals.
Contemporary Russian culture is at a crossroads. It breaks down stereotypes that developed in pre-Soviet and Soviet times. Apparently, there is no reason to believe that this disruption will affect the fundamental values and ideals that constitute the specific core of culture. However, calls for a “revival” of Russian culture as it existed in the past are utopian. There is a reassessment of values, centuries-old traditions are being shaken, and it is now difficult to say which of them will survive and which will fall victim to the altar of the new flowering of Russian culture.
Introduction
2. Main features of Russian medieval culture
3. The origins of Russian culture. The significance of the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium
4. Features of the spiritual culture of medieval Rus'
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Throughout all the centuries of its formation, national culture is inextricably linked with the history of Russia. Our cultural heritage took shape in the process of formation and development of national self-awareness, and was constantly enriched by our own and world cultural experience. It gave the world the pinnacle of artistic achievements and became an integral part of world culture.
The peculiarities of the formation of Russian culture are seen in the following main factors: the need to develop a vast geographical space in which numerous ethnic groups and nationalities connected and interacted; the establishment of Orthodoxy as a special branch of Christianity, focused on spirituality and adherence to established traditions; long-term temporary isolation of development from Western European civilizational processes and the intense struggle to overcome such isolation; the prevalence of the idea of the priority of statehood over personal interests, the subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the state.
Culture, unlike individual, “regional” areas of human activity, is not created by purposeful acts, but is the objective result of their sum or, on the other hand, the initial condition for their implementation. The cultural approach therefore involves not only an analysis of local achievements of one or another type of knowledge, skill, behavior, but also a comparative, comparative analysis of phenomena with a similar cultural “internal form”. This creates methodological difficulties that have not yet been overcome by science (how, for example, to correctly identify “impressionism” in painting and “impressionism” in music, despite the fact that their similarities are intuitively clear?), but is still a necessary task of the cultural sciences, since it allows us to identify general processes, “big” styles, value systems: what is called the “spirit of the times”.
From the existence of culture as a universal way of exploring nature, it does not follow that its norms, values, language, symbols, and worldview schemes are self-explanatory. Any established culture is incomprehensible “from the outside” and requires decoding, if this culture is in the past, or benevolent dialogue, if it is - modern culture. (The latter is especially important in the light of the modern process of globalization of culture) Also, this or that qualitative gradation of cultures is not unconditional: culture is available as a variety of options, and an attempt to determine their “value” (whatever criterion we choose) is as doubtful as determination of comparative value biological species. At the same time, evaluative analysis is possible where it is possible to meaningfully formulate the “goal” of a given culture or a certain stage of its development. (Although history shows that “immature” or “naive” forms of culture can, over time, be evaluated as an attractive alternative or reveal their hitherto ununderstood depths.)
1. The early stage of the development of Russian culture. Pagan culture of the ancient Slavs
In the early stages of development, the nature of the country left a huge imprint on the entire course of its history. IN. Klyuchevsky noted the flatness and abundance of river routes on the East European Plain, which facilitated the grandiose processes of colonization of tribes and predetermined the characteristics and diversity of the economic activities of the people. But nature did not protect society from alien invasions.
From the 5th century BC. On the northern coast of the Black Sea, the Greeks founded colonies, attracting local residents to their markets, subordinating them to their cultural influence. Trade brought the Greeks and natives closer together. Mixed settlements were created. Excavations have revealed objects of Greek art made by Greek craftsmen commissioned by barbarians. Thus, greek art served the tastes of local residents- Scythians - Iranian branch of the Aryan tribe. Then, instead of the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans - Iranian nomads - find themselves in southern Rus'. There comes a decline in the Greek cities and at the same time a certain rise in the culture of the Scythian ploughmen. But no disasters destroyed the cultural achievements of the Dnieper region. When, with the growth of the Roman Empire, the map of the world changed and Roman fortified cities spread to the Azov region, the Dnieper region turned out to be prepared to perceive elements of Roman culture. The bearer of the culture of this period was the early Slavic population. From the 4th century and for a whole millennium, the southern steppes of Rus' were the subject of dispute between alien tribes from the East.
The chronicle does not remember the time of the arrival of the Slavs from Asia to Europe. She finds them already on the Danube, in the Carpathians. The fall of the Western Roman Empire and the massive movement of Slavs across the Danube lead to the emergence of large Slavic tribes. Latin and Byzantine writers of the 6th-8th centuries speak of two branches of the Slavs - the Ants and the Slavs. A new period began in the history of the Eastern Slavs. He leads to an explanation of the brilliant culture that continued without interruption during the Kiev era.
Having arrived in the Dnieper region, the Slavs did not find here such a culture and civilization as the Germanic tribes in the Western Roman Empire. But from the 6th century, monuments allow us to speak about the Eastern Slavs’ own and sufficiently defined culture. Before the formation of the Kyiv state, they had a significant history, noticeable successes in the field of material culture: they knew the secrets of metal processing and agricultural tools. They developed well-known ideas about the earthly and afterlife worlds, strictly observed rituals developed, and when the process of ethnogenesis, the formation of the ancient Russian people, was completed, these cultural achievements of the past were not forgotten.
Old Russian (Russian) culture is not purely Slavic. The Old Russian nationality was formed in a mixture of several subethnic components. It originated as a community formed from the combination of three economic and technological regions - agricultural, cattle-breeding, and fishing. Three types of lifestyle - sedentary, nomadic, wandering in a mixture of several ethnic streams - Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric with a noticeable influence of German, Turkic, North Caucasian, at the intersection of the influence of several Religious streams. Thus, on the main territory of the Old Russian state, we cannot talk about the numerical predominance of the Slavs in ethnogenesis. Single element ancient Russian culture, in which Slavic dominance is not in doubt, is a language.
In the VI-IX centuries there was a process of intensive development of the peoples inhabiting the East European Plain. Arable farming is replacing slash-and-burn farming, crafts are becoming more prominent, and close cultural ties are being established with Byzantium, the East, and Western Europe. Trade was intensively developing, which was carried out with significant capital (as evidenced by the found treasures of Arab coins and the stories of Arab writers). In trade with the East, contacts with the Khazars were of great importance, who opened a safe route to Asia for the Slavs and introduced them to the religions of the East. Trade with Byzantium developed successfully. By the 10th century, certain forms and traditions of trade agreements had developed. This is evidenced by the treaties signed by princes Oleg and Igor with the Greeks. They were compiled in two languages - Russian and Greek. This confirms that the Slavs had written language long before the adoption of Christianity, as well as the fact that before the appearance of the first set of laws of the “Russian Truth”, legislation was also being developed. The treaties mentioned the “Russian Law” by which the Slavs lived. Under the name "Rus" the Slavs traded in Western Europe.
Since ancient times, along with agriculture and cattle breeding, the population of Ancient Rus' was successfully engaged in trade. Under this condition, we can assume the early existence of cities, already in the 3rd-8th centuries. The chronicle does not give the time of their appearance. They were “from the beginning” - Novgorod, Polotsk, Rostov, Smolensk, Kyiv - all on river and trade routes. Cities were not only points of tribal defense and worship. By the 11th century they were centers of political and cultural life and craft production. With the advent of private property and wealthy farmers, towns - mansions (castles) appeared. In the Scandinavian sagas of the 9th century, Ancient Rus' was called “Gardarik” - a country of cities. Emerging culture Kievan Rus was urban. Thus, until the second half of the 9th century, before the formation of the state, the Eastern Slavs already had a significant history and managed to achieve noticeable success in the field of material culture, which was the basis of social life.
Pagan religion occupied a central place in the culture of this period. Paganism is a religious form of human exploration of the world. The religious views of the ancient Slavs reflected the worldview of our ancestors. They developed and became more complex, not differing significantly from the similar development of religions of other peoples. Man lived in a mythological picture of the world. At its center was nature, to which the collective adapted. Several stages in the development of pagan culture can be distinguished.
At the first stage, the forces of nature were deified. The whole of it was inhabited by many spirits who had to be appeased so that they would not harm a person and would help in labor activity. The Slavs worshiped Mother Earth; water cults were quite developed. They considered water to be the element from which the world was formed. The Slavs populated it with various deities - mermaids, mermen, sea creatures, and dedicated holidays to them. Forests and groves were revered; they were considered the dwellings of the gods. The god of the sun, Dazhdbog, and the god of the wind, Stribog, were revered. The Slavs thought that their ancestry came from the gods. The author of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" calls the Russian people "Dazhdbog's grandchildren."