Dialogue of cultures and universal human values. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Interaction of cultures: dialogue of cultures

04.03.2020

intercultural communication Bakhtin dialogue interethnic

In the current century, it has become clear that the dialogue of cultures presupposes mutual understanding and communication not only between various cultural formations within large cultural zones, but also requires the spiritual rapprochement of huge cultural regions that formed their own set of distinctive features at the dawn of civilization.

There are many cultures (types of culture) realized in human history. Each culture generates its own specific rationality, its own morality, its own art and is expressed in its own symbolic forms. The meanings of one culture are not completely translated into the language of another culture, which is sometimes interpreted as the incommensurability of different cultures and the impossibility of dialogue between them. Meanwhile, such a dialogue is possible due to the fact that the origins of all cultures have a common creative source - man with his universality and freedom. It is not the cultures themselves who enter into dialogue, but people for whom the corresponding cultures outline specific semantic and symbolic boundaries. Firstly, a rich culture carries within itself a lot of hidden possibilities that make it possible to build a semantic bridge to another culture; Secondly, creative person able to transcend the limitations imposed by the original culture. Therefore, being a creator of culture, a person is able to find a way of dialogue between different cultures. Radugin A. A. Culturology. - M.: Publishing House "Center", 2004. - P. 17

Intercultural communication, interaction of cultures is a complex and very contradictory process. IN different eras it happened in different ways: it happened that cultures interacted quite peacefully, without infringing on each other’s dignity, but more often intercultural communication went side by side with sharp confrontation, subjugation of the weak, deprivation of his cultural identity. The nature of intercultural interaction is especially important these days, when, thanks to the development of technical means, the vast majority of existing ethnocultural entities are involved in the global communication process. Taking into account the sad past experience, when entire peoples and cultures disappeared irrevocably from the face of the earth, the problem of peaceful coexistence of representatives of different cultural traditions, excluding oppression, forced assimilation and discrimination, comes to the fore.

The idea of dialogue between cultures as a guarantee of peaceful and equal development was first put forward by M. Bakhtin. It was formed by the thinker in last period his creativity was influenced by the works of O. Spengler. If, from the point of view of the German culturologist, world cultures are in a sense “personalities,” then, according to Bakhtin, there should be an endless “dialogue” that lasts for centuries between them. For Spengler, the isolation of cultures leads to the unknowability of strangers cultural phenomena. For Bakhtin, the “outside location” of one culture in relation to another is not an obstacle to their “communication” and mutual knowledge or penetration, as if we were talking about a dialogue between people. Each culture of the past, involved in a “dialogue”, for example, with subsequent cultural eras, gradually reveals the diverse meanings contained in it, often born beyond the conscious will of the creators of cultural values. Modern cultures should also be involved in the same process of “dialogical interaction,” according to Bakhtin.

“Dialogue of cultures” is not so much a strict scientific concept as a metaphor designed to acquire the status of a political-ideological doctrine that should guide the extremely intensified interaction of different cultures with each other today at all levels. The panorama of modern world culture is a fusion of many interacting cultural formations. They are all original and should be in peaceful, thoughtful dialogue; When making contact, be sure to listen to the “interlocutor”, respond to his needs and requests. “Dialogue” as a means of communication between cultures presupposes such a rapprochement of interacting subjects cultural process when they do not suppress each other, do not strive to dominate, but “listen”, “cooperate”, touching carefully and carefully. Solonin Yu.N. Culturology. - M.: Higher education, 2007.- P. 173

Today, the development of the principle of dialogue of cultures is a real opportunity to overcome the deepest contradictions of the spiritual crisis, to avoid an ecological dead end and atomic night. A real example The consolidation of different cultural worlds is an alliance that formed towards the end of the 20th century in Europe between European nations. The possibility of a similar union between vast cultural regions can only arise through dialogue that preserves cultural differences in all their richness and diversity and leads to mutual understanding and cultural contacts. Radugin A. A. Culturology. - M.: Publishing House "Center", 2004. - P. 222

The culture of Russia in the dialogue of cultures is an aspect of comparative consideration of Russian culture with the cultures of other civilizations in order to establish a fundamental interaction between them, overcoming the localist character or even the Spenglerian “mutual impenetrability” of closed civilizations-cultures.

Comparison is possible at three levels: national (Russia and France, Russian and German culture etc.), civilizational (comparison of Russia with the civilizations of the East and Western European “Faustian” or “Western Christian civilization”), typological (Russia in the context of the West and East in general).

In national terms, Russian culture is one of the national European cultures, which has its own special “face”, along with all the others, starting with the ancient Hellenes (Greeks), from whom the European civilizational and historical tradition comes. This specificity is its vast territory and the unified state of the Russian people, and hence the coincidence of nation and civilization. What distinguishes Russian from eastern civilizations is its Christianity (and partly its connection through Greek Byzantium with the Hellenic pan-European foundation), and from the civilization of Western European peoples - the Orthodox character of Russian culture and the above-mentioned geopolitical aspects. Finally, in the broadest cultural context, Russia, together with Western Europe, is the West as opposed to the East. This determines Russia’s place in the dialogue of cultures: as a geopolitical force, it has already saved European civilization (from the Mongol pogrom of culture in the Middle Ages and from its own European “plague,” fascism, in the 20th century); as a spiritual force, she can still save her if she saves herself from her own “damage.” Drach G.V., Matyash T.P. Culturology. Brief thematic dictionary. -- Rostov N/A: “Phoenix”, 2003. - P.178

ABSTRACT

discipline: Culturology

Dialogue of cultures

Introduction

1. Intercultural interaction and its types

2. Typology of cultures, problems and prospects for dialogue between cultures

Conclusion

As you know, history is filled with the constant struggle of different cultures and faiths. All of world history is a process of interaction between peoples, each of which had or has a specific system of values and way of activity. The main modes of interaction between peoples are competition and cooperation, the tonality of which, in turn, can vary within very wide limits. Rivalry can take the form of competition, developing within the framework of international law, or it can take on the nature of open confrontation with all the ensuing consequences. It is clear that cooperation between peoples can acquire different qualities. The nature of relationships between peoples is, of course, determined by current economic and political interests. However, very often they hide factors of a deeper order - spiritual values, without taking into account and understanding of which it is impossible to establish normal good neighborly relations between peoples and predict their future.

The interaction of cultures is extraordinary actual topic in conditions modern Russia and the world in general. It is quite possible that it is more important than the problems of economic and political relations between peoples. Culture constitutes a certain integrity in a country, and the more internal and external connections a culture has with other cultures or its individual branches, the higher it rises.

My work is devoted to the problems of intercultural interaction and dialogue of cultures. The work has the following tasks:

· analyze different kinds intercultural interaction and highlight the place of dialogue among them;

· describe intercultural interaction between the West, East and Russia.

Researchers of intercultural interactions approach their typology and classification in different ways. Thus, one of the simplest typologies is based on a direct analogy with the interaction of biological populations. The main criterion determining the nature of intercultural interaction here is the result of the influence of one culture on another. In accordance with this indicator, interaction between two cultures occurs according to one of four scenarios:

1) “plus for plus” – mutual promotion of development;

2) “plus and minus” – assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another;

3) “minus to plus” – the interaction model is similar to the second option, only the counterparties change places;

4) “minus for minus” – both interacting cultures suppress each other.

This typology, for all its tempting simplicity and comparative ease of empirical interpretation, is characterized by a number of significant shortcomings. Firstly, the entire range of intercultural interactions here is reduced to only three options (since the second and third scenarios are almost identical), whereas in reality it appears to be more diverse. Secondly, in this typology there is no indication of the factors that determine the “choice” of one or another interaction option. Thirdly, it does not reveal at all the content of the interaction of cultures: what exactly is the suppression of one culture by another, what are the criteria for the fact that a culture contributes to the development of its counterparty, how assimilation occurs, etc., which is why this typology turns out to be too abstract and actually “hangs in the air.”

A more theoretically profound typology of intercultural interaction was proposed by V.P. Bransky. Within the framework of his theory of the social ideal, V.P. Bransky identifies four basic principles of interaction between carriers of competing ideals:

1) the principle of fundamentalism (intransigence);

2) the principle of compromise;

3) the principle of arbitration (neutralization);

4) the principle of convergence (synthesis).

Another fairly well-known typology of intercultural interactions belongs to the American anthropologist F.K. Boku. This researcher identifies five main models for optimizing intercultural interaction, corresponding in various ways overcoming culture shock:

1) ghettoization (fencing off from any contact with foreign culture through the creation and maintenance of one’s own closed cultural environment);

2) assimilation (renunciation of one’s own culture and the desire to fully assimilate the cultural baggage of a foreign culture necessary for life);

3) cultural exchange and interaction (an intermediate method that involves benevolence and openness of both parties to each other);

4) partial assimilation (concession in favor of a foreign cultural environment in one of the spheres of life while remaining faithful to one’s own traditional culture in other areas);

5) colonization (actively imposing one’s own values, norms and behavior patterns on a foreign culture).

Typology F.K. Bok is characterized by greater detail and, due to the anthropological orientation of his work, somewhat less speculative than the previous two. It also contains a meaningful breakdown of the types of interaction. However, the emphasis in this typology is, in our opinion, precisely on the social content of interaction. In addition, as far as one can judge, the models of interaction between cultures are derived here on the basis of not so much analytical as descriptive criteria, which gives a certain shift in emphasis. Thus, in relation to our research situation, the difference between “assimilation” and “colonization” of one culture by another is insignificant, and some others possible options interactions (for example, convergence as an equal synthesis of original cultures) are not taken into account at all.

In modern sociology and anthropology, other attempts are being made to typologize intercultural interactions. So, N.K. Ikonnikova, based on the developments of Western researchers, offers a complicated version of the typology, based on a linear scheme of progressive development of mutual perception of counterparty cultures:

1) Ignoring differences between cultures;

2) Protection of one's own cultural superiority;

3) Minimizing differences;

4) Acceptance of the existence of intercultural differences;

5) Adaptation to another culture;

6) Integration into both native and other cultures.

Strength This typology consists in revealing the socio-psychological content of the interaction of cultures and in a two-level step-by-step differentiation of attitudes of mutual perception (the first three attitudes are “culture-centric”, the second three are “culture-relative”). Its weak side is a simplified approach to the social and cultural situation of interaction, similar to that which takes place in F. Bock’s typology: an individual or a small group in a foreign cultural environment, and a “mechanical” approach to culture itself, which is denied the status of a determining factor in interaction.

Taking into account the indicated advantages and disadvantages of the considered typologies of intercultural interactions, we tried to apply a synergetic approach to this problem, according to which culture (social knowledge) is considered as an open nonlinear dissipative self-organizing system, and the social bearers of these cultures are conditionally considered as a single social subject. From the perspective of this approach and based on the above and some other conceptual developments in the field of intercultural communications available in modern anthropology and sociology of culture, the following “ideal types” of interaction between cultures can be identified:

1) Integration (synthesis). There are three main options:

a) convergence – the gradual merging of cultural systems into a qualitatively new whole. In cognitive terms, it means dialogue at the level of nuclear cognitive structures and their likening to each other up to complete identification; socially, it presupposes the actual merging of the subjects of these cultures;

b) incorporation - the inclusion of one cultural system into another as a “subculture”. In cognitive terms, it means legitimizing the corresponding version of social knowledge as a “special case”; in social terms, it presupposes the relative autonomy of the subject of the latter within the subject of the “mother” culture;

c) assimilation - absorption of one cognitive system by another. In cognitive terms, it means the assimilation of the “material” of the counterpart culture after the collapse of the nuclear structure of the latter as a sum of dissociated fragments; socially, it involves the merging of subjects.

2) Mutual isolation – each of the interacting cultures takes a “ghetto” position in relation to the counterpart culture. In social-cognitive terms, this principle of interaction means a public or tacit delimitation of the spheres of social knowledge, suggesting various barriers and taboos in the spheres of possible dialogue and leading to an increase in mutual esotericism. Socially, it implies a clear division of subjects based on cultural affiliation.

3) Permanent conflict - means a “war of legitimations” for peripheral space; interpretations of social reality characteristic of one culture tend to completely supplant interpretations by others as incompatible with truth, genuine values, etc.; socially, it presupposes a clear separation of subjects with pronounced mutual segregation.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal state budget educational

institution of higher professional education

ABSTRACT

in the discipline "Culturology"

Dialogue of cultures in modern world

Group student.

Teacher

Introduction

1. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world

2. Intercultural interaction in modern society

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The entire history of mankind is a dialogue that permeates our entire life and is in reality a means of communication, a condition for mutual understanding between people. The interaction of cultures and civilizations presupposes some common cultural values.

In the modern world, it is becoming increasingly obvious that humanity is developing along the path of expanding the interconnection and interdependence of different countries, peoples and their cultures. Today, all ethnic communities are influenced both by the cultures of other peoples and by the broader social environment that exists in individual regions and in the world as a whole. This was reflected in the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between government institutions, social groups, social movements and individuals different countries and cultures. The expansion of interaction between cultures and peoples makes the issue of cultural identity and cultural differences especially relevant. The trend towards preserving cultural identity confirms the general pattern that humanity, while becoming more interconnected and united, does not lose its cultural diversity.

In the context of these trends in social development, it becomes extremely important to be able to determine the cultural characteristics of peoples in order to understand each other and achieve mutual recognition.

The interaction of cultures is an unusually relevant topic in the conditions of modern Russia and the world as a whole. It is quite possible that it is more important than the problems of economic and political relations between peoples. Culture constitutes a certain integrity in a country, and the more internal and external connections a culture has with other cultures or its individual branches, the higher it rises.

1 . Dianalogy of cultures in the modern world

The mutual exchange of knowledge, experience, and assessments is a necessary condition for the existence of culture. When creating cultural objectivity, a person “transforms his spiritual powers and abilities into an object.” And when mastering cultural wealth, a person “disobjectifies”, reveals the spiritual content of cultural objectivity and turns it into his own property. Therefore, the existence of culture is possible only in the dialogue of those who created and those who perceive the phenomenon of culture. Dialogue of cultures is a form of interaction, understanding and assessment of cultural objects and is at the center of the cultural process.

The concept of dialogue in the cultural process has a broad meaning. It includes a dialogue between the creator and consumer of cultural values, and a dialogue between generations, and a dialogue of cultures as a form of interaction and mutual understanding between peoples. As trade and population migration develop, the interaction of cultures inevitably expands. It serves as a source of their mutual enrichment and development.

The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures existing within the framework of a common civilization. The interaction of European and non-European cultures can be carried out in different ways. It can occur in the form of mutual promotion of development; assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another or both interacting cultures suppress each other, i.e. absorption of Eastern civilizations by Western civilization, penetration of Western civilization into Eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries and the need to ensure normal living conditions for the world's population have exacerbated the problem of modernization of traditional civilizations.

While maintaining its cultural core, each culture is constantly exposed to external influences, adapting them in different ways. Evidence of the rapprochement of different cultures is: intensive cultural exchange, the development of educational and cultural institutions, the spread of medical care, the spread of advanced technologies that provide people with the necessary material benefits, and the protection of human rights. cultural exchange social benefit

Any cultural phenomenon is interpreted by people in the context of the current state of society, which can greatly change its meaning. Culture retains only its external side relatively unchanged, while its spiritual wealth contains the possibility of endless development. This opportunity is realized by the activity of a person who is capable of enriching and updating those unique meanings that he discovers in cultural phenomena. This indicates constant renewal in the process of cultural dynamics.

The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as “memory”, the loss of which is tantamount to the death of society. The concept of tradition includes such manifestations of culture as the cultural core, endogeneity, originality, specificity and cultural heritage. The core of culture is a system of principles that guarantee its relative stability and reproducibility. Endogeneity means that the essence of culture, its systemic unity, is determined by the combination of internal principles. Identity reflects originality and uniqueness due to the relative independence and isolation of cultural development. Specificity is the presence of properties inherent in culture as a special phenomenon public life. Cultural heritage includes a set of values created by previous generations and included in the sociocultural process of each society.

2 . Intercultural interaction in modern society

Intercultural interaction is the contact of two or more cultural traditions (canons, styles), in the course and result of which the counterparties have a significant mutual influence on each other.

The process of interaction between cultures, leading to their unification, causes in some nations a desire for cultural self-affirmation and a desire to preserve their own cultural values. Whole line states and cultures demonstrates its categorical rejection of ongoing cultural changes. They contrast the process of opening cultural borders with the impenetrability of their own and an exaggerated sense of pride in their national identity. Different societies react to outside influences in different ways. The range of resistance to the process of merging cultures is quite wide: from passive rejection of the values of other cultures to active opposition to their spread and approval. Therefore, we are witnesses and contemporaries of numerous ethno-religious conflicts, the growth of nationalist sentiments, and regional fundamentalist movements.

The noted processes, to one degree or another, have found their manifestation in Russia. Reforms of society led to serious changes in the cultural appearance of Russia. A completely new type of business culture is emerging, a new idea of the social responsibility of the business world to the client and society is being formed, and the life of society as a whole is changing.

The result of the new economic relations was the widespread availability of direct contact with cultures that had previously seemed mysterious and strange. With direct contact with such cultures, differences are recognized not only at the level of kitchen utensils, clothing, and diet, but also in different attitudes towards women, children and the elderly, in ways and means of doing business.

Interaction is carried out on different levels and different groups of carriers of the corresponding cultures.

Subjects of intercultural interaction can be divided into three groups:

1 scientists and cultural figures interacting with the goal of learning about someone else’s culture and introducing them to their own;

2 politicians who consider intercultural relations as one of the aspects of social or political problems, including international ones, or even as a means of solving them;

3 population encountering representatives of other cultures at the everyday level.

Highlighting the levels of intercultural interaction depending on its subjects helps to avoid abstract formulation of the question and more specifically comprehend the goals of interaction, which differ from person to person. different groups; the means used to achieve them; trends of each level of interaction and their prospects. The opportunity is revealed to separate the problems of intercultural interaction itself from the social, economic and political problems hidden behind the “clash of civilizations” or dialogue of cultures.

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

Differences in worldviews are one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than the communication itself, in others it is the other way around.

The term worldview is usually used to refer to the concept of reality shared by a culturally or ethnically specific group of people. Worldview, first of all, must be attributed to the cognitive side of culture. The mental organization of each individual reflects the structure of the world. Elements of community in the worldview of individual individuals form the worldview of the entire group of people of a particular culture.

Each individual has his own culture, which shapes his worldview. Despite the differences between the individuals themselves, culture in their minds is composed of generally accepted elements and elements whose differences are acceptable. The rigidity or flexibility of a culture is determined by the relationship between the worldviews of individuals and the worldview of society.

Differences in worldviews are one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. But mastering cult knowledge helps improve intercultural communication.

Worldview defines categories such as humanity, good and evil, state of mind, the role of time and fate, properties of physical bodies and natural resources. Interpretation this definition includes cultic beliefs regarding various forces associated with daily events and observed rituals. For example, many eastern peoples They believe that the unfavorable atmosphere in the family is the result of the activities of the mythical brownie. If you do not treat him properly (do not pray, do not address sacrifices to him), the family will not get rid of problems and adversity.

The graduate school at Western Kentucky University administered a test that consisted of a single question: “If your half-brother committed an illegal act, would you report it to law enforcement?” Americans and representatives of countries Western Europe responded in the affirmative, considering it their civic duty to notify law enforcement. The only representative of Russia (Ossetian by nationality) and two Mexicans were against. One of the Mexicans was outraged by the very possibility of raising such a question, which he was not slow to speak out about. Unlike Americans and Europeans, he perceived denunciation of his own brother as the height of moral failure. To the credit of Dr. Cecilia Garmon, who conducted the test, the incident was resolved. She explained that neither answer is good or bad in itself. Both must be taken in the context of the culture that the responder represents.

In the Caucasus, for example, if a member of a traditional family (surname or clan) commits an unseemly act, the entire family or clan, which can number up to several hundred people, bears responsibility for his actions. The problem is solved collectively, and the person who broke the law is not considered the only one to blame. Traditionally, his family shares the blame. At the same time, the reputation of the entire family suffers, and its representatives do everything possible to regain their good name.

In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than the communication itself, in others it is the other way around. The first have a specific worldview that reduces all issues to action. A person who has achieved a certain goal at the cost of hard work rises not only in his own eyes, but also in public opinion. In such cultures, the end justifies the means. In others, where the priority always remains with the person, relationships are valued higher than the result. In this case, “there are many expressive means, representing the structures of a deeper, distinguished cognitive value of a person’s meaning in comparison with the problem being solved.” Ultimately, cultures are possible in which no goal, even the most important, can rise above man.

Any worldview that has developed in a particular culture is autonomous and adequate in the sense that it is the connecting link between opinion and reality, opening a view of reality as something experienced and accepted. Worldview contains a complex of beliefs, concepts, ordered understanding social structures and moral principles, and this complex is unique and specific in comparison with other similar complexes of other sociocultural associations. Despite the acceptability of modifications in culture and the possibility of varying the limit of permissible changes, the worldview is always adequate to the culture and determined by its principles.

No matter how the circumstances develop in this case, representatives of different cultures, while in the process of interaction, inevitably experience certain psychological inconveniences. Driving force adaptation is the interaction of at least two groups of people: the dominant group, which has great influence, and the adaptable group, which undergoes a process of learning or adaptation. The dominant group, intentionally or unintentionally, imposes changes, while the other group, voluntarily or not, accepts them.

Thanks to the globalization of the economy, the process of mutual adaptation of cultures has become more widespread. Of course, on the one hand, this contributes to a more even development of the economy around the world. The whole world is connected by one economic chain; the deterioration of the situation in one country will not leave other countries indifferent. Every participant in the global economy is interested in the well-being of the whole world. But on the other hand, residents of many closed countries are simply not ready for such a sudden foreign cultural invasion, and conflicts as a result of this are inevitable.

More and more theoretical and applied research is currently being devoted to the problems of intercultural interaction, both in Russia and abroad.

When becoming participants in any type of intercultural contact, people interact with representatives of other cultures, often significantly different from each other. Differences in languages, national cuisine, clothing, norms of social behavior, and attitudes towards work performed often make these contacts difficult and even impossible. But these are only particular problems of intercultural contacts. The main reasons for their failures lie beyond the obvious differences. They are in differences in worldview, that is, a different attitude towards the world and towards other people.

The main obstacle to successfully solving this problem is that we perceive other cultures through the prism of our culture, so our observations and conclusions are limited within its framework. With great difficulty we understand the meaning of words, deeds, actions that are not characteristic of ourselves. Our ethnocentrism not only hinders intercultural communication, but it is also difficult to recognize, since it is an unconscious process. This suggests the conclusion that effective intercultural communication cannot arise on its own; it needs to be purposefully learned.

Conclusion

The dialogue of cultures has been and remains central to the development of humanity. Over the course of centuries and millennia, there was a mutual enrichment of cultures that formed a unique mosaic of human civilization. The process of interaction and dialogue between cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures and elements of national culture are active for the assimilation of accumulated creative values. The most active process of dialogue between cultures occurs when one or another type of national thinking is adopted artistic values. Of course, much depends on the relationship between the stages of cultural development and the accumulated experience. Within each national culture, various components of culture develop differentially.

No nation can exist and develop in isolation from its neighbors. The closest communication between neighboring ethnicities occurs at the junction of ethnic territories, where ethnocultural ties become most intense. Contacts between peoples have always been a powerful stimulus for the historical process. Since the formation of the first ethnic communities of antiquity, the main centers of development human culture were at ethnic crossroads - zones where traditions of different peoples collided and were mutually enriched. Dialogue of cultures is interethnic and international contacts. Dialogue between neighboring cultures is important factor in regulating interethnic relations.

In the process of interaction of several cultures, the opportunity arises for a comparative assessment of achievements, their value and the likelihood of borrowing. The nature of interaction between cultures of peoples is influenced not only by the level of development of each of them, but also specifically by socio-historical conditions, as well as by the behavioral aspect, based on the possible inadequacy of the position of representatives of each of the interacting cultures.

Within the framework of globalization, the international dialogue of cultures is increasing. International cultural dialogue strengthens mutual understanding between peoples and makes it possible to better understand one’s own national identity. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans. In 1997, 5 million Americans began to actively practice yoga, an ancient Chinese health-improving gymnastics. Even American religions began to be influenced by the East. Eastern philosophy, with its ideas of the inner harmony of things, is gradually conquering the American cosmetics industry. The convergence and interaction of two cultural models is also occurring in the food industry (medicinal green tea). If previously it seemed that the cultures of the East and West did not intersect, today, more than ever, there are points of contact and mutual influence. We are talking not only about interaction, but also about complementarity and enrichment.

For mutual understanding and dialogue, it is necessary to understand the cultures of other peoples, which includes: “awareness of the differences in ideas, customs, cultural traditions inherent in different peoples, the ability to see the common and different between diverse cultures and look at the culture of one’s own community through the eyes of other peoples”( 14, p.47). But in order to understand the language of a foreign culture, a person must be open to the culture of his own. From the native to the universal, this is the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case will the dialogue be fruitful. When participating in a dialogue of cultures, you need to know not only your own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.

List we useoh literature

1 Golovleva E. L. Fundamentals of intercultural communication. Educational

Phoenix manual, 2008

2 Grushevitskaya T.G., Popkov V.D., Sadokhin A.P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: Textbook for universities (Ed. A.P. Sadokhin.) 2002

3 Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication

4. Sagatovsky V.N. Dialogue of cultures and the “Russian idea” // Revival of Russian culture. Dialogue of cultures and interethnic relations 1996.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Problems and prospects for the development of such a phenomenon as multicultural reality. Dialogue is a natural result of the development and deepening of the relationship between cultures in the modern world. Features of intercultural interaction in the context of globalization of culture.

abstract, added 01/13/2014

The concept of ethnic contacts and their results. Basic forms of ethnic contacts. Analysis of the concept of culture shock. Theories of interethnic interaction: cultural and structural direction. Characteristics of ethnic processes in the modern world.

course work, added 02/06/2014

Youth as a socio-demographic group of the population. Youth and its role in modern society. Problems faced by modern youth. General characteristics of cultural needs. Features of youth in modern society.

course work, added 01/05/2015

The essence and content of information, assessment of its role and significance in modern society, classification, types. Contradictions between the limitations of a person’s ability to perceive and consume information and the growth of information flow. The meaning of bibliography.

abstract, added 01/18/2014

Theories of cultural differences and cultural interaction between peoples. Interaction of cultures and cultural transformation as a form of the globalization process. Increasing social role culture as one of the factors organizing the spiritual life of people.

abstract, added 12/21/2008

Biography of V.S. Bibler, philosopher, culturologist, creator of the doctrine of dialogue of cultures (dialogics). Methodological features of the lesson, held in the form of dialogue. Dialogue of cultures in education, problems of developing tolerance in interethnic relations.

abstract, added 12/14/2009

What is a library: the importance of libraries in modern society, history of origin, development. Great library power: functions and features of work. Library Russia at the turn of the millennium. New methods and technologies in librarianship.

abstract, added 11/16/2007

Diffusionism as a way of studying cultures appeared in late XIX V. The concept of "diffusion", borrowed from physics, means "spill", "spreading". In the study of cultures means distribution cultural phenomena through communication, contacts between peoples.

test, added 06/04/2008

Classification of intercultural interactions. Chronotope of the dialogue of modern civilizations. Types of socio-economic formations. Progressive desecularization of the world. Interaction between West and East. The originality of the historical and cultural path of Russia.

abstract, added 11/24/2009

Analysis of the relationship between cultures and languages in today's modern world. Spread of the English language. Culture of English-speaking countries (Great Britain, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India). Language as a mirror of culture.

State educational institution higher professional education

Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin

Essay

In the discipline "Culturology"

Subject:Dialogue of cultures in the modern world.

Is done by a student

Groups No. MO-309

Specialty "Management"

organizations"

Kiseleva Evgenia Vladimirovna

Checked

Teacher

Saint Petersburg

Introduction

1. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Traditions and innovations in the dynamics of culture.

2. The idea of dialogue of cultures

3. Interaction, mutual enrichment, interrelation of cultures.

4. Problems of dialogical relationships.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The entire history of mankind is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our entire lives. It is in reality a means of communication, a condition for mutual understanding between people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic and interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is interethnic tension in a society, and even more so, interethnic conflicts, then dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of interethnic tension of these peoples, bearers of these cultures. The processes of interaction between cultures are more complex than they once naively believed; there is a simple “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which in turn logically led to conclusions about the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. The question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is now being actively explored. According to Danilevsky, cultures develop separately and are initially hostile to each other. At the heart of all these differences he saw the “spirit of the people.” “Dialogue is communication with culture, the implementation and reproduction of its achievements, the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, a way of appropriating the latter, the possibility of relieving political tensions between states and ethnic groups. It is a necessary condition for the scientific search for truth and the process of creativity in art. Dialogue is understanding one’s “I” and communicating with others. It is universal and the universality of dialogue is generally recognized.” Dialogue presupposes active interaction between equal subjects. The interaction of cultures and civilizations also presupposes some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the outbreak of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension and create an environment of trust and mutual respect. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction represent various types of dialogic relationships. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. Ancient texts of Indian culture are filled with the idea of the unity of cultures and peoples, macro- and microcosmos, thoughts that human health largely depends on the quality of his relationships with environment, from the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding as a reflection of the Universe in our being.

1. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world. Traditions and innovations in the dynamics of culture.

The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures existing within the framework of a common civilization. The interaction of European and non-European cultures can be carried out in different ways. It can occur in the form of the absorption of Eastern civilizations by Western civilization, the penetration of Western civilization into Eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries and the need to ensure normal living conditions for the world's population have exacerbated the problem of modernization of traditional civilizations. However, attempts at modernization had disastrous consequences for traditional Islamic cultures.

However, this does not mean that a dialogue of cultures is impossible in principle or that the modernization of traditional civilizations brings only value disorientation and a total crisis of worldview to the population. When carrying out dialogue, it is necessary to abandon the idea that European civilization is intended to be a standard for the world cultural process. But the specificity of different cultures should not be absolutized. While maintaining its cultural core, each culture is constantly exposed to external influences, adapting them in different ways. Evidence of the rapprochement of different cultures is: intensive cultural exchange, the development of educational and cultural institutions, the spread of medical care, the spread of advanced technologies that provide people with the necessary material benefits, and the protection of human rights.

At the same time, culture is distinguished by the integrity of all its structural elements, which is ensured by its consistency, the presence of a hierarchy, and subordination of values. The most important integration mechanism of culture is tradition. The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as “memory”, the loss of which is tantamount to the death of society. The concept of tradition includes such manifestations of culture as the cultural core, endogeneity, originality, specificity and cultural heritage. The core of culture is a system of principles that guarantee its relative stability and reproducibility. Endogeneity means that the essence of culture, its systemic unity, is determined by the combination of internal principles. Identity reflects originality and uniqueness due to the relative independence and isolation of cultural development. Specificity is the presence of properties inherent in culture as a special phenomenon of social life. Cultural heritage includes a set of values created by previous generations and included in the sociocultural process of each society.

2. The idea of dialogue of cultures

The idea of a dialogue of cultures is based on the priority of universal human values. Culture does not tolerate unanimity and unanimity; it is dialogical in nature and essence. It is known that C. Lévi-Strauss always resolutely opposed everything that could lead to the destruction of differences between people, between cultures, and violate their diversity and uniqueness. He was in favor of preserving the unique characteristics of each individual culture. Lévi-Strauss, in Race and Culture (1983), argues that “...integral communication with another culture kills... the creative originality of both parties.” Dialogue is the most important methodological principle for understanding culture. Through dialogue to knowledge. Essential characteristics cultures manifest themselves in dialogue. In a broader sense, dialogue can also be considered as a property of the historical process. Dialogue is a universal principle that ensures the self-development of culture. All cultural and historical phenomena are products of interaction and communication. In the course of the dialogue between people and cultures, linguistic forms were formed and creative thought developed. The dialogue takes place in space and time, permeating cultures vertically and horizontally.

In the fact of culture there is the existence of man and his practice. All. There is nothing more. A meeting between civilizations is always, in essence, a meeting between different types spirituality or even different realities. A full meeting implies dialogue. To enter into a decent dialogue with representatives of non-European cultures, it is necessary to know and understand these cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, “sooner or later, dialogue with “others” - with representatives of traditional, Asian and “primitive” cultures - will no longer have to begin in today’s empirical and utilitarian language (which can only express social, economic, political, medical realities, etc.), but in a cultural language capable of expressing human realities and spiritual values. Such dialogue is inevitable; he is inscribed in the destiny of History. It would be tragically naive to believe that it can be carried on indefinitely on the mental level, as it is now.”

According to Huntington, the diversity of cultures initially implies their isolation and requires dialogue. Local cultural isolation can be opened through dialogue with another culture through philosophy. Through philosophy, the universal penetrates into the dialogue of cultures, creating a chance for each culture to delegate its best achievements to the universal fund. Culture is the heritage of all humanity, as a historical result of the interaction of peoples. Dialogue is a true form of interethnic communication, which involves both the mutual enrichment of national cultures and the preservation of their identity. Universal human culture is like a tree with many branches. The culture of a people can flourish only when the universal culture flourishes. Therefore, taking care of the national, ethnic culture, one should be very concerned about the level of universal human culture, which is united and diverse. United - in the sense of including the diversity of historical and national cultures. Each national culture is unique and unique. Her contribution to the universal cultural fund is unique and inimitable. The core of each culture is its ideal. Historical process the formation and development of culture cannot be correctly understood without taking into account the interaction, mutual influence, and mutual enrichment of cultures.

Interest in problems of culture and civilization has not subsided for two centuries. The concept of culture originates in antiquity. And the idea of culture emerges in the 18th century. The contrast between the concepts of culture and civilization began to be discussed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The First World War and the awakening of Asia sharpened attention to the cultural, regional, behavioral and ideological differences between Europe and other regions. The concepts of O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and others gave new impetus to the study and correlation of the concepts of culture and civilization.

The Second World War, the collapse of colonialism, the economic strengthening of some Far Eastern countries, the rapid enrichment of oil-producing states, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism required explanations. The confrontation between capitalism and communism collapsed. They began to talk about other current confrontations - the rich North and the poor South, Western and Islamic countries.

If in the 19th century the ideas of Gobineau and Le Bon about the inequality of races were in vogue, now the ideas of a clash of civilizations are in vogue (S. Huntington).

The question arises: what is “civilization” and how does it relate to the concept of “culture”?

Culture arises and develops along with the emergence and development of man and society. This is a specifically human way of life. There is no culture without a person and there is no person without culture.

Civilization develops with the transition to a class, slave society, when the first states are formed. “Civil” - from the Latin “civil”, “state”.

At the same time, the concept of “civilization” is quite ambiguous. It is used in different senses:

often identify the concepts of “culture” and “civilization”;

use the concept of local civilizations. It allows you to see what is common and special among different countries and peoples, to compare them, for example, in Montesquieu, Herder, Toynbee, Danilevsky, civilization is a spatio-temporal grouping of societies, taken in the aspect of cultural-ideological (religious) proximity. So, according to P. Sorokin, there are Eastern and Western civilizations (we can say that there are Eastern and western culture). Same with S. Huntington, but he also identifies other civilizations (cultures).

Today they talk about the formation of a world civilization. (Is this process accompanied by the formation of mass culture? Or: does mass culture contribute to the formation of world civilization?).

civilization is often understood as a stage in the development of society. First there was barbarism (primitiveness), and then - civilization(we can talk about primitive culture, but not about primitive civilization).

at O.Spengler's civilization is a special stage in the development of culture. He understood culture by analogy with biological organism. Like an organism culture is born, matures and dies. Dying, it turns into civilization.

The distinction between the concepts of “culture” and “civilization” was first identified by J.-J. Rousseau. He believed that the social contract (the formation of states) provided all the benefits of civilization - the development of industry, education, science, etc. But civilization simultaneously consolidated economic inequality and political violence, which led to a new “barbarism” - to satisfy the needs of the body, but not the spirit . The needs of the spirit are satisfied by culture. Civilization embodies the technological aspect of culture.

Civilization is actually a social, and not a natural, organization of society for the purpose of reproducing social wealth. Its appearance is associated with the division of labor, then, with the further development of technology (this was the basis for the division of society into barbarism and civilization in the civilizational approach).

Civilization- is the social organization of public life on a certain economic basis.

Culture sets the goals and values of civilization.

Civilization provides social, organizational and technological means for the functioning and development of culture.

V.I. Vernadsky considered civilization as a phenomenon “corresponding historically, or rather geologically, to the existing organization of the biosphere. Forming the noosphere, it is connected with all its roots to this earthly shell, which has never happened before in the history of mankind.” (Vernadsky V.I. Reflections of a naturalist. M., 1977. Book 2. P. 33).

Ern: Civilization is the reverse side of culture.

Bakhtin: Culture exists on the borders...

Modern civilization is technogenic (the result of the transformation of nature and society based on the development of technology).

A. Toynbee advocated the creation of a single civilization, but at the same time it is important that the diversity of cultures be preserved (he criticized the ongoing process of globalization for the fact that it is proceeding as a general Westernization).

Prishvin: Culture is the connection between people in their creativity. Civilization is the power of technology, the connection of things.

F.I. Girenok: Culture in its development is based on the personal structures of a person (on a person as an individual). Civilization in its development relies on the structure of the human labor force (on man as a labor force only).

Culture is the content of social life.

Civilization is a form of organization of social life.

Culture develops a system of values in order to harmonize a person’s relationship with the world. It is always aimed at a person, giving him life-meaning orientations.

Culture is the sphere of free self-realization of a person.

Civilization is looking for forms of implementing harmonious relations between man and the world. Civilization is finding a way to adapt to the world, creating favorable conditions for humans. ...Norms, patterns of behavior...

Frameworks, norms, patterns of civilized behavior at a given period of time someday lose their meaning and become obsolete. Moments of dramatic semantic transformations never lose their cultural significance. What remains is a unique spiritual experience, a meeting of one consciousness with another consciousness, the interaction of the individual with stereotypes.

Dialogue of cultures

The modern world is characterized by the ongoing process of globalization, the formation of a single human civilization. It began with the international division of labor and the development of communication networks (trains, planes, Internet, mobile communications). There is not only the movement of thousands of tons of natural resources around the planet, but also population migration.

At the same time, representatives of different cultures – national, religious – collide. Are we people ready for this?

S. Huntington argues that, along with Western (Atlantic) civilization, which includes North America and Western Europe, we can distinguish:

1. Slavic-Orthodox;

2. Confucian (Chinese);

3. Japanese;

4.Islamic;

5. Hindu;

6. Latin American;

7. African civilization may be forming.

He characterizes the relationship between them as a clash. Moreover, first of all, there is a clash between Western and Islamic civilizations. BUT, by and large, the formula “The West and The Rest” should be taken as realistic, i.e. – “The West and everyone else”...

However, representatives of a different opinion are actively speaking out - that it is necessary and possible dialogue of civilizations and cultures.

The idea of dialogue was put forward by the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In the Middle Ages, dialogue was used for moral purposes. During the Enlightenment, German classical philosophy also used dialogue. Fichte and Feuerbach spoke about the need for dialogue between “I” and “Other”¸i.e. dialogue presupposes an understanding of one’s self and communication, based on respect, with other selves.

Dialogue assumes active interaction of equal subjects. Dialogue is understanding and respecting the values of other cultures.

What is important in the interaction of cultures and civilizations is the presence of some common values - universal human values.

Dialogue helps resolve political tensions between states and ethnic groups

Cultural isolation leads to the death of culture. However, changes should not affect the core of culture.

№ 46. The sociocultural situation of our time and its representation in philosophy

Modern civilization is characterized by growing interconnection between states and peoples. This process is called globalization .

Globalization – the process of economic, political and cultural interaction between different countries. Its roots go back to modern times, the 17th century, when mass machine production and the capitalist mode of production appeared, which required the expansion of sales markets and the organization of interstate channels for the supply of raw materials. Further, the goods market is complemented by the international capital market. Transnational corporations (TNCs) are emerging and gaining strength, and the role of banks is increasing. The new post-industrial, technogenic civilization requires international coordination of political interaction between states.

Globalization is the process of forming a unified financial-economic, military-political and information space, functioning almost exclusively on the basis of high and computer technologies.

Globalization gives rise to its characteristic contradictions. As a result of globalization, the borders of national states are becoming more and more “transparent”, so an oppositely directed process arises - the desire for national independence (the European Union is an attempt to overcome this). The contradictions between rich capitalist countries and developing countries have intensified (hunger, national debt...).

Global problems of our time have arisen - social, economic, military, environmental. They were a consequence of the contradictions between the development of technology, technology and the spontaneity and unevenness of socio-economic progress, between the new global and old national economic systems, a crisis in the socio-political structure of society, unadapted to effective, social control over the activities of people and groups with different interests, Due to the activities of TNCs (criminal terrorism arose), a crisis of the old value system arose.

How technology is used, why it is invented, depends on what a person, society, their value system, ideology, culture are like.

Technocratic thinking, based on cold rationalism, now dominates. Consumer attitudes, individualism and selfishness, including national ones, are growing, which contradicts the trends of globalization. The problem is that, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted: “The main challenge is that what is usually called globalization is not really just another name for the dominant role of the United States.”

At the same time, modern technogenic civilization is the basis of the information society. There is an international exchange of cultural values. A system adequate to the globalization process is being formed Mass culture. Modern man is a mass man.

IN modern culture(Modern times, the beginning of capitalism, 17-18 centuries) the main values were reason, science, the ideal of a comprehensively developed person, faith in humanism and the progress of society. But already from the end of the 18th century, agnosticism became noticeable, in the 19th century - irrationalism, and ideas about the meaninglessness of life - in the beginning. 20th century. Even the existentialist Heidegger said that the sense of authenticity of existence has been lost. God and reason are rejected, intellectual revelry is welcomed. However, they did not dominate the culture.

20th century with its wars, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, manipulation of mass consciousness using the media, gave rise to the idea of the absurdity of existence, the ineradicable irrationality of man, the relativity of everything and everyone, the rejection of truth, the idea of society as a risk society.

Back in the 30s. 20th century The Spanish historian and philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset wrote in his book “The Revolt of the Masses” that a man of the masses entered the arena of history. This new type person - a superficial person, but self-confident. The culprit is democracy, the ideal of equality and the liberalization of life. As a result, a generation has emerged that builds its life without relying on traditions.

And already in postmodern late 20th century Consciousness sees its meaning not in the search for a deep, all-connecting meaning, but in deconstruction no meaning at all (Jacques Derrida 1930-2004).

Deconstruction is a special form of thinking, one of the forms of analysis. It proceeds from the statement that nothing is elementary, everything is decomposable to infinity. This means there is no beginning, no support. Hence, we are wrong when we say that we have roots, for example, in nationality. The question of identity is complex and endless. It’s just that people, in their weakness, are trying to find support in something (nation, religion, gender). But what we consider to be a given is not! Everything is relative - gender, nationality, religion and any other affiliation.

Philosophers note that a deep transformation of culture is taking place, losing its humanistic potential under the influence of technogenic and social factors.

Naturally, in culture there ariseopposing trends . Therefore, nationalism (ethnocentrism, which opposesglobalization as unification according to the American model), religious fundamentalism, environmentalism and other phenomena also arose. Thisthose who are still looking for some basic values on which to rely .

Postmodernism is not a single philosophical strategy, but a fan of various projects represented by the names of J. Deleuze, J. Derrida, J. Lyotard, M. Foucault.

They develop their own model of vision of reality:

The world is characterized by uncertainty, the concept of center and integrity disappears(in philosophy, politics, morality). Instead of a world based on the principles of consistency, subordination, progress, - image of a radically pluralistic reality as labyrinth, rhizomes. ABOUT the idea of binary is challenged(subject and object, center and periphery, internal and external).

Such a mosaic, polycentric world requires specific methods and norms for its description. From here fundamental eclecticism, fragmentarism, mixing of styles, collage: inclusion in the composition of alien fragments, inserts of works of other authors, arbitrary editing, and “excerpts” of history become part of the present. (Today they talk about clip-based mass consciousness).

Postmodernism rejects all canons. The language rejects generally accepted logic, it contains absurdity and paradoxes, characteristically creative people and the outcasts (the mad, the sick).

Philosophers - postmodernists reconsider the concept of truth: there is no absolute truth. The more we master the world, the deeper our ignorance, they believe. Truth is ambiguous and plural.Human cognition does not reflect the world, but interprets it, and no interpretation has superiority over another..

Postmodernism is assessed differently by contemporaries: for some it is a search for universal forms for both science and art, a focus on the future, for others it is void game, lifeless prospects. Postmodernism is intellectually empty and morally dangerous, said A. Solzhenitsyn. But it is obvious that postmodernism means a radical revaluation of values, based on the fact that the modern world is much more complex than previously believed; he speaks out in favor of pluralism, equal dialogue, agreement (subject to the acceptance of disagreement and disagreement).

The idea of plurality and pluralism corresponds to the diversity and ambiguity of reality. But it is more difficult for thought than the idea of unambiguity. And the ideas of postmodernism were perceived superficially as the possibility of any eclectic connections, forgetting about any functionality. All kinds of quotes, annoying combinations of colors, sounds, paints, hybridizations from old ones artistic forms appeared in all areas of art - from music to cinema.

Postmodernthinking exists according to some other rules.

For example, for classical philosophy it was important to establish compliance with the theory of objective reality. Postmodern thinking does not require this. However, the freedom of pluralism is not arbitrary at all. Postmodernism does not deny rationality. He comes to some new understanding "new rationality".

Pluralism is not the freedom of permissiveness, but the realization of a plurality of possibilities within the rigid framework of the discipline of reason. As the philosopher M. Epstein writes, philosophy should not describe existing reality, it should not break away from reality in groundless fantasies, it should create worlds of the possible (or possible worlds). Those. simulate possible development options.

The same process took place in science and, accordingly, in the philosophy of science (for example, V.S. Stepin) - arose conceptpost-non-classical rationality , which reasons not according to the “if... then...” scheme, but according to mental “what will happen if...” scheme those. science strives to play out possible situations(previously there was a concept of fate as the unambiguousness of the life path; now we imagine that it is possible for a person to realize different life scenarios, their options are not limitless, but also not unambiguous due to the complexity of life as a multifactorial system).

So the concept of truth and the path to it becomes more complicated... as a result of deconstruction we are trying reconstruct “the open, unformable, endlessly continuing ultimately incomplete truth as the direct opposite of the previous substantial truth."

We can say that it turned out that with the development of science, the place of reason was taken by the calculating and dissecting reason. We must return to reason as the unity of knowledge and values(how did this manifest itself in science? - they began to talk about the development of the ethics of the scientist, the ethics of science).

Faith in Reason in postmodernism is a requirement of anti-dogmatism, a rejection of monologism, and of binary oppositions (material-ideal, male-female, etc.). The space of culture has become a multidimensional structure, therefore a transition is needed from classical anthropocentric humanism to universal humanism (for example, ecological philosophy emphasizes the unity of humanity, nature, Space, the Universe, the requirement of sympathy for all living things, moral attitude to any life).

Further, previously the world was attributed to rationality, the dominance of regularity over chance. Now synergetics, on the contrary, emphasizes the dominance of randomness, considering regularity as arising from randomness, as a complement to randomness. And since the world is like this, then we must not master the world, but interact with it (listen to the same nature, its needs).

Recognition of the pluralism of the world leads to the rejection of Eurocentrism (the current political and economic situation in the world also requires this...), ethnocentrism (nationalism), etc. Ideas of anti-hierarchical cultural relativism emerge, asserting the equivalence of the cultural experience of all peoples. We must accept the traditions and spiritual worlds of other people.

Popular in modern philosophy concept " text " This is not only a text in its direct meaning, but everything can be a text - social, natural reality (in other words, everything can be considered as a system of signs, i.e. language). You must be able to read, understand and interpret the text. Everything requires interpretation. Everyone has their own interpretation. There may be conflicts of interpretation. (A true unattainable. Everyone has their own opinion). Hypertext - this is the whole culture, understood as a single system consisting of texts. The Internet is also hypertext. From here, J. Baudrillard (French) says that history is what we think of it. History is a simulacrum. ( Simulacrum- this is an image that has no prototype; it does not refer us to anything. Simply put, a simulacrum is a kind of invention, something that does not exist).

Postmodernism reflects the current state of humanity as being in bifurcation point (synergetics term), transition To new state of civilization, which is sometimes called post-western, bearing in mind that there is migration of labor, cultures are mixed, and, relatively speaking, eastern values are integrated into Western culture. The new culture - universal - must integrate both the West and the East, but preserving national characteristics.

In general, we can talk about the dominance of subjective-idealistic, irrationalistic and agnostic tendencies in the philosophy and culture of the 21st century.