(QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY 2014 No. 12 C.24-35)
Abstract:
In the article, the authors introduce a new concept of dialogue of cultures and attempt to reveal its content. From their position, it is impossible to talk about a dialogue of cultures without a culture of dialogue, since any phenomenon in society presupposes its own culture. At the heart of the dialogue of cultures are two ideas: the idea of culture as a field of interaction and the idea of the diversity of cultures.
In the article the authors enters a new concept of dialogue of cultures and makes an attempt to open its contents. With its position, it is impossible to speak about dialogue of cultures without culture of dialogue as any phenomenon in society assumes the culture. At the heart of dialogue of cultures there are two ideas: idea of culture as field of interaction and idea of variety of cultures.
KEY WORDS: culture, dialogue of cultures, culture of dialogue, communication, diversity of cultures, spirituality, ethnicity.
KEY WORDS: culture, dialogue of cultures, culture of dialogue, communication, variety of cultures, spirituality, ethnos.
The dialogue of cultures in human history is inevitable, since culture cannot develop in isolation, it must be enriched at the expense of other cultures. Since “by communicating, people create each other” (D.S. Likhachev), the dialogue of cultures also develops different cultures. Culture itself is dialogical and presupposes a dialogue of cultures. Culture lives in dialogue, including the dialogue of cultures, which is not just an enriching interaction between them. But dialogue is necessary for every culture to realize its uniqueness.
The main provisions of the concept of dialogue of cultures were developed by M.M. Bakhtin and deepened in the works of V.S. Bibler. Bakhtin defines culture as a form of communication between people of different cultures; he claims that “culture exists where there are two (at least) cultures, and that the self-consciousness of a culture is the form of its existence on the verge of another culture” [Bibler 1991, 85].
Bakhtin says that culture as a whole exists only in dialogue with another culture, or rather on the border of cultures. “A cultural region has no internal territory, it is all located on the borders, the borders pass everywhere, through every moment of it.” The presence of many cultures is by no means an obstacle to their mutual understanding; on the contrary, only if the researcher is outside the culture he is studying is he able to understand it [Fatikhova 2009, 52].
Culture is “a form of communication between individuals” [Bibler 1990, 289]. The basis of communication between individuals in a culture and the cultures themselves is text. Bakhtin in “Aesthetics” verbal creativity” wrote that the text can be presented in different forms: like living human speech; as speech captured on paper or any other medium (plane); like any sign system (iconographic, directly material, activity-based, etc.). In turn, each text is always dialogical, since it is always directed towards another, relies on previous and subsequent texts created by authors who have their own worldview, their own picture or image of the world, and in this incarnation the text carries the meaning of past and subsequent cultures, it always on the verge. This is precisely what indicates the contextual nature of the text, which makes it a work. According to V.S. Bibler, a text, understood as a work, “lives in contexts..., all its content is only in it, and all its content is outside it, only on its borders, in its non-existence as a text” [Bibler 1991, 76]. A work differs from a product of consumption, from a thing, from a tool of labor in that they embody the existence of a person, detached from himself. The work embodies the integral being of the author, which can only be meaningful if there is an addressee.
Dialogue presupposes communication, but they are not identical: communication is not always a dialogue. Within the framework of the dialogue concept of culture, not every everyday, moral and even scientific dialogue is related to the dialogue of cultures. In the “dialogue of cultures” we are talking about the dialogical nature of truth itself (beauty, goodness), that understanding another person presupposes mutual understanding of “I - you” as ontologically different personalities, possessing – actually or potentially – different cultures, logics of thinking, different meanings truth, beauty, goodness... Dialogue, understood in the idea of culture, is not a dialogue of different opinions or ideas, it is always a “dialogue of different cultures” [Bibler 1990, 299]. Thus, the dialogue of cultures is their interaction. It represents “a type of intercultural interaction that involves an active exchange of content between counterparty cultures while they preserve their originality” [Lebedev 2004, 132]. The dialogue of cultures, therefore, is a condition for the development of culture.
However dialogue of cultures presupposes the culture of dialogue itself . Dialogue of cultures cannot take place without a culture of dialogue.
Whatever we talk about, we must keep culture in mind. For, everything in the human world is actually culture. Nothing in the human world can exist without culture, including the dialogue of cultures itself. Culture embodies content public life[Melikov 2010]. The entire human world fits entirely into the world of culture. The human world is essentially the world of culture. All cultural objects are an objectified person, with his strength and energy. Cultural objects reflect what a person is and acts like. As is the person, so is the culture. And, conversely, as the culture is, so is the person.
Society is always a form of people living together. It does not consist of a simple sum of individuals, it is some form of joint existence built on top of their individual existence. Society is super-individual and therefore abstract and formal in relation to individuals. And it would remain and always remains an abstract form, the formal abstract existence of people, if the latter do not participate and are not included in it through culture.
Social existence represents the external world of man. No matter how meaningful and rich society may be, it remains external factor, the external condition of human life. It is not capable of penetrating into the inner world of a person. The strength of society lies precisely in ensuring the external circumstances of life. The inner life of a person is in the power of culture.
Culture has, first of all, an internal, intimate character, and then an external one. It is the unity of the internal and external aspects of life with the dominance of the internal. If it is reduced to the external side, then it turns into “window dressing” and always looks dramatic and comical at the same time. All cultural needs come from inner world, first of all from the heart, and not from the mind alone. The external side of cultural life is always only an expression of the corresponding depth of inner, spiritual life, which is hidden and inaccessible to the ignorant gaze. A man of culture lives not only an external life, but also certainly an internal life. “...Social existence is precisely the dual unity... of internal spiritual life with its external embodiment,” in the words of S. Frank, “conciliarity” and “external public” [Frank 1992, 54]. It is culture that saturates formal sociality with specific real internal content, through it a person is socialized and becomes a member of society. Without it, he is an alienated element of society. He becomes alienated from society, and society becomes alien to him. Culture determines the meaning and content of social life. Without it, a person does not understand his life in society, does not see the value of society and values social life, does not understand why and why he lives in society, what it gives him. A person without culture takes the path of denying social life, but with culture as its protector, guardian and creator. For for a person involved in culture, the value of social life is the value of culture itself. He himself is already in the world of culture, and therefore society in his understanding is a condition for preserving and enriching this world of culture.
In Marxist philosophical and sociological literature, which places the social factor above all else and is therefore distinguished by sociocentrism, it is customary to talk about the social conditioning of culture. According to Marxism, as the social conditions are, as is the society, so is the culture. This can be accepted if only we proceed from the fact that culture is a product of society, as Marxists believe. But if we proceed from the fact that culture represents the content of social existence, it is necessary to recognize that culture is not determined by society, but, on the contrary, society is determined by culture. It represents an external formal factor, external conditions and circumstances of culture, and culture itself is the internal content of social life. First of all, as you know, it is always the content that determines the form, and not vice versa. Of course, the form also influences the content, but this is secondary. As the culture is, so is the society. The development of culture serves as the basis for social progress, and not vice versa. It is the progress of culture that always brings with it the progress of social life. Everything always happens within the framework of culture, and the social form is adjusted to the cultural content. The performance of an orchestra is determined primarily by the talent of the musicians included in it, and only then depends on how they are seated during the concert.
Culture, and not economics or politics, as our contemporaries believe, and not only Marxists, is the foundation of social positive development, because economics and politics are only the surface of culture. The basis of economic progress is, again, economic culture, the basis of progress in the sphere of politics is political culture, and the basis of social progress as a whole is the culture of society as a whole, the culture of social life. The basis of the progress of society is not an abstract social system, but the person himself, the living tissue of human relations. The state of social life depends on the person himself. Social life is, first of all, human life. Therefore, the progress and development of society are connected with the human basis of society. This human basis of society is reflected by culture. Cultural is the same as social, but refracted through the individual.
Culture embodies all the richness of human relationships in social existence, all the content of a human being, all the heights and all the depths of the human world. Culture is an open book of all the various essential forces of man. Culture is an expression of the very human content of social life, and not its abstract form. As noted by V.M. Mezhuev, culture is “the whole world in which we discover, find ourselves, which contains the conditions and necessary prerequisites of our truly human, i.e. always and in everything social, existence” [Mezhuev 1987, 329]. Culture is a measure of humanity in a person, an indicator of the development of man as a person who embodies the image and likeness of the higher spiritual world. Culture shows how much a person has revealed the spirit within himself, spiritualized his world and humanized the spirit. The essence of culture is the development of man as a spiritual being and the development of the spirit in human existence. It combines spirituality and humanity as two inseparable aspects of the human being.
It is through culture that all the goals of social life are realized. Culture is the content of society, therefore the meaning of social life, first of all spiritual, and then all others, cannot be realized outside of culture. In itself, society and, accordingly, social life have neither purpose nor meaning. Culture contains them. Social life carries out all good meanings, all positive functions only when it is filled with cultural content. Take culture away from society, and it will lose purpose and meaning. Therefore, social life outside of culture ultimately turns into a negative phenomenon and absurdity. Any negative phenomenon arises only when culture drops out of the social form. And where there is no culture in public life, social life itself turns into nonsense. Having lost its goal, having lost the direction of movement, such social life sets itself as a goal, and accordingly serves itself. The power then serves only itself in order to support itself, the economy - for the sake of the economy, politics - for the sake of the political process, art - for the sake of art, etc. and so on. But the goals of society itself and its individual aspects lie outside society, above society. Therefore, such a society loses the good meaning of its existence and becomes absurd.
Since all the good meanings of society are realized through culture, we can say that the meaning of the existence of society and all social life is in culture itself. The meaning and purpose of all public life is to preserve and develop culture. By fulfilling this task, social life will be able to achieve all its goals and may not worry about anything else at all. If culture develops, there will certainly be progress in social development. Moreover, there is simply no other way to achieve social progress. Because N.A. Berdyaev writes: “In social life, spiritual primacy belongs to culture. The goals of society are realized not in politics or economics, but in culture. And the high quality level of culture measures the value and quality of the public” [Berdyaev 1990, 247]. Indeed, thanks only to culture, both economic activity and the management of society can fulfill their functions. Culture is the basis of society, power and economy, and not vice versa. In culture, society as a whole, government and the economy in particular, find and can find themselves, but not vice versa.
The main function of culture is the education of man, the change, transformation of his nature. Living in society, a person cannot constantly change, and, in other words, not be educated and self-educate. Otherwise, he will be rejected by public life. And culture is the means by which public education is carried out. Public education is the introduction and mastery of cultural norms by a person. Education, both in the broad and narrow sense of the word, is always carried out on the basis of culture. Strictly speaking, education is familiarization with culture, entry into it. Education always acts as the cultivation of a person. Culture, forming the human content of social life, acts as an educational and educational phenomenon through which social and pedagogical activities are realized. By mastering culture, a person changes his worldview and, accordingly, his behavior in society. It is thanks to familiarization with culture that a person tries to behave with dignity “in public” and does not give free rein to excessive emotions. It is culture that pushes a person in society, if not to be, then at least to appear better. Culture, by educating a person in society, opens up ways for him to overcome alienation from spiritual existence. In the natural state, man is alienated from the spiritual world. The existence of man does not come into contact with the existence of the spiritual world. Culture reconciles and unites them. In culture, human existence meets the spiritual principle and finds its abode in it. Through culture, a person overcomes his biological nature and becomes a spiritual being. In the world of culture, man no longer appears simply as a natural and earthly being, but as a being who has risen above his earthly existence. As J. Huizinga said, a sign of culture is dominance over one’s nature.
Culture spiritualizes a person’s earthly life and makes it part of the universal life of the spiritual world, a manifestation of universal spiritual life. Culture, while spiritualizing a person, does not deprive him of earthly life, but deprives this earthly life of its limited basis and subordinates it to the spiritual principle. Thus, culture appears as transformed, spiritualized earthly life person. If human nature resembles uncultivated land, on which somewhere nothing grows, and somewhere a wild forest grows with different, useful and useless plants, where cultivated plants are mixed with weeds, then culture is similar to cultivated and cultivated land on which good food is located. a well-kept garden where only cultivated plants grow.
Therefore, as emphasized by D.S. Likhachev, “preserving the cultural environment is a task no less significant than preserving the surrounding nature. If nature is necessary for man to biological life, then the cultural environment is just as necessary for his spiritual, moral life, for his “spiritual settledness,” for his attachment to his native places, for his moral self-discipline and sociality” [Likhachev 2006, 330]. Of course, in history, dialogue and interaction of cultures can take place without a culture of dialogue. Like any dialogue, the dialogue of cultures can take place on cultural level and without it and even meaningless. For example, when one people adopts the cultural achievements or religion of its political enemy.
However, it must be borne in mind that dialogue is the path to understanding. Dialogue of cultures is accordingly the path to understanding the dialogue of cultures. Dialogue of cultures presupposes an understanding of culture and an understanding of the dialogue itself. Both culture and the dialogue of cultures live in understanding.
As evidenced by studies of issues of interaction between cultures, the content and results of diverse intercultural contacts largely depend on the ability of their participants to understand each other and reach agreement, which is mainly determined ethnic culture each of the interacting parties, the psychology of peoples, the dominant values in a particular culture.
What should this understanding consist of? The culture of dialogue of cultures appears to be based on two ideas: the idea of culture as a field of interaction and the idea of unity in the diversity of cultures.
Each culture is unconditional, unique and original. This is the value of each culture. However, the historical process shows that each culture does not arise out of nowhere, not in isolation, but in interaction with other cultures. No matter how deep a culture is, it is not self-sufficient. A necessary law of its existence is the constant appeal to the experience of other cultures. No culture could establish itself if it were completely isolated and isolated. In a closed system, as synergetics states, entropy—a measure of disorder—increases. But in order to exist and be sustainable, the system must be open. Therefore, if a culture becomes closed, then this strengthens the destructive elements in it. And interaction with other cultures develops and strengthens her creative and constructive principles. Based on this, we can say that culture is a field of interaction . Moreover, it remains so at all stages of its existence - both at the stage of formation, and at the stage of functioning and development.
Culture requires interaction. Anything new in culture arises at a junction, in a borderline situation. Just as in science new discoveries are made at the intersection of sciences, so the development of one culture is carried out in interaction with other cultures.
Culture is largely determined by communication. Culture is a developing system, the source of movement of which is interaction. Interaction is development, expansion. And interaction presupposes exchange, enrichment, transformation.
Interaction leads to overcoming monotony and to realizing diversity, which is a sign of sustainability. Monotony is not vital and easily leads to destructive phenomena and entropic processes. Monotonous systems have fewer connections between elements, so their structure is easily destroyed. Only complex manifold systems are homeostatic, i.e. stable and can withstand external influences. And only their existence is directed towards some highest goal and becomes expedient.
Diversity arises from the corresponding energy, it is a sign of strength and power. Monotony is a sign of weakness. Diversity implies a more complex organization, more complex order. And order exists on the basis of energy. Therefore, diversity in culture is accompanied by the accumulation of energy.
A developed culture has many images. And the more complex and diverse a culture is, the more meanings it embodies. Diversity makes culture a container of meaning. Culture exists on the basis, of course, not of physical or even social, but of spiritual energy, which is generated exclusively in the space of meaning. Meaning, in turn, is what fuels culture, endows and enriches it with energy. The diversity generated by the interaction of cultures becomes the embodiment of different and varied facets of spiritual meanings in a culture.
Another basis for the culture of dialogue seems to be the idea of unity in the diversity of cultures. Cultures are diverse, and there will be no meaningful dialogue and interaction between them if they are considered outside of their unity. The culture of dialogue is built on understanding and recognition of the unity of diversity of cultures. As noted by V.A. Lektorsky, “... there are many different cultures in the world and that instead, these cultures are somehow connected with each other, i.e. form a certain unity. It is clear to everyone that the unity of cultures is desirable, since today humanity is faced with problems that affect all people inhabiting the Earth. At the same time, their diversity is also important, since it underlies all development. Complete cultural homogenization would be a threat to the future” [Lektorsky 2012, 195]. But despite all the diversity, different cultures are united in their essence. And the unity of cultures is precisely achieved through their diversity.
The unity of culture lies in its spiritual essence. This is emphasized by many philosophers, for whom it is the center of attention. In particular, Russian philosophers S. Bulgakov and N. Berdyaev talk about this.
They derive culture and, accordingly, its meaning from the meaning of the word “cult,” thereby emphasizing the religious, spiritual roots of culture. N. Berdyaev, one of the most ardent admirers of this position, argues for it as follows: “Culture was born from a cult. Its origins are sacred. It was conceived around the temple and in its organic period was connected with religious life. This was the case in the great ancient cultures, in the Greek culture, in the medieval culture, in the culture early Renaissance. Culture is of noble origin. The hierarchical nature of the cult was passed on to her. Culture has religious foundations. This should be considered established from the most positive scientific point of view. Culture is symbolic in nature. She received her symbolism from cult symbolism. In culture, spiritual life is expressed not realistically, but symbolically. All cultural achievements are symbolic in nature. It does not contain the latest achievements of existence, but only its symbolic signs. This is also the nature of the cult, which is a prototype of the fulfilled divine mysteries” [Berdyaev 1990, 248]. At the same time, it is significant that the understanding of the origins of culture in a religious cult is largely symbolic in nature. Culture not really, but symbolically grows out of religious cult.
It must be said that not only the initial stages of the formation of human culture are associated with religious life. And today the heights of culture are connected, one way or another, with spiritual and religious activities.
I. Kant, who was one of the first philosophers who attempted to comprehend the phenomenon of culture, argues in the same spirit. The basis of Kantian philosophy is the distinction between nature and freedom. Kant proceeds from the fact that nature is blind and indifferent to the goals of human existence, since it is driven by a necessity devoid of any meaning. Man as a rational being belongs, according to Kant, to the history not of nature, but of freedom, which is something fundamentally different in relation to the first. The rationality of a person consists in his ability to act independently of nature, even contrary to it, i.e. in freedom. The main thing that characterizes a person is the ability to act in accordance with the goals that he sets for himself, i.e. the ability to be a free being. Such an ability indicates that a person has reason, but in itself it does not mean that the person correctly uses his reason and acts rationally in all respects. However, in any case, this ability makes the fact of culture possible. This indicates that a person not only adapts to the external circumstances of his life like all other living organisms, but adapts them to himself, to his diverse needs and interests, i.e. acts as a free being. As a result of such actions, he creates culture. Hence Kant’s famous definition of culture: “the acquisition by a rational being of the ability to set any goals at all (that is, in his freedom) is culture” [Kant 1963–1966 V, 464].
But at the same time, freedom, according to Kant, is inseparable from morality. Man by his very nature is a moral being, but he has yet to become one. The purpose of humanity lies not so much in physical as in moral development. With the development of culture, humanity loses as a physical species, but it gains as a moral species. Culture, understood as a person’s development of his natural inclinations, ultimately contributes to his moral development and his achievement of a moral goal. According to Kant, culture is a necessary condition for the moral improvement of man - the only possible path along which humanity can only achieve its ultimate destiny.
The history of culture begins with the emergence of humanity from a natural state and ends with its transition to a moral state. Within these boundaries, all the work of culture unfolds: having raised man above nature, developing his inclinations and abilities, it must bring him into harmony with his race, curb his selfish interest, subjugate moral duty. The purpose of culture is to transform man from a physical being into a moral being. Culture contains the need for moral perfection, “a culture of morality in us,” which consists of “doing one’s duty, and, moreover, from a sense of duty (so that the law is not only the rule, but also the motive for action)” [Kant 1963–1966 IV (2), 327].
According to Kant, morality is not a product of culture, but its goal given by reason. Culture can be guided by other goals, for example, external good manners and decency. Then it appears as a civilization. The latter is based not on freedom, but on formal discipline regulating the behavior of people in society. It does not free a person from the power of egoism and self-interest, but only gives him external respectability in the sense of courtesy and good manners.
Based on these cultural features, the following picture emerges. Culture is an entirely spiritual phenomenon. Therefore, in human activity, only that can be classified as culture that has spiritual and moral content. Culture is not any activity, not any product of activity, but only those types of activities and those products that carry goodness, goodness, and morality. It is involvement in spirituality that makes culture a sphere of freedom, the area where a person gains freedom and ceases to depend on the world of necessity.
However, there is another, more common interpretation of culture, according to which the phenomenon of culture is associated with the Latin word “cultura”, which literally means “cultivation”, “processing”. In this context, culture is seen as an inevitable and natural product of human activity. Human activity is similar to the work of a farmer who processes and cultivates the land. Just as a farmer cultivates the land, man transforms nature. Everything that man does is done on the basis of nature. He has no other material and no other environment. Therefore, his activity appears as a process of transformation of nature, the result of which is culture. Human activity and culture are inseparable. Activity itself is a phenomenon of culture, and culture is included in the structure of activity. Every activity is cultural, i.e. belongs to the world of culture, and culture itself has an active character. And since human activity is a process of transformation of nature, then culture, as a result of this transformation, appears as nature involved in the human world. Man, therefore, has, not only around, but also within himself, two natures: natural, actual nature, nature and, as it were, artificial, human, i.e. culture. And culture is something that in a certain way opposes nature, although it is certainly built on it. This opposition may lead to opposition and antagonism, but it may not. IN in this case it's not important. But it is clear that it is precisely this idea of culture that has led to the fact that many thinkers, both in the past and in the present, absolutizing the opposition between culture and nature, are distinguished by their negative attitude towards culture. According to their ideas, culture deprives a person of his naturalness and becomes detrimental to him. Therefore, they preach a rejection of culture and a return to the bosom of nature, to a natural way of life, a return to simplicity and naturalness. This is how, in particular, the representatives of Taoism, Zh.Zh., reasoned. Russo, L.N. Tolstoy. This position was also shared by S. Freud, who saw the cause of the origin of mental disorders and neuroses in culture.
The essence of this interpretation of culture comes down to the fact that culture includes all created products and all ongoing human activities. Whatever a person creates is entirely within the realm of culture. Whether a person creates products of the spiritual category that serve the moral growth of people, or products that corrupt human morality, all this applies equally to culture. Inventing a means of saving life or a sophisticated weapon of murder is also culture. Regardless of what is the result of human activity, good or evil is the domain of culture. This essence of this idea of culture at the same time indicates its limitations in understanding the phenomenon of culture. And its limitation lies precisely in the fact that it is built without regard to the spiritual and moral side of existence and does not affect it in any way. Meanwhile, only on its basis can one understand the true essence of all phenomena of human life, including culture.
These two interpretations reflect the fullness of the existence of culture. They actually consider the essence and existence of culture, its own essence and how it is realized and, in other words, the origins and results of culture.
The first interpretation refers, of course, to the essence of culture, its source, the beginning that gives rise to culture. The focus is on the origins of culture. And this principle is the spiritual principle, morality. Therefore, this position connects culture with spirituality, with religion, with its transcendental foundations. And for her, the immutable truth is that any culture retains within itself the memory of a spiritual origin. What is meant by the second interpretation? Of course, what is meant is not the essence, but only the existence of culture, not its depth, but the surface, the way it appears, in what it is embodied. Here, therefore, the focus is not on the spiritual world, but on the person himself. It depends on the person what the outcome will be cultural activities. He can be both moral and immoral, both spiritual and unspiritual. In this context, it is no longer the transcendental basis of culture that is important, but its this-worldly, earthly side. If the origin of culture is certainly spiritual, then its growth, its fruits can be both spiritual and non-spiritual, therefore here culture is considered without regard to spiritual and moral problems.
So, both approaches reveal different aspects of culture and mutually enrich each other in understanding the holistic phenomenon of culture. Although representatives of these approaches most often do not recognize this and are in confrontation, the reason for which is the initial irreconcilability of religiosity and idealism on the one hand and atheism and materialism on the other. Nevertheless, on the essence of the issue under consideration, there is no contradiction between them, despite the fact that religiosity can never really be reconciled with atheism: but in this context, the irreconcilability of these initial positions remains in the background.
There is no contradiction in the fact that culture always has a spiritual origin, but its results can be unspiritual and immoral. Contradiction and antagonism are present here on an ontological level, regarding the very existence of culture. This is a contradiction between the spiritual essence of culture and its possible non-spiritual existence. However, in epistemological terms, in the sphere of understanding culture, there is no contradiction here, because this approach merely states the current state of affairs. But this state of affairs also in turn requires clarification and understanding. The fact is that culture, growing from the depths of the spiritual world and determining participation in it, endows a person with freedom. Through culture and in culture, a person approaches the transcendental world, the spiritual origin. In culture, man realizes his likeness to God. In culture, a person, as it were, overcomes himself, his limited naturalness and joins the absoluteness of the spiritual world. Culture always develops through creativity, and human creativity is, in the language of religious philosophy, an imitation of the activity of God. Along with the development of culture and the acquisition of spiritual energy, a person also receives freedom, for freedom is the very existence of the spiritual world, without which he cannot exist. A person approaches the spiritual fundamental principle of the universe, and it, in turn, bringing a person closer to itself, cannot but endow him with freedom, for endowing him with freedom is the essence of this approach. But freedom is ambiguous in relation to the spiritual world and in relation to man. Freedom in spiritual and moral terms and freedom in human imagination are not the same thing. Freedom, which is a natural property of the spiritual world, for a person already acquires two characteristics: it is natural, of course, because it reflects his essence, but on the other hand, it is unnatural, because it coexists with the vicious nature of man. Therefore, the freedom that a person gains in culture is fraught with its abuse, use for evil, i.e. subordination to its unspiritual goals. And as a result, culture appears as the face of man in general, as the face of humanity: the essence is spiritual, and in existence spirituality is intertwined with lack of spirituality; the foundation is spiritual, but the building is indifferent to spirituality. In a word, culture is what a person is like. Culture is a mirror of man. It shows his whole being, his whole being, his whole existence.
With such an approach to the phenomenon of culture, the issue of negative phenomena and products of human activity is of particular relevance. Attributing phenomena that are negatively assessed from a moral standpoint to culture has a deep philosophical meaning. For in everything that is the result of human activity, one way or another, there is spirituality. The basis of any activity is spiritual energy, because there is simply no other energy that has a creative character. Only spiritual forces allow a person to act and create something. Being at the basis of human activity, they cannot but be embodied in its results. Cultural products become negative as a result of the abuse of spiritual energy and its subordination to immoral purposes, but the potential embodied in cultural works is, of course, spiritual in nature. Therefore, even in negative cultural phenomena, spirituality is still present. But it is not the negative phenomena and works themselves that relate to culture, but only the spirituality that is embodied in them. Spiritual energy and the potential of spirituality is present in everything created by man. And it is this spirituality that represents a cultural phenomenon, and thanks to it, all products of human activity belong to culture. Seeing the negative side of the works of human culture, we turn away and ignore the spiritual power that forms their basis. Of course, their negative destiny suppresses their spiritual side, but, nevertheless, it only suppresses and diminishes, but does not destroy it. Therefore, from the point of view of culture itself, to a certain extent, we usually overestimate the negative side of human activity. But behind it lies a spiritual side, which becomes especially visible and accessible over time. Weapons are, first and foremost, a means of murder. And in this regard, it has a negative, inhumane character. But no one will object that museums are a spiritual phenomenon. However, it is weapons that are almost always the main exhibit of museums. The museum presents, first of all, not the deadly side of the weapon, but the spirit, the skill, the talents that are embodied in it, i.e. spiritual side. When a weapon is used for its intended purpose, its negative meaning is perceived. When a weapon is in a museum, its spiritual origin is revealed and exposed. In a museum we look at weapons differently than in life. In life, as it is woven into our being, we are too biased. In the museum, the taint of negativity disappears from it, and we perceive it as a work of culture. And enough time must pass so that we can impartially consider the fruits of human activity, consider them as works of culture.
Thus, when negative aspects and products of human activity are classified as culture, they are not included in its entirety. Only the spirituality that is embodied in them is included in culture. Their actual negative side is abstracted from in culture; it is not they that determine their existence in culture. As a result, it turns out that the first approach not only contradicts and does not simply complement, but deepens and enriches the second, because it, like the first, ultimately sees in culture only one phenomenon - spirituality. Both approaches assume the same spiritual essence of culture, which in turn is the personification of the content of social life.
Thus, even in its negative manifestations, culture maintains unity. This means that there is no contradiction between cultures, as is often imagined in our time. The opposition of cultures does not come from the cultures themselves, but from politics, which is built on confrontation. In fact, the dividing line is between culture and lack of culture.
Dialogue presupposes, on the one hand, the separate existence of cultures, but at the same time also interpenetration and full interaction. While maintaining originality and independence, dialogue presupposes recognition of the diversity of cultures and the possibility of a different option for the development of culture. The dialogue is based on the ideas of pluralism and tolerance.
Of course, the dialogue may be different. The ideal of dialogue is not only communication, but also friendship. In friendship, dialogue achieves its goal. Therefore, when a dialogue that usually begins with formal communication rises to the level of friendly communication, we can talk about a full-fledged interaction of cultures.
Culture as such is a measure of the freedom of society. Therefore, dialogue between cultures is the path to expanding freedom in culture. Freedom is a movement in depth, to the spiritual foundations, it is a manifestation of freedom of spirit. But depth also creates opportunities for breadth. Depth provides breadth, but breadth is a prerequisite for depth. Thus, dialogue is an indicator of the breadth and openness of culture, and at the same time the freedom of society.
In the dialogue of cultures, what is important is not so much dialogue as the culture of dialogue. Because dialogue—interaction—always occurs. Cultures interact and penetrate each other in one way or another. This is a natural historical process that can occur without human will. However highest manifestation Culture is an attitude towards another culture. And it is precisely this that develops and spiritualizes culture itself, elevates and ennobles man as a bearer of culture. Attitude towards a foreign culture is an indicator of the development of the culture itself. It is not so much the foreign culture that needs this, but our own. The culture of attitude towards foreign culture is part of the culture itself.
LITERATURE
Berdyaev 1990 – Berdyaev N. Philosophy of inequality. M.: IMA-press, 1990.
Bibler 1990 – Bibler V.S. From scientific teaching to the logic of culture: Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. M.: Politizdat, 1990.
Bibler 1991 – Bibler V.S. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics and Culture. M.: Progress, 1991.
Kant 1963–1966 – Kant I. Op. in 6 volumes. M.: Mysl, 1963–1966.
Lebedev 2004 – Lebedev S.A. Philosophy of Science: Dictionary of Basic Terms. M.: Academic Project, 2004.
Lektorsky 2012 – Lektorsky V.A. Philosophy, knowledge, culture. M.: Kanon+, ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2012.
Likhachev 2006 – Likhachev D.S. Ecology of culture // Selected works on Russian and world culture. St. Petersburg: Publishing house SPbGUP, 2006.
Mezhuev 1987 – Mezhuev V.M. Culture as a problem of philosophy // Culture, man and the picture of the world. M.: Nauka, 1987.
Melikov 2010 – Melikov I.M. Culture as the personification of the content of public life // Scientific notes of the RGSU. M., 2010. No. 3. P. 17–25.
Fatykhova 2009 – Fatykhova R.M. Culture as dialogue and dialogue in culture // Vestnik VEGU. 2009. No. 1(39). pp. 35–61.
Frank 1992 – Frank S.L. Spiritual foundations of society. M.: Republic, 1992.
culture spiritual dialogue society
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.
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.
Since spiritual culture is inextricably linked with religion, the dialogue of cultures “is not just the interaction of peoples, but also their deep mystical connection, rooted in religion” (4, p.20). Therefore, a dialogue of cultures is not possible without a dialogue of religions and dialogue within religions. And purity of dialogue is a matter of conscience. Genuine dialogue always means freedom of thought, uninhibited judgment, and intuition. Dialogue is like a pendulum, which, if it deviates, then the dialogue moves.
Intercultural interactions cannot occur otherwise than through the interactions of individual worldviews. The most important problem in the analysis of intercultural interaction is the disclosure of the mechanism of interaction. Two types of interaction:
- 1) culturally direct, when cultures interact with each other through communication at the language level.
- 2) Indirect, when the main characteristics of the interaction are its dialogical nature, the dialogue enters within the culture, as part of its own structures.
Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as “alien” and as “our own”. Thus, the mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is a consequence of indirect interaction, the dialogue of culture with itself, as a dialogue of “us” and “alien” (having a dual nature). The essence of dialogism is the productive interaction of sovereign positions that make up a single and diverse semantic space and a common culture. The main thing that distinguishes dialogism from monology is the desire to understand the relationships between different views, ideas, phenomena, and social forces.
The methodology for the interaction of cultures, in particular, the dialogue of cultures, was developed in the works of M. Bakhtin. Dialogue according to M. Bakhtin is mutual understanding of those participating in this process, and at the same time maintaining one’s opinion, one’s own in another (merging with him) and maintaining distance (one’s place). Dialogue is always development and interaction. It is always unification, not decomposition. Dialogue is an indicator of the general culture of society. According to M. Bakhtin, each culture lives only in the questioning of another culture, that great phenomena in culture are born only in the dialogue of different cultures, only at the point of their intersection. The ability of one culture to master the achievements of another is one of the sources of its vital activity. Imitation of a foreign culture or complete rejection of it must give way to dialogue. For both sides, dialogue between two cultures can be fruitful.
Interest is the beginning of a dialogue. Dialogue of cultures is the need for interaction, mutual assistance, and mutual enrichment. The dialogue of cultures acts as an objective necessity and condition for the development of cultures. Mutual understanding is assumed in the dialogue of cultures. And mutual understanding presupposes unity, similarity, identity. That is, dialogue between cultures is possible only on the basis of mutual understanding, but at the same time - only on the basis of what is individual in each culture. And the common thing that unites all human cultures is their sociality, i.e. human and humane. There is no single world culture, but there is unity of all human cultures, ensuring the “complex unity of all humanity” is a humanistic principle.
The influence of one culture on another is realized only if the necessary conditions for such influence exist. A dialogue between two cultures is possible only with a certain convergence of their cultural codes, the presence or emergence of a common mentality. Dialogue of cultures is penetration into the value system of a particular culture, respect for them, overcoming stereotypes, synthesis of the original and foreign, leading to mutual enrichment and entry into the world cultural context. In the dialogue of cultures it is important to see human values interacting cultures. One of the main objective contradictions inherent in the cultures of all peoples of the world is the contradiction between the development of national cultures and their rapprochement. Therefore, the need for dialogue between cultures is a condition for the self-preservation of humanity. And the formation of spiritual unity is the result of the dialogue of modern cultures.
The dialogue of cultures has centuries of experience in Russia. The interaction of cultures occurred in different areas with varying degrees of intensity. Thus, correspondence can be considered as a factor in the mutual influence of cultures. A letter can be called a sociocultural slice of reality, filtered through the prism of the perception of an individual. Since culture has always been an important element of culture human communication, then one of the forms of its implementation was correspondence. Correspondence is a dialogue that reflects the mentality and value system of territorially limited societies, but is also a means of their interaction. It was writing that became one of the most important in the formation of the pan-European cultural environment and the conductor of its reverse influence on figures of a national scale. Translation is not just a mediator, but in itself an essential component of cultural interchange.
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, from which a unique mosaic of human civilization was formed. The process of interaction and dialogue between cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures, elements national culture active to assimilate 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.
The most fruitful dialogue of cultures together with the dialogue of religions. In Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church has maintained an active dialogue with all people of good will for several decades. Now such a dialogue has stopped, and if it continues, it is more likely due to inertia. Dialogue between representatives of different faiths today is a dialogue of the deaf. Dialogue of cultures is important in Russia and not only in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, with an abundance of different cultural and religious differences. The interaction of cultures today is largely political in nature, since it is associated with one of the few ways to relieve interethnic tension without the use of military force, as well as a way to consolidate society.
Dialogue of cultures leads to deepening cultural self-development, to mutual enrichment through other cultural experiences both within certain cultures and on the scale of world culture. The need for dialogue between cultures as a condition for the self-preservation of humanity. Interaction, dialogue of cultures in modern world- The process is complex and perhaps sometimes painful. It is necessary to ensure optimal interaction and dialogue between peoples and cultures in the interests of each of the parties to this interaction and in the interests of society, the state, and the world community.
Thus, after all of the above, we can summarize.
Dialogue among civilizations is a process within and across civilizations that is based on the participation of all and the collective desire to learn, discover and explore concepts, identify areas of common understanding and core values, and bring different approaches together through dialogue .
Dialogue among civilizations is a process aimed at achieving, in particular, the following goals:
- · promoting inclusiveness, equity, equity, fairness and tolerance among people;
- · strengthening mutual understanding and mutual respect through interaction between civilizations;
- · mutual enrichment and development of knowledge, as well as understanding the wealth and wisdom of all civilizations;
- · identifying and promoting what unites civilizations in order to eliminate common threats to common values, universal human rights and the achievements of human society in various fields;
- · promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms and achieving a deeper common understanding of human rights;
- · promoting a deeper understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values;
- · ensuring a higher degree of respect for cultural diversity and cultural heritage.
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 took place 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 foreign 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. According to Bakhtin, modern cultures should also be involved in the same process of “dialogical interaction”.
“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. All of them are original and should be in a 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 of the consolidation of different cultural worlds is the union 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
The concept and meaning of dialogue. Dialogue as a property of culture
Dialogue - a universal way of existence of culture. Being a multifunctional integral social phenomenon, culture since ancient times has used dialogue as a universal means of realizing human goals in the world to survive, develop and renew the forms of its existence. Dialogue in culture is a universal way of transmitting and mastering by an individual forms of social interaction, ways of understanding the world. In the form of dialogue, the cultural experience of humanity and traditions are consolidated and transmitted, and at the same time the value content of culture is renewed.
The word “dialogue” comes from the Greek dia – “two” and logos – “concept”, “thought”, “mind”, “language” and therefore means a “meeting” of two consciousnesses, logics, cultures. Binary is one of the universal structures of all reality: social, cultural, psychological, linguistic.
Dialogue represents a specific form communication. Dialogue is communication between at least two subjects. “The world for a person is dual in accordance with the duality of the basic words that he can pronounce. Basic words are not single words, but word pairs. One basic word is a couple I, you. Another basic word pair I am It" 1 .
Dialogue is form connections between subjects, focusing on mutual necessity I and other I. I I can't say anything about myself without relating myself to To others, Another helps me get to know myself. According to M.M. Bakhtin, “man has no internal sovereign territory, he is entirely and always on the border” 1, therefore dialogue is “man’s opposition to man, opposition I And Another"2. And this is the main value of dialogue. Dialogue, therefore, is not just communication, but interaction, during which a person opens up to himself and others, acquires and recognizes his human face, and learns to be human. What happens in the dialogue "meeting" subjects. Martin Buber (1878–1929), one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, who made the dialogic principle the beginning of his concept of man, emphasizes that a person acquires his human essence by relating himself not only to other people, but also to nature, to God.
In the concept of dialogue, meaning and position Another plays a fundamental role. Logical models of dialogue are associated with logical schemes for constructing relationships I And Another, Where Another- this is my other one too I, and another object (nature, man as a body-thing), and another subject.
Dialogical relationships , according to M. Buber , arise in three areas. "First: life with nature. Here the relationship is pre-speech, pulsating in the darkness. The creatures respond to us with a counter movement, but they are not able to reach us, and our You, addressed to them, freezes on the threshold of language.
Second: life with people. Here the relationship is obvious and takes the form of speech. We can give and take You.
Third: life with spiritual beings. Here the relationship is shrouded in a cloud, but reveals itself - silently, but gives rise to speech. We don't hear any You and yet we feel the call, and we respond - by creating images, thinking, acting; we say the main word with our being, unable to utter You with my own lips... If I address a person as if he were my own You if I tell him the main word I – You, then he is not a thing among things and does not consist of things.”
Thus, a dialogical relationship is carried out both as a dialogue between a person and nature, and as a dialogue with others (interpersonal, interethnic, intercultural), and as a dialogue with oneself . In addition, we can talk about a dialogue with the world of things, with spiritual values that bear the imprint of the personality of their creators (a form of dialogue mediated by objects and values).
Dialogical interaction is based on principles equality and mutual respect of positions. When coming into contact, person to person, human aggregates, various original cultures should not suppress each other. Therefore, in order for the dialogue to take place, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions. This is, firstly, a condition freedom, and secondly, the presence equal subjects who are aware of their qualitative individuality. Dialogue gives the highest value to the joint existence of subjects, each of which is self-sufficient and valuable. “Being outside” is not an obstacle to their communication and mutual knowledge. Nature needs a dialogical relationship, just like humans.
Dialogue between cultures can be direct and indirect - space, time, other cultures; finite and infinite - limited to a certain time frame given by specific subjects or inextricably connects cultures in an endless creative search.
Based on the transformations occurring in cultures as a result of their dialogical interaction, it is possible to typologize the dialogical relationship, i.e., to distinguish different types of dialogue – external and internal.
External dialogue does not lead to cultural co-change . It is driven by interests itself knowledge and itself development of cultures, contributes to the mutual enrichment of cultures, supplementing them with new details. The dialogue here is mutual exchange these ready-made values, results creative activity of cultures.
From this logic of interaction naturally follows the breeding of cultures at different levels, due to different degrees of their “effectiveness” (civilization). From this perspective, world culture is seen as a certain sum of cultures.
Internal dialogue – creative mutual creation of cultures, their self-realization. Dialogue here turns out to be not just a mechanism for transmitting ready-made cultural meanings, but mechanism co-changes cultures in the process of their interaction and through their interaction, by the mechanism "meaning generation"(Yu.M. Lotman).
At the end of the 20th century. this idea becomes the leading one, determining the life of cultures in conditions of their universalization.
As we see, dialogue- enough complex sociocultural form, which sets a certain meaning for human and intercultural relations, during which human and intercultural connections are built in a certain way, find their expression, and take on a specific form. To get a clearer idea of dialogue, to place emphasis and see the specifics of various forms of dialogical relationship, let us designate those subject areas, within which it is possible to talk about dialogue. Dialogue can be considered at the level; linguistic-semiotic ( dialogue as form verbal communication, different from a monologue); discursive-logical(dialogical nature of consciousness and thinking, knowledge as shared knowledge with others, and therefore dialogue is a means for clarification, development of meaning, a means of finding truth, understanding and logic are important here); communicative (dialogue as a means of perception, processing, transmission of ready-made meaning, mutual understanding is important here); socio-psychological(dialogue as a form of social connection, communication, i.e. interaction at the interpersonal level - with my other I, with others); cultural(dialogue as a property of culture, dialogue of cultures); existential(dialogue as a principle of human existence, the essence of which is going beyond the limits of existing existence, dialogue as a person-to-person relationship, relationship I − You) .
Let's take a closer look at the problem of dialogue in aspect.
Dialogue as a property of culture. Dialogue of cultures. External and internal dialogue
Dialogue– this is not only a question-and-answer form of thinking, not only an author’s technique, but also the very real existence of culture, its immanent essence, the way of realizing its functions. The idea of dialogue as the existence of cultures appeared in the twentieth century. It belongs to M.M. Bakhtin (1895–1975), Russian philosopher, cultural theorist, literary critic. He proceeds from the idea of cultures as “personalities” (under the influence of the works of O. Spengler), who conduct an endless “dialogue” with each other, lasting for centuries.
There is culture where there are two cultures. “Where there is one culture,” writes V.S. Bibler, researcher of creativity M.M. Bakhtin, - I grow together with her, - and then there is no longer culture, there is civilization 1.” Civilization, like man, continues to exist and develop after its “physical death,” after its disappearance from the earth’s surface. In what form? In the form of culture, the form of cultural communication, i.e. communication carried out through works of culture. This is exactly how – out of itself – culture as such grows (transforms), grows (becomes a “thing”, a work, i.e. art that captures communication) and sprouts in its subjects, culture bearers, interlocutors, participants in dialogue (becoming their knowledge and skill). Therefore, culture is always a dialogue between culture and non-culture, culture and barbarism, space (order) and chaos.
It should be noted here that in past civilizations and eras, culture (primarily as education and upbringing) occupied a “peripheral” place; only a minority of humanity took direct part in the “production” of culture and in the communication of cultures. According to V.S. Bibler, the sociocultural life of modern people has changed: there has been “a transition from the idea of an educated and enlightened person to the idea of a “cultured person” 1. There has been a shift towards understanding culture as a dialogue of cultures, for which every subject, every moment of existence is significant. Moreover, a person of modern culture “does not have his own lasting cultural place, he is modernly cultural only to the extent that he is able to re-solve and re-decide all the meanings each time...” 2, that is, he is able to live on the edge, at the intersections, “between” different possibilities, in the horizon of different cultures at the same time.
Humanity creates different cultures, and is itself a product of the interaction of different cultures, in dialogue and through dialogue creating themselves and at the same time creating a single and diverse universal human culture. Each culture involved in dialogue reveals the diverse meanings contained in it, becomes a culture, Western or Eastern, ancient or medieval, etc. Dialogue, thus, is, firstly, inalienable property of the culture itself, essentialcharacteristic existence of culture. And secondly, dillogic- something that arose in a specific historical space and time attitudecrops, conditioned by the development of connections between these cultures. Until a certain point in the history of cultures, their relationships were built according to a different, monological pattern of interaction.
Based on the above, let's take a closer look at intercultural dialogue.
First of all - at the level of a single culture. The form of dialogue of cultures here turns out to be connections determined by the culture’s own morphology: connections between secular and religious cultures, between artistic and scientific cultures, mass and elite, professional and folk, etc. In other words, we are talking about connections subcultures, forming a given specific culture, or about dialogue within one cultural era. Within the framework of medieval culture, for example, such subjects as the monarchy, nobility-knighthood, monasticism and the people entered into dialogue. The result of the dialogue between them was official culture, castle culture, knightly culture, folk culture, carnival culture, etc.
Intercultural dialogue at the level of different cultures
In this sense, the dialogue is carried out and considered, on the one hand, as a dialogue synchronic and diachronic, that is, “in centuries and between centuries” ( chronological aspect consideration), and each culture here is a specific cultural era, a stage in the general history of culture. In this regard, we can talk about a dialogue between the past and the present, about the culture of fathers and sons.
On the other hand, connections between different national cultures, cultures of different regions, and between qualitatively defined cultural values are dialogical.
History and logic of dialogical communication between different cultures
How is a dialogic relationship between cultures formed? What logical schemes and principles define a dialogical relationship, distinguishing it from other schemes of intercultural contacts?
1. The logic of self-centeredness . We have already said that the idea of dialogue did not always exist; dialogue is the fruit of the 20th century. However, its origins should be sought in those real intercultural interactions that have developed throughout human history. And we must start with the fact that, up to a certain point, cultures were self-sufficient, their existence was supported by their own reserves, due to the “internal” dialogue between subcultures.
The logic of self-centeredness and self-sufficiency of cultures corresponds to local-regional form their interactions . Scheme of this interaction – yours, other . And although individual attempts to enter into dialogue with other cultures took place, especially during the Renaissance, they remained only “an unrealized opportunity for dialogue” (L.M. Batkin). However, as a result of this interaction, it became clear that only by encountering another culture, by coming into contact with it, the original culture is able to show its individuality, “stand out,” i.e., find its own I(without which entering into dialogue is impossible).
2. Contact logic ( scheme: yours And other ). In modern times, due to the intensification of relations between cultures, there was an understanding of the need to turn to another culture as goals.
Logics collisions, meetings, recognitions allowed cultures to manifest new content, new meanings for themselves, to understand interdependence and interdependence. So, spiritual crisis West at the turn of the 20th century. made him look new incentives for self-development in the cultures of the East, which managed to preserve their “first roots”, their naturalness and spontaneity. Rabindranath Tagore wrote about the same kind of influence of Western culture on Eastern culture in his time in one of his articles: “The dynamism of Europe... acted on us like a downpour from a cloud, coming from afar, watering the parched earth, awakening vital forces in it. After such a downpour, all the seeds begin to sprout in the depths of the earth. Only the desert remains barren even after a rainstorm, and in this barrenness there is something of death” 1.
So the contact logic (compare and contrasthis And someone else's, recognizing differences and discovering similarities) becomes necessary condition self-awareness, self-reflection and self-development of cultures, i.e. themes mechanism who shows cultural originality. On the other side, - prerequisite, leading to an understanding and affirmation of the mutual necessity of cultures, their unity, and access to the “world flow” of culture. Thus, the logic of self-sufficiency develops into logic "universal", a real basis for dialogue appears.
3.Logics additionality ( proximity) of crops is based on polyphony, equality and equivalence of interacting cultures(scheme : yours and others). This is not just “polyphony” or “multiple intersubjective cultural connections. This is “monopluralism” (N.A. Berdyaev’s term), a polyphonic situation when each culture pursues its own “theme”, preserving its own identity. Cultures cannot exist without each other; they interact on the principles of equality and equal necessity. The desire to achieve this status of equality explains why, from the middle of the 20th century. In the polylogue of cultural “voices,” the “voice” of the cultures of developing countries tried to assert itself loudest. They defended the right to their “free style.”
4. Dialogue (one's own - another). The pinnacle of polyphony - dialogue. Its occurrence is associated with destruction of frames, boundaries between cultures. Interpenetration and mutual change of cultures characterize the essence of the dialogue. It is a natural result of the development and deepening of cultural relationships. It's already a new paradigm for the interaction of cultures, a new understanding of culture as a whole.
This process requires changes in emphasis, transferring the center of gravity beyond one’s own I, on Another, which due to this becomes You, « first person» dialogue. But this is not just a change of “faces”, which does not change anything significantly (after all, it is known, for example, that the East, which was the center of world culture in the Middle Ages, lost its priority with the development of capitalist relations in the West: one “face” replaced another). The “other” turns out to be an active co-participant in “my” meaning formation, which means the actual recognition of the “other”’s subjective properties, that is, equal action I And Another and therefore I And You. Here the dialogue finally finds its true content. Cultures turn into integral conditions for each other’s internal development, into balanced co-creators of themselves and each other in and through dialogue.
It is important that the dialogical relationship understood in this way is always rooted in the event (subject, reason for the “meeting”). Real sociocultural practice (an event that is realized as a co-existence, i.e. dialogically) simultaneously separates (reveals boundaries, limits of interaction) and connects the participants of the “meeting”.
“Co-in-locality”, intersections of subjects, space “between”, common territory, common topic or problem become the content and meaning of the dialogue. " Between" means not just a new kind of phenomenon, but new kindorganization of communications between people, societies, cultures, where one thing is connected with another and each essence is, that it exists , only by being connected to another. In this regard, there are connection points, nodal points, but no centralization. And each of the participants, each of the interacting cultures uses its own means, its own potential to solve common task and at the same time changes, adjusting its content, extracts new meanings for itself in the process of dialogic interaction.
Dialogue is not a ready-made form imposed from the outside on human or intercultural interactions. It is developed in the course of interaction, grows “from within” the process of human interactions, and appears as their result. In other words, dialogue is a “living” dynamic form of specific interactions of human individuals, in the course and through these interactions creating their life world, their everyday existence, their culture.
Dialogue is not only a form of communication between different subjects, which determines the meaning, structure and results of this connection. Dialogue is a necessary condition and means of changing and harmonizing these connections. Naturally, when the existence of subjects changes, the task of carrying out dialogue becomes more complicated.
1. Principles of dialogical relations between cultures. The principle of openness: the requirement to go beyond the boundaries of cultures, their focus on communication with another culture, on the one hand, and openness to the influence of the “other”, openness to the “other” - on the other, i.e. understanding the need for interaction. Isolation and protective tendencies, justified at the stage of semantic “concentration” or “conservation” of culture, cease to be the leading motive during the period of “revaluation of values”, breaking of previous semantic guidelines, when all the methods of self-reflection, self-development, natural for “ calm" existence of culture. And even more so when it comes to the formation of a cultural universe, the rapprochement of cultures, and the “opening” of former boundaries between cultures.
2. The principle of procedurality. Dialogue of cultures is process, which produces both these crops themselves and those conditions, in which they become aware of themselves, gain the ability to communicate with each other and, finally, “meet”, opening up the prospect of an infinite mutual generation. Processuality allows you to introduce context and ground into a conversation about dialogue, discuss the conditions for the emergence of dialogue, as well as its subject or topic, specific participants and the form of their interaction, and take into account the real dynamics of interaction. From these positions dialogue of cultures- This process their endless mutual co-knowledge, co-change, co-creativity. Dialogue here is not a means, but an end in itself, not a prelude to action, but the action itself. “To be means to communicate dialogically. When the dialogue ends, everything ends. Therefore, the dialogue cannot and should not end.”
With this approach to understanding the essence of cultural interaction, the search for “universal principles of thinking”, “ common system coordinates”, which actually sharply narrows the possibilities for interaction, limiting them to the limits in which the positions of culturesmatch, and in the tendency and generally reducing cultural differences to nothing . Such an understanding of the deep connection between cultures requires “ bring out» general, following the individual logic of cultures, from specific interactions, life realities, communications, dialogue of cultures. This is the meaning of their movement towards universality.
3. The principle of symmetry. Cultures “meet”, intersect at a common point, which can be, for example, a human problem or the problem of preserving cultural identity, etc. In solving these problems, each of the cultures comes from his side, using his potential and funds, saving its uniqueness, specific semantic layers, cultural traditions. But, looking, as if in a mirror, at another culture, it corrects itself, changes itself, is filled with new content, new meanings. This happens by overcoming the one-sidedness and narrow vision of the problem.
Today, in the face of new, universal problems (global, humanitarian), the importance of dialogue increases immeasurably. The commonality of existence of different regions, countries, cultures, a common problem field does not mean that they follow the same standards, social, economic, and cultural. Modernity is polyphonic, “many-voiced.” Different “voices” (discordance is not disagreement) are trying to find “consonance”, to build logic of compatibility, unity. Dalogic turns into polylogic. The search and development of new forms of interconnection and their implementation are unthinkable without overcoming various kinds of “centrisms” (Eurocentrism, Eastcentrism, etc.), the existing asymmetry caused by these stereotypes, without the oncoming movement of cultures, giving rise to new forms and new meanings of interaction. The community is formed from a combination of different regional and ethnocultural associations. The form of this community is developed in the course and through dialogue or polylogue between them.
Literature
Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1975.
Bibler V.S. Culture. Dialogue of cultures (definition experience) // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 6. P. 31-42.
Bibler V.S. Plans: In 2 books. M., 2002.
Buber M. Me and You. M., 1993.
Konovalova N.P. Culture as a dialogue of cultures // Spirituality and culture. Algorithms of culture. Ekaterinburg, 1994. P.130-150.
Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. Mechanisms of dialogue // Lotman Yu.M. Inside thinking worlds. Man - text - semiosphere - history. M., 1999; 2002.
Sociocultural space of dialogue. M., 1999.
a set of direct relationships and connections that develop between different relationships, as well as their results and mutual changes that arise in the course of these relationships. D.K. - one of the most significant forms of cultural communication for cultural dynamics. In the process D.K. changes occur in cultural patterns - forms of social organization and models of social action, value systems and types of worldviews, the formation of new forms of cultural creativity and lifestyles. This is precisely the fundamental difference between D.K. from simple forms of economic, cultural or political cooperation that do not involve significant transformations on either side.
The following levels of D.K. can be distinguished: a) personal, associated with the formation or transformation of the human personality under the influence of various cultural traditions “external” in relation to his natural cultural environment; b) ethnic, characteristic of relations between various local social communities, often within a single society; c) interethnic, associated with the diverse interaction of various state-political entities and their political elites; d) civilizational, based on the meeting of fundamentally different types of sociality, value systems and forms of cultural creativity. D.K. at this level it is most dramatic, since it contributes to the “erosion” of traditional forms of cultural identity and, at the same time, is extremely productive from the point of view innovation activity, creating a unique field of cross-cultural experiments. In addition, D.K. It is also possible as an interaction between the current type of culture and its own historically established cultural tradition. The post-Soviet path of Belarus and Russia in comparison with the similar development of the former socialist states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) is the best confirmation of the significance of the influence on the development of society, especially on turning points, cultural tradition (or cultural inertia). In everyday practice, D.K., as a rule, is simultaneously implemented at all of these levels. It should also be noted that the real-life D.K. involves the participation of not two, but a significantly larger number of participants. This is due to the fundamental ethnic and cultural heterogeneity of any modern society, which inevitably involves D.K. both large and small nations, as well as various “fragments” of other ethnic groups, forming unique “cultural reservations”. Participants D.K. are initially in an unequal position, which is due not only to the difference in basic values, but also to the level of development of each culture, as well as the degree of its dynamism, demographic and geographical factors. A more numerous and active cultural community in the process of D. will be much more influential than a small ethnic group. IN modern theory It is customary to distinguish K. in the process of D.K.: K.-donor (which gives more than it receives) and K.-recipient (which acts as the receiving party). Over historically long periods of time, these roles may change depending on the pace and development trends of each of the participants in the D.K. The forms and principles of interaction between countries also differ - both peaceful, voluntary methods of interaction (most often involving partnership, mutually beneficial cooperation), and forced, colonial-military types (involving the implementation of one’s own tasks at the expense of the opposite side).
One of the forms of D.K. serve international relations. In addition to various international organizations such as the UN or UNESCO, a system of social institutions and mechanisms within the communities themselves is widely used for interstate cultural interaction. In these cases, borrowed cultural patterns become motivations for various forms of “local” social action. For example, in the real expression of D.K. may become a policy of modernization or, on the contrary, the resuscitation of authoritarian (traditional) forms of social structure, a change of course in state national and cultural policy using foreign “blanks”, trends in the development of local government structures, an increase or decrease in the number of public (including cultural-national ) associations and social initiatives. In each specific case, D.K. There are several stages or stages. The starting point here is considered to be the stage of “culture shock” or “zero” degree of compatibility of languages, behavioral scenarios and traditions of various participants in D.K. Further development D.K. determined specific features each of the types of K., their status in the process of specific intercultural contact ("aggressor" or "victim", "winner" or "defeated", "traditionalist" or "innovator", "honest partner" or "cynical pragmatist"), the degree compatibility of their basic values and current interests, the ability to take into account the interests of the other party. Based on the above, D.K. can take place in both constructive and productive and conflict forms. In the latter case culture shock develops into a cultural conflict - a critical stage of confrontation between the worldviews of different individuals, social groups, individuals and groups, individuals and society, cultural minorities and society as a whole, various societies or their coalitions. The basis of cultural conflict is the fundamental incompatibility of the languages of different cultures. The combination of incompatible things gives rise to a “semantic earthquake” that disrupts not only the course of intercultural communication, but also the normal existence of each of the participants in culture. Practical forms of cultural conflict can have a different scale and nature: from a private quarrel to interstate confrontation (the Cold War situation) and coalition wars. Typical examples of the most large-scale and brutal cultural conflicts are religious and civil wars, revolutionary and national liberation movements, genocide and “cultural revolutions,” forced conversion to the “true” faith and extermination of the national intelligentsia, political persecution of “dissidents,” etc. Cultural conflicts, as a rule, are particularly fierce and uncompromising, and in the case of the use of force, they pursue the goals not so much of conquest as of physical destruction of the bearers of alien values. People are not driven by common sense, but by deep psychological contamination with a specific type of cultural product, fixed at the level of pre-rational conviction in their own rightness. The most realistic and effective way out of a cultural conflict is not to bring the matter to it. Prevention of cultural conflicts is possible only on the basis of cultivating a non-dogmatic consciousness, for which the idea of cultural polymorphism (the fundamental polysemy of cultural space and the fundamental impossibility of the “only true” cultural canon) will be natural and obvious. The path to “cultural peace” lies in the renunciation of the monopoly on truth and the desire to forcibly bring the world to consensus. Overcoming the “era of cultural conflicts” will become possible to the extent that social violence in all its manifestations will no longer be considered as a lever of history.