Methods of managing environmental risks at the enterprise. Environmental risks at enterprises

Dialogue of cultures in the modern world

As you know, history is filled with constant struggle different cultures. All world history- this is a process of interaction between peoples, each of which possessed or possesses a specific system of values and a way of activity. The nature of relations between peoples, of course, is determined by current economic and political interests. However, very often behind them are hidden factors of a deeper order - spiritual values, without taking into account and understanding which it is impossible to establish normal good-neighborly relations between peoples and predict their future.

The interaction of cultures is an unusually relevant topic in the context of modern world generally. 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 ties it has with other cultures or with each other, the higher it rises. Culture is a powerful factor human activity: it is present in everything we see and feel. Our worldview is based on our culture: we see the world through glasses colored by it. What people do is directly dependent on what they believe, and their beliefs, in turn, depend on a culturally colored vision of themselves and the world around them.

The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction are different kinds dialogic relationships. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. The ancient texts of the culture of India are filled with the idea of the unity of cultures and peoples, the macro- and microcosm, reflections that a person's health largely depends on the quality of his relationship with environment, from the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding as a reflection of the Universe in our being. Dialogue permeates our whole life. In its reality, it is a means of implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is inter-ethnic tension in a society, and even more so, inter-ethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. According to Danilevsky, cultures develop separately and are initially hostile to each other. He saw the "spirit of the people" as the basis of all these differences. "Dialogue is communication with culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the way of appropriating the latter, the possibility of relieving political tension between states and ethnic groups. It is a necessary condition for the scientific search for truth and the process of creativity in art. Dialogue - this is an understanding of one's "I" and communication with others. It is universal and the universality of the dialogue is generally recognized ".

The concept of dialogue in the cultural process has a broad meaning. It includes the dialogue of the creator and consumer of cultural values, and the dialogue of generations, and the dialogue of cultures as a form of interaction and mutual understanding of peoples. With the development of trade, migration of the population, the interaction of cultures inevitably expands. It serves as a source of their mutual enrichment and development. The dialogue of cultures involves the interaction, interpenetration of various cultural formations within the framework of large cultural zones, as well as communication, spiritual convergence of huge cultural regions that formed a unique complex of specific features at the dawn of human civilization. It should be noted that the dialogue of cultures is not limited only to humanitarian contacts of cultural formations of various scales, it is also about the familiarization of an individual with these cultural worlds, the internal rethinking of the values of a "foreign" culture. 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 the Eastern civilization by the Western civilization, the penetration of the Western civilization into the Eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries, the need to ensure normal living conditions for the population of the globe have exacerbated the problem of modernizing traditional civilizations. However, attempts at modernization had disastrous consequences for traditional Islamic cultures. Any phenomenon of culture is comprehended by people in the context of the current state of society, which can greatly change its meaning. Culture retains relatively unchanged only its external side, while its spiritual richness contains the possibility of infinite development. This opportunity is realized by the activity of a person who is able to enrich and actualize those unique meanings that he discovers in cultural phenomena. This indicates a constant renewal in the process of cultural dynamics. The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as a "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. At the same time, culture is distinguished by the integrity of all its structural elements, which is ensured by its systemic nature, the presence of a hierarchy, and the subordination of values. The most important integration mechanism of culture is tradition.

For the existence and development of any culture like any other person, communication, dialogue, interaction. The idea of a dialogue of cultures implies the openness of cultures to each other. But this is possible if a number of conditions are met: the equality of all cultures, the recognition of the right of each culture to differ from others, and respect for a foreign culture.

The Russian philosopher Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975) believed that only in dialogue does culture come close to understanding itself, looking at itself through the eyes of another culture and thereby overcoming its one-sidedness and limitations. There are no isolated cultures - they all live and develop only in dialogue with other cultures:

"Foreign culture is only in the eyes another culture reveals itself more fully and deeper (but not in its entirety, because other cultures will come and see and understand even more). One meaning reveals its depths, having met and touched another, alien meaning: between them begins, as it were, dialog which overcomes the isolation and one-sidedness of these meanings, these cultures... With such a dialogical meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched."

The exchange of spiritual values, acquaintance with the achievements of the culture of other peoples enriches the personality. The core of the activity of the subject of culture, in the course of which he himself changes, changing, developing at the same time the state, content national culture. The interaction of cultures also takes place at the level of interpersonal communication, since the generally significant values of cultures are realized in sensation. interpersonal communication, expanding the sources of social and cultural information, thus can act as an important factor in overcoming stereotyped thinking and this contributes to the mutual enrichment of the spiritual image of people.

The current state of culture causes reasonable concern. One of the global problems of the development of society is the erosion of spiritual culture, resulting from the total dissemination of monotonous information, isolating its consumers from the work of developing ideas about the meaning of existence in the socio-cultural process, exacerbating the situation of "meaning loss" in culture.

The dialogue of cultures has been and remains the main thing in the development of mankind. For centuries and millennia there has been a mutual enrichment of cultures, which formed a unique mosaic of human civilization. The process of interaction, dialogue of cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures, elements of national culture are active for the assimilation of accumulated creative values. The most active process of the dialogue of cultures takes place during the assimilation of artistic values close to one or another type of national thinking. Of course, much depends on the correlation of stages in the development of culture, on accumulated experience. Within each national culture, various components of culture develop differentially.

In the XX century. the science and technology culture of the West has spread across the globe. Non-Western cultures are now faced with the dilemma of whether to open up to Western culture, or to shut themselves up and continue to follow traditional paths while maintaining their traditional lifestyles, occupations, and cults.

Western culture is individualistic and person-centered. She considers personal values, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to be sacred. Nature and all other creatures are prepared mainly for the benefit of man. In addition, Western culture is pragmatic: it rejects a significant part of what cannot be seen or grasped - i.e. that which cannot be "presented" to the hand or the eye.

In recent years, despite "Coca colonization" and "McDonaldism", the values and concepts of Western culture have begun to run into resistance. A new kind of cultural nationalism has emerged in South America. Latin Americans resent their dependence on North America and express dissatisfaction with their role as recipients rather than creators of the cultural currents that shape the modern world. The dominance of foreign culture is also in its death throes in the mentality of educated Arabs who perceive Western tradition as an element of Western hegemony over their countries. The Arabs consider themselves to be the passive side of the intercultural dialogue linking them almost exclusively with Western Europe and North America.

India and the countries of South Asia, although they continue to contact British culture, assimilating many of its distinctive features began to actively defend their own cultural heritage. Russia has accumulated extensive historical experience of an ambivalent attitude towards Western culture; this attitude continues to this day. Its main features are admiration for the achievements of the West both in the field of technology and in the field of high culture, but at the same time - the fear that these achievements can suppress the Russian cultural heritage and thereby deprive the Russian people of their identity. Mutual enrichment of national cultures in terms of the perception of other national values occurs at an unequal level. In one case, the supposed foreign work of culture is perceived as foreign and does not become a factor in national consciousness, self-consciousness, and is not included in the value system of the spiritual world of the individual. At a higher level of mutual enrichment of national cultures, it is not limited to simply acquaintance with a foreign work of art, but the creation of a new one takes place on the basis of the actual national and the knowledge of the foreign. In such cases, foreign values enter into national self-consciousness, enrich the spiritual world of the individual. value culture generation spiritual

The more developed the national culture, the more capable it is of including the values of the culture of various nations into the sphere of spiritual communication, and the more opportunities it presents for the spiritual enrichment of the individual. The nature of perception depends both on the content of the values of culture, and on the complex of individual and personal characteristics of the perceiver. The perception of cultural values is carried out on the basis of a comparison of previous experience and new.

At the same time, knowledge occurs not only on a rational, but also on an irrational basis. Feelings stimulate understanding or hinder understanding, set its boundaries. The perception of the foreign is carried out by comparing the element of the culture of another nation with a similar one in one's own national culture. Comparison is the basis of all understanding and all thinking. A foreign culture is assimilated only in the process of any practical, educational or other activity. Comprehension of the new, assimilation is impossible without the thought processes associated with the language. Language contributes to the mutual knowledge of nations, the assimilation cultural heritage. A person achieves the highest cultural development when a great spiritual work takes place in himself. But he can come to this only through communication. The knowledge of the spiritual culture of another nation presupposes the emotional and intellectual activity of the subject of perception, the systematic accumulation of knowledge about the content of foreign cultural values. Within the framework of globalization, the international dialogue of cultures is growing. International cultural dialogue enhances mutual understanding between peoples, makes it possible to better understand one's own national image. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever before, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans.

In general, the problems of openness to dialogue and mutual understanding in the modern world are becoming profound. However, for mutual understanding and dialogue, it is not enough good will, but cross-cultural literacy (understanding the cultures of other peoples) is necessary, 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 others peoples "But in order to understand the language of a foreign culture, a person must be open to the culture of the native. From the native to the universal, the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case the dialogue will be fruitful. Participating in the dialogue of cultures, one must know not only one's own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.

(QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY 2014 No. 12 С.24-35)

Abstract:

In the article, the authors introduce a new concept of the dialogue of cultures and make an attempt to reveal its content. From their position, it is impossible to talk about the dialogue of cultures without a culture of dialogue, since any phenomenon in society presupposes its own culture. The dialogue of cultures is based on two ideas: the idea of culture as a field of interaction and the idea of the diversity of cultures.

In 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 a field of interaction and idea of variety of cultures.

KEY WORDS: culture, dialogue of cultures, culture of dialogue, communication, diversity of cultures, spirituality, ethnos.

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 enriching their interaction. But dialogue is necessary for every culture to realize its uniqueness.

The main provisions of the concept of the 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 argues that “there is culture where there are two (at least) cultures, and that the self-consciousness of culture is a form of its being 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. “The cultural area has no internal territory, it is all located on the borders, the borders run 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, he is able to understand it [Fatykhova 2009, 52].

Culture is “a form of communication between individuals” [Bibler 1990, 289]. The basis of communication between individuals in a culture and cultures themselves is the text. Bakhtin wrote in The Aesthetics of Verbal Creation that a text can be presented in different forms: as a living speech of a person; as speech imprinted on paper or any other medium (plane); like any sign system (iconographic, directly material, activity, etc.). In turn, each text is always dialogic, 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 what indicates the contextual nature of the text, which makes it a work. According to V.S. Bibler, the 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 of art differs from a consumer product, from a thing, from a tool of labor in that they embody the being of a person, detached from himself. The work embodies the holistic being of the author, which can be meaningful only if there is an addressee.

Dialogue presupposes communication, but they are not identical: communication is not always 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 dialogism of the truth itself (beauty, goodness), that understanding another person implies mutual understanding of “I - you” as ontologically different personalities, possessing - actually or potentially - different cultures, logics of thinking, different meanings truth, beauty, goodness… The 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 is “a kind of intercultural interaction that involves an active exchange of the content of counterparty cultures while maintaining their identity” [Lebedev 2004, 132]. Dialogue of cultures is thus a condition for the development of culture.

However the dialogue of cultures presupposes the culture of the dialogue itself . The dialogue of cultures cannot be realized without a culture of dialogue.

Whatever we talk about, we must keep culture in mind. For everything in the human world is, in fact, culture. Nothing in the human world can exist without culture, including the very dialogue of cultures. Culture is the personification of the content of social life [Melikov 2010]. The whole world of man fits entirely into the world of culture. The human world is essentially the world of culture. All objects of culture are an objectified person, with his strength and energy. Cultural objects reflect what a person is and acts like. What is the person, so is the culture. And, on the contrary, what is the culture, such is the person.

Society is always a form of joint existence of people. 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 supra-individual and therefore abstract and formal in relation to individuals. And it would remain and always remains an abstract form, the formal abstract being of people, if the latter do not partake and are not included in it through culture.

Social being is the external world of man. No matter how rich and saturated society may be, it remains an external factor, an 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 the provision of the external circumstances of life. The inner life of man is in the power of culture.

Culture is primarily internal, intimate, and then external. It is the unity of the inner and outer side of life under the dominance of the inner. If it is reduced to the outside, then it turns into a “show-off” and always looks both 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. Outer side cultural life there is always only an expression of the corresponding depth of the inner, spiritual life, which is hidden and inaccessible to an ignorant look. A man of culture lives not only an external life, but certainly an internal life. “…Public being is precisely the dual unity… of inner spiritual life with its outer incarnation”, in the words of S. Frank, “sobornost” and “external community” [Frank 1992, 54]. It is culture that saturates formal sociality with specific real inner content, through which a person socializes, becomes a member of society. Without it, he is an alienated element of society. He is 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 the 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 - its protector, custodian and creator. For for a person attached to 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 the preservation and enrichment of this world of culture.

In the Marxist philosophical and sociological literature, which above all puts social factor and therefore distinguished by sociocentrism, it is customary to talk about the social conditioning of culture. According to Marxism, what are social conditions What 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 is the content of social being, it must be recognized that it is not culture that is determined by society, but, on the contrary, society is determined by culture. It is 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 affects the content, but this is secondary. As is the culture, so is the society. The development of culture is the basis of social progress, and not vice versa. It is the progress of culture that always pulls the progress of social life. Everything always happens within the framework of culture, and the social form is tuned 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 sit down during the concert.

Culture, and not economics or politics, as our contemporaries, and not only Marxists, believe, is the foundation of social positive development, because economics and politics are only the surface of culture. Economic progress is again based on economic culture, political progress is based on political culture, and social progress as a whole is based on 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, and the man himself, the living fabric of human relations. The state of social life depends on the person himself. Public life is, first of all, the life of a person. Therefore, the progress and development of society are connected with the human basis of society. This human basis society and reflect culture. Cultural is the same social, but refracted through the individual.

Culture embodies all the richness of human relationships in social life, 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 human essential forces. 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 for our truly human, i.e. always and in everything social existence” [Mezhuev 1987, 329]. Culture is a measure of the human in a person, an indicator of the development of a person as a person embodying the image and likeness of the higher spiritual world. Culture shows how much a person has revealed the spirit in 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 sides of a 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, primarily 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. All good meanings, all positive functions of social life are carried out only by being filled with cultural content. Take culture away from society, and it will lose its purpose and meaning. Therefore, social life outside of culture turns, in the final analysis, into a negative phenomenon and absurdity. Any negative phenomenon occurs only when public form culture falls out. And where there is no culture in social life, social life itself turns into nonsense. Having lost its goal, having lost the direction of movement, such a social life sets itself as a goal, and accordingly serves itself. Power then serves only itself 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, and so on. etc. 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 social life is to preserve and develop culture. In fulfilling this task, social life can achieve all its goals and can not care 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. Not in politics and not in the economy, but in culture, the goals of society are realized. And a high quality level of culture measures the value and quality of the public” [Berdyaev 1990, 247]. Indeed, thanks only to culture and economic activity and management of society can perform their functions. Culture is the basis of society, power and economy, and not vice versa. In culture, society as a whole, power and economy in particular, find and can find themselves, but not vice versa.

The main function of culture is the education of man, the change, the transformation of his nature. Living in a 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 that with the help of which social education is carried out. Public education is the familiarization and development of cultural norms by a person. Education in both 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 educative phenomenon through which social and pedagogical activity is realized. Mastering culture, a person changes his worldview and, accordingly, behavior in society. It is thanks to familiarization with culture that a person tries to behave with dignity “in public”, does not give vent to excessive emotions. It is culture that pushes a person in society, if not to be, then at least to seem better. Culture, educating a person in society, opens up ways for him to overcome alienation from spiritual life. 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 man 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 domination over one's nature.

Culture spiritualizes the earthly life of man and makes it a part of the universal life of the spiritual world, a manifestation of the universal spiritual life. Culture, inspiring a person, does not deprive him of earthly life, but deprives this earthly life of a limited basis and subordinates to the spiritual principle. Thus, culture acts as a transformed, spiritualized human earthly life. If human nature resembles uncultivated land, on which nothing grows somewhere, but somewhere a wild forest grows with different, useful and useless plants, where cultivated plants mixed with weeds, then culture is like cultivated and cultivated land, on which is a well-kept garden and where only cultivated plants grow.

Therefore, as D.S. Likhachev, “the preservation of the cultural environment is a task no less important than the preservation of the natural environment. If nature is necessary for a person for his biological life, then the cultural environment is just as necessary for his spiritual, moral life, for his “spiritual settled way of life”, 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 be carried out without a culture of dialogue. Like any dialogue, the dialogue of cultures can take place at the cultural level without it, and even without meaning. For example, when one nation adopts the cultural achievements or the religion of its political enemy.

However, it should be borne in mind that dialogue is the path to understanding. The dialogue of cultures, respectively, is the way to understanding the dialogue of cultures. The 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 studies on the interaction of cultures show, 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 by the ethnic culture of each of the interacting parties, the psychology of peoples, and the values prevailing in a particular culture.

What should be the basis of this understanding? At the heart of the culture of dialogue of cultures, it seems, there are two ideas: the idea of culture as a field of interaction and the idea of the unity of the diversity of cultures.

Each culture is unconditional, unique and original. This is the value of each of the cultures. However, the historical process shows that each culture does not arise from scratch, 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 separate and isolated. In a closed system, according to synergetics, 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 its creative and creative principles. Based on this, it can be said 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. Every new thing in culture arises at the junction, in a boundary 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 an evolving system whose source of movement is interaction. Interaction is development, expansion. And interaction implies exchange, enrichment, transformation.

Interaction leads to overcoming monotony, to the realization of diversity, which is a sign of stability. 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 diverse systems are homeostatic, i.e. stable and able to withstand external influences. And only their existence is directed towards some higher goal and becomes expedient.

Diversity arises on the basis of the corresponding energy, it is a sign of strength and power. Monotony is a sign of weakness. Diversity presupposes a more complex organization, a 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 the culture, the more meanings it embodies. Diversity makes culture a receptacle of meanings. 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 nourishes culture, endows and enriches it with energy. The diversity generated by the interaction of cultures becomes the personification of various and diverse facets of spiritual meanings in culture.

Another basis for the culture of dialogue seems to be the idea of the unity of the diversity of cultures. Cultures are diverse, and there will be no full-fledged dialogue and interaction between them if they are considered outside their unity. The culture of dialogue is built on understanding and recognition of the unity of the diversity of cultures. As noted by V.A. Lektorsky, “... there are many different cultures in the world, and instead of that, these cultures are somehow connected with each other, i.e. form a unity. It is clear to everyone that the unity of cultures is desirable, since today humanity is faced with such problems that concern 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 with all the diversity, different cultures are united in their essence. And the unity of cultures is realized through their diversity.

The unity of culture is in its spiritual essence. This is emphasized by many philosophers, in whom it is in the center of attention. In particular, the 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 it as follows: “Culture was born from a cult. Its origins are sacred. It conceived around the temple and in its organic period was connected with religious life. So it was in the great ancient cultures, in Greek culture, in medieval culture, in the culture of the early Renaissance. Culture is of noble origin. She inherited the hierarchical nature of the cult. Culture has religious foundations. This must be regarded as established from the most positively scientific point of view. Culture is symbolic in nature. She received her symbolism from cult symbols. Spiritual life is expressed symbolically rather than realistically in culture. All cultural achievements are symbolic in nature. It does not give the latest achievements of being, but only its symbolic signs. Such is the nature of the cult, which is a prototype of realized divine mysteries” [Berdyaev 1990, 248]. At the same time, it is significant that the perception of the origins of culture in a religious cult is largely symbolic. Culture does not really, but symbolically, grow out of a religious cult.

It must be said that not only the initial stages of the formation of human culture are connected 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 made an attempt to comprehend the phenomenon of culture, argues in the same spirit. The basis of Kant's philosophy is the delimitation of 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 in spite of it, i.e. in freedom. The main thing that characterizes a person is the ability to act in accordance with the goals that he himself 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 yet mean that a person correctly applies his reason, acts reasonably in all respects. However, in any case, this ability makes possible the fact of culture. 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 the famous Kantian definition of culture: “the acquisition by a rational being of the opportunity to set any goals in general (that means, 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 mankind is not so much in physical as in moral development. With the development of culture, humanity loses as a physical race, but it wins as a moral race. Culture, understood as the development by a person of his natural inclinations, ultimately contributes to his moral development, the achievement of his moral goal. According to Kant, culture is a necessary condition for the moral perfection of man - the only possible path along which humanity can only achieve its final destination.

The history of culture begins with the emergence of mankind from the state of nature and ends with its transition to a moral state. Within these boundaries, the whole work of culture unfolds: having raised a person above nature, developing his inclinations and abilities, it must bring him into harmony with the race, curb his selfish interest, subordinate him to moral duty. The goal of culture is to transform a person from a physical being into a moral one. Culture contains the need for moral perfection, “the culture of morality in us”, which consists in “doing our duty, and moreover from a sense of duty (so that the law is not only the rule, but also the motive of the act)” [Kant 1963-1966 IV (2), 327].

According to Kant, morality is not a product of culture, but its goal given by reason. Culture can also be guided by other goals, such as outward breeding and decency. Then it appears as a civilization. The latter is based not on freedom, but on a formal discipline that regulates the behavior of people in society. It does not free a person from the power of selfishness and self-interest, but only gives him external respectability in the sense of courtesy and good manners.

Based on these features of culture, the following picture emerges. Culture is an entirely spiritual phenomenon. Therefore, in human activity, only that can be attributed to culture that has a spiritual and moral content. Culture is not any activity, not any product of activity, but only those types of activity and those products that carry goodness, goodness, morality. It is participation 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 like the work of a farmer who cultivates and cultivates the land. As the farmer cultivates the land, man transforms nature. Everything that man does is carried out on the basis of nature. He has no other material and no other medium. 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 transforming nature, culture, as a result of this transformation, acts as nature involved in the human world. Thus, man has, not only around, but also within himself, two natures: natural, proper 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 confrontation may or may not lead to opposition and antagonism. In this case, it doesn't matter. But it is clear that this particular idea of culture has led to the fact that many thinkers, both in the past and in the present, absolutizing the opposite of 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. So, in particular, the representatives of Taoism, J.Zh. Russo, L.N. Tolstoy. This position was also held by Z. Freud, who saw the cause of the origin of mental disorders and neuroses precisely in culture.

The essence of this interpretation of culture is that culture includes all created products and all types of human activities carried out. Whatever a person creates, everything is entirely the domain of culture. Whether a person creates products of a spiritual category that serve the moral growth of people, or products that corrupt human morality, all this applies equally to culture. Inventing a life-saving device or a sophisticated murder weapon is also a culture. Regardless of what is the result of human activity, good or evil - this is the field of culture. This essence of this idea of culture at the same time indicates its limitations in understanding the phenomenon of culture. And its limitations lie precisely in the fact that it is built without regard to the spiritual and moral side of being and does not affect it in any way. Meanwhile, as soon as on its basis it is possible to understand the true essence of all phenomena of human life, including culture.

These two interpretations reflect the fullness of the existence of culture. They consider in fact 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 means, of course, the essence of culture, its source, the beginning that gives rise to culture. The focus is on the origin of culture. And this principle is the spiritual principle, morality. Therefore, this position links culture with spirituality, with religion, with its transcendental foundations. And for her, the indisputable truth is that any culture keeps in itself the memory of the spiritual origin. What is meant by the second interpretation? Of course, what is implied is not the essence, but only the existence of culture, not its depths, but the surface, how 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 result of cultural activity will be. It can be both moral and immoral, both spiritualized and unspiritual. In this context, it is no longer the transcendental basis of culture that is important, but its this-side, earthly side. If the origin of culture is necessarily 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 integral 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, there is no contradiction between them on the merits of the issue under consideration, despite the fact that religiosity will indeed never be able to reconcile with atheism: but in this context, the intransigence of these initial positions remains in the background.

There is no contradiction in the fact that culture always has a spiritual origin, and its results can be unspiritual and immoral. Contradiction, antagonism are present here on the ontological plane, 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 field of understanding culture, there is no contradiction here, because this approach merely stating the current state of affairs. But this state of affairs also requires clarification and understanding. The fact is that culture, which grows from the depths of the spiritual world and determines involvement in it, endows a person, respectively, with freedom. Through culture and in culture, a person approaches the transcendent world, the spiritual source. 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 God's activity. Along with the development of culture, 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 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 conception are not the same thing. Freedom, which is a natural property of the spiritual world, for a person acquires, as it were, two characteristics: it is natural, of course, because it reflects its essence, but on the other hand it is unnatural, because it coexists with the vicious nature of man. Therefore, the freedom that a person acquires in culture is fraught with its abuse, use for evil, i.e. subjugation to its unspiritual goals. And as a result, culture appears as the face of man in general, as the face of mankind: the essence is spiritual, and in existence spirituality is intertwined with lack of spirituality; the foundation is spiritual, and the building is indifferent to spirituality. In a word, culture is what a person is. Culture is a mirror of a person. 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 negatively evaluated phenomena from the position of morality to culture has a deep philosophical meaning. For in everything that is the result of human activity, one way or another, spirituality is present. At the heart 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. The products of culture become negative as a result of the abuse of spiritual energy and its subordination to immoral goals, but the potential embodied in the works of culture is, of course, of a spiritual nature. Therefore, even in the negative phenomena of culture, spirituality is still present. But not the negative phenomena and works themselves belong 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 is a phenomenon of culture, and thanks to it all the products of human activity are related to culture. Seeing the negative side in 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 belittles, but does not destroy it. Therefore, from the point of view of the culture itself, to a certain extent, we usually overestimate the negative side of human activity. But behind it lies the spiritual side, which becomes especially visible and accessible over time. A weapon is primarily a means of killing. And in this respect it has a negative, inhuman 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 that spirit, that skill, those 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 the weapon is in the museum, its spiritual origin is revealed and exposed. In the museum, we look at weapons differently than in life. In life, because it is woven into our being, we are too biased. In the museum, a patina of negativity comes off it, and we perceive it as a work of culture. And enough time must pass so that we can unbiasedly consider the fruits of human activity, consider them as works of culture.

Thus, when negative aspects and products of human activity are attributed to culture, they are not included in its composition in its entirety. Culture includes only spirituality, which is embodied in them. They are abstracted from their own negative side in culture, they do not determine their existence in culture. As a result, it turns out that the first approach not only contradicts and not just complements, but deepens and enriches the second one, because, like the first one, it ultimately sees only one phenomenon in culture - 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 retains unity. This means that there is no contradiction between cultures, as is often imagined in our time. The opposition of cultures comes not from the cultures themselves, but from politics, which is built on confrontation. In fact, the dividing line runs between culture and lack of culture.

Dialogue presupposes, on the one hand, the separate existence of cultures, but at the same time, interpenetration and full-fledged interaction. While maintaining originality and independence, dialogue implies 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 can be different. The ideal of dialogue is not only communication, but also friendship. In friendship, the dialogue achieves its goal. Therefore, when the dialogue, which usually begins with formal communication, rises to the level of friendly communication, one can speak of a full-fledged interaction of cultures.

Culture as such is a measure of the freedom of society. Therefore, the dialogue of cultures is the way to expand freedom in culture. Freedom is a movement in depth, to the spiritual foundations, it is a manifestation of the freedom of the spirit. But depth also creates opportunities for breadth. Depth provides breadth, but breadth is the premise of 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, it is not so much dialogue that is important as the culture of dialogue. For dialogue - interaction - is always going on. Cultures somehow interact and penetrate each other. This is a natural historical process that can proceed without the will of man. However, the highest manifestation of culture is the attitude towards another culture. And it is precisely this that develops and spiritualizes culture itself, elevates and ennobles a person as a bearer of culture. Attitude towards a foreign culture is an indicator of the development of the culture itself. This is needed not so much by a foreign culture as by one's own. The culture of attitude towards a foreign culture is part of the culture itself.

LITERATURE

Berdyaev 1990 - Berdyaev N. Philosophy of inequality. Moscow: IMA-press, 1990.
Bibler 1990 - Bibler V.S. From science to the logic of culture: Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990.
Bibler 1991 - Bibler V.S. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics and Culture. Moscow: Progress, 1991.
Kant 1963–1966 – Kant I. Works. in 6 vols. M.: Thought, 1963–1966.
Lebedev 2004 – Lebedev S.A. Philosophy of Science: A Dictionary of Basic Terms. Moscow: 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 writings on Russian and world culture. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 2006.
Mezhuev 1987 – Mezhuev V.M. Culture as a problem of philosophy // Culture, man and picture of the world. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.
Melikov 2010 – Melikov I.M. Culture as the embodiment of the content of social life // Uchenye zapiski RGSU. M., 2010. No. 3. S. 17–25.
Fatykhova 2009 – Fatykhova R.M. Culture as dialogue and dialogue in culture // Bulletin of VEGU. 2009. No. 1(39). pp. 35–61.
Frank 1992 – Frank S.L. Spiritual foundations of society. M.: Respublika, 1992.

State educational institution higher professional education

Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin

abstract

In the discipline "Culturology"

Topic: Dialogue of cultures in the modern world .

Is done by a student

Group No. MO-309

Specialty "Management"

organizations"

Kiseleva Evgenia Vladimirovna

checked

Teacher

St. Petersburg

Introduction

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

2. The idea of a dialogue of cultures

3. Interaction, mutual enrichment, interrelation of cultures.

4. Problems of dialogical relations.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The whole history of mankind is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our whole life. In its reality, it is a means of implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is inter-ethnic tension in a society, and even more so, inter-ethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. The processes of interaction of cultures are more complex than it was once naively believed that 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. Now the question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is being actively explored. According to Danilevsky, cultures develop separately and are initially hostile to each other. He saw the “spirit of the people” as the basis of all these differences. “Dialogue is communication with culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the way of appropriating the latter, the possibility of relieving political tension 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 an understanding of one's "I" and communication with others. It is universal and the universality of the dialogue is universally recognized. Dialogue presupposes active interaction of equal subjects. The interaction of cultures and civilizations also implies some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere 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 dialogical relations. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. The 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 its relationship with the environment, on 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 exchange of knowledge, experience, assessments is necessary condition the existence of culture. When creating cultural objectivity, a person “turns into an object” his spiritual powers and abilities. And when mastering cultural wealth, a person “de-objectifies”, 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. The dialogue of cultures is a form of interaction, understanding and evaluation of cultural objectivity and is at the center of the cultural process.

The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures that exist within the framework of their 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 the Eastern civilization by the Western civilization, the penetration of the Western civilization into the Eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries, the need to ensure normal living conditions for the population of the globe have exacerbated the problem of modernizing traditional civilizations. However, attempts at modernization had disastrous consequences for traditional Islamic cultures.

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

Any phenomenon of culture is comprehended by people in the context of the current state of society, which can greatly change its meaning. Culture retains relatively unchanged only its external side, while its spiritual richness contains the possibility of infinite development. This opportunity is realized by the activity of a person who is able to enrich and actualize those unique meanings that he discovers in cultural phenomena. This indicates a constant renewal in the process of cultural dynamics.

At the same time, culture is distinguished by the integrity of all its structural elements, which is ensured by its systemic nature, the presence of a hierarchy, and the subordination of values. The most important integration mechanism of culture is tradition. The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as a "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 are given by the linkage internal principles. Identity reflects the originality and uniqueness, due to the relative independence and isolation of the development of culture. 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 socio-cultural process of each society.

2. The idea of a dialogue of cultures

The idea of a dialogue of cultures is based on the priority of universal human values. Culture does not tolerate like-mindedness and like-mindedness, it is dialogic in nature and essence. It is known that K. Levi-Strauss has always resolutely opposed everything that can lead to the destruction of differences between people, between cultures, violate their diversity and uniqueness. He was for the preservation of the unique characteristics of each individual culture. Lévi-Strauss, in Race and Culture (1983), argues that "...integral communication with another culture kills...creative originality on both sides." Dialogue is the most important methodological principle of understanding culture. Through dialogue to knowledge. The essential characteristics of culture are manifested in dialogue. In a broader sense, dialogue can also be viewed 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 of people and cultures, the formation of linguistic forms took place, creative thought developed. Dialogue takes place in space and time, permeates cultures vertically and horizontally.

In the fact of culture there is the being of man and his practice. All. There is nothing more. A meeting between civilizations is always, in essence, a meeting between different types of spirituality or even different realities. A full meeting implies a dialogue. To enter into a worthy dialogue with representatives of non-European cultures, it is necessary to know and understand these cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, “sooner or later, the dialogue with the ‘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 the language of culture, capable of expressing human realities and spiritual values. Such a dialogue is inevitable; he is inscribed in the fate of history. It would be tragically naive to believe that it can be carried on indefinitely on the mental level, as it is happening 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 property of all mankind, as a historical result of the interaction of peoples. Dialogue is a true form of interethnic communication, which implies both the mutual enrichment of national cultures and the preservation of their identity. Human culture is like a tree with many branches. The culture of the people can flourish only when the common human culture flourishes. Therefore, taking care of the national, ethnic culture, one should be very concerned about the level of human culture, which is united and diverse. United - in the sense of including the diversity of historical and national cultures. Each national culture is original and unique. Her contribution to the universal cultural fund is unique and unrepeatable. The core of each culture is its ideal. The historical process of the formation and development of culture cannot be correctly understood without taking into account the interaction, mutual influence, and mutual enrichment of cultures.

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

ESSAY

in the discipline "Culturology"

Dialogue of cultures in the 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 implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures and civilizations presupposes some common cultural values.

In the modern world, it becomes more and more obvious that humanity is developing along the path of expanding the interconnection and interdependence of various countries, peoples and their cultures. Today, all ethnic communities are affected by both the cultures of other peoples and the wider social environment that exists in individual regions and in the world as a whole. This was expressed in the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between state institutions, social groups, social movements and individual individuals different countries and cultures. The expansion of interaction between cultures and peoples makes especially topical issue about cultural identity and cultural differences. The trend towards the preservation of cultural identity confirms the general pattern that humanity, 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 context of 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 links a culture has with other cultures or with each other, the higher it rises.

1 . DiA log of cultures in the modern world

The exchange of knowledge, experience, assessments is a necessary condition for the existence of culture. When creating cultural objectivity, a person “turns into an object” his spiritual powers and abilities. And when mastering cultural wealth, a person “de-objectifies”, 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. The dialogue of cultures is a form of interaction, understanding and evaluation of cultural objectivity and is at the center of the cultural process.

The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures that exist within the framework of their common civilization. The interaction of European and non-European cultures can be carried out in different ways. It can take place in the form of mutual promotion of development; assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another or both interacting cultures suppress each other, i.e. 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, the need to ensure normal living conditions for the population of the globe have exacerbated the problem of modernizing traditional civilizations.

While retaining 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

The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as a “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 cohesion of internal principles. Identity reflects the originality and uniqueness, due to the relative independence and isolation of the development of culture. 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 socio-cultural process of each society.

2 . Intercultural interaction in modern society

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

The process of interaction of cultures, leading to their unification, arouses in some nations the desire for cultural self-affirmation and the desire to preserve their own cultural values. A number of states and cultures demonstrate their categorical rejection of the ongoing cultural changes. To the process of opening cultural borders, they oppose 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 mentioned processes, to one degree or another, have found their manifestation in Russia as well. The reforms of the society led to serious changes in the cultural image of Russia. A completely new type of business culture is emerging, a new idea of social responsibility business world in front of the client and society, the life of society as a whole is changing.

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

Interaction is carried out at different levels and by different groups of carriers of the respective cultures.

The subjects of intercultural interaction can be divided into three groups:

1 figures of science and culture, interacting in order to learn a foreign culture and acquaint them with their own;

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

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

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

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than communication itself, in others - on the contrary.

The term worldview is usually used to refer to a concept of reality shared by a culturally or ethnically distinct 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 commonality 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 forms his worldview. Despite the difference between the individuals themselves, culture in their minds is made up of generally accepted elements and elements, the difference of which is permissible. The rigidity or flexibility of culture is determined by the relationship of the worldviews of individual individuals with the worldview of society.

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. But the mastery of cult knowledge contributes to the improvement of intercultural communication.

The worldview defines such categories as humanity, good and evil, state of mind, the role of time and fate, the properties of physical bodies and natural resources. The interpretation of this definition includes cult beliefs about various forces associated with the events that occur daily and with the rituals observed. For example, many eastern peoples 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 hardships.

Western Kentucky University's graduate school conducted a test that consisted of a single question: "If your half-brother commits a wrongful act, would you report it to law enforcement?" Americans and representatives of Western European countries answered in the affirmative, considering it their civic duty to notify law enforcement agencies. Against were the only representative of Russia (Ossetians by nationality) and two Mexicans. One of the Mexicans was outraged at the very possibility of raising such a question, about which he was not slow to speak out. Unlike the Americans and Europeans, he perceived the denunciation of his own brother as the height of a moral fall. To the credit of Dr. Cecilia Harmon, who conducted the test, the incident was over. She explained that neither answer was good or bad in and of itself. Both must be taken in the context of the culture that the respondent 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, is responsible for his actions. The problem is solved collectively, while the one who breaks 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 are doing everything possible to regain their good name.

In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than communication itself, in others - on the contrary. The former have a specific worldview that reduces all questions 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, the relationship is valued more 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, there may be cultures in which no goal, even the most important, can rise above a person.

Any worldview that has developed in a particular culture is autonomous and adequate in the sense that it is a link between opinion and reality, opening a view of reality as something experienced and accepted. Worldview contains a set of beliefs, concepts, ordered understanding social structures and moral foundations, 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 culture and is conditioned by its principles.

No matter how the circumstances develop in this case, representatives of different cultures, being in the process of interaction, inevitably experience certain psychological inconveniences. The driving force behind 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 learning or adaptation process. The dominant group intentionally or unintentionally imposes change, while the other group voluntarily or not accepts it.

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 of the whole world. The whole world is connected by one economic chain, the deterioration of the situation in one country will not leave other countries indifferent. Each participant in the world economy is interested in the well-being of the whole world. But on the other hand, the inhabitants of many closed countries are simply not ready for such a sharp foreign cultural invasion, and conflicts as a result of this are inevitable.

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

The main obstacle to the successful solution of this problem is that we perceive other cultures through the prism of our own culture, so our observations and conclusions are limited to its framework. FROM 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, as it is an unconscious process. This leads to the conclusion that effective intercultural communication cannot arise on its own, it needs to be purposefully studied.

Conclusion

No nation can exist and develop in isolation from its neighbors. The closest communication between neighboring ethnicities takes place at the junction of ethnic territories, where ethno-cultural ties acquire the greatest intensity. 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 the development of human culture have been at ethnic crossroads - zones where the traditions of different peoples collided and were mutually enriched. The dialogue of cultures is interethnic, international contacts. The dialogue of neighboring cultures is an important factor in the regulation of interethnic relations.

In the process of interaction of several cultures, it becomes possible comparative assessment achievements, their value and likelihood of borrowing. The nature of the interaction of cultures of peoples is influenced not only by the level of development of each of them, but also by specific socio-historical conditions, as well as 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 growing. International cultural dialogue enhances mutual understanding between peoples, makes it possible to better understand one's own national image. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever before, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans. In 1997, 5 million Americans began to actively engage in yoga, the ancient Chinese health gymnastics. Even the 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 rapprochement and interaction of the two cultural models is also taking place in the field of the food industry (healing green tea). If earlier it seemed that the cultures of East and West did not intersect mutually, then today, more than ever, there have been points of contact and mutual influence. It is 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 the native. From the native to the universal, the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case the dialogue will be fruitful. Participating in the dialogue of cultures, one must know not only one's own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.

List useoh literature

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

allowance Phoenix, 2008

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

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Methods of managing environmental risks at the enterprise. Environmental risks at enterprises

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

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 implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures and civilizations presupposes some common cultural values.

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.

1 . DiA log of cultures in the modern world

3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than communication itself, in others - on the contrary.

The difference in worldviews is one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. But the mastery of cult knowledge contributes to the improvement of intercultural communication.

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

Conclusion

List useoh literature

Similar Documents

Read also on the topic: