General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture. Trends in the development of culture What are the main trends in the development of culture in society?

1. The concept of “culture” is one of the most frequently used in modern humanitarian knowledge. It came to European languages from Latin (cultura - cultivation, education, development, veneration). In the broadest sense, culture is what is created by man, it is the entire set of products of human activity, forms of socio-political organization of society, spiritual processes, human states and types of his activities. Thus, culture includes and unites objectified, “frozen” human activity, the results of the “cultivation” of reality and “living” - the very life of humanity, the current process of cultivation, cultivation of reality.

Culture can be defined as the level of development of man and society, reflected in the material and spiritual values they create, as well as the very process of people’s creative activity.

The concept of “culture” is actively used by social sciences and humanities in the 20th century, which is accompanied by the development of a myriad of definitions of culture, of which we will pay attention to the two most laconic: culture is “second nature” (K. Marx) and culture is “not nature” (E. Markaryan). In both the first and second cases, the question of the relationship between culture and nature is raised and in some way resolved. The “first” nature is the most important condition for the emergence of the “second” nature. But, arising on the basis of nature, starting from it, culture changes it, isolating itself, gaining independence. The study of the long and gradual process of isolation of culture from nature, the growth of culture from nature allows us to deeply analyze the history of the development of society.

The specificity of the sociological approach to culture is the analysis of the relationship between culture and social development: with the stages of development of civilization, with shifts in the formational state of society, with ethnic evolution, with the development of relations between all major social actors. At the same time, not only is culture considered as a whole, as a single system, but its differentiation is explored, conditioned by the diversity of forms of social life - the cultures of various social subjects are distinguished: national cultures, class cultures, cultures of different generations, different types of settlements, etc.

Culture is a holistic phenomenon formed from the infinite variety of cultures of various social subjects included in it. At the same time, the ways of interaction, dialogue or conflict of these “subcultures” within the “big” culture are especially important for sociology. Analysis of this problem allows us to identify two vectors in the development of relations between cultures of classes, ethnic groups, generations, genders, city and rural residents: in the direction of self-isolation, isolation and in the direction of rapprochement. These trends have been traced in most detail in the study of national cultures by modern sociology, which is reflected in the design of alternative sociological directions - linear evolutionism and the cultural-historical school.

One of the central problems of cultural development - the interaction of tradition and innovation - is reflected in the interaction of urban and rural culture; the problem of elite and mass culture, considered from the point of view of sociology, is refracted in the problem of dialogue between the culture of people engaged in mental work and the culture of people engaged in physical labor; the problem of the historical development of culture, the change of styles in it is reflected in the sociological analysis of the dialogue of cultures of different generations, the process of emergence, formation of the “counterculture” of the younger generation and the gradual absorption of the most significant phenomena of this counterculture by the “big” culture, which ensures the continuity of the cultural-historical process.

At one or another stage of sociocultural development, first one or another subsystem within a culture can be updated. But sociological analysis shows that all subsystems are necessary and in this sense are equivalent for the development of culture. The role of every ethnic group, every generation, every class in culture is eternal.

It is customary to divide culture into material and spiritual, according to the two main types of labor and methods of human cultivation of reality - physical and mental.

Usually, material culture is understood as the sphere of material activity and her results (tools, housing, everyday items, clothing, means of transport and communication, etc.). The concept of “spiritual culture” is used to designate the sphere of consciousness, spiritual production (cognition, morality, education, law, science, art, literature, religion, ideology, mythology); spiritual culture can be defined as the level of development of man and society, reflected in the created by them spiritual values, as well as the process of creative activity of people. Physical effort allows the phenomenon of culture to take on flesh and materialize. Spiritual efforts determine the style of cultivating reality, developing measures and criteria for the culturality or unculturedness of human actions.

Culture cannot exist outside of society without relying on its certain economic level of development and on a system of legal norms. At the same time, its core is spiritual activity, reproduced in three main forms: science, art, morality. The entire “great” culture can be considered as a result of the development of this “core”, as the objectification of new achievements of science, art, morality and their reproducing traditional forms. It is necessary to pay special attention to the last point in order to optimize the process of foreseeing the prospects for the development of the sociocultural process. The reproduction in culture of religious, national, caste and other stereotypes of behavior, not only rational, but also irrational symbols and attributes of social activity is the empirical reality that is most difficult to take into account and is often overlooked when designing social changes. Ignoring the spiritual and cultural values of social life most often ultimately determines the collapse of attempts to reform society. It was these realities that thwarted the plans of the Stolypin reform in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the most left-radical projects for transforming society (“war communism” in Russia, Maoism in China, etc.) and others

attempts to “leap” over existing cultural and historical development paradigms. We are seeing something similar today.

In this regard, it seems appropriate to consider the basic sociological concepts of culture from the point of view of the interaction of “cultural” and “social”.

A significant role in overcoming illusions regarding the omnipotence of reason in the reproduction of the sociocultural process and in the formation of historical sociology was played by V. Dilthey, who considered the spiritual and mental integrity of being, culture as “spirit,” to be almost identical to life itself. The special “spiritual world” inherent in each culture and era determines, according to Dilthey, social activity by the totality of meaning-forming factors contained in it.

O. Spengler agrees with Dilthey on this issue, who emphasized that the “spiritual world,” being imprinted in the forms of economic, political, religious and artistic life, creates a cultural and historical era and distinguishes it as an integrity from another.

It should be noted the special merits of Russian philosophical and sociological thought in the study of culture as a social phenomenon. Neo-Kantian ideas in Russian sociology, developed by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, B. A. Kistyakovsky, P. I. Novgorodtsev, P. B. Struve and others, brought to the forefront of social cognition the understanding of the spiritual and ethical foundations of society that determine specificity of the social world. The position of the “national spirit” (national self-awareness or national character) as the most important factor in socio-historical development was consistently defended in Russian social thought.

The idea of cultural and value-based conditioning of social processes was, in a certain sense, a “common denominator” for most Russian thinkers, and the theme of Russian socio-cultural civilizational uniqueness became one of the leading ones in the works of N. A. Berdyaev (“Soul of Russia”, etc.), I. A. Ilyin (“The Path of Spiritual Renewal”), S. L. Frank (“Russian Worldview”), N. O. Lossky (“Character of the Russian People”), I. A. Solonevich (“People’s Monarchy”) and in a number of works other major researchers.

E. Durkheim and M. Weber made their contribution to the formulation of the problem of culture as a social phenomenon.

Durkheim defined culture as “the collective or common consciousness.” The latter has, from his point of view, specific features that transform this “consciousness” into a special reality: a set of beliefs and feelings that are common mainly to the same society.

The author of understanding sociology, M. Weber, believed that it is impossible to “understand” the behavior of social subjects without comprehending the “meaning” of his behavior experienced by the subject himself. According to Weber, the primary reality of society is culture, which can manifest itself both in social structures such as family, state, and in spiritual forms - religion, art, science. Culture, unlike technological civilization, is emotional, personal, and socially orients the subject. Weber emphasized that the “intended meaning” of real behavior in the overwhelming majority of cases is vaguely or not realized at all by the actor himself.

Speaking about the concepts of culture, one cannot ignore the socio-psychological scheme of 3. Freud, according to which three levels of the psyche are distinguished: “It” - the concentration of the unconscious (instincts, drives, repressed ideas and images), striving to break out of its “basements”; “I” is the concentration of our consciousness, which carries out the functions of suppression and sublimation of the unconscious; “Super-ego” is the concentration of conscience, norms and values, “the representative of society in the psyche.” According to Freud, culture is a dynamic system that performs a kind of feedback function between the individual and society both along the line “unconscious - conscious - normative-value - social-behavioral” and in the opposite direction (adjustment of behavior - revaluation of values, revision of norms - repression of patterns and ideas into the unconscious). From Freud's point of view, the preservation of the past in mental life is the rule rather than the exception.

A unique approach to the problem of interaction between culture and society, reflecting the stylistic features of the culture of the 20th century, was developed in the theory of I. Huizinga, which considers play as the most important source and way of existence of culture. Huizinga places not only art, but also science, everyday life, jurisprudence, and military art into the “playing space.” He shows that the ability to play is deeply connected with culture, which is opposed by the denial of play, gloomy seriousness based on the lack of imagination, the idea of relativity, temporality, and fragility. At the same time, true culture requires a balance of gaming and non-game principles.

Let us highlight the main functions of culture in society, which coincide with the classification of the main types and forms of human activity:

Practical-transformative - the needs of human practice bring to life certain cultural changes as a condition for the development of society;

Cognitive - studying the mechanism of interaction between culture and society with the help of all forms of cultural development and, first of all, science, accumulation and transmission of information, maintaining continuity, historical and social memory;

Value-oriented - the development of norms regulating social behavior, including political, legal, moral, aesthetic, religious ideals and behavioral stereotypes;

Communicative - exchange of information, communication, development of generally accepted attributes of behavior;

The function of socialization is the inclusion of the individual in the sociocultural process.

A constant source of development and reproduction of culture is the interaction of people, which makes it important to analyze the functional connection between personality and culture.

2. The role of the individual in the development of culture is a special, always actively discussed issue. Man is a “cell” of a cultural organism, the result of cultivation and the creator of culture. On the one hand, a person cannot bring the ultimate truth into culture, “cultivate” reality to perfection, to the absolute; on the other hand, the activity of an individual is always significant, never indifferent to culture, and can creatively develop or deform culture in all its forms.

For the sociological theory of culture, it is important to clarify the different content and individual significance levels of a person’s relationship with culture (culturality), to which certain levels of individual consciousness must correspond.

An individual’s cultural level can be high or low depending on how fully and harmoniously the subject has mastered culture in its traditional and innovative forms. Culture is a complex phenomenon; it is a complex system. Therefore, a high level of mastery of culture presupposes a systematic, rather than fragmentary, mastery of it. “By retreating from primitive elementarity,” a person becomes cultured. Therefore, in concept difficulties, as V.V. Rozanov noted, there is an external definition of culture, and its internal meaning is in the concept cult.“A cultured person is one who not only carries some kind of cult within himself, but who is also complex, that is, not simple, not monotonous in his ideas, in his feelings, in his aspirations, and finally, in his skills and the whole way of life.”

What appears, according to Rozanov, as the internal meaning of culture - a cult, or the internal and special attention of an individual to something, a preference for something over everything else - is gradually formed in the individual. It focuses on a person’s worldview, a way of seeing the semantic essence of the surrounding world and one’s own place in it. It arises under the influence of the general stylistic features of culture as a historical integrity, which determine the individual’s possible approaches to the objective world. The process of changing such approaches - discernment, contemplation, observation - was considered by S. S. Averintsev. Thus, the cultural personality of the ancient world was characterized by a spectacular approach. Contemplation becomes the dominant feature of medieval culture. Then this type of culture exhausts itself. Observation and, as a consequence of this, a practical-experimental approach to culture become a factor in the uniqueness of modern human culture. The cultural character of a person, his cult, arises under the direct influence of the sociocultural semantic field of the era, which determines the hierarchy of values and objects of possible cult.

However, let us return to the “external” level of a person’s culture, directly related to the problem of complexity and multivariance of his behavior in society. Individual culture presupposes the role correlation of the individual with the culture, connecting his most important life needs with the norms and values enshrined in the social institutions of society. The concept of role is one of the central ones in the empirical research of sociologists. However, the content of the role characterizes not so much the personality itself, the level of its mastery of culture, but rather the social system in which the person functions. One of the most important problems of self-realization of an individual in the sociocultural process is the problem of resolving contradictions that arise between an individual’s worldview, his basic spiritual values and the requirements of his social roles, and stereotypes of behavior of an individual as a member of various social groups and processes. A cultured person finds in each case a unique way out that allows him to avoid extremes: either a complete rejection of “indulging in conventions” in order to maintain the purity of the cult, or absolute ideological relativism, which allows one to be guided only by considerations of momentary gain or convenience.

The framework of “appropriate” behavior in a particular role, in a particular social group can be perceived and considered by a cultured person not so much as a “Procrustean bed” limiting the freedom of self-realization, but as a disciplining factor that allows one to be included in the process of cultural creation not from scratch, but relying on established, established mechanisms for supporting the creative activity of the individual by society.

In the modern world, the problem of reflecting and recreating culture by an individual is also complicated because it involves mastering not only roles, but also what can be called “inter-role”, “marginal” behavior. A person increasingly finds himself not in one culture or another (national, class, generation, gender, territorial settlement group), but between cultures. Social differentiation in modern society is dynamic and rapidly transforming; Along with the globalization of social life, individualization and focus on the individual are also developing. Therefore, in an effort to be cultured, a person increasingly cannot rely on an established stereotype, take advantage of an already prescribed role, and is forced to create a relatively new pattern of behavior that corresponds to his worldview, on the one hand, and his non-trivial social status, on the other.

3. The current state of culture causes reasonable concern. One of the global problems in the development of society is the erosion of spiritual culture, which arises as a result of 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, aggravating the situation of “loss of meaning” in culture.

Overcoming the crisis and preserving culture are based on the main trends of its self-development and evolution.

Culture is an open system, i.e. . it is not completed, it continues to develop and interact with non-culture. Therefore, to begin with, let us pay attention to the external trend in the development of culture.

Culture is “not nature”; it arose and develops in interaction with nature. Their relationship was not easy. Gradually emerging from the power of natural forces, man - the creator of culture - made of his creation an instrument, an instrument for conquering and subjugating nature. However, as soon as power over earthly nature began to be concentrated in the hands of people, the most perspicacious of them came to the conclusion that, along with nature, culture, within which negative processes arose, fell into slavery to the power of human labor. Having changed the attitude towards oneself as part of nature to the attitude towards nature as a “stranger”, man found himself in a difficult situation. After all, he and his body are inseparable from nature, which has become “alien” to culture. Therefore, man forced himself to make a choice between nature and culture. Started in the 18th century. J.-J. Rousseau’s criticism of culture in some concepts was carried to the point of its complete denial, the idea of “natural anti-culture” of man was put forward, and culture itself was interpreted as a means of his suppression and enslavement (F. Nietzsche). 3. Freud viewed culture as a mechanism of social suppression and sublimation of unconscious mental processes. And all this at a time when humanity was actively creating ways to suppress nature.

The confrontation between culture and nature has not disappeared today. However, there is a tendency to overcome it. The idea of the noosphere - the future kingdom of Reason, Goodness, Beauty - revealed in the teachings of V.I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin is finding an increasingly wider response. As one of the attributes of the development of culture, the principle of conformity to nature is recognized, based on the mutually mediated ideas of culture’s responsibility to nature, on the one hand, and the relative freedom of the “second nature” from the “first”, artificial from the natural, a certain inevitable distance of sociocultural and biological processes - from another.

The main patterns of internal development of culture are closely intertwined with the external trend of cultural development, the evolution of its relations with nature.

One of the main trends in the internal development of culture is associated with a change in the balance of physical and mental expenditure of human energy in favor of the latter. Since the middle of the 20th century. Thanks to the use of scientific and technological advances, the need for hard physical labor began to sharply decrease. Human physical efforts play an increasingly smaller role in the reproduction of the sociocultural process. Culture, thus, increasingly defines itself as a product of the creativity of the human spirit, mind, soul. The value of spiritual efforts in this regard will steadily increase. And if previously natural science knowledge was often considered as a criterion for the progressiveness of culture, now its parity with humanitarian knowledge will be gradually restored.

Another internal trend in the evolution of culture is the transition from confrontation of “local”, “group”, “subjective” cultures to their dialogue. The 20th century introduced intense drama and a tragic sense of irreparable loss into the understanding of the cultural process. The idea of discontinuity of culture and incomparability of cultures is most consistently embodied in the concept of O. Spengler. The perception of the cultures of individual social subjects as “sealed organisms” is based on the belief that each culture grows out of its own unique “proto-phenomenon” - a way of “experiencing life.” If in the theory of cultural-historical types and cultural circles this approach is used when analyzing relations between cultures of different ethnic groups, then in left- and right-wing radical doctrines it is used when comparing cultures of different classes (the theory of “two cultures” in a class society), and in the teaching of “new left” and then “right” - from the same positions the relations between the “new” counterculture and the “old” culture are characterized. Thus, within the framework of the sociology of economic determinism, the carriers of incompatible, mutually exclusive cultures are classes, for the “new” ones - youth and the older generation. Conflict, mutual misunderstanding and rejection of cultures are seen as an absolute inevitability.

However, the current situation in the sociocultural process demonstrates the futility and even disastrousness of the position of mutual ignorance of cultures. The need for the integrity of culture is comprehended “by contradiction” - through the awareness of the impossibility of its further existence in the form of a conglomerate of cultures.

Another important trend in the evolution of culture can be expressed as overcoming the conflict (while maintaining contradiction) between traditional culture and innovative culture. This trend is embodied in the culture of postmodernism.

No matter how conventional the designation of entire eras in the cultural life of society with the concepts of “classicism” or “modernism” is, it allows us to see how discontinuous culture is perceived in a given period.

At the beginning of the 20th century. The “modern” style established itself in culture. Modernism - the desire to reflect reality and especially culture in a new way as “not nature”, as an unnatural, artificial, pure, refined phenomenon - has permeated all spheres of spiritual life and, first of all, art and the humanities. Non-triviality, unconventionality and anti-traditionality are considered within the framework of this style as identical concepts. Gradually, what was modernism was partially included in the tradition, from which the avant-garde of culture carefully distanced itself. However, in the search for forms and meanings that are not in contact with what already existed in culture (and therefore old and unnecessary), the avant-garde led itself into the dead end of the absurd - tuneless music, non-representative painting, non-explanatory science, ideology that serves not self-preservation, but self-destruction a subject of ideology that breaks with the tradition of mythology. The natural need of the creator of culture to express the absurdity and disharmony of the world is satisfied in such a way that it leads to a deepening of the absurd.

In a culture filled with cacaphony, the need for silence is increasingly felt, which is sometimes defined as the only thing that is still missing “to replenish the golden fund of cultural values of humanity.”

Gradually, “silence” leads to calm, once-burned bridges to traditional culture are restored, and values acquired and developed by the cultures of previous eras reappear in a modern-enriched form. The broken connection of times is being restored, and once again it is revealed that “manuscripts do not burn.”

Contemporary postmodern culture is a culture that painfully but steadily overcomes the gap between the old and the new, the created and the created. Its fabric is saturated with “signs”, symbols of culture; it develops a “consensus” of desires to preserve tradition and keep up with the times.

Finally, the last of the identified trends in the evolution of culture at the present stage reflects the process of change in personality as a subject of culture. The diversity of culture from the external personality becomes internal, turns into the most important characteristic of its internal life.

The creation of modern culture by an individual presupposes its distance from both attempts to abandon the desire for integrity and from a false imitation of integrity. Internal contradiction and the desire to resolve it are the natural state of the spiritual life of the individual as a subject of culture. The one-dimensional person is replaced by a person who perceives contradiction not as a tragedy, but as a stimulus for the unfolding of the creative process.

Self-test questions

1. Define culture.

2. What are the specifics of material and spiritual culture? What is the essence of the social functions of culture?

3. What is the role of culture in the formation and development of the spiritual life of society?

4. How are changes in culture and changes in the structure of society related?

5. What key points can be identified in the process of cultural diffusion? Why do we say that any cultural pattern is a product of collective creativity? Determine your opinion about the role of the individual in the development of culture.

6. What is the current state of culture? What are the main trends in its development?

Modern Russian culture of the 21st century requires multilateral and in-depth consideration. It is in close contact with the past centuries. Its current state of culture is directly related to accumulated experience. Perhaps outwardly she somewhat denies him, to some extent even plays with him. Next, we will take a closer look at the current state of culture in Russia.

General information

The culture of modern Russia is part of the global one. She transforms, recycles and absorbs new trends. Thus, in order to trace the development of culture in modern Russia, you need to pay attention to world phenomena as a whole.

Today's situation

Nowadays problems are of paramount importance. First of all, we are talking about a powerful factor in social development. Culture permeates every aspect of human life. This applies both to the basics of material production and needs, and to the greatest manifestations of the human spirit. The culture of modern Russia is exerting an increasing influence on the solution of program goals. In particular, this concerns the construction of a rule of law state, the disclosure of human creative abilities, strengthening and culture in modern Russia has an impact on many areas. This applies to personality, lifestyle, thinking, leisure, everyday life, work, and so on. There is a special institute - the Department of Culture. Depending on the status, they resolve and coordinate certain issues. As for its social influence, it is, first of all, a necessary aspect of the activity of a social person. That is, it is observed to be regulated by certain rules that are accumulated in traditions, symbolic and sign systems, and new trends.

Main difficulties

Today, the development of culture in modern Russia is associated with a number of issues. They were set by the life of society itself. Currently, all guidelines are aimed at something qualitatively new. Thus, there is a sharp change in the understanding of innovative and traditional trends in social development. On the one hand, they are required in order to deeply master the cultural heritage. On the other hand, it is necessary to be able to go beyond the usual ideas that have already become obsolete. The Culture Department must also undergo corresponding reorganization changes. It is also necessary to overcome a number of reactionary traditions. They have been planted and developed over centuries. These traditions manifested themselves in the consciousness, behavior and activities of people constantly. To adequately address these issues, it is necessary to understand how culture develops in modern Russia.

Impact of progress

The emergence of the modern world has contributed to significant changes in human consciousness. People's views are turned to the limits of life. Self-awareness becomes a trend. The focus on one's own historical and cultural forms has resumed. The future is seen primarily in the processes of expanding international relations. All countries must be involved in the global cultural and historical process. Significant social changes have occurred. Questions about the identity and peculiarities of Russian culture come to the fore.

Information about general trends

What features of the culture of modern Russia can be seen now? There is a range of certain problems. In the foreground are innovation and traditions in the cultural space. Thanks to the stable side of the latter, the transmission and accumulation of human experience from a historical point of view occurs. As for traditional societies, here the assimilation of culture is carried out through the worship of past models. Within traditions, of course, there may be minor variations. In this case, they represent the basis for the functioning of culture. From the point of view of innovation, creativity is greatly hampered.

Progressive and reactionary tendencies

Creating a culture out of nowhere is not possible. Previous traditions cannot be completely discarded. The question of attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only its preservation, but also development in general. In this case we are talking about creativity. Here the universal organic merges with the unique. The culture of the peoples of Russia, or rather its values, are undeniable. There is a need to distribute them. Cultural creativity is a source of innovation. It is involved in the process of general development. Here one can see a reflection of a wide range of opposing trends of the historical era.

Features of the structure

What is culture in modern Russia now? Briefly examining its content, it can be noted that it is divided into several different areas:

Religion.
All forms in which the national spirit manifests itself.
Art.
Technique.
The science.
Legal proceedings.
Socio-political structure.
The character of the army.
Economy.
Setting up education.
Nature of work, settlements, clothing.
Writing and language.
Customs.
Manners.

In this case, the history of culture is of paramount importance for understanding the level of its development.

Modern realities

Nowadays culture finds its embodiment in a variety of created spiritual and material phenomena and values. This applies to new elements such as:

Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the cultural sphere is not homogeneous. The fact is that each component has common boundaries - both chronological and geographical. The culture of the peoples of Russia, in particular its identity, is inseparable. She is in constant interaction. There is a dialogue between many distinctive cultures. Interaction takes place not only in the present tense. It also touches on the past-future axis.

Main differences

Distinction and culture took place already in the 20th century. The latter, as before, is filled with positive meaning. As for civilization, it has a neutral characteristic. In some cases, a direct negative “sound” can be traced. Civilization is synonymous with material structure. We are talking about a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature. This is a powerful technological advance. It certainly contributes to the achievement of material wealth. Civilization in most cases is associated with the development of technology. This can be used for a wide variety of purposes. At the same time, culture came as close as possible to spiritual progress.

Features of development

The formation of a new image of culture is one of the most interesting moments. As for the traditional vision of world heritage, it is primarily associated with organic and historical integrity. The new image of culture boasts many associations. This concerns ideas, on the one hand, of the universal ethical paradigm, and on the other, of a cosmic scale. In addition, a new type of interaction is being formed. It is expressed in the rejection of a simplified rational scheme for solving cultural problems. Nowadays, understanding other people's points of view is becoming more important. The same can be said for the following:

If we take into account this logic of cultural communications, it is easy to understand that the principles of action will be appropriate.

Turning points

We'll talk about the early 90s. last century. The national culture of Russia is still influenced by that period. Events developed under the influence of many factors. There was an accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR. Many national divisions were formed for which the values of the overall culture of the Soviet Union turned out to be unacceptable. This also applied to traditions. There was also a sharp contrast between different national cultures. In this regard, tension grew. As a result, the single sociocultural space disintegrated. The system, which was previously organically connected with the previous history of the country, found itself in a new economic and political situation. A lot has changed dramatically. This also concerns the relationship between authorities and culture. The state was no longer going to dictate its terms. Thus, the culture lost its guaranteed customers.

Ways for further development

The common core of culture has disappeared. Its further development became the subject of heated debate. The range of searches was very wide. This is a huge number of options - from an apology for isolationism to following the models of the West. There was virtually no unified cultural idea. A certain part of society perceived this situation as a deep crisis. This is what Russian culture came to at the end of the 20th century. At the same time, some believe that pluralism is the natural norm of a civilized society.

Positive points

The spiritual culture of modern Russia is closely interconnected with the elimination of ideological barriers of that period. The fact is that this provided favorable opportunities for its development. However, during this process there was some loss of national characteristics. This was due to the economic crisis that the country was experiencing and the difficult transition to market relations. In the mid-90s it was in a stage of acute crisis. The country's desire for market development was a priority. Thus, certain spheres of culture simply could not exist without state support. The gap between mass and elite forms continued to deepen. The same applied to the older generation and youth. The unevenness of access to the consumption of goods, both cultural and material, sharply increased. The combination of the above reasons led to the emergence of a “fourth estate” in the country. We are talking about the media, which began to occupy first place in culture. As for modernity, the following elements are intertwined in the most bizarre way:

Anarchy and statehood.
Demonstrative apoliticality and enormous deliberate politicization.
Selfishness.
Individualism and conciliarity.
Collectivism.

Role of the State

The revival of culture is the most important condition for the renewal of society. This fact is quite obvious. As for specific movements along this path, they still remain the subject of heated debate. In particular, this concerns the role of the state in this process. Will it intervene in cultural affairs and regulate it? Or perhaps she can find the means to survive on her own? There are several points of view on this matter. Some people believe that culture needs to be free. This also applies to the right to identity. Thus, the state will take upon itself the elaboration of strategic tasks for the “construction” of culture, as well as responsibilities for the protection of the national heritage. In addition, financial support for values is necessary. However, all these issues have not yet been resolved. We are talking about the specific implementation of these provisions. Many believe that the state has not yet fully realized the fact that culture cannot be left to business. It needs to be supported, just like science and education. This comes to the fore in matters of maintaining the mental and moral health of the country. Domestic culture has many contradictory characteristics. Nevertheless, society cannot allow separation from its national heritage. Culture is disintegrating and it is not adapted to change.

Possible options

As for the paths of development, in this case there are many conflicting opinions. Some talk about a possible strengthening of political conservatism. That is, the situation can be stabilized on the basis of Russia’s identity. In addition, the country’s special path in history should be highlighted. However, it may once again lead to the nationalization of culture. In this case we are talking about the implementation of automatic support for heritage and traditional forms of creativity. In other ways, foreign influence on culture is inevitable. Thus, any aesthetic innovations will be significantly hampered. What role can the conditions for Russian integration play? It is worth taking into account external influences. Thanks to this, the country can be turned into a “province” when compared with global centers. In domestic culture, the dominance of alien trends is possible. Although at the same time the life of society will become more stable. In this case, commercial self-regulation of the structure plays an important role.

Key issues

Of course, we are talking about preserving the original national culture. It is also worth noting the importance of its international influence. Cultural heritage is being introduced into the life of society. Russia can join the system of universal human principles. In this case, it will become an equal participant in world artistic processes. The state must intervene in the cultural life of the country. The presence of institutional regulation is an urgent need. Only in this way will the cultural potential be fully utilized. State policy in relevant areas will be radically reoriented. Thus, there will be an accelerated development of many industries within the country. It should also be mentioned that physical culture in modern Russia has emerged from the crisis and is developing at a moderate pace.

Final points

Modern Russian culture is characterized by the presence of numerous and contradictory trends. They have been partially identified in this article. As for the current period of development of national culture, it is transitional. It is also safe to say that certain ways out of the crisis have emerged. What does the last century represent as a whole? This is a very controversial and complex phenomenon. It is also greatly aggravated by the fact that the world has long been conditionally split into two camps. In particular, this applies to ideological characteristics. Thus, cultural practice was enriched with new ideas and problems. Global issues have forced humanity to take on the challenge. This affected world culture as a whole. And not only on her. The same can be said about each national heritage separately. In this case, dialogue between different cultures is a decisive factor. As for Russia, it is necessary to develop and adopt the correct strategic course. It is worth noting that the world situation is constantly changing. Solving the "cultural" problem is a very difficult task. First of all, we are talking about the need to understand the existing deep contradictions that are inherent in Russian culture. Moreover, this applies to its entire historical development. Domestic culture still has potential. It is sufficient to provide answers to the challenges posed by the modern world. As for the current state of Russian culture, it is very far from ideal. There is a need for a change in thinking. Currently, it is more focused on maximalism. In this case, a radical revolution is needed. We are talking about a real reorganization of everything and everyone, and in the shortest possible time. The development of national culture will certainly be difficult and long.

Development of world culture in the 20th century. is a complex and contradictory process. It was influenced by a number of factors:

Two world wars and several local ones;

Dividing the world into two camps;

The establishment and fall of fascist regimes in a number of countries;

Revolutionary pro-communist movement;

Collapse of the socialist system, etc.

All this made its own adjustments to the world cultural and historical process. In the 20th century, out of four types of cultural activities

1. religious;

2. actually cultural:

a) theoretical-scientific,

b) aesthetic and artistic,

c) technical and industrial;

3. political;

4. socio-economic.

The socio-economic sphere has received the greatest development. At this time it was stormy process of industrialization of culture, which manifested itself both in the development of science and technology, and in the emergence of technical branches of culture, as well as in the industrial production of works of literature and art.

The scientific and technological revolution has entered a new stage of its development. Today, the problems of automation and computerization of production are being solved. But the scientific and technological revolution had not only positive, but also negative consequences. It led to the formulation of the question of human survival, which was reflected in artistic creativity.

The industrialization of culture led to the movement of the center of world cultural progress to the most economically developed country - the United States. Using its industrial power, the United States gradually expanded its influence in the world. American stereotypes of thinking and cultural values are being imposed. This was especially clearly reflected in the development of world cinema and music. The expansion of the United States created the preconditions for establishing a monopoly in the field of culture. This forced many European and Eastern countries to intensify efforts to preserve their cultural and national traditions. However, this problem still remains unresolved. This seems problematic, especially with modern means of communication.

Exacerbation of social contradictions in the 20th century. contributed politicization of culture. This was expressed in its ideologization, in the political content of works of literature and art, in their transformation into means of propaganda, in the use of scientific and technological achievements for military-political purposes, as well as in the personal participation of cultural figures in socio-political movements. All this led, to a certain extent, to the dehumanization of world art.

1. Prospects for the development of world culture

The future of culture is being laid today. Right now, radical changes are taking place in people's lives, which open up unprecedented opportunities and create unprecedented dangers. Which of the modern trends in social development will be of decisive importance for the culture of the future? Firstly, it should be noted that the coming decades will be characterized by the accelerating development of the scientific and technological revolution. There will continue to be a steady trend towards replacing scarce raw materials with the most widespread desire to save the most important components of the production process: materials, energy, human labor. In the near future, automation will cover the entire production process from start to finish. New areas and types of production activities will become widespread. One of the decisive places among them will be taken by bioengineering and biotechnology. The scope of human production activity will expand: widespread exploration of the world's oceans and space will become possible.

Spheres of intellectual labor will increasingly turn into the main branches of material production. The process of intellectualization of labor will continue, i.e. The number of people engaged in mental work will increase. When enjoying free time, this social group is characterized by a desire to join cultural values. Consequently, the importance of culture in society will increase.

The second factor, defining trends in social and cultural development, can be called the growth of interdependence of the human community.

The one-world market, which developed back in the 19th century, has undergone changes. It has become global in the literal sense of the word, including all countries, regardless of region. Industrial relations between countries are very closely intertwined. Regional economic integration has received widespread development.

Throughout the 20th century. Transport developed rapidly. Communication media have also undergone a revolutionary transformation. Today, any information can be reproduced and delivered in the shortest possible time in any form: printed, visual, auditory. The availability of transmitted information and the possibility of its individual consumption have expanded.

The consequence of all this was the growing intensification of the exchange of cultural values. As a result of the expanded interaction of national and regional cultures, a qualitatively new situation arose. A world culture, a common fund of civilization, began to take shape more and more clearly. This process will take many decades, if not centuries, to complete. But the primary contours of such a fund are obvious. There is every reason to talk about the generally recognized achievements of world literature, fine arts, architecture, science, industrial knowledge and skills. All this contributes to the fact that humanity is increasingly aware of itself as a global community.

Interdependence is also manifested in the fact that, along with the cultural achievements of various peoples, the negative phenomena that exist among them are becoming increasingly widespread.

The third factor, which largely determines the trends in social and cultural development today, is emergence and aggravation of global problems. These are problems that affect all countries and peoples in one way or another, and the solution also depends on the joint efforts of countries and peoples.

In the middle of the 20th century. appeared on the planet the threat of omnicide - total self-destruction of the world community and life as a result of nuclear and environmental disasters. Global problems of our time are being studied global studies, considering the problems of man and his future. In this regard, modeling the future state and trends of global problems is becoming widespread.

In 1968, an independent community of leading scientists from around the world emerged, called the Club of Rome. Periodically, this organization makes reports that are addressed to all governments and peoples of the world. Already the first reports made a shocking impression.

One of the latest reports of the Club of Rome emphasizes that “never in history has humanity faced so many threats and dangers.”

The colossal growth of the world population, which increases by 1 million people every 4-5 days, leads to a huge increase in the demand for energy and raw materials. Uncontrolled population growth is outpacing the increase in food production. Moreover, it is happening in places where there is already high unemployment and severe poverty, and the task of providing millions of people with new jobs is difficult to achieve.

This applies primarily to developing countries, where the population is predominantly young, which will lead to further population growth. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century. it will increase from 5 billion to 8.5 billion people. Industrialized countries will face the problem of slow population growth and the problem of aging. By the middle of the next century they will make up less than 20% of the world's population.

A situation is possible when the closed world of rich countries, armed with the latest and most powerful weapons, will confront hordes of hungry, unemployed and uneducated people from the outside. Living conditions in developing countries could trigger waves of mass migration on an unprecedented scale that may be difficult to contain.

The situation in the future may be further complicated by the fact that many of the factors that previously contributed to social cohesion have now weakened. These are religious faith, respect for the political process, faith in ideology and respect for the decision of the majority.

A serious problem is the huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. With the elimination of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the likelihood of its use decreased. However, the accumulation of such weapons is in itself extremely dangerous,

The solution to all these problems will require increased cooperation from humanity, and this is impossible without a serious shift in the scale of values, without a deep restructuring of the sphere of spiritual life and culture.

An important factor, which largely determines the future of culture, is what is already today fundamental changes are taking place in the consciousness of humanity. Their key point is the search for a holistic view of man in the context of his natural - in fact, cosmic - habitat. The first result of this search can be called formation of a new view of the world, i.e. new quality of culture.

a) The modern perception of the world is materialistic; the emerging concept of matter takes on a new meaning and is interpreted as a set of ordered energy flows that influence each other in their flow, giving rise to unpredictable processes and autonomously arising phenomena.

The relevance of the topic of culture, its current state and development trends is beyond doubt. The relevance of the problem under consideration is due primarily to the fact that the modern world is oversaturated with conflicts and disasters, the main reason for which is the clash of people professing different cultural values. This could be religious strife, the desire of autonomies to gain independence, the struggle of financial groups. By examining the motives of such conflicts, one can always find differences in spiritual values among the conflicting parties. There are groups of people who perceive foreign culture as something hostile. Fortunately, there are those who, on the contrary, understand and recognize the equivalence of any manifestations of spirituality and culture. Consequently, modern civilization will be able to resist self-destruction only if, in addition to technological progress and an increase in material values, the spiritual potential of its culture becomes the basis for the development of society. Thus, cultural values have not lost their significance today.

In addition, the relevance of the problem of culture is associated with the so-called “crisis of culture”. Almost every day we hear addresses from Russian President D.A. on TV screens. Medvedev and other famous politicians about the need to improve the level of culture in our society. It should be noted that the topic of culture is relatively new for our school. Previously, this topic was studied in cultural institutes, art and theater schools, and philosophy departments at universities. There are special textbooks and programs on the theory of culture that were written in the spirit of, so to speak, stagnant times. The entire understanding of culture was reduced mainly to the Marxist-Leninist one, little attention was paid to world culture and the teachings of foreign authors. It was believed that the “true” culture is in our country, and its development is possible only on the basis of a certain ideology. However, the perestroika processes forced us to look differently at our own cultural achievements and evaluate them more modestly. It is also important that our domestic culture was recognized as part of the world.

Today we need new assessments and ideological approaches; in particular, it is necessary to recognize that the level of culture of a society is represented not in individual highest achievements, but in the everyday life of millions of people. It’s exactly the same here as in physical culture: we have world-class achievements in many sports, but the general physical culture of the masses is very low. And this, as we know, affects the health of society as a whole.

The achievement of recent years has been the understanding of a simple fact: what matters first of all is the level of culture of ordinary human life. That is, the culture of everyday life, production, the culture of streets and public institutions, the culture of everyday communication between people. Society and the state can either promote the development of culture, or, on the contrary, hinder its development. However, they will never replace an individual in creating culture.

But what is culture? Why do we miss it? What does it mean? How is it that there is a lack of culture? What exactly is missing? There are people, there are houses, there are cars, mechanisms, factories, there are theaters and libraries too. What is missing, what is perceived as a lack or low level of culture?

In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to turn to the history of the origin of the word and concept “culture”. Note that it is necessary to distinguish between a word and a concept. The word appears before the concept and serves to designate or name something. The concept already contains an understanding of the designated object or action, i.e. expresses a person's attitude towards him.

So, the word “culture” appeared in Latin. It was used in treatises and letters by poets and scientists of Ancient Rome. It denoted the action of cultivating or processing something. Roman statesman and writer Marcus Porcius Cato(234-149 BC) wrote a treatise on agriculture, the name of which in Latin would sound something like this: agriculture. This treatise is devoted not just to cultivating the land, but specifically to caring for a plot, a field, which presupposes not only the cultivation of the soil, but also a special emotional attitude towards it. There is, for example, advice on purchasing a plot of land. Cato wrote that one should not be lazy and walk around the plot of land being purchased several times. If the site is good, the more often you inspect it, the more you will like it. This is the “like” you should definitely have. If it doesn’t exist, then there won’t be good care, i.e. there will be no culture.

Consequently, the word “culture”, even in its early days of use, meant not only processing, but also veneration, perhaps even worship. It is no coincidence that there is also a related word “cult”.

The Romans used the word “culture” with some object in the genitive case: culture of behavior, culture of speech, etc. The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC) used the word to refer to spirituality. He considered philosophy to be the culture of the spirit or mind. Basically, all cultural historians agree that this implies the influence of philosophy on the mind with the purpose of processing it, educating it, and developing mental abilities. But another meaning can be found here if we remember Cato. Philosophy is not only the cultivation or education of the mind, but also its veneration, respect for it and worship of it. And indeed: philosophy was born out of preference for the spiritual principle in man, out of respect for this principle.

In the Middle Ages, the word “cult” was used more often than the word “culture”. What was meant was the possibility and ability to express the creative power and will of God through a certain attitude towards him and ritual. As is known, there was also the concept of chivalry, i.e. a kind of cult or culture of valor, honor and dignity.

During the Renaissance, there was a return to the ancient meaning of the word “culture” as the harmonious and sublime development of man, containing his active, creative beginning.

In its independent meaning, the concept of “culture” appeared in the works of the German lawyer S. Pufendorf(1632-1694). He used it to denote the results of the activities of a social person. Culture is opposed to the natural or natural state of man. This sense of something extra-natural, something developed and cultivated by man has been preserved to this day in the concept of “culture”. Culture was understood as the confrontation of man and his activities with the wild elements of nature, its dark and unbridled forces. This concept is used more and more often in the sense of enlightenment, education, and good manners of a person. It is no coincidence that the birth of the concept of “culture” coincided in time with the emergence and development of new relations in society towards man and nature.

It was New Times. Its novelty lay in the fact that people for the most part began to live not in accordance with the rhythms, cycles or patterns of nature, but in the mode of urban life. A new way of life became the basis for a person’s new idea of himself. The labor activity of the townspeople also mattered. Even in the Middle Ages, village artisans made up the original population of cities. Gradually, the craft gained independence and lost its service character in relation to agriculture. Ultimately, it rose above him and became an indicator of Man’s superiority over nature, turning it into the means and object of his actions.

The city dweller was, as it were, fenced off from nature; his life was largely artificial or simply man-made, if we mean craft as his main occupation. This gave him a reason to recognize himself as a bearer of culture. By the way, city-polises were understood in antiquity as unique cultural spaces.

Bourgeois”, “burghers” (as the first inhabitants of medieval cities in Western Europe were called) gradually turned into a new class - the bourgeoisie. This process was accompanied by the accumulation of capital and the emergence of a mass of poor people, i.e. proletarians. Naturally, it was the bourgeoisie who became the owner of cultural values.

In addition, it was the era of technical and industrial revolutions, the emergence of machine production, the era of great geographical discoveries and colonial conquests. Life, activity and its results were increasingly determined by the person himself. This was especially obvious in comparing the life of a European and a resident of overseas colonies. The obviousness of the determining role of man served as the basis for the understanding of culture as an independent phenomenon.

All these events were accompanied by the formation of a new worldview. Not only people’s relationships with each other and with nature changed, but also everyone’s relationship with God.

Man no longer needed a mediator to communicate with him; he bore personal responsibility for his actions directly before God. On the other hand, an earthly measure of personal success and dignity appears: property and wealth in general, which every person could possess. In the era of initial accumulation of capital, this wealth could still arise through robbery, but as legal relations took shape in bourgeois society, personal initiative and enterprise became the source of success and well-being. A person had to hope and rely only on himself. A type of active, calculating person was being formed, for whom his own work became his own measure. We must not forget that all this happened against the backdrop of poverty and deprivation of the masses, whose situation was perceived as the result of a person’s lack of necessary business qualities. Naturally, such qualities included, first of all, rationality and enlightenment - what generally distinguishes a person from an animal. “Knowledge is power,” proclaimed the English thinker and one of the founders of modern philosophy, F. Bacon. Only a knowledgeable person is actually a person and can count on the obedience of nature. And an indicator of knowledge is the ability to do something reasonable and expedient, which ultimately elevates a person above the elements of nature as a cultural being.

French enlighteners of the 18th century. (Voltaire, Condorcet, Turgot) reduced the content of the cultural-historical process to the development of human spirituality. The history of society was understood as its gradual development from the stage of barbarism and ignorance to an enlightened and cultural state. Ignorance is the “mother of all vices,” and human enlightenment is the highest good and virtue. The cult of reason becomes synonymous with culture. This position of the enlighteners reveals pride, “secret arrogance,” as E. Soloviev called this trait. The revaluation of reason and culture became the subject of Rousseau's philosophizing. He did not associate any hopes for the eradication of vices in man with the progress of culture and contrasted the depravity and moral depravity of a civilized person with the simplicity and purity of morals of the patriarchal life of people.

It was typical for the figures of the Enlightenment to search for the meaning of history precisely in connection with the concept of “culture.” The attitude towards history, in which not only something happens, but is naturally formed, develops, and grows, took shape in the concept of “philosophy of history,” which was introduced into use by Voltaire. The concept of “civilization,” as established by the French linguist E. Benveniste, appeared in European languages in the period from 1757 to 1772. It contained the idea of a new way of life, the essence of which was urbanization and the increasing role of material and technical culture. The term “humanitarianism” or “humanitarian” was increasingly used in relation to an educated person with extensive knowledge in all spheres of human activity, to whom “nothing human is alien.” It was believed that a person acquires his knowledge by studying the “liberal arts” and classical languages. In this way, an idea of the cultural level or cultural norm was formed.

The Enlightenmentists contributed to the fact that man’s sensory relationship to reality became the subject of rational or scientific knowledge. The German philosopher Baumgarten (1714-1762) called the science of perfect sensory knowledge the term “aesthetics,” which later began to be used by some thinkers as a synonym for culture in general.

The concept of “culture” in classical German philosophy. Rousseau was the founder of a critical attitude towards culture. In essence, this attitude became the main motive in the teachings of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and philosophers of Germany at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. For them, the contradictions and factors that existed in bourgeois culture and civilization that impeded the free development of man and his spirituality were obvious. Culture easily turns into its opposite if the material, mass, quantitative principle begins to predominate in it. Culture is the self-liberation of the spirit, thanks to which nature becomes more perfect and spiritual. The means of liberation of the spirit were called moral (Kant), aesthetic (Schiller, romanticism), philosophical (Hegel) consciousness. Culture, therefore, was understood as the area of human spiritual freedom. This understanding was based on the recognition of the diversity of types and types of culture, which are the steps in a person’s ascent to the freedom of his own spirit.

The role of human spiritual liberation was critically rethought by K. Marx. The condition for such liberation must be fundamental changes in the sphere of material production and relations in society. The liberation and development of genuine culture is associated in Marxism with the practical activities of the proletariat, the political and cultural revolutions that it must carry out. All history is a successive series of socio-economic formations, each of which is more culturally developed than the previous one, which is determined by the development of the method of material production. This development is the basis of the unity of world culture.

In Marxism, therefore, culture is understood as the sphere of practical human activity, as well as the totality of the natural and social results of this activity. The development of culture is a contradictory process of interaction between “two cultures,” each of which expresses the interests and goals of antagonistic classes. Culture, having gone through the stages of resolving contradictions, will ultimately become the unity of man and nature and will have a universal (communist) character. The condition for achieving such a state of culture is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elimination of private property and the construction of a classless society.

In Marxist teaching, each formation has its own type of culture. It follows from this that each type of culture, like culture as a whole, is the result of human activity and represents a variety of changes in nature and society. Moreover, activity or labor act only as socially productive forces of man. Outside of this activity, as well as outside of society, a person simply does not exist. A person is a cultural being to the extent that he participates in social (material or spiritual) production. It not only creates culture, but also turns out to be its result and its actual content. In this understanding, culture can be defined as a way of naturally and socially conditioned active existence of a person.

Variety of definitions of the term “culture”. According to cultural theorist L.E. Kertman, there are over four hundred definitions. This is due to the diversity of culture itself and the use of this term. This situation exists, of course, not only with the word “culture”. The word “science,” for example, also has a very wide range of definitions. We are usually irritated by the lack of any one definition. But this comes from our mental laziness, from the desire to memorize and remember rather than understand and comprehend. The diversity of definitions of culture should not irritate us, since behind it lies the diversity of culture itself. And its diversity is one of the main reasons for its existence at all. Culture is like life: it exists only because it is different. And the monotony of culture is a sign of its approaching death.

From all the variety of definitions of culture, one can single out, according to L.E. Kertman, three main approaches, conventionally called anthropological, sociological and philosophical. The essence of the first approach is the recognition of the intrinsic value of the culture of each people, no matter what stage of its development it is at, as well as the recognition of the equivalence of all cultures on earth. In accordance with this approach, any culture, like any person, is unique and inimitable, being a way of life of an individual or society. There is not just one level of culture in the world, to which all peoples should strive, but many “local” cultures, each of which contains its own values and has its own level of development. To understand the essence of this approach, we provide several definitions. Culture is:

- “everything that is created by man, be it material objects, external behavior, symbolic behavior or social organization” (L. Bernard);

- “a general way of life, a specific way of adapting a person to his natural environment and economic needs” (K. Dawson);

- “the entirety of the activity of a social person” (A. Kroeber);

- “everything that is created or modified as a result of the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals interacting with each other or mutually determining behavior (P. Sorokin);

- “a way of life followed by a community or tribe” (K. Whisler).

It is easy to see that with an anthropological approach, culture is understood very broadly and in content coincides with the entire life of society in its history.

Sociological understanding of culture. Too broad a definition and lack of indication of any specific characteristics make it difficult to understand culture. The sociological approach tries to identify precisely such signs. Culture here is interpreted as a factor in the organization and formation of the life of a society. It is understood that in every society (as in every living organism) there are certain culture-creating “forces” that direct its life along an organized, rather than chaotic path of development. Cultural values are created by society itself, but they then determine the development of this society, the life of which begins to increasingly depend on the values it produces. This is the uniqueness of social life: a person is often dominated by what is born of himself. Here are some definitions of culture characteristic of its sociological understanding. Culture is:

- “strong beliefs, values and norms of behavior that organize social connections and make possible a common interpretation of life experience” (W. Becket);

- “inherited inventions, things, technical processes, ideas, customs and values” (V. Malinovsky);

- “language, beliefs, aesthetic tastes, knowledge, professional skills and all kinds of customs” (A. Radcliffe-Brown);

- “a general and accepted way of thinking” (C. Jung).

In 1871, the book “Primitive Culture” by the English ethnographer E. Tylor was published. He is, so to speak, one of the fathers of cultural studies. In general, his views can be attributed to the anthropological understanding of culture, but he had several definitions of it, including those close to the sociological. “From an ideal point of view, culture can be looked at as the general improvement of the human race through the higher organization of the individual with the aim of simultaneously promoting the development of morality, strength and happiness of man,” wrote E. Tylor. Here, culture includes such aspects of the development of society as “general improvement”, “higher organization”, and “goal”. These seem to be understandable things, but the difficulty is that, as they say, they cannot be touched or seen directly. And yet it is difficult to argue against the fact that they play a major role in the life of a person and society.

Philosophical approach to culture differs from other approaches precisely in that, through analysis, certain features, characteristics, and patterns are identified in the life of society. They are understood as what constitutes the basis of culture or the reason for its development. Here it is important to understand the specifics of the philosophical approach as such, and not only to culture. Philosophy usually deals with that which is inaccessible to simple, direct perception. We are not talking about any special, abstruse things. Philosophy explores what already seems understandable and known. But it often turns out that in reality we do not have an understanding, that it just seemed to us that we understood something. You need to look with special vision - speculation, i.e. understand, not just watch. Seeing and understanding are two different things. Philosophy deals With understanding. That's why The philosophical approach to culture is not limited to describing or listing cultural phenomena. It involves penetration(through thinking, understanding) into their essence. Culture is understood as the “content” or “way of being” of society. Here are some definitions in line with this approach:

- “culture is a relatively constant intangible content transmitted in society through the process of socialization” (G. Becker);

- “a symbolic expression rooted in the subconscious and brought into the public consciousness, where it is preserved and remains in history (D. Regin).

Thus, it is important to note that from a philosophical point of view, culture is understood not simply as a sum of ideas or things that can be isolated, separated from each other, described. Man’s whole world is the world of his culture, and the question of culture is, in essence, a question about man himself, about his human way of existence and about his attitude towards himself. This attitude is characteristic only of man, and to understand its essence, its birth and development is the task of research in the field of philosophy of culture.

Let us now return to the problems of modern culture and the main trends in its development. Of course, the development of world culture in the 21st century. is a complex and contradictory process. It was influenced by a number of factors:

Two world wars and several local ones;

Dividing the world into two camps;

The establishment and fall of fascist regimes in a number of countries;

Revolutionary pro-communist movement;

Collapse of the socialist system, etc.

All this made its own adjustments to the world cultural and historical process. In the 21st century, there are four types of cultural activities:

1. religious;

2. actually cultural:

a) theoretical-scientific,

b) aesthetic and artistic,

c) technical and industrial;

3. political;

4. socio-economic. The socio-economic sphere has received the greatest development. Lately you can see process of industrialization of culture, which is manifested both in the development of science and technology, and in the emergence of technical branches of culture, as well as in the industrial production of works of literature and art.

The industrialization of culture led to the movement of the center of world cultural progress to the most economically developed country - the USA. Using its industrial power, the United States gradually expanded its influence in the world. American stereotypes of thinking and cultural values are being imposed. This was especially clearly reflected in the development of world cinema and music. The expansion of the United States created the preconditions for establishing a monopoly in the field of culture. This forced many European and Eastern countries to intensify efforts to preserve their cultural and national traditions. However, this problem still remains unresolved. This seems problematic, especially with modern means of communication.

Related information.