Prospects for the development of world culture. General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture Development trends and prospects for world culture

Signs of modern culture: dynamism, eclecticism, ambiguity, mosaic, diversity of the overall picture, polycentricity, a break in its structure and the holistic hierarchy of the organization of its space. The development of information technology and the approval of the media shape public opinion and public spirit. The media reflect external, consumer, spiritual life, create certain ideas about the world, shape the destruction of traditionally valued qualities, and provide the effect of suggestion.

Main trends in the development of modern culture

The 20th century has ended... The century of the triumph of science and human intelligence, the century of paradoxes and shocks. He summed up the development of world culture. In this century, culture broke the bonds of regional or national isolation and became international. World artistic culture integrates the cultural values of almost all nations.

A characteristic phenomenon of the twentieth century was a noticeable weakening of those social mechanisms on which people’s lives largely relied in past centuries. First of all, mechanisms of continuity in culture.

An individual strives to become independent, independent of cultural traditions, customs, established rules of etiquette, behavior, and communication. At the same time, internal freedom is increasingly being replaced by external freedom, the independence of the spirit is being replaced by the independence of the body, which gradually leads to a decrease in spirituality and the level of culture.

In modern philosophy and aesthetics, there are quite a lot of reasons that explain these processes. This is the accelerated progress of all aspects of material life, technology, and the industrial sphere, as a result of which a person did not have time to develop spiritually at the same pace. Consequently, he became superficial, in a hurry somewhere, having neither the time nor the strength to stop, peer, realize, and spiritually master the phenomena and facts of reality.

In other cases, technology was reproached with its naked rationalism, technocratic thinking that recognizes nothing but open pragmatism. They also reproached those who found themselves in power, at the levers of managing society, because they, often not possessing proper culture themselves, do not have the opportunity to correctly assess its meaning, and skimp on culture, thereby stimulating degeneration and degradation.

It is likely that all these parallel developing processes have a common root - the weakening of ties between generations in culture. As a result, spiritual culture suffered, and consequently, man suffered, because he was devalued as an individual, his life, nature, and environment were devalued.

What happens to art in the twentieth century? One should not proceed from the naive thought that art “suddenly became bad, decaying, base.” It can never become such without changing its essence, since in all eras it expresses the desire for the spiritual development of man and fights for humanity to carry through all the vicissitudes of history its main achievement - spirituality. And today art is not dying, it is in search of new forms, a new language - in order to find a way to express new spiritual processes that reflect the modern era.

1. The latest trends in the development of culture

.1 Scientific and technological revolution, its achievements and problems generated by it

XX century called the century of scientific and technological revolution. The scientific and technological revolution is a qualitatively new stage in the development of science and technology, associated with their active and fruitful interaction. We are witnessing how discoveries made by scientists lead to rapid changes in the field of technology and technology, and technological progress stimulates and conditions further scientific research.

When did the scientific and technological revolution begin? There is a point of view that this happened at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. and was expressed in the appearance of the telephone, telegraph, radio, heavier-than-air flying machines, conveyor production systems, etc. According to another point of view, the history of scientific and technological revolution should be counted from the middle of the twentieth century, when electronic computer and biotechnologies arose and began to be deployed, and the use of nuclear energy and space exploration began. There is a third point of view that reconciles the first two. She asserts the existence of two large waves of scientific and technological revolution, which occurred, respectively, at the end of the 19th and mid-20th centuries.

Scientific and technological revolution was prepared by previous successes of science and industry, mainly in countries of European culture. It is important that large capital, public and private, has undertaken to finance the applied aspects of science in order to continue the production race and, by the way, the arms race. If we conduct a more in-depth analysis of the situation, we must admit that the scientific and technological revolution occurred in line with the general process of secularization of European culture. Christianity, a religion that calls people to ascetic self-restraint in the world and to work, first of all, on their spiritual self-improvement, was disappearing from the lives of Europeans. “The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force,” this call of Jesus Christ was losing its attractiveness; in accordance with the spirit of the era, slogans like: “We do not need to wait for favors from nature, it is our task to take them from her.” In short, scientific and technological revolution began in the conditions of an already established industrial society in Europe.

We can talk about the diverse consequences of scientific and technological revolution. Thanks to it, human intervention in natural processes has increased. People have split the atom, people are changing the hereditary properties of animals and plants, extracting minerals from the vast depths of both land and sea, storming outer space... Over the past 100 years, global industrial production has grown more than 50 times, with 75% of the increase achieved since 1950 According to the Russian scientist V. Vernadsky (1863 - 1945), humanity has become the largest geological force on our planet, the biosphere (sphere of life) of the Earth is increasingly turning into the noosphere (sphere of the mind).

In countries that are at the forefront of scientific and technological progress, the overall comfort of life has improved. “A civilized person” can no longer imagine his normal existence without cars, refrigerators, automatic washing machines, microwave ovens, televisions, telephones, including mobile phones, computers, copiers, scanners, etc. In the future, they say some authors, scientific and technological revolution will make it possible to feed a mankind that has grown many times over and defeat almost all diseases known to us. It should also be noted that scientific and technological progress has made countries and continents “closer”, and the processes of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures have become more intense.

In developed countries, the authority of scientists and engineers has grown, some of whom have directly entered the upper, ruling strata of society along with leaders of politics and business. The philosophy and ideology of scientism (Latin scientia - science, knowledge), associated with the belief in the omnipotence of science and the unconditionally positive nature of its achievements, took hold. Talk began about the advent of the era of technocracy, the power of technical specialists carrying out truly scientific management of society. According to some researchers, the very type of society has changed: in developed countries, the industrial society has been replaced by a post-industrial, or information society. Its main wealth is information, the leading branch of the economy is intellectual production, and thanks to computer networks, “participatory democracy” is achieved.

But the achievements of scientific and technological revolution also have their opposite, negative side. Of course, there is a connection between scientific and technological revolution and the global problems of our time, among which three stand out. Firstly, this is a global environmental crisis, expressed in the destruction of the natural human habitat and the depletion of the Earth's natural resources. Secondly, there is the threat of a catastrophic planetary war waged using nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other types of terrible weapons created by scientists. Thirdly, this is the “North-South” problem - a growing gap in living standards and development between countries “ridden” by the scientific and technological revolution (they are located mainly in the Northern Hemisphere) and backward countries, relatively speaking, in the South.

Scientific and technological revolution contributes - directly or indirectly - to the destruction of people's mental health and their moral foundations. The number of stress-forming factors in our lives has increased (the risk of technological disasters, the rapid pace of changes in living conditions, lack of communication with living nature, etc.). According to the American philosopher and sociologist L. Mumford (1895 - 1990), a society saturated with machines itself turns into a mega-machine, an extremely organized, rationalized system. People's dependence on machines is growing, and they themselves are becoming more and more machine-like. These people know the value of everything and know the value of nothing, the scientist K. Lorenz bitterly noted...

The reaction to these problems generated by scientific and technological revolution was the spread of technophobia and anti-scientism in society. Even some scientists and philosophers made proposals to “freeze” further scientific and technological progress, because neither nature nor people themselves can adapt to it. True, the following objection is thrown at them in response: we have come too far on the path of knowledge and transformation of nature, a backward movement will result in our degradation or even death, which means that we must hope for new discoveries by scientists and their more reasonable and humane use.

1.2 Traditions and innovations in the religious life of mankind

The twentieth century did not become the century of the final triumph of atheism, as some thinkers predicted at its dawn, observing the persistent and largely successful struggle of Europeans for a more comfortable, well-fed and free life on Earth. Still, the majority of the inhabitants of our planet continue to consider themselves adherents of one religion or another. Although the share of non-believers in the total population of the Earth has increased significantly. If, according to some estimates, in 1900, out of 1630 million earthlings, 5 million (0.3%) could be considered non-believers, then in 2000, out of 6044 million earthlings, there were 1208 million non-believers (20%).

The development of the process of secularization is manifested not only in the expansion of the circle of people who directly declare their atheism. It is noticeable that the role of religious values in the lives of those who consider themselves believers is being diminished. Thus, 54% of Russians consider themselves Orthodox, but half of them do not go to church even once a year!

The onset of atheism and religious indifference is usually linked to scientific and technological progress. Although there are many believers among scientists, many people are convinced by the successes of scientific and technological progress either in the complete absence of the Divine, or in the fact that even without regard to it, humanity is capable of organizing its affairs on Earth.

Scientific and technological progress, as well as the features of a market economy, stimulate an unbridled race for the production and consumption of material goods, which turns a person into a “money-making machine.” If we add to this an extremely intrusive mass culture that subtly exploits human fears and hopes, it is clear that modern industrial society is capable of drowning out or redirecting the religious need inherent in people.

The regime of rapid renewal in which society lives teaches people to be skeptical about the traditions bequeathed by their ancestors, incl. to their religious heritage. Religious traditions are also being shaken under the influence of the process of globalization of our lives, which brings together and mixes peoples and cultures. Many people involuntarily have a question: “If religions are so different, and everyone insists on their truth, then should they be trusted at all?”

In addition, the development and popularization of historical science brought down on the mass consciousness many depressing facts from the religious history of mankind (extermination of infidels, corruption of clergy, counterfeiting of sacred relics, etc.). The last factor would not have been so effective if, over the past centuries, influential groups of people had not formed whose goal was to defeat “religious prejudices.” At different times and under different slogans, members of Masonic lodges, National Socialists, Communists and some other enthusiasts who wanted to radically make humanity happy strived for this.

In the face of the challenges that the twentieth century posed to religion, there is a division among its defenders. Diametrically opposed positions are occupied by those who support the line of religious modernism and those who take the position of religious fundamentalism. Modernists of various confessions, as a rule, speak out for the simplification of worship, the democratization of religious institutions, and the adaptation of religious doctrine to the modern scientific picture of the world and secular morality. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, oppose any concessions to religion “to the spirit of this age,” and the most ardent of them are even ready to resort to violence against those who ask for relief.

One of the most characteristic features of the religious life of modern humanity has been the spread of non-traditional religiosity in many countries. In some cases, we are talking about the fact that a particular religion begins to be actively preached outside the region, where the ode has long become an organic part of the national cultural tradition (for example, Buddhism penetrates Europe). But often we are dealing with religious movements that have arisen in recent years or decades and cannot yet be considered historically rooted in any country in the world. Such religions are called new or alternative cults. The most famous neo-cults operating in our country include: the Unification Church (Muna Church), the Mother of God Center (Russian Orthodox Church of the Mother of God Sovereign), the Church of the Last Testament (Vissarion Church), the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Church of Scientology, etc. d.

The main reason for the neo-cult boom in the last century is the disappointment of many people in modern civilization and in those religions that, it seems, have long become an organic part of it. “The new is better than the old”, “it is good where we are not” - these principles, it turns out, are important in religious life. Some neo-cults attract people due to the simplicity of their beliefs and rituals. Others, on the contrary, rely on philosophical sophistication and scientific doctrine, on exhausting cult practice and even social extremism. The idea, preached by many neo-cults, of the need to overcome the limitations of traditional religions by synthesizing all the best in them is well known.

Neo-cults are often criticized by adherents of traditional faiths, who believe that new religions undermine the stability and spiritual health of peoples. Examples are given of neo-cults zombifying their adherents, exploiting their free labor and appropriating their property, driving people to suicide, etc. In response, there are reminders that incriminating evidence can also be collected on traditional religions, as well as appeals to the principle of freedom conscience.

This principle affirms the ability of a person to voluntarily determine his attitude towards religion, to have any religious affiliation or not to have it at all and to be an atheist. The principle of freedom of conscience was the result of centuries of clarification of relations between the state, society and church institutions, the result of a dramatic struggle against religious and anti-religious intolerance. Currently, it is enshrined in a number of international legal documents, incl. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1949), “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” (1981), “Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe” (1989), “Charter of Paris for a New Europe” (1990).

1.3 Totalitarianism and culture

One of the greatest threats that haunted humanity in the twentieth century. and has not yet retreated, is totalitarianism. Totalitarian (Latin totalitas - integrity, Italian totalitario - covering everything as a whole) are usually called socio-political systems in which the government seeks to put people's lives under complete (total) control, to give it the monotony and coherence of a large anthill. It must be said that totalitarian states in their pure form have so far existed only on the pages of dystopian novels (“We” by E. Zamyatin, “Brave New World” by O. Huxley, “1984” by J. Orwell). In practice, there were states that were more or less similar to totalitarian ones. The USSR during the Stalinist period and Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 are usually cited as examples. Let us also turn to this example to analyze the cultural prerequisites and consequences of totalitarianism.

Critics of Soviet communism and German Nazism like to equate them. Meanwhile, the first was an attempt to modernize the traditional society of Russia, and the second tried to drive the modern (industrial) society of Germany into the “New Middle Ages”. The communists professed the ideal of universal brotherhood and viewed violence as a tactical, transitory means. And the Nazis postulated the fundamental inequality of people (racism) and the right of the “superior” to oppress and exterminate the “inferior” forever and ever. So there was not and could not be a complete coincidence between the USSR and the Nazi Third Reich, between Soviet and Nazi cultures!

But in both Russia and Germany, the onset of totalitarianism was preceded and facilitated by a crisis of traditional religious and moral values. This refers, first of all, to the decline of church Christianity, to which the broad masses have cooled. A significant part of the intelligentsia had already become fed up with Enlightenment-style humanism with its cult of the rights and interests of the individual. As has long been noted, “a holy place is never empty.” Doctrines burst into the lives of Russians and Germans that, with religious passion, called for a grandiose reorganization of the world. They caused that explosion of popular enthusiasm and political ambitions that made state tyranny acceptable and a situation of dissent intolerable. The religious hunger of the de-Christianized masses was fueled by the personality cult of infallible leaders - Stalin in the USSR, Hitler in Germany.

The strengthening of totalitarian regimes in both countries was indirectly facilitated by scientific and technological progress. He placed at the disposal of the ruling elite the means (weapons, transport, communications...) that made it possible to effectively control both vast territories and individuals. For example, a radio that brought to remote corners, to dark, illiterate people the voices of national idols and the latest ideological guidelines, and, on occasion, the names of those who should have been caught and destroyed.

If we talk about the specifics of the German situation, then the atomized nature of society immediately attracts attention. The Germans have already felt that the other side of the new European freedom is loneliness and the erosion of national identity. At the beginning of the twentieth century. The popularity of literature calling for the renewal of shaken national unity and the defense of the cultural identity of the Germans is growing. These sentiments were exploited by Hitler, who seduced his compatriots into “flight from freedom.” He really gave them the joyful feeling that they were together again - with one leader, one party, one ideology. This joy, greatly exaggerated by propaganda and official art, allowed the Germans to fight with half the world for almost 6 years.

In the case of Russia, the ignorance of a significant part of the population and the centuries-old tradition of subservience to superiors played a fatal role. This almost inevitably caused a repetition in post-revolutionary Russia of the situation about which the 19th century poet. said: “Below is the power of darkness, above is the power of darkness.” You can also notice that the so-called “Stalinist repressions” were largely due to persistent contradictions in relations between bearers of different types and levels of culture.

The cultural heritage of the totalitarian regimes we are studying is very ambiguous. On the one hand, one can list for a long time the major figures of art and science who accepted these regimes and worked fruitfully under their rule. We may recall that during the period of Stalinism, the educational level of the population increased significantly, and the Nazis carried out a lot of work in their country to develop sports and physical culture. But on the other hand, intolerance of dissent, the restriction of freedom of creativity by the narrow framework of ideology and the tastes of leaders led to the degradation of entire spheres of culture. The greatest sorrow is caused by the dehumanization of morality, which occurred due to the fact that masses of people were involved in denunciation and executioner activities. A type of person with no initiative, with a depressed sense of self-worth and moral responsibility was in demand and was brought up. Fortunately, it did not become predominant in our country, otherwise it would not have withstood the fierce battle with the Third Reich and its allies!

Neither Hitler's Germany nor the USSR has long been gone. But the danger of totalitarianism remains and in some ways has even become more acute. We are on the verge of creating psychotronic weapons that control people’s behavior at a distance, and according to some information, it has already been created. Using the example of the USA and some other so-called democratic countries, we see that totalitarianism can do without concentration camps and exist with full respect for freedom of speech. With the help of stultifying mass culture, especially drug television, with the help of schools that provide partial, unsystematized knowledge, people turn into a crowd of stereotypically thinking “one-dimensional” subjects, whose behavior is predetermined and calculated by those in power.

culture modernism globalization totalitarianism

1.4 Mass culture and its “Americanization”

Already in the 19th century. researchers should have paid attention to the phenomenon of the human mass that flooded the cities of Europe and America. One of the first to do this was the French sociologist, psychologist and publicist G. Le Bon (Le Bon) (1841 - 1931) in his books “Psychology of the Masses” and “Psychology of the Crowd”. He described the mass (and its most extreme case, the crowd) as a multitude of people whose behavior is guided not by traditions and principles, not by personal reason and conscience, but by the herd instinct. The mass is prone to suggestion and irresponsible actions, “it turns away from evidence that it does not like, and prefers to worship error, if only this error seduces it...” Le Bon did not explain this, but in fact, the “massification” of Western society was a consequence of industrialization and urbanization, the collapse estate, church and community structures of pre-capitalist Europe.

The Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset (1883 - 1955) in his book “The Revolt of the Masses” (1929) stated that the masses (“those who float with the flow and are deprived of guidelines”, who “are not only not depressed, but satisfied with his own indistinguishability") in the twentieth century. achieved dominance. Politicians now curry favor with the “average man,” and artists indulge his whims. Culture as a whole began to “play short,” and J. Ortega y Gasset saw in this signs of a catastrophe on a civilizational scale.

Discussing the causes and consequences of the “revolt of the masses,” the Spanish philosopher gave a very strict assessment of modern “scientific” and “democratic” education, which produces crowds of narrow specialists. He wrote: “We would have to call him (the specialist - author) “a learned ignorant,” and this is very serious, it means that in all matters unknown to him, he will behave not like a person unfamiliar with the matter, but with authority and ambition inherent in a connoisseur and specialist... Non-recognition of authorities, refusal to obey anyone - typical traits of a mass person - reach their apogee precisely among these rather qualified people. It is these people who symbolize and to a large extent carry out the modern rule of the masses, and their barbarity is the immediate cause of the demoralization of Europe.”

One can argue with the elitist, anti-democratic pathos of Ortega y Gasset, but the fact remains: mass culture has become the main social type of culture in modern times (after 1918). We call it mass because, firstly, it is focused on the stereotypes of mass consciousness, addressed to “man-like-everyone”, and secondly, its products (films, books, music, sports shows...) are mass-produced, literally staged to the stream. Other names: pop culture, commercial culture, entertainment culture, anti-fatigue culture. And critics say that this is semi-culture or even anti-culture.

The role of mass culture in the life of modern society is very ambiguous. On the one hand, we can give examples that it:

.promotes the popularization of genuine scientific, artistic, moral values;

.performs an important integrating function, uniting masses of people (“a crowd of lonely people”);

.helps people relieve the stress of everyday existence in the middle of “concrete jungles” and “asphalt rivers”;

.represents a kind of continuation or feasible replacement of folk culture in the conditions of industrial and post-industrial society;

.produces things made at a high level of professional craftsmanship.

But on the other hand, it is noticeable that the creators of mass culture too often turn to the most unassuming tastes, primitive needs, even the vices of people. One can say about many of them that they come from the position of vulgar Freudianism, named after the famous psychologist of the 20th century. Vulgar Freudianism (it should not be identified with psychoanalysis created by S. Freud, although the connection between them is undeniable) is the idea of a person as a cruel and lustful beast, needing only “bread and circuses.”

In popular culture, commercial interest crowds out the moral and aesthetic assessment of phenomena. As one Western television producer explained, the market forces him to seek out and show the most vile sensations; a story about a priest who teaches good is banal; it is more interesting to report about a priest who raped a girl, or even better, a boy or an old woman... There is a significant amount of deceit in these words. In fact, mass culture, like the entire modern market economy, is not so much oriented toward consumer demand as it creates it. Sellers of mass culture sometimes behave like drug dealers - they deliberately corrupt and dumb down their audience in order to always have on hand people ready to buy new and stronger “doses” of pornography, rudeness and sadism.

The epicenter of the spread of mass culture in the modern world is the United States. Why? In this country with a relatively short history, different cultural traditions were initially mixed, rubbing against each other, “averaging out.” In addition, the “spirit of capitalism” prevailed here very early, involving the masses of people in the race of production and consumption. The United States is now a rich and ambitious country, investing enormous amounts of money in its cultural expansion. Therefore, we have to talk about the “Americanization” of modern culture, about “American cultural imperialism” and even about the “cultural war” that the United States is waging against the rest of the world.

1.5 Modernism and postmodernism in culture

At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. Modernist (contemporary) art is emerging in Europe and America. Its earliest and most rebellious, extravagant manifestations are usually called avant-garde. Modernists argued that classical realism was outdated, that it was unable to truly convey the spirit of the opening era, the era of great revolutions, discoveries and disasters. As one of the first theorists of modernism, the Italian writer F. T. Marinetti (1876 - 1944), wrote: “We need to sweep away all the already used subjects in order to express our whirlwind life of steel, pride, fever and speed.”

The modernists declared their work to be “pure art,” independent of the moral prejudices and artistic preferences of the crowd. They proclaimed the artist’s right to self-expression as bold as he wished, to unrestrained experimentation. What happened as a result, J. Ortega y Gasset called the dehumanization of art, that is, its dehumanization. He wrote that the modern “artist imprisons us in a dark, incomprehensible world, forcing us to deal with objects that are impossible to deal with ‘humanly’.” To some this might sound like madness. But as the famous modernist artist S. Dali (1904 - 1989) admitted: “The only difference between me and a crazy person is that I’m not crazy.”

Modernist art was initially characterized by significant stylistic diversity. Thus, expressionist artists (F. Marc, E. Nolde...) expressed their experiences with the help of “flashy” colors and deformation of the appearance of objects. Cubist artists (P. Picasso, J. Braque...) tried to depict a thing from several sides at once and at the same time reduce it to elementary geometric figures. Surrealist artists (S. Dali, H. Miro...) painted the world of human dreams, nightmares and hallucinations. Representatives of abstract or non-objective art (W. Kandinsky, P. Mondrian...) filled their paintings with colored spots and lines, completely free from any connection with visible reality. There were also futurists, fauvists, minimalists, conceptualists, advocates of pop art, etc. Modernism includes the “stream of consciousness” novels of M. Proust and the dramas of the absurd by S. Beckett, the zoomorphic architecture of A. Gaudi, and the atonal music of A. Schoenberg... We could continue the list of big names and pretentious names for quite a long time.

The general public initially greeted the new art with bewilderment and wariness, especially since some modernists declared their sympathy for socio-political radicals (for example, Marinetti supported the fascists, and Picasso joined the Communist Party). But, if in the USSR (Stalinist and post-Stalinist), as well as in Nazi Germany, modernism was rejected as anti-art, then in Western democracies it over time became fashionable and profitable, enjoying the support of the political and financial elite. However, even there the attitude towards him remains far from unambiguous. For some, modernism is one of the greatest acquisitions of the twentieth century, a powerful breakthrough to the heights of the Spirit, but for others it is the art of bluff, an art that obscures consciousness and destroys a person.

At the end of the 60s. appears, and in the 1980s. The term “postmodernism” is finally established, denoting a number of new trends not only in art, but in the spiritual life of developed countries in general (that’s why cultural scientists say that all Western culture, all Western society has entered the postmodern era). Postmodernism is genetically related to modernism and it is difficult to draw a clear line between them (for example, some authors consider pop art and conceptualism to be the “first signs” of postmodern art). Still, the following differences can be distinguished. Modernism also recognizes the value hierarchy in culture, the ability, through comparison and analysis, to determine what is better and what is worse; postmodernism generally abandons hierarchy, the criteria of judgment and evaluation; it proclaims a radical pluralism of styles and artistic programs, ideological models and cultural languages. Modernism claims to say a new word about the world; postmodernism declares that further creativity is impossible, all paths have been passed, and all we have to do is recombine the known. Modernism is emphatically elitist, and in postmodernism the opposition between elite and mass culture is removed.

Postmodern art is characterized by quotation, collaging, irony, a passion for provocations and blasphemy, and an interest in man “below the heart.” However, postmodernists themselves prefer to talk not about art, but about art practices. A typical example of postmodern art practices was the scandalous exhibition “Caution: Religion!”, held in 2003 in Moscow. It featured images of crosses hung with sausages or formed from naked bodies, icons with slits for those wishing to be photographed, the face of Jesus Christ in a Coca-Cola advertisement, etc.

Commercial art, modernism and postmodernism do not exhaust the wealth of artistic culture of the 20th century. In this century, high art continued to exist and develop, based on the principles of realism, love of humanity and respect for cultural traditions. Among its remarkable representatives one can name, for example, J. Galsworthy and W. Golding, F. Mauriac and C. Lewis, T. Mann and G. Böll, W. Faulkner and V. Rasputin... However, the growing influence of mass culture, fashion on modernist and postmodernist experiments are very symptomatic. According to the Austrian art critic and cultural scientist G. Sedlmayr (1896 - 1984), they indicate that modern culture has lost its Center, then, relatively speaking, the place that was previously occupied by God, the Shrine, and the High Ideal. An “unparalleled extreme situation” has developed, beyond which one can hardly expect anything other than a total catastrophe - or the beginning of a revival. The situation is not like one of those numerous crises, the painful consciousness of which is itself one of the typical signs of the times we are living through, but like a crisis of man as such.”

1.6 Cultural dimension of globalization

Globalization is a word that is now widely heard. It denotes, first of all, the process of merging national economies into a global economic system within which capital, goods, and labor circulate freely. A major role in this process is played by modern means of transport and communication (jet aircraft, the Internet, television, etc.) - products of scientific and technological progress. Globalization is also expressed in the growing influence of supranational political movements and structures (such as the G8, the European Union, Masonic lodges, etc.), but the sovereignty of individual national states is subject to serious restrictions. In the future, the question of the unification of all humanity under the authority of the World Government may arise, and some authors argue that such authority actually already exists.

Globalization is accompanied by active migration of the population. Masses of people have become, as they say, “new nomads”, “human dust”, which is spread around the world. When some African, who receives $20 - $50 a month for his work, sees American or European “soap operas”, an indomitable desire is born in him to break through to the prosperous “North”, where the “golden billion” of our planet lives, especially that the “North” itself needs new workers from time to time. As a result, the appearance of many European cities has seriously changed over the past decades. For example, in Paris, every second child in kindergartens has a dark skin color; in London, half the population is non-white. According to the most minimal estimates, immigrants from the countries of the Muslim East make up 3 million people in Germany, 2 million in France, a million in Britain and 750 thousand in Italy. The Chinese community in Britain has already reached 250 thousand people, and in France - 200 thousand.

Under such conditions, of course, acculturation processes intensify. For now, they are dominated by Western culture, attractive for its dynamism, emancipation, technical achievements and consumer temptations. And yet, humanity is still very far from a state of complete cultural homogeneity, and it is a big question whether this state will be achieved at all. The cultural traditions of different peoples have shown their exceptional vitality; moreover, as cultural scientists note, in the face of the challenge of globalization, archaic elements and layers have become more active - even tribal solidarity.

Italians, Germans, and French complain that the hordes of emigrants who have poured into their countries do not want to adopt the Western way of life; in the middle of Europe they create enclaves of their own culture, different from the European one. Thus, the ground arises for mutual suspicions and fears. A typical example is the scandalous dystopian novel by E. Chudinova “Notre Dame Mosque” (2005), which describes Muslim Paris and the underground struggle of the last knights of Europe and the Christian Church.

As the famous American political scientist S. Huntington predicts: “The fundamental source of conflict in the emerging new world will not be ideology or economics. The greatest divide between humanity will be culture. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the major conflicts in world politics will be between nations and groups of nations representing different civilizations... The cultural dividing lines of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” And, it must be said that the events of recent years (attacks by international terrorists, entirely Muslim radicals, and counter-terrorist operations of Western countries in the countries of the Muslim East) force us to listen to this forecast...

We conclude our acquaintance with the history of world culture on an alarming note. Table culture is a high-risk area. Let’s not turn a blind eye to this and engage in self-deception. We will try to understand where the flow of events is taking us, so as not to be something like a log in it, so that, if necessary, we can raise “the counter current - the current against the current” (A.K. Tolstoy). And let the science of cultural studies help us with this.

List of sources used

1. Shirshov I.E. Culturology - theory and history of culture: textbook / Shirshov I.E. - Mn.: Ecoperspective 2010.

Davidovich V.E. The essence of culture / Davidovich V.E., Zhdanov Yu.I. - Rostov n/d., 1973.

Culturology. Textbook Edited by A. A. Radugin - M., 2001.

Ehrengross B.A. Culturology. Textbook for universities / B.A. Ehrengross, R.G. Apresyan, E. Botvinnik - M.: Onyx, 2007.

Markarian E.S. Theory of culture and modern science / Markaryan E.S. - M., 1983.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Introduction

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 processindustrializationToatculture, 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 politicizationculture. 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 the worldVoh 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? INo-perVs, it should be noted that closerAbest desyatI'll be here for the anniversaryTharAkterize ubsever-changing timesVlet's go toattechnical-technicaleWithToOuchrevolution. 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.

WOeye faTotorus, defining trends in social and cultural development, can be calledvathere is growthVzaimosaVsuitabilityhumancommunities.

The unity of the world market, which developed back in the 19th century, has undergone changes. It has become global in the truest 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 X X century. Transport developed rapidly. Communications 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.

Thirdfactor, which largely determines the trends in social and cultural development today, is VOhniknovetion and aboutbaggravationglobalproblems. 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 threatomnicide - totallyOself-destruction of the world communityVA and life as a result of nuclear and environmental disaster. Global problems of our time are 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 different countries of 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 19th 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 are happeningbarknunfaithfulnand I â people's consciousnessOvechestVA. 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 newVview of the world, i.e. new quality of culture.

a) The modern perception of the world is materialistic; the concept of matter that is emerging today is acquiring 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.

b) The modern perception of the world is atomistic and fragmentary. It considers all objects to be separable from each other and from their environment. A new view must take into account the connections that exist between everything that happens and has ever happened. It recognizes the meaningful connections between humans and nature and even between the globe and the rest of the universe.

c) The modern perception of the world is characterized by an understanding of nature as a huge machine, consisting of complex and subtle, but replaceable parts. The new view interprets nature as an organism with irreplaceable parts.

d) The modern perception of the world elevates economic growth to the rank of the pinnacle of social progress. The new view initially starts from the whole, consisting of social, economic and environmental components.

e) The modern perception of the world is anthropocentric. It presents man as the ruler of nature. The new view considers man to be an organic part of a self-sustaining and self-developing system of nature.

f) The modern perception of the world is Eurocentric. It views Western industrial societies as paradigms of progress. The new view embraces the entire diversity of human societies, considering them to be equivalent entities.

Importanttrend cultural development of humanity is globalization of religions. This process of changing relations between religions, leading towards the achievement of religious identity, began a long time ago (150 years ago), but developed slowly.

The contact of religions can occur in four main directions:

orthodox rejection;

tolerant coexistence;

mystical unity;

4) historical unity.

Orthodox rejection was common among all religions. Today it dominates only in some religious communities. In orthodox rejection, other religions are declared to be the “spawn of the devil” and their founders “false prophets.” This orientation does not contribute to achieving the unity of humanity to resolve fundamental issues. Currently, in many religious movements one can observe a marked rejection of such an attitude towards other religions.

Humanistic principles and ideals have become widespread in modern culture. Of course, humanism is a fairly diverse concept. The essence of modern humanism lies in its universality: it is addressed to every person, proclaiming everyone’s right to life, prosperity, and freedom. In other words, this is not elitist, but democratic humanism. Humanistic orientation of culture of the 20th century. Manifests itself in various “worlds” of modern society - economic, moral, political, artistic, etc. This trend determined, for example, the formation of political culture in advanced countries. Thus, the values of modern political culture were first recorded in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” (1789). The idea of universal equality was put forward by Christianity. Christ taught: everyone is equal before God, for every person, regardless of his social status, has an immortal soul. However, the Christian idea of equality is rather mystical in nature. After all, people are equal not in real life, but in the afterlife. On earth, everyone must humbly bear his cross, like Christ, since the existing inequalities in social, class life, and property differences are predetermined by God. Another important result of the development of culture perceived in our century is the orientation towards scientific and rational knowledge of the world and the associated sociocultural system - science. Back in the 19th century. the first signs appear that science has become global, uniting the efforts of scientists from different countries. The internationalization of scientific relations arose and further developed. Expanding the scope of application of science at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. led to the transformation of the lives of tens of millions of people living in the newly industrialized countries and their unification into a new economic system. The technogenic attitude towards nature as a means of satisfying not spiritual, but purely technical needs became widespread in the first half of the 20th century. one of the leading trends in the development of culture. An optimistic worldview, conditioned by the successes of scientific thought, embodied in global industry and technology, transforming the face of the planet, served as the basis for the emergence of the characteristic human nature of the 20th century. sensations of the cosmic nature of one’s existence. Cosmism is a unique, interesting phenomenon of modern culture. In the works of famous cosmists V.I. Vernadsky, A.L. Chizhevsky, Teilhard de Chardin, fundamentally new problems of the cosmic role of humanity, the unity of man and space, and moral and ethical responsibility during the space expansion of humanity were posed. These ideas arose primarily on domestic soil, because Russian culture is characterized by the idea of a person as an active, seeking individual and at the same time rooted in the universal, as a whole. With the greatest scientific evidence and philosophical validity, these ideas were developed by the outstanding Russian thinker, natural scientist, who stood at the origins of modern geochemistry and biogeochemistry - V.L. Vernadsky. The main work of V.I. Vernadsky - “Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon” - is distinguished by its encyclopedic generalization and synthetic approach to the evolution of the Earth as a single geological biogenic social and cultural process. Realizing the paths of evolution and world culture, the thinker comes to the conclusion that human activity is not some kind of deviation in evolutionary development. Under the influence of united humanity, the biosphere will naturally move into a qualitatively new state - the noosphere (from the word “noos” - mind). Man and his mind are not just the end result of evolution, but at the same time the beginning of a new movement, creating a sphere of reason, which will be the determining force of evolutionary development in the future. The emergence of the noosphere is associated primarily with the real process of expansion of the mind and consciousness into the evolutionary process. Man has completely captured the biosphere for life. The face of the Earth, this first cosmic body owned by humanity, has been completely transformed. All natural elements: water, earth, air are captured by man. The most important basis for the emergence of the noosphere is the unification of humanity. For B.I. Vernadsky's equality, brotherhood, unity of all people is, first of all, not a moral and cultural requirement, a beautiful wish, but a natural fact. A universal human culture emerges; modern means of transportation and information transmission bring people closer together; Scientific and technical thought is increasingly internationalized. Despite wars and ethnic conflicts, humanity will inevitably come to unity. The main reason for the creation of the noosphere is science, which is becoming a powerful geological and cosmic force. The triumph of life and the wonderful harmonious future of people are associated with this process. The evolution of living matter, its complication and strengthening of the powers of reason in the Universe are inevitable processes. In the culture of the 20th century. a contradiction developed, manifested in the opposition of two attitudes: scientistic and antiscientist. Scientism is based on the idea of scientific knowledge as the highest cultural value. Science as an absolute standard is capable of solving all problems, scientists believe, facing humanity - economic, political, moral, etc. The concept of “scientism” comes from the Latin word “scientia” - knowledge, science. Scientists argued: everything is subject to science. But not everything in the world is science. For example, there is the sphere of art, faith, human feelings and relationships. Antiscientism appeared as a reaction to the exaggeration of the role of science. It is characterized by belittling the importance of scientific knowledge and blaming science for causing possible crises: economic, environmental, national. His statement: “Science is the plague of the 20th century.” However, the culture of the 20th century. reflected the crisis into which technogenic civilization was slowly entering. Modern production, which gave birth to a new type of civilization, industrial society, led to the actual dominance of impersonal economic technological and political structures over living human activity, the individual “I” of genuine culture. The method of organizing social life, which L. Mumford reflected in the image of a giant mega-machine, received its logical conclusion in the second half of the 20th century. A person with his inherent individuality and creative potential turns out to be a standard part of the social machine, a functional appendage of the technological process. The individual passively accepts the forms of life imposed on him by society and ceases to live an original free life. “Flight from freedom” leads to the tragedy of personal existence and gives rise to subjectless sociocultural forms. “The consequences of this mechanization stem from the absolute superiority of mechanical predestination, calculability and reliability. Everything connected with emotional experiences and faith is allowed only on the condition that it is useful for the purposes set for the machine. Man himself becomes one of the types of raw materials subject to targeted processing. Therefore, the one who was previously the substance of the whole and its meaning - man - now becomes a means." In this situation, the direction of social cognition of the era of industrialism looks quite natural, excluding the uniqueness of the human “I”, the cultural context in the development of society; engineering thinking with its standards, technologies, measurements becomes exemplary in social cognition. In the 20th century The crisis phenomena of the technogenic civilization that arose on the ruins of the Middle Ages were fully revealed. The culture of this civilization was formed on the basis of a special relationship between man and nature; man sought to break out of dependence on nature, and its highest values recognized the dominance of man over nature, progress, renewal, and the increase in technological and scientific knowledge. The development of technology and technology as a tool for human domination over nature have become the main goals of social development. As a result, a situation arose in which the constant increase in material wealth based on the renewal of technology turned man into a simple instrument of effective economic activity. The type of scientific and technical culture that initially developed in Europe and then spread throughout the world gave a lot to man for the development of his freedom. But at the same time it has flaws. Technogenic civilization is based on such a relationship between man and nature, in which nature is the object of human activity, the object of exploitation, and unlimited exploitation. It is characterized by a type of development that can be expressed in one word: more. The goal is to accumulate more and more material goods, wealth and, on this basis, solve all human problems, including social, cultural and others. Technogenic civilization is characterized by the idea that nature is inexhaustible precisely as an object of its exploitation by man. Understanding the depth of the economic crisis puts an end to this idea. Hence the ideological and scientific-theoretical movement of recent decades, which posed the problem of creating a new ecological culture. The environmental crisis outlines the boundaries of the existing type of economic development. We are talking about the need for new relationships with nature and between people. A. Peccei. The “human revolution” does not consist in the rejection of scientific and technological progress that threatens life on Earth, but in a radical revolution in the entire system of “man-society” relations. Society is being transformed radically. Freedom and independence of the individual turns out to be the principle of development of the emerging civilization and culture. In the sociocultural realities of the late 20th century. the contours of the future domination of man and his culture over existence are outlined. The essence of the new culture grows out of the destruction of the systems characteristic of classical industrial society, which outwardly determine the life of the individual. A person ceases to be an element of technological, economic or political systems, where his activity is strictly determined by qualities external to his personal culture. This rigid, deterministic scheme is not just weakening, a fundamentally new situation is emerging, meaning that socio-economic development depends on the state of the spiritual world of the individual, on his development and sociocultural aspirations. The classic of modern Western futurology, Alvin Toffler, summarizing the development of human society in the 20th century, showed that knowledge in modern society is turning into real wealth and into that explosive force that will produce a shift in power. The new economic world is based on human knowledge and abilities, on the worldview of freedom and the idea of creative self-development. One of the methodological approaches that conceptually comprehends the ongoing changes is the theory of the Japanese sociologist E. Masuda. In 1945, He proposed an idea that seemed fantastic to many - the theory of the “information society.” This is a society united by a single information network, thanks to which it will be possible for humanity to develop common goals, and for humans to demonstrate their creative capabilities. The introduction of new information technologies and, above all, computer technology and telecommunications systems have shown that the concept of the information society is by no means utopian. A new information culture, new ways of obtaining information, production and scientific activities are emerging. Based on automated access to communication systems, an individual or group of individuals can obtain the information necessary to solve professional or personal problems. There is a process of automation and robotization of production and management. More than 50% of the working population works in the field of information activities. The concept of the “information society” determined the ways of forming the “material body” of culture in the 20th century.

PlanIntroductory part1. Prospects for the development of world culture2. Current sociocultural situation in Russia3. Main directions of development of artistic creativityFinal part (summarizing) Introduction

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.

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.

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

Throughout the 20th century. Transport developed rapidly. Communications 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.

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 disaster. Global problems of our time are 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.

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

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.

An important factor, which largely determines the future of culture, is what is already today fundamental changes are taking place â 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.

b) The modern perception of the world is atomistic and fragmentary. It considers all objects to be separable from each other and from their environment. The new view must take into account