Material and spiritual culture. The relationship between spiritual and material cultures

With all the diversity of typologies of human needs, what is common to them is the identification of two types of needs - material and spiritual. Material needs are the needs of the human body - food, housing, clothing, etc. Spiritual needs are the needs of the human spirit. The main ones are associated with the desire for the highest values ​​of culture, which are truth, goodness, beauty, mutual understanding.

In accordance with the distinction between the spiritual and material needs of a person, culture can also be divided into two types - material and spiritual. The first is related to the satisfaction of material needs, the second - spiritual.

Each of them, in turn, can be divided into several spheres, in accordance with the diversity of both material and, especially, spiritual needs.

Thus, material culture is divided into physical culture and everyday culture.

The function of physical culture is cultivation, i.e., in accordance with the original meaning of the word “culture,” - cultivation, processing, improvement of the human body.

The functions of everyday culture are to satisfy human needs for food, housing, clothing and other items, without which the very physical existence of a person is impossible. Thanks to everyday culture, adaptation of man and society to the surrounding nature is carried out. This leads to significant differences in the everyday culture of different peoples.

Spiritual culture is also divided into a number of spheres - art, science, religion, etc., each of which satisfies certain spiritual needs and, in accordance with this, is concentrated around certain main values.

The question of the possibility of dividing culture into material and spiritual is hotly debated. Many thinkers believe that the concept of “material culture” is absurd and similar to such concepts as “fried water”, “hot ice”, etc. At the same time, they refer, firstly, to the fact that in culture there are no spheres, not related in one way or another to spirituality, and, secondly, to the fact that in all spheres of culture the spiritual principle plays a decisive, dominant role.

It should be noted that the truth of each of these provisions cannot be disputed.

Indeed, everything in culture is permeated with spirituality. Let's take physical education, for example. It would seem that the name itself speaks of its belonging to material culture. However, cultivating a healthy, beautiful body requires great knowledge, developed aesthetic needs and other qualities, depending on the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. The same can be said about everyday culture. All its components - the culture of clothing, the culture of food, the culture of housing - are densely saturated with spirituality. By the way a person is dressed, how he eats, and the decoration of his home, one can get a complete picture of his spiritual appearance.

However, in order to draw a conclusion about the meaninglessness or, conversely, the legitimacy of the concept “material culture”, one more circumstance must be taken into account. It was already discussed above, when it was said that the distinction between material and spiritual culture is made on a functional basis. In accordance with this, it makes sense to single out material culture as an element of the cultural system, since it basic function is to satisfy material needs - a healthy body, food, clothing, housing.

This is its difference from spiritual culture, the main function of which is to satisfy spiritual needs - in truth, goodness, beauty, etc.

It is the difference between spiritual and material culture that allows us to talk about how widely and how spiritual culture is represented in material culture, about how spiritualized material culture is.

Thus, despite the fact that everything in culture is indeed permeated with spirituality, the distinction between material and spiritual culture on a functional basis still makes sense. However, we must not forget that it is very conditional.

Another argument that opponents of the concept of “material culture” cite, as mentioned above, is that the spiritual principle plays a decisive role in culture. As is easy to see, this argument takes the conversation to a different logical plane. Here we are not talking about the legitimacy of the concept of “material culture”, but about What in culture is primary - the spiritual or material principle, spiritual or material culture.

It should be noted that this is a matter of principle. In the recent past, during the years of the dominance of Marxism, often dogmatized and distorted, most Russian thinkers considered it their duty to assert that material culture was primary in relation to spiritual culture. This, they believed, necessarily follows from the fundamental principle of materialist philosophy, according to which matter is primary in relation to consciousness, being determines consciousness, social being determines social consciousness.

However, supporters of this point of view forgot or did not know that the classics of Marxism-Leninism themselves did not formulate the initial principles of materialist philosophy so categorically. Firstly, they never tired of saying that matter is primary in relation to consciousness... ultimately, in the world-building sense of the word. If we consider individual fragments of existence, human activity, for example, we will see that here consciousness is primary in relation to matter. Secondly, the classics of Marxism-Leninism considered their philosophy not just materialist, but dialectical-materialist. According to the principles of dialectics, the element being defined (in in this case- spirit, spiritual, consciousness) has an active reverse effect on the defining element (in this case - matter, material existence). It is quite legitimate to assume that this influence intensifies and becomes primary in certain areas of existence, in certain eras.

Thus, even from the point of view of Marxism, the thesis about the primacy of material culture in relation to spiritual culture did not seem indisputable and unambiguous. Now, when theoretical thought has freed itself from the shackles of dogmatism, it looks like a clear anachronism.

In resolving the issue of the primacy of spiritual or material culture, the decisive role is played not so much by arguments of a logical nature, that is, conclusions from some general principles, but by the history of culture itself. She convinces that culture as a whole has always been and should be built in accordance with the hierarchy of spiritual values.

The conclusion about the primacy of spiritual culture is of fundamental importance, since it allows us to talk about the programming function of culture in the development of society.

Everyday culture

The close intertwining of spiritual and material cultures, the impossibility of strictly separating one from the other, has given rise to the need to consider as an independent formation that layer of culture where the interpenetration of the spiritual and material makes itself felt especially acutely. This education was called the “culture of everyday life.” Scientific interest in it arose relatively recently. The history of the study of everyday culture can be divided into three stages.

The first one started with mid-19th V. and was associated with the works of such authors as A. Tereshchenko, N. I. Kostomarov, I. E. Zabelin and others.

Modern researcher V.D. Leleko identifies the following areas of study of everyday culture in the works of the above-mentioned authors:

Macro- and microhabitat: nature, city, village, home (its connection with the environment and internal space, including interior, furniture, utensils, etc.);

The body and care for its natural and sociocultural functions: nutrition, exercise, hygiene, healing, costume;

Personally and socially significant moments in a person’s life, ritually formalized birth (baptism), creation of a family (wedding), death (funeral);

Family, family relationships;

Interpersonal relationships in other microsocial groups (professional, religious, etc.);

Leisure: games, entertainment, family and public holidays and rituals.

The next stage of research into everyday life is associated with the publication of a book by the Dutch historian and cultural scientist Johan Huizinga (1872 – 1945). “Autumn of the Middle Ages” and the emergence in France of the so-called “Annals school” (formed around the journal “Annals of Economic and social history, published since 1929) led by Marc Bloch (1886 - 1944) and Lucien de Febvre (1878 - 1956).

J. Huizinga's brilliant book provides a vivid panorama of the everyday life of people of different classes who lived in the late Middle Ages. It should be noted that the research proceeded approximately in the directions discussed above.

As for the Annales school, an idea of ​​its methodology can be obtained, for example, from the book of one of its representatives, E. Le Roy Laderie, “Montogayu. Occitan village" (1294 - 1324).

As the third stage in the study of everyday life, we can consider the period when it became the subject of philosophical understanding. Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976) especially clearly emphasized the importance of everyday life, defining it as “presence in one’s being.” Thus, he linked together the concepts of “everyday life” and “being,” which before him were considered incomparable, diverse and of different orders.

In our country, the culture of everyday life attracted close attention not only from researchers, but also from the general public in the 90s of the 20th century. Currently, the discipline “Everyday Culture” is included in the federal component of the State educational standard in the specialty “Cultural Studies”. This can be seen as a turning point in which the tendency towards the humanization of our society was manifested.

It should be noted that until recently the attitude towards the culture of everyday life in our country was best case scenario inattentive, at worst - negative. On this occasion, P. Ya. Chaadaev noted with bitterness: “There is truly something cynical in this indifference to the blessings of life, which some of us take credit for.” This was due to many circumstances, among which an important role was played by a kind of prejudice, which consisted in the opposition of everyday life, which meant everyday life, and being. At the same time, it was believed that a person striving for the heights of spiritual culture not only has the right, but almost an obligation to look down on everyday life. True, the catchphrase of A.S. Pushkin: “You can be a smart person and think about the beauty of your nails” was and is widely used, but it didn’t go beyond “nails.” The “nonexistence” of the Russian intelligentsia is a widely known phenomenon. Therefore, the position of M. Heidegger, who connected everyday life with being, as discussed above, is of fundamental importance. Indeed, everyday life is one of the main realities of human existence, “nearby existence.” And without a neighbor, as we know, there is no distant one.

The significance of everyday life lies in the fact that in this area the two-way nature of the interaction between man and culture is most clearly manifested: man creates culture, culture creates man. The point is that housing, clothing, daily routine, etc., i.e., everything that is quite obviously the result of people’s activities, has the ability to have an active reverse effect on them. W. Churchill’s formula is widely known: “First we arrange our home, and then our home arranges us.”

Accordingly, a shabby, poorly equipped home makes inner world its occupant is equally shabby and poorly maintained. And vice versa, a house, in the creation of which love and the desire for beauty are invested, harmonizes the spiritual world of those who created it.

The same can be said about clothes. In practice, every person has the opportunity to make sure that in one clothing he feels like a being who has nothing to hope for in this world, and in another, on the contrary, he feels the ability to conquer heights. The commercial price of the item does not matter.

A special role in a person’s life is played by relationships with the “inner circle” of people - relatives, neighbors, co-workers. The hysterical or rude tone of communication, the “authors” of which are all its participants, boomerangs back to them in the form of mental disorder and even physical illness. And vice versa, friendly, benevolent communication results in mental health and a feeling of joy in life.

Thus, everyday life is one of the main areas of manifestation creative activity man, on the one hand, and the human-creative power of culture itself, on the other. Not everyone goes to the theater, museums, or libraries, but everyone has to deal with everyday life. Therefore, managerial influence on culture can consist not only in improving the work of those organizations that are commonly called “cultural institutions,” but also in cleaning the streets, renovating houses, planting trees, etc.

So, the theoretical understanding of the category “everyday culture” is very important. It made it possible to “reconcile” spiritual and material culture, showing that with the leading role of spiritual culture, material culture has the ability to have an active reverse influence.

It is in the sphere of everyday culture that the “power of things” and at the same time the “power of the spirit” over them is clearly demonstrated.

Spheres of culture

Morality

One of the most important needs of society is regulation and ordering of relations between people. This is also the most important need of every individual, since life in a chaotic society, where everyone strives to satisfy their own interests, regardless of the interests of others, is impossible. Therefore, one of the oldest and most important areas of spiritual culture is morality. Its function is to regulate relationships between people. In the sphere of morality, not only are rules and norms for the interaction of people developed and formulated, but also ways are developed to reward those who obediently follow them or, on the contrary, to punish those who violate them.

The highest value of this sphere of culture is goodness.

When asked what is good, people of different cultures answer differently. However, already in ancient times, attempts were made to identify norms of universal morality. One such attempt is the famous 10 biblical commandments.

The question of universal human morality is still one of the most pressing. The answer to it, as well as to others that are equally important in a practical sense, can be given by theory and cultural history.

The emergence of morality coincides in time with the emergence of culture, since moral regulation is regulation not in accordance with human biological instincts, but often contrary to them.

In the sphere of morality it is decided main question social regulation and, therefore, the main question of culture is who another person is for a person. So, if he acts as an impersonal member of the collective, then we have primitive collectivist morality, if a member of the polis - polis, civil morality, if a servant of God - religious morality, if a means of achieving his own benefit - individualistic morality, if highest value- truly humanistic morality.

The content of all other spheres of culture is built in accordance with moral values ​​and norms. Therefore, morality is the core sphere of any type of culture.

In the synergetic aspect, morality appears as a cultural attractor, i.e., a subsystem around which an order is “tied” that determines the state of the system as a whole.

Communication

Direct interpersonal spiritual communication is among the most ancient in origin spheres of spiritual culture. It must be borne in mind that communication as such is an aspect of all spheres of cultural and social life. It can be direct and indirect. For example, when a group of friends and acquaintances communicate with each other (talking, singing songs, etc.) - this is direct communication. When the same friends communicate via the Internet, this is indirect communication. The artist communicates with the viewer, the writer with the reader - both through their works. This is also indirect communication.

This section will focus on direct interpersonal spiritual communication.

The primary importance of communication as a sphere of culture is associated with its main function, social in its meaning, - ensuring the integrity of society and individual groups. The anthropological function of communication is that it satisfies the most important human need - the need for another person. In accordance with this, the main value that participants in communication strive to possess is mutual understanding. If it is absent, then communication does not fulfill either its social or anthropological function.

Achieving mutual understanding allows communication to perform another anthropological function - hedonistic. L. Tolstoy called the pleasure received from communication “dinner from the intangible side.” An important anthropological function of communication is also the cultivation of human emotions, primarily moral feelings.

True, art also performs this same function, but it does this by other means specific to it. There is a complementary relationship between communication and art: a person cultivated by art, on the one hand, is enriched as a subject of communication, and on the other, a sociable person is more open to art, more receptive to it; in addition, art itself is one of the most powerful means communication, and communication, being one of the most complex types of creativity, in which intuition, imagination, fantasy play an important role, creative thinking(the ability to capture the image of an interlocutor and create your own image) is rightly considered as a kind of art.

Communication is an important factor in the spiritual development of the individual also because it allows one to satisfy the need for self-affirmation. It has been established that for some socio-demographic groups (for example, adolescents) this need prevails over others, and the dominant way to satisfy it is direct communication with peers.

The most important anthroposocial function of communication is the socialization of the younger generation in communication with peers.

Finally, spiritual interpersonal communication also performs an informational function, but it is perhaps the least characteristic of it: other types of communication and other spheres of culture perform this function more successfully.

Upbringing and education

One of the most important areas of culture, allowing culture to fulfill its life-supporting functions, is upbringing the younger generation. People paid attention to this already at the earliest stages of their development.

Researchers of primitive society note that even among tribes that are the most primitive in terms of development in comparison with all the relict tribes and nationalities known to us, the education of youth is one of the three most important general tribal affairs, the first of which is providing food and protecting the inhabited area and feeding areas.

Let's think about this: the ancient people already understood that raising the younger generation is just as important as providing food and protecting the territory that can serve as a source of this food. In other words, the ancients already understood that the tribe would die if it did not properly educate the younger generation, just as it would die without food.

So, raising the younger generation is one of the most important areas of culture, performing life-supporting functions.

The function of education is to reproduce the person needed by this particular community. This refers to the entire set of basic human traits and qualities, i.e., a person in his entirety. Education, therefore, is that sphere of culture where the anthropological structure of a given culture becomes visible, since in it the requirements imposed on a person by a given culture, that is, certain human standards, are enclosed in a system of rules and regulations that have a varied, but always a fairly definite form.

What is common to all historical, regional, and national types of education is that the main integral value of this sphere of culture is compliance with certain requirements, the totality of which is built on the idea of ​​a certain type of person needed by a given society. And since different societies differ significantly from one another, because they live in different conditions, have different histories, etc., then the requirements for the person needed by a given society also differ. Accordingly, the values ​​characteristic of education as a cultural sphere also differ.

For example, in a society with an object paradigm, i.e. where a person is thought of mainly as an object of external influences - the state, church, family, etc., the most important value of education is obedience, i.e. obedient execution of orders, rules, regulations, following traditions, repeating patterns.

In a society with a subjective paradigm, i.e., where a person is considered primarily as a subject, i.e., a source of activity, thoughtless obedience cannot be a value. These are initiative, responsibility, and a creative approach to business. But since no society can live without following certain rules, conscious discipline and self-discipline become a value.

The attitude towards other essential human forces and their combination with each other varies in the same way. The forms and institutions of education also vary.

Education As a sphere of culture, it has much more modest tasks than education. Its function is the transfer of knowledge necessary for a person as a member of a given community.

Thus, if education deals with the person as a whole, then the function of education is the cultivation of only one of the essential forces of man - the one that we have designated by the term “rational”. It includes such components as the ability to think, the ability to act rationally, i.e. expediently, and, finally, knowledge. Based on this, we can conclude that education is correctly considered as Part education, since a complete person is impossible without such an essential force as rationality.

However, the increase in the volume of knowledge that each subsequent generation had to acquire in comparison with the previous one led to the separation of education from upbringing and, moreover, to the derogation of the role of upbringing.

This trend became especially noticeable by the middle of the 20th century, and at the same time its disastrous consequences became especially noticeable. They were expressed in the one-sided, one-sided development of man - hypertrophy of the rational principle in him, and in the form of wretched rationalism with a purely utilitarian bias, and atrophy of the emotional principle, reaching the point of complete insensibility. The result of this is moral deafness, since morality is not only knowledge about the rules of behavior, but also a moral feeling, and this requires a developed emotional sphere. In this regard, the most urgent task of our time is the synthesis of upbringing and education. It is possible only if the main goal and value of this dual system becomes an integral person in the fullness of the development of his essential powers.

Mythology and religion

One of the oldest spheres of culture is religion (from lat. religare- connection). Many researchers even believe that this is the most ancient sphere of culture.

Two arguments are usually given in favor of this point of view. One of them is logical-etymological. It is associated with a certain interpretation of the concept of “culture” and a certain idea of ​​the etymological origin and meaning of the word “culture” itself. Thus, supporters of this point of view believe that religion is the most important sphere of culture, expressing its essence. In their opinion, if there is no religion, then there is no culture. And they consider the word “culture” itself to be derived from the word “cult,” which denotes a phenomenon inextricably linked with religion.

Thus, etymology, i.e. the very origin of the word, serves for supporters of this point of view as confirmation of the starting position of their cultural concept.

It should be borne in mind that not only the interpretation of the essence of religion, but also the interpretation of the etymological meaning of the word “culture” is in this case very controversial. As is known, the overwhelming majority of researchers associate the etymological meaning of the word “culture” not with the word “cult”, but with the words “processing”, “cultivation”, “improvement”.

Another argument in favor of the idea of ​​religion as the oldest sphere of culture is historical. Supporters of this point of view argue that irreligious peoples have never existed and do not exist.

Historical arguments are refuted with the help of historical facts, they say that religion, which requires a fairly high level of development of consciousness, was preceded by myth, or rather myths, and therefore this sphere of culture is called mythology, meaning that the myths of any culture are united in a certain system , i.e. they have their own logo.

So what is myth and how does it differ from religion?

Mythology. The main feature of the myth is syncretism. All researchers of primitive mythology (A.F. Losev, F.H. Cassidy, M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, E.M. Meletinsky, E.F. Golosovker, etc.) unanimously note such features of the content of the myth as indivisibility in between reality and fantasy, subject and object, nature and man, individual and collective, material and spiritual. Myth, therefore, is a reflection of underdevelopment and, accordingly, unawareness of social and cultural contradictions. And in this it is fundamentally different from religion, which arises when these contradictions begin to appear and be realized, and represents an illusory way of resolving them.

The cultural function of myth is that it gave primitive man a ready-made form for his worldview and worldview. The main function of myth is “social and practical, aimed at ensuring the unity and integrity of the team.” Myth could fulfill this function due to the fact that it is “a product of the collective and is an expression of collective unity, universality and integrity.”

Since in myth there is no distinction between the real and the fantastic, it does not contain the problem of faith and unbelief, faith and knowledge, so tragically realized by religion. Myth does not form any ideal, its principle is “what was, was, what is, is,” and, therefore, there is no problem of conformity to the ideal. Finally, myth is impersonal: individuality in it is completely dissolved in spontaneous collective force, which means that there is no problem of personal responsibility, personal guilt.

Religion. The first sociocultural phenomenon that required professionalization of activity for its functioning was religion. It arose in the process of development of mythological consciousness as its derivative, later and qualitatively higher stage. If myth is a reflection of the underdevelopment and unawareness of social and cultural contradictions, then religion, on the contrary, appears when these contradictions already take place and begin to be recognized. One of the first signs of religious consciousness is the absence of mythological syncretism of subject and object. Realizing the contradiction between subject and object, in particular, between man and the nature surrounding him, religion resolves it in favor of external forces independent of man, which thus become the subject (deity), and man is conceived as the object of their influence.

The absence of a primitive ideological anarchism in understanding the relationship between subject and object is a sign of even the most primitive religions. More developed religions rise to the awareness of other contradictions of human existence.

Religion performs the same functions as myth. The main one among them is integrative, i.e. the unification of certain communities around common gods. It should be taken into account that the integrative function of religion should not be absolutized: rallying around one’s gods or God often leads to separation from those who profess a different faith and worship other gods.

Another important function of religion, which it inherited from myth, is worldview. But religion also performs this function differently from myth. A more developed religious worldview covers a wider sphere of reality and includes a solution to the problem of man’s place in the world around him and his capabilities.

On the basis of myth, as has already been shown, not only a solution, but also a formulation of this problem is impossible. However, the functions of religion compared to myth have expanded significantly.

In addition to the functions that myth performed (and performs), religion began to perform a number of more important functions.

One of them is the function of consecrating moral norms. The status of “holy, sacred” in any culture is given to the highest values ​​of that culture. Thus, the sanctification of moral norms is giving them the status of the highest value. In addition, the sanctification of moral norms on a religious basis makes it possible to refer to God as the source of moral instructions, as an omnipresent and omniscient observer of how they are fulfilled, and as the supreme judge who pronounces his verdict on moral transgressions (“God is your judge.” !”), and, finally, as the executor of his sentences (to heaven or hell).

Thus, the religious basis makes moral norms unusually effective and imperative. Moreover, there is a very strong belief that morality cannot exist at all without a religious basis. “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”

Religion successfully fulfills and aesthetic function. The architecture and interior decoration of the temple, the musical accompaniment of divine services, the clothing of priests and parishioners - all this is rich, imbued with beauty and therefore produces an extraordinary aesthetic effect.

Religion also successfully performs a communicative function, that is, the function of communication. At the same time, it is capable of significantly expanding the social circle of each individual: it includes not only parishioners of a particular church, but also fellow believers - compatriots, fellow believers living in other countries, all previous generations of people who professed one or another religion, and finally, every religion gives a person an absolutely perfect communication partner (or partners) - the god (or gods) of this religion - to whom one can turn with prayer and be quite confident that it will be heard and understood.

The psychotherapeutic function of religion is also connected with this - turning to God heals mental illnesses and helps to cope with internal disorder.

The variety of functions of religion is closely related to its essence, deeply revealed by L. Feuerbach, a philosopher whose work is the final stage in the development of German classical philosophy.

In his works, and first of all, in his most famous work, “The Essence of Christianity,” L. Feuerbach showed that the god of any religion is the ideal of man, as he appears to people of a particular era, a particular culture, this or that people. Therefore, the gods are endowed with such features as power or even omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. In fact, these are traits that people themselves would like to have and which they possess, but only ideally, and not in real life.

Thus, according to L. Feuerbach, people seem to tear off, alienate their own essence from themselves, lift it to heaven and worship it.

Based on this idea of ​​L. Feuerbach, the diversity of religions can be explained, since it is associated with the diversity of ideals of human perfection, characteristic of different peoples and depending on the conditions of their life and the historical path they have traversed. Therefore, fulfilling the functions of religions in all their rich spectrum is possible only in relation to believers. As for non-believers and atheists, it is obligatory for them to respect the feelings of believers, to understand the deep cultural roots of religion and the diversity of its functions.

In addition, every cultured person must understand that there are no good or bad religions, but there are people who are capable of distorting the original principles of any religious teaching beyond recognition and thereby turning it into a weapon of hostility and separation of peoples.

Art

Art in its developed forms represents a vast sphere of human activity, a powerful focus of values, without which it is impossible to imagine culture. The specificity of the anthropological function of art is that it cultivates the emotional component of human spirituality, that is, it influences his feelings.

This determines the social function of art: it gives society a “feeling person.” A person deprived of the ability to feel cannot be not only a full-fledged producer, but also a full-fledged consumer of cultural values, since value consciousness has a dual nature - emotional-rational or rational-emotional. This is especially important in the sphere of morality: an insensitive person is flawed as a subject of moral activity, since the stimulus for moral activity is not so much knowledge of moral norms as moral feelings: compassion, love, aversion to evil, etc. Thus, a low level of development of emotionality as components of human spirituality weakens the influence of such a powerful regulator of social life as morality.

The role of art is also great in the functioning of other spheres of culture - communication, education, religion, etc., etc.

Thus, the social function of art lies in the fact that it is one of the powerful factors in the self-regulation of social life, the action of which is determined by its focus on the emotional sphere of human spirituality.

The specificity of art from a semiotic point of view is that it uses the language of artistic images, which represent a model of a particular phenomenon in its entirety. An integral feature of an artistic image is its emotional intensity, which distinguishes it from models used in science. Thanks to the peculiarities of artistic images, a person who perceives a work of literature, as it were, “sees” what is narrated in it. As for works of fine art, the very purpose of which is to give a visible image of a particular phenomenon, here too the role of the artistic image is to help a person see the invisible. Thus, a drawing of a flower in a biology textbook gives an accurate idea of ​​the shape of the flower, its color (if the drawing is colored). And the drawing of a flower made by the artist allows you to “see” the author’s experiences, his joy or sadness, admiration for the beauty of the flower and awe at its fragility and defenselessness, etc., etc.

The general cultural function of art is to provide a visible image of a particular culture, and, above all, a visible image of a person of a given specific culture, in all his forms and situations. This does not mean that art only reflects or records “what is.” Since any culture is impossible without ideals that orient people towards “what is needed”, “what should be”, what they should strive for, then art is impossible without this ideal component. Therefore, the references of the authors of “chernukha” and “porn” to the fact that “such is life” only indicate that they do not understand the purpose of art.

In the axiological aspect, art is also very specific. The main value cultivated in the field of art is beauty. It is one of the system-forming values ​​of any culture. And in accordance with this, one of the most important functions of art is to provide a visible standard of beauty. However, ideas about beauty vary significantly across cultures: what is considered beautiful from the point of view of one culture may be perceived as ugly in another. Therefore, the standard of beauty presented in the art of one people can at least cause bewilderment on the part of another culture.

At the same time, there is something common in the understanding of beauty by different peoples. It lies in bringing the concept of “beauty” closer to the concept of “harmony”. However, new difficulties arise here. They lie in the fact that the concept of “harmony” is no less ambiguous than the concept of “beauty”, and thus, instead of an equation with one unknown, we get an equation with two unknowns.

To solve it, it is useful to turn to the etymological meaning of the word “harmony”. It is characteristic that originally in ancient Greek it meant “scrapes.” It is in this specific meaning that it is used, for example, in the Odyssey: Odysseus, building a ship, trims it with “nails” and “harmonies.” Thus, harmony was thought of by the ancient Greeks as a kind of way of firmly connecting various parts into something holistic, organic. As is known, they saw an example of harmony in the human body. They also thought of it as an example of beauty.

This understanding of beauty and harmony is one of the fundamental ideas of Russian cultural philosophy. Thus, the outstanding Russian thinker K. N. Leontiev wrote that “the fundamental law of beauty is diversity in unity.” Beauty understood in this way is identical to harmony, and harmony, according to K. N. Leontiev, “is not a peaceful unison, but a fruitful, fraught with creativity, and at times brutal struggle.”

Russian thinkers are credited with developing another category, denoting one of the most important values ​​cultivated in the field of art - this is true. N.K. Mikhailovsky, one of the rulers of the thoughts of Russian youth in the last third of the 19th century, noted that Russian word“truth” in its entirety of meaning cannot be translated into any other language. At the same time, as N.K. Mikhailovsky noted, there are two main meanings, the combination of which gives an approximate idea of ​​what people of Russian culture understand by the word “truth.”

One of these meanings is “truth-truth.” It corresponds to the concept of “truth”, which can be defined as knowledge that corresponds to reality. This understanding of truth reflects the moment of objectivity as an integral feature, in the absence of which it ceases to be such.

Another meaning of the concept “truth” is “truth-justice”. In this understanding of truth, in contrast to the first, the moment of subjectivity, a relationship from the standpoint of justice, which includes a personal attitude, is reflected. In the absence of this moment, the truth also ceases to be the truth and remains only the truth.

This idea of ​​Russian philosophy seems to have enduring significance for understanding the axiological specificity of art. Apparently, it would be correct to consider not only beauty, but also truth as one of the system-forming values ​​cultivated in the field of art. What is meant here is, first of all, the truth of human feelings.

Understanding the semiotic and axiological specifics of art allows us to better understand how exactly art performs its main anthropological, general cultural and social functions, which was discussed at the beginning of this section.

Art also performs a number of other functions, which are also performed by other spheres of culture. The specificity of art lies in this case in the way these functions are performed.

Thus, art performs a cognitive function. It is more typical for another sphere of culture - science. But art makes it possible to learn and see what is inaccessible to science. Thus, the novel in verse by A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” is rightfully considered an encyclopedia of Russian life in the first third of the 19th century, the epic by O. Balzac “ Human Comedy» - encyclopedia French life approximately the same period, D. Galsworthy’s novel “The Forsyte Saga” is an encyclopedia of English life at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. etc. But, as mentioned above, art not only reflects reality, but also constructs new, its own worlds in accordance with the ideals of beauty, goodness, truth. Hence the constructive-programming function of art.

Art is one of the most important means of intercultural and intracultural communication and thus performs a communicative function, often more successfully than other means of communication. This is due to the fact that the language of images is more understandable than other cultural languages. For example, art of a particular people gives an idea of ​​the ideal of beauty that the people of this culture are guided by, and of the problems that concern them, and even of ways to solve these problems.

Art is also an effective means of education. Standards of behavior, presented in artistic form in works of art, have a very great educational impact precisely because of their appeal to human feelings. Negative images that turn a person away from unworthy behavior have no less impact. Educational function art is also built on the fact that in figurative and artistic form it gives a picture of the intense, at times tragic struggle between good and evil, the arena of which is not only the world as a whole, but also the soul of each individual person.

The function of socialization and acculturation of the individual performed by art is also of great importance. It is carried out due to the fact that art in an artistic and figurative form gives a person an idea of ​​the set of social roles existing in society, the requirements placed on them, the basic values ​​and norms of a given culture.

We must also not forget about the hedonistic function of art. The pleasure that a person receives from perceiving a highly artistic work of art is unparalleled.

The closely related relaxation and entertainment functions of art are also of great importance.

Unfortunately, in modern culture There is a tendency that all the variety of functions of art comes down to relaxation and entertainment. This is especially characteristic of mass culture - the most simplified, primitivized version of mass culture.

To perform all the diverse functions of art, professionals working in this sphere of culture develop and apply various methods and techniques. Their combination at one or another stage of development of a particular culture forms a kind of systemic unity, which is called the artistic method.

This or that artistic method is characterized by the following main distinctive features.

Firstly, a certain certainty of the content of artistic works made in accordance with one method or another. This feature of the artistic method is directly related to the basic value attitudes of a particular culture, the semantic centers of which are, as has been repeatedly said above, the ideal of a person, characteristic of a particular culture, at a particular stage of its development. In addition to this substantive moment, which is objective in relation to the artist himself, different artistic methods are characterized by different degrees of inclusion in the content of the work of the subjective moment, that is, the personal position of the artist, his attitude to the values ​​and ideals prevailing in society.

Another distinctive feature of a particular artistic method is a set of certain formal features characteristic of expressing the content of a work of art.

It should be noted that the unity of form and content is one of the universal laws of existence. Its effect is especially clearly manifested in all cultural phenomena. But it has a special, unprecedented significance in art.

Since the impact on human feelings is carried out primarily due to the form of the work, then the form is often perceived as something independent, and the content of the work - as something secondary.

However, this is not the case. Despite all the enormous significance that the form of a work of art has, it still depends primarily on its content. In figurative form, this dependence of form on the content of a work of art was wonderfully expressed by K. N. Leontiev, already quoted by us, when he noted that form is an expression of the internal despotism of the idea.

But the peculiarity of a work of art, if it is art, is that under the yoke of the “despotic power” of the content, the form does not become a slave, but retains its active role and complements the content, making it full-blooded, vital and bright, which ensures its impact on the feelings of the listener , viewer, reader, etc.

The set of formal features characteristic of a particular movement in the art of a certain era or for the work of a particular artist is called style. However, one should not think that the concept of “style” is associated only with form. It is quite understandable that given the special role that form plays in work of art, and the specificity of its connection with content, the concept of “style” cannot but include the idea of ​​substantive moments characteristic of a particular style. However, taking into account all these considerations, it should still be emphasized that the cognitive and methodological significance of the concept of “artistic style” is due to the fact that it is somewhat to a greater extent than the concept of “artistic method”, it focuses attention on the form of works of art rather than on their content.

It should be noted that the concept of “style” is applicable not only in art. For example, you often hear the expression: “Man is style.” It also applies to culture as a whole. In this case, they talk about “cultural style,” meaning those semantic accents that are characteristic of the concept of “style” in general. They lie in the fact that, as mentioned above, it allows us to pay primary attention to the formal features of a particular phenomenon, without ignoring its content.

Returning to art, it must be said that within the framework of a particular artistic method, different styles can coexist.

« Artistic method“is a very capacious concept that allows us to most meaningfully characterize the most important features of art as an element of the culture of a particular people, a particular era, a particular stage of development.

Another, no less capacious concept that can serve as a tool for analyzing the state of art is the concept of “artistic picture of the world.” It includes the idea of ​​the “image of the world”, which is created by the collective efforts of artists of a particular culture. Unlike the scientific picture of the world, which remained “deserted” for a long period of development of science, in the artistic picture of the world created in the art of all times and peoples, man has always been at the center. However, his relationship to the world and the relationship of the world to man, the very image of the world and the image of man in different artistic paintings the world appears differently, and this serves as one of the most important sources of knowledge of a particular culture.

The science

Science is a relatively young sphere of culture. Its function is to provide individuals and society with knowledge about the objective laws of the surrounding reality. The source of knowledge is not only science, but also other areas of human life, which provide knowledge about many useful and necessary things.

Scientific knowledge differs from other types of knowledge precisely in that it is knowledge about laws, i.e., necessary, repeating connections between things, processes, phenomena, while everyday knowledge is knowledge about individual phenomena, processes, things, etc. .

In addition, scientific knowledge differs from non-scientific types of knowledge in that it is systemic in nature, that is, its individual elements are interconnected and interdependent, while non-scientific knowledge is often fragmented.

In addition to knowledge about laws, science includes knowledge about methods for obtaining and testing the truth of knowledge.

Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about problems, that is, about unsolved problems that arise in a particular field of science. However, it would be wrong to define science only as a special kind of knowledge. A special kind of knowledge is the goal and result of the functioning of science, and the means to achieve this goal is a special kind of human activity. Thus, science as a sphere of culture represents the unity of a special kind of knowledge and activities to obtain this knowledge.

The axiological specificity of science lies in the fact that the highest value of this sphere of culture is true, objective knowledge corresponding to reality.

In the field of science, the side of human activity that is designated by the concept of “rationality” is especially clearly manifested. It is defined as a set of methods and results of optimizing human activity in accordance with the goals set. It follows that the anthropological function of science is to cultivate human rationality. This is the functional difference between science and art, which is designed to cultivate human emotionality.

On this basis, we can conclude that art and science are complementary and that there is no point in arguing about what is more necessary - science or art. But it is important to keep in mind that the prerogative of cultivating human rationality does not belong only to science.

Different spheres of human activity also have their own rationality, in connection with which we can talk about a rational element in morality, art, politics, etc. In all these spheres there is specificity in setting goals, choosing means, and evaluating the results of activities. It is in this regard that one can raise the question of the specifics of scientific rationality. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is, firstly, a characteristic of human activity within the framework of science as a sphere of culture and, secondly, a side of human activity in any other areas where the use of science is possible: for example, in politics there is its own rationality, regardless of whether science is used there; if science is used, then this gives the right to talk not only about rationality in politics, but also about scientific rationality in politics.

So, scientific rationality differs from other types of rationality in that its basis is knowledge about the objective laws of reality. Obtaining such knowledge is the goal of human activity in the field of science. The means to achieve the goal are also specific - they are combined into the concept of “scientific methodology”.

The criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge, as well as knowledge in general, is practice. However, in science there is a specific type of practice - a scientific experiment. Its meaning lies in the fact that in order to verify the truth of his assumptions, the researcher, on the basis of his knowledge about the objective laws of a particular area of ​​​​reality, creates artificial conditions. If, under these conditions, the objects under study behave in a pre-predicted manner, then the likelihood of recognizing the original statements as true increases.

But in science there are no truths established once and for all; in science everything is always tested, questioned and criticized. Scientific thinking is fundamentally opposed to dogmatism.

Thus, scientific rationality differs from all other types of rationality in terms of goals, means, methods of verifying the results obtained, and the type of thinking that serves it. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is not something immutable, given once and for all, established. It was the cultural approach to the analysis of science that made it possible to see that science changes and develops along with the change and development of culture as a whole. In connection with the above, we can talk about different types of science and different types of scientific rationality.

To see this, you need to take a short excursion into the history of science.

Science as an independent sphere of culture declared itself only in modern times. Therefore, some researchers consider it possible to assert that the history of science begins with the 17th century, and previous periods should be considered prehistory. As we have seen, this kind of view has some basis.

Be that as it may, since the 17th century. the fact of the existence of science should be recognized as indisputable. Moreover, in modern European culture science gradually took a dominant place. This is due to the fact that branches of production, fertilized by science, through technology, provide immeasurably greater profits compared to those that science ignores. Thus, the impetus for the development of science comes from society, or more precisely, from the economy.

However, this fully applies only to certain stages of the development of science. Meanwhile, science, like modern European culture as a whole, is evolving.

Thus, until recently, it was generally accepted to distinguish two periods in the development of modern European science: classical and non-classical. The famous Russian philosopher V.S. Stepin, who fruitfully studies science in a cultural context, proposed and quite reasonably distinguish not two, but three periods: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science. The basis for periodization is differences in the ideals and norms of scientific research, the scientific picture of the world, the philosophical principles of scientific activity, and the connection with practice. All this, taken together, is the basis for distinguishing three types of scientific rationality - classical, non-classical and post-non-classical.

Among the ideals and norms of scientific research, V. S. Stepin highlights such an aspect of science as its orientation towards the object or subject of research. Accordingly, it is stated that classical science focuses attention only on the object and brackets everything that relates to the subject and means of activity. Non-classical science is characterized by the idea of ​​the relativity of an object to the means and operations of activity. Finally, post-non-classical science “takes into account the correlation of knowledge on an object not only with the means, but also with the value-goal structures of activity.” Thanks to the inclusion of the axiological moment in science, which was previously considered fundamentally deaxiological, a new, “humanized” methodology emerges.

The question may arise whether there is a discrepancy between the logic of human development and the logic of the history of science. Thus, speaking about the development of the essential forces of man in capitalist society, we stated that it followed the line of subject - object - the search for a synthesis of the subject and object. But in science, it seems, things happened exactly the opposite: orientation to the object of study, then to the subject, and now, again, the search for a synthesis between compliance with the object and the value orientations of the subject. If you look deeper, you can see that there are no discrepancies between these two lines. After all, the orientation of classical science towards the object of research was nothing more than a manifestation of the unshakable faith that man is an omnipotent subject of knowledge, fully capable of unraveling God’s plan in the structure of the world. The transition to non-classical science in this sense can be considered as a person’s renunciation of his scientific pride and coming to the conviction that a person can understand the world “to the extent”. And finally, post-non-classical science poses the problem of synthesizing two previously identified trends: orientation towards scientific objectivity, and inclusion of a value-based, i.e. subjective component in all elements of scientific activity.

Evolution scientific methodology manifested itself and is manifested not only in changes in the orientation of scientific activity towards an object or subject, but also in other directions. Thus, classical science considered mathematics and physics and, accordingly, mathematical methods as its models. Non-classical science has reached the point of “epistemological anarchism”, based on the belief that the process of cognition is a field of application of various creative abilities, or rather, the arbitrariness of the knowing object.

Post-non-classical science is trying to follow the path of combining the principle of pluralism of methods with the principle of scientific accuracy, which, however, is also understood in a completely new way. As K. A. Svasyan rightly notes, “the cultural cosmos is a gradation of methods, each of which has the right to self-determination without forced comparison with excellent students in the physics and mathematics service.”

Regarding the question of the orientation of science towards practice, it should be emphasized that a purely pragmatic approach to science was a general cultural phenomenon for modern times. It was characteristic of both scientists and philosophers themselves. Notable in this regard are the words of T. Hobbes: “Knowledge is only the path to power. Theorems (which in geometry are the way of investigation) serve only to solve problems. And all speculation ultimately has as its goal some action or practical success.”

Cartesian analytical philosophy also had a pragmatic orientation. Emphasizing this circumstance, V.N. Katasonov notes: “Newton in this sense, despite his polemics with Descartes, says the same thing: in geometry the main structure. Descartes claims to give a kind of “canon” of these constructions. Newton prefers to maintain “free hands,” but also focuses on the pragmatics of geometry. The ancient understanding of geometry is re-emphasized: contemplation is relegated to the background. Its “lower” part, “associated with crafts”... the geometry of constructions comes to the fore.” V.N. Katasonov rightly sees a connection between this phenomenon and all other aspects of modern culture. "The new geometry was inseparable from new culture, a new, emerging formation, a new person,” he emphasizes. And further: F. Bacon’s “New Organon” and G. Galileo’s experimental method, and T. Campanella’s “social engineering”, and the indomitable will of P. Corneille’s dramatic heroes - all testified to the birth of a new man, active, active, re P a g e the current world.”

Non-classical science has given rise to a certain “fronde” among scientists regarding the principle of pragmatism. It was at this time that statements like the well-known statement that science is a way to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist at the expense of the state appear.

Post-non-classical science poses the problem of purifying the principle of connection between scientific activity and practice from narrow utilitarianism, into which it often degenerates. This is due to the need not only for a broader, humanistic understanding of practice, but also for its actual humanization. And this goes far beyond the boundaries of science.

As for the analysis of the process of development of science of modern and recent times in the light of the culturological category “scientific picture of the world”, it will give us another triad. Thus, classical science corresponds to a mechanical picture of the world, non-classical science is characterized by a plurality of pictures of the world - along with the physical, biological, chemical, etc. appear. Post-non-classical science strives for their synthesis and the creation of a single, holistic picture of the historical development of nature, society and man himself. This inclusion of man in the scientific picture of the world is perhaps the most striking manifestation of the changes taking place in modern science: the “deserted” picture of the world becomes an anachronism for it.

The process of changing the philosophical foundations of science of new and modern times is also triadic: classical science is based on metaphysical philosophy, non-classical science not only pays tribute, but also exaggerates the principle of relativity, post-non-classical science strives to synthesize the rigor of analysis, which is based on the principles of metaphysical philosophy, with flexibility of thinking, mobility and breadth views derived from the principle of relativity.

Along with what was discussed above, in Russian literature There is another point of view on the periodization of the history of science, in accordance with other principles. It was proposed by G.N. Volkov, substantiated in a number of his works published in the 60s - 80s of the 20th century, but did not find wide response and support either then or now. Meanwhile, his approach seems to highlight important features and characteristics of science.

G.N. Volkov proposes to consider as a criterion for periodization the orientation of science towards man or towards other goals located outside of man. Accordingly, he distinguishes three periods of development of science: the first - from the emergence of science in Ancient Greece until the 17th century, the second - from the beginning of the 17th century. until the middle of the 20th century, the third - from the middle of the 20th century. Until now.

The first period is characterized by the orientation of science towards man. Science seeks to explain to man logo, i.e., the laws of the world around him. The second period in the development of science is characterized by the orientation of science towards technology. The sciences of the physical and mathematical cycle act as leaders, the methods of these sciences are absolutized, and science is dehumanized. In the third period of the development of science, the reorientation of science begins from technology back to man. This is expressed in the increasing role of the humanities and the humanization of scientific methodology in general, in the expansion of the range of methods used and the increasing role of the value element in the process of obtaining, especially in the process of applying scientific knowledge.

As is easy to see, in the periodization of G.N. Volkov there are certain similarities with the periodization of V.S. Stepin. To be more precise, it can be noted that different approaches to the periodization of the history of science, which make it possible to highlight different aspects of this process, nevertheless ultimately give similar results, which apparently indicates the reliability of these results.

In particular, in the characteristics of the third period of development of science (according to the theory of G.N. Volkov), similarities with classical science are revealed. In G.N. Volkov’s characterization of the modern period of development of science, one can discern the features of post-non-classical science with its humanizing methodology.

To summarize, it should be said that the third stage in the development of science of modern and contemporary times, associated with its deep humanization, is just beginning; the contours of the new science are still barely outlined. The principle of scientism, which consists in the fetishization of the norms and ideals of classical science and their transformation into general cultural norms, is still one of the most important factors shaping modern cultural situation in Western countries. This creates tension in the relationship between science and other spheres of culture.

Philosophy

One of the most important areas of culture is philosophy (from the Greek. filo- I love, sophos- wisdom). Since its inception, it has performed and continues to perform a number of functions. Some of them can only be accomplished by philosophy; the other part can be accomplished together with other spheres of culture, but in other ways, accessible only to philosophy.

The most important cultural and anthropological function of philosophy is worldview. Philosophy satisfies a person’s need for a holistic idea of ​​the world around him and man’s place in it. Before the advent of philosophy, this need was satisfied by mythology and religion. But neither one nor the other provided an explanation or substantiation of ideological positions, did not answer the questions “why?”, “Why?” and whether other views and other solutions to worldview problems are possible. The desire to provide answers to these questions led to the emergence of philosophy.

Related information.

Introduction

3.1 Mythology

3.2. Religion

3.3. Art

3.4. Philosophy

Conclusion

Introduction

To understand the culture of peoples and human experience in general, the spiritual aspects of culture are as important as material culture and social organization. Spiritual culture refers to all the ideal material produced by society. It has its own history and gives a culture its distinctiveness, even though the material aspects of life, especially in modern societies, may be very similar. Many peoples living in the same natural conditions may have very different worldviews, religious beliefs, rituals and mythologies. Although there are certain universal characteristics of religious systems and beliefs, it is their diversity and uniqueness that are of primary interest to science and social practice.

Spiritual culture is a rich and varied sphere in which one can discover everything, from the emotional world of an individual person to brilliant discoveries that are significant for all humanity. Every thing created by people includes their goals, ideas, knowledge. In other words, spiritual culture, entering into the systemic integrity of culture in general, itself represents a special world and a special system. Spiritual culture is a world of ideas related to human existence in the world. The presence of spiritual culture is a specific feature of the human way of life. It manifests itself not only in the activity of consciousness, but also in human relationships, in religious and scientific ideas about the world, in those artistic images, who captured this world in all its richness.

The purpose of this work is to consider spiritual culture as a system. Achieving this goal requires solving the following tasks:

1. consider the concepts: “spiritual culture”, “material culture” and understand how they differ from each other.
2. consider the features of spiritual culture;
3. characterize the main elements of spiritual culture: mythology, religion, art and philosophy.

1. The relationship between spiritual and material cultures

Although the phrase “spiritual culture” is often found in both oral and written speech, its meaning requires clarification. It has become a tradition to divide culture into “spiritual” and “material”. However, this division is not as obvious as it might seem at first glance.

Firstly, the distinction between “spiritual” and “material” culture is interpreted differently, and secondly, attempts to separate “spiritual” from material culture and understand them as two different spheres of culture invariably end in failure.

What do they mean when they divide culture into “spiritual” and “material”?

Some classify as “spiritual” culture that which satisfies the spiritual needs of people, and as “material” culture – that which satisfies their material needs. But there are many things that can simultaneously serve to satisfy both needs: arts and crafts, a trip to a resort, etc. And, besides, not everything that satisfies any human need is a cultural phenomenon (for example, air) , and cultural phenomena do not necessarily have to meet human, social needs (for example, negative cultural phenomena - drug addiction, crime).

Others call “spiritual culture” spiritual values ​​created by man, and “material culture” - things made by man, material objects (in this sense, archaeologists talk about “monuments of material culture”). But spiritual values ​​cannot enter a culture and be preserved in it without a material “sign shell”. And material objects can act as objects of culture only when they serve as carriers of social information, that is, they embody some meanings, some spiritual content. Consequently, “spiritual” and “material” culture cannot exist separately, apart from each other. “Monuments of material culture” could with no less right be called “monuments of spiritual culture”: after all, they are generally objects of culture only because they represent “texts” from which the archaeologist extracts the social information contained in them.

Still others understand by “spiritual culture” the sphere of spiritual life of society - religion, art, philosophy, etc., and by “material culture” - the sphere of material life, production and consumption of material goods. But then what is culture? The concept of culture here turns out to be so broad in its content that it is actually identified with the concept of “life of society” in general, turning into a duplicate, a synonym for the latter. The specificity of culture is lost. And it lies in the fact that culture is social information encoded in various symbolic forms,” that is, “information support” for people’s lives, and not their whole life. The very process of production and consumption of material goods (like all human life), lies outside the boundaries of culture. It covers only one side - the information-semiotic side.

So, it is impossible to differentiate and contrast “spiritual” and “material” culture with each other as two special areas of culture. For, on the one hand, the whole culture as a whole is spiritual, because it is a world of meanings, that is, spiritual essences. On the other hand, it is entirely material, because it is represented, “materialized” in sensually perceived codes, in signs and texts. Therefore, by material culture it makes sense to understand not some special area of ​​culture, different from spiritual culture, but the “sign shell” of any culture, that is, objective, material forms of expression of cultural meanings.

Mythology, religion, art, philosophy - these are the main forms of spiritual culture that most obviously belong to it.

Intangible or spiritual culture is formed by norms, rules, samples, standards, models and norms of behavior, laws, values, ceremonies and rituals, symbols, myths, knowledge, ideas, customs, traditions, language. They are also the result of human activity, but they were created not by hands, but rather by the mind. Intangible objects cannot be heard, seen, touched, they exist in our consciousness and are supported by human communication.

Bridges or temples last a very long time, but ceremonies or rituals last only as long as they are observed. The wedding ceremony lasts several hours, although people go through it repeatedly. The ceremony, like any other object of intangible culture, needs a material intermediary. Knowledge is expressed through books, the custom of greeting is through a handshake or spoken words. Wearing a tie is also a ritual or symbolic action, part of secular etiquette. It would have been impossible if not for the participation of a material intermediary - a tie.

2. Features of spiritual culture

Spiritual culture has some important features that distinguish it from other areas of culture.

1. Unlike technological and social culture, spiritual culture is non-utilitarian. This is the face of culture that is most distant from practice (although, like all culture, it is formed and changes depending on the development of social practice). Spiritual culture is essentially selfless. Its cornerstones are not benefit, not profit, but “joys of the spirit” - beauty, knowledge, wisdom. People need it, first of all, for its own sake, and not for the sake of solving any utilitarian tasks external to it (which, of course, does not exclude the possibility of using its achievements for practical purposes). The religious beliefs of believers, for example, are often turned by public figures into a means of solving political or other practically important problems, but it cannot be said that for this reason people believe in God.

2. In spiritual culture, a person, compared to other areas of culture, receives the greatest freedom of creativity. Here the human mind, not bound by utilitarian considerations and practical necessity, is able to break away from reality and fly away from it on the wings of fantasy. Freedom of creativity is already evident in ancient myths. It plays a significant role in any religion. Art provides unlimited scope for creativity.

3. Creative activity in spiritual culture leads to the fact that it becomes a special spiritual world created by the power of human thought. This world is incomparably richer than the real world. For in it, next to the images that reflect what we observe around us in reality, there are images of unprecedented phenomena. In this world there are unprecedented countries, like the island of Utopia; hell with boiling cauldrons of pitch for sinners and heaven with shady booths for the righteous; planets invented by science fiction writers, inhabited by monsters, and spaceships flying from God knows where to Earth. This world is inhabited by mythical spirits and gods, fantastic hydras, dragons and mermaids. We meet there with Evgeny Onegin, the Karamazov brothers and Anna Karenina. Unprecedented events take place there - Joshua stops the Sun, the emperor rises from the grave, a flea dresses up in velvet and rules over people. And although this world is filled with fiction, it exists according to its own laws and has an impact on our lives, perhaps even more than the real world. We are not always able to distinguish fantasy from reality. And if some aliens tried to study the life of mankind, having at their disposal only books, paintings, sculptures, films, they could probably come to the conclusion that on Earth there are goldfish in the seas, that some cats wear boots that the Bronze Horseman sometimes chases the townspeople, that people are constantly fighting the living dead and long-toothed vampires, traveling throughout the Universe in space rockets, from time to time they visit a virtual reality that they themselves create, they have experienced a nuclear war many times... And what is most curious is that all this, in a sense, is so.

4. Spiritual culture is the most sensitive area of ​​culture, most responsive to external influences. She is able to detect the slightest changes in people’s lives and respond to them with changes in herself. Therefore, it is in constant tension and movement. Sensitivity and responsiveness make it the most vulnerable, most vulnerable area of ​​culture. She has little predisposition to self-defense - it is unusual for good to keep her fists ready. And because of its impracticality and non-utilitarianism, people in difficult life circumstances begin to see it as an unnecessary burden, the most worthless part of culture (technological and social culture brings at least something practical benefit). She is shamelessly bullied and trampled upon, thrown out of their souls and heads like useless junk. This is why spiritual culture suffers the most during social cataclysms. They cause more damage to it than to other areas of culture. The October Revolution led to the decline of the spiritual culture of the people. The recent upheavals bring new dangers for it. Before our eyes, the spiritual world of people is becoming impoverished. If the aliens mentioned above watched our television programs, they would have the impression that in Russia by the end of the 20th century. The age-old mystery of the birth of love has been revealed (it turns out that love is the result of consuming fragrant soap and cologne with a breathtaking aroma), that the most worrying problem for Russians has become dandruff, and the objects of their most burning interest are chewing gum. Spiritual culture needs the care and support of society; its preservation and development requires efforts from it. If people stop being interested in it, it loses its internal tension and movement, retreats to the shelves of libraries and museum storerooms, becomes covered with dust and turns into a forgotten, dead culture.

3. Spiritual culture in the context of historicism

3.1 Mythology

Any schoolchild knows that myths have come down to us since ancient times, that people once believed in them, and then stopped. If we roughly summarize the everyday idea of ​​myth, then the question arises: why was it necessary to begin the analysis of spiritual culture with a conversation about mythology?

Because myth is the embryo of all spiritual culture. And not just the embryo that gave her life and then disappeared, not just the initial and long-past stage of her development. Myth continues to live in culture throughout its history right up to our time - next to its other forms.

The word "myth" literally means legend, legend. Myth is a story about gods, spirits, deified heroes and ancestors that arose in primitive society.

Mythology is understood as a set of myths created by any people (or different peoples). However, these dictionary meanings do not reveal the essence of myth and mythology as cultural phenomena.

A myth is a legend, a legend of a special kind. In the briefest form, its main feature is expressed in the following definition: a myth is a fiction accepted as truth. This definition for all its simplicity, it contains an internal paradox. Only by understanding this paradox can one understand the essence of the myth. The fact is that people who accept a myth as truth cannot see it as fiction; and those who consider myth to be fiction cannot accept it as truth. This means that myth is truth for some people and fiction for others.

People of the culture in which the myth is born, lives and is perceived as truth, believe in it and do not know that it is a myth. In their eyes, he is not a myth at all. The fact that they are dealing with a myth is discovered only by people of another culture, which gives them “other eyes” - a different vision of the world.

In later culture, myth is often perceived as a fairy tale. But a fairy tale is no longer a myth, since it does not pretend to be a reliable description of reality. Even small children do not believe that everything in a fairy tale is “true.” Myth, in its essence, is intended to serve as genuine knowledge of what actually exists. This is the fundamental difference between a myth and a fairy tale, as well as from any artistic fiction (by its nature it is more than just fiction, although it may later be interpreted that way).

Why do people, when writing myths, believe in the truth of their fictions? Yes, because, in their opinion, they do not “invent” anything, that is, they do not invent or invent anything. In their stories and legends, the world appears as it exists for them. They not only tell myths - they live in the world described by their myths. Of course, they can live in this world only to the extent that the content of the myths does not conflict with the real conditions of their life practice and is not refuted by their life experience. But myths are not random fruits of idle imagination; they do not arise out of nowhere, out of the blue. Myths, one way or another, express people’s experience of life and activity. And therefore, it is not surprising that they, living in the world of myths, at the same time have the opportunity to exist and act in the real world - at least until they are discovered between what is said in the myths and what happens in their experience significant differences.

Thus, mythology acts not just as a collection of myths, but also as a cultural form (“form public consciousness"), in which people perceive and understand the world around them, capture the accumulated life experience, preserve and pass it on from generation to generation.

3.2. Religion

One of the most important features of religion is that it makes everything connected with it sacred. Its symbols, relics, temples are shrines, its provisions are holy truths. Its most distinguished adherents are canonized as saints, and its ministers who perform religious rites are clergy and priests. Sacredness, holiness is a concept that refers to things that are sublime, cherished, exceptionally significant and important, and unusually revered. People consider the desecration of sacred things - sacrilege - a terrible sin, an unacceptable manifestation of immorality. The equation between “religious” and “holy” makes critical discussion of religious issues extremely difficult. It is not for nothing that Americans say that one should not talk about religion when visiting: some random statement may be considered an insult to something sacred.

There is no strict dividing line between mythology and religion. Many historians believe that even the most ancient myths can be considered the first historical form of religion. Thus, L. Ya. Sternberg identified three stages in the development of religion in primitive times: 1) belief in the animation of nature (animatism), 2) belief in spirits and gods” 3) belief in the existence of the soul as a special incorporeal principle that can be separated from the body and persist after his death (animism). Other historians prefer not to call ancient mythology a religion, believing that only developed and systematized mythological systems deserve this name.

Ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek mythology is often spoken of as the religion of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. At the same time, some argue that true religion arises only when faith in one, the only creator God, the creator of the universe (monotheism, or monotheism) appears. In the European tradition, mythological beliefs in the existence of many gods (polytheism, or polytheism) are most often characterized as a primitive, pagan religion. T. Hobbes, one of the greatest philosophers of modern times, believed that the difference between religion and mythology is relative and depends on what beliefs receive state recognition: “Fear of an unknown force, invented by the mind or imagined on the basis of inventions allowed by the state, is called religion , not allowed - by superstition."

Let the person determine for himself how, from his point of view, religion should be distinguished from mythology. But in any case, one thing remains certain: religion historically grows out of mythology and retains many of its features. In a sufficiently developed society, it is separated from mythological beliefs and becomes an independent and very significant cultural form. Myths continue to live in every culture, but a religion that has gained recognition in society, as a rule, opposes itself to them and condemns them as “superstition.”

Without going into an analysis of various approaches to the definition of religion, we will consider the main elements that are present in different religions and therefore, one might think, characterize the essence of religion in general.

1. Belief in God (or gods). This is the main sign of religion. Without gods there is no religion.

2. Emotional attitude to God. Since God is a being, like a person, who has reason, you can talk to him, you can turn to him in prayer, you can ask him, convince him, persuade him. God is a very convenient interlocutor: He is always nearby. With it, a person overcomes the feeling of loneliness. Belief in God is not just a rational belief in his existence: it is a religious feeling. It is permeated with emotions, and these emotions are similar to those that a person experiences for another person. A believer relates to God with love and fear, with reverence, delight, hope, feelings of guilt and repentance. Emotional communication with God forms a special kind of " spiritual experience» .

3. Creed. Every religion has sacred texts that set out the content of religious belief (Christian Bible, Zoroastrian Avesta, Muslim Koran). They talk about God and his deeds, about the prophet-founder of the religion, about the holy righteous, about the creation of the world and its structure, about the rules of life of society and man. An indispensable component are stories about miracles performed by gods, prophets, and saints. These miracles (which look very similar in all religions: healing of the sick, resurrection of the dead, extraordinary natural phenomena) serve as evidence of Divine power. The gods “reveal themselves” through miracles.

4. Religious cult. Worship of God is expressed in rites and rituals dedicated to him. They have their source in the magical component of mythology (spells and sacrifices to deities, magic and sorcery based on the principle of participation) and are nothing more than religious magic. Religious rites and rituals are very diverse and each religion has its own specifics. However, in all religions, believers are usually required to make a personal, individual appeal to God with prayers expressing love, obedience, gratitude and other feelings, as well as requests and wishes. Religious cult also includes collective worship with prayers, chants and other ritual actions - bowing, ablutions, manipulation of sacred objects, processions, etc.

An important aspect of a religious cult is symbolism. The cult serves as a “bridge” connecting believers with the deity. Religious objects, actions, gestures are a symbolic language in which a person’s dialogue with God takes place. In symbolic form, the believer, on the one hand, expresses his feelings and thoughts in sanctified forms acceptable for addressing the deity, and on the other hand, he joins God, receives support and help from him.

5. Organization of believers. Religion is by nature collective. It presupposes not only the connection of an individual with God, but also the connection of individuals who believe in this God, fellow believers. Pointing out the importance of this element of religion, L. Feuerbach emphasized that the word “religion” itself comes from the word “connection”. A person, of course, can call his personal beliefs that are not shared with anyone “his religion,” but this is just a turn of phrase. There can be an individual personal faith, but there cannot be an individual, personal religion that does not find the support of other people. The great founders of religions - Buddha, Christ, Muhammad - preached their ideas, and these ideas became a religion only when they gained many supporters. There cannot be “individual religions”. Society recognizes as a religion only a belief that is fairly widespread among people.

Any religion unites co-religionists, unites their individual “I”s into a kind of unified “We”. Fellow believers need an organization to find mutual support in their faith. Thanks to the organization, collective worship becomes possible, which plays an essential role in all religions, because it helps to strengthen a single faith.

To summarize the above, it can be noted that “religion is a worldview and attitude, as well as corresponding behavior and specific actions (cult); it is based on the belief in the existence of a god or gods, a supernatural one.”

3.3 Art

The ancient Greeks called art “the ability to create things in accordance with certain rules.” They considered art, in addition to architecture and sculpture, also handicrafts, arithmetic, and in general any matter where it was necessary to act according to certain rules. In this sense, art was understood for two and a half millennia - until the 16th century. In the XVI-XVIII centuries. crafts and sciences gradually ceased to be called arts. The French philosopher C. Watté in the 18th century, defining art as “a creation of beauty,” identified 7 types of “fine arts”: painting, sculpture, architecture, music, poetry, eloquence, dance. Since then, this list has become much longer. But the concept of art is currently used very ambiguously. Modern explanatory dictionaries indicate that the word “art” in Russian is used in three different senses. It can mean: 1) any activity that requires certain knowledge and skills (“martial art”, “the art of knitting”, “the art of driving a car”); 2) skill, skill in any matter (you can “show art” in anything - chopping wood, making cheat sheets, negotiating, etc.); 3) artistic creativity in general - literature, architecture, sculpture, painting, graphics, decorative and applied arts, music, dance, theater, cinema and other types of human activity.

The word “art” can be given an extremely broad meaning if we proceed from the fact that “artificial” is opposed to “natural”. For every artifact, that is, any cultural phenomenon, in contrast to a natural phenomenon, is of artificial origin, and therefore is the result of some kind of “art.” With such an interpretation of this word, all of it will have to be attributed to “art.” human culture and everything that is generated by it.

3.4 Philosophy

Like religion and art, philosophy was born from mythology. But from the very beginning it acted not just as a branch of spiritual culture separated from mythology, but as a rival to mythology. The first philosophers were those who dared to criticize the content of myths and tried to understand the structure of the world around them, relying on logical reasoning, and not on stories about the gods and their deeds. Philosophy originated about three thousand years ago in the ancient cultures of India, China, and Greece. The word “philosophy,” which is believed to have been first introduced by Pythagoras (c. 580-500 BC), comes from the Greek: love and wisdom and is translated literally as “love of wisdom.” However, the ancient Greek word does not fully correspond to the Russian word “wisdom”, but has a broader meaning and means possession of great knowledge, the ability to understand the meaning of phenomena and events in life. In ancient times, philosophers began to be called people engaged in knowledge and the search for truth.

The ancient philosophers saw wisdom not simply in collecting scattered information about many things: they believed that the main thing was to comprehend the connection between phenomena, their causes and foundations, and the general order of things. The guiding thread of philosophy has become the idea that behind the observed, sensually perceived phenomena there is hidden an invisible essence, comprehended only by the mind, that the diverse things of the surrounding world have a single, common fundamental principle from which they are all formed. This idea resulted in the formulation of the initial problems of philosophy - the problem of the essence of phenomena and the problem of the unity of the world.

Unlike mythology, philosophy began to explain the world not in visual images, but in abstract concepts. Thus, Greek philosophers, to express the power that establishes and protects a rational world order, introduced the concepts of “nus” (thought, mind) and “logos” (word, meaning, reason).

In ancient Chinese philosophy, the concept of “Tao” plays a similar role. This word, graphically consisting of two hieroglyphs - "head" and "walk", literally means "the main direction of walking" or "path". However, it gradually began to be used in a broader sense and also mean “exodus”, “correct movement”, “person’s life path”. And the great Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who lived in the 6th century. to c. e., began to talk about Tao as the “heavenly path” or “the will of heaven.” It is the “deepest principle” and “the mother of all things.” In fact, in Lao Tzu, Tao is nothing more than an abstraction that characterizes the “natural path” of processes occurring in the world, i.e., the universal (“invisible” and “inaudible”) pattern of nature .

The first philosophical abstractions - “logos”, “tao”, “arche”, “apeiron”, etc. - still had unclear, vague and ambiguous content. At first, many meanings were merged in them, which were later divided and began to be expressed by various philosophical categories - substance, matter, law, necessity, causality, etc. This is how the conceptual apparatus of philosophy (its concepts and categories) was gradually formed.

Philosophy and science did not differ in ancient times - these concepts were synonymous and denoted any theoretical knowledge in general. Ancient philosophers were also scientists. Philosophy acted as a science (theoretical science) about everything that can be the subject of knowledge.

However, over time, theoretical (logical, mathematical) reasoning is gradually increasingly supplemented by factual information obtained through experience and practical activity. The volume of knowledge about nature, society, and people is increasing. And within philosophy, areas of knowledge that make up special scientific disciplines begin to emerge.

Already in ancient times, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and mechanics were formed as special branches of science. Specialists also appeared who concentrated their efforts within the framework of one of the sciences - physicians (Galei), astronomers (Aristarchus), mathematicians (Euclid), mechanics (Archimedes). The more the range of knowledge in individual disciplines expands, the more difficult it becomes to be an expert in all areas of philosophy. Nevertheless, many philosophers of antiquity - Empedocles, Democritus, Aristotle, etc. - were generalists who touched upon a wide variety of problems of theoretical knowledge in their works. Thus, Aristotle devotes one of his books to physics, writes fundamental works on logic, and explores the problems of medicine, psychology, ethics, and aesthetics. In him one can also see the beginnings of zoology, embryology, mineralogy, and geography. Universal philosophers, covering various fields of science in their work, appeared in later times: F. Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, Leibniz, Russell, etc.

But the more specialized knowledge accumulates in different sciences, the more difficult it becomes to combine all this knowledge into a single philosophical system. With the development of individual sciences, they “split off” from philosophy. This process was especially intensified as a result of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. It led to the formation of experimental natural science, which ceased to rely on philosophical speculation and acquired its own methods of constructing theoretical knowledge - experiment, generalization of experimental data, creation of theoretical models, mathematical formulation of the laws of nature, etc. But even after the actual separation of many sciences from philosophy, they for a long time were still considered branches of philosophy.

According to the established tradition, philosophy continued to be viewed in modern times as the “mother of all sciences”, the “queen of sciences”. Both philosophers and many scientists continued to consider philosophical reasoning to be the main means of understanding the world, and a subordinate role was assigned to the experimental, experimental study of nature.

The traditional idea of ​​philosophy as the sum of all scientific knowledge persisted until the 18th-19th centuries. Philosophy seemed not to notice that the sciences were branching off from it and more and more confidently building their theories not through philosophical reasoning, but with the help of their own special means and methods. She still continued to claim the role of “mother of sciences.” Philosophers, as before, sought in their works to “drive” all sciences into the framework of a single philosophical system.

However, in the 19th century. Among scientists and philosophers, few doubted that the dominance of philosophy over all sciences had come to an end. The former “queen of sciences” lost power over them.

This is how one of the outstanding philosophers of the 19th century characterized the current situation: “There is no more metaphysics - philosophy itself has destroyed itself. Why else would she have an empty name? All individual objects are distributed to special sciences... Philosophy is like King Lear, who distributed all his property to his children and who, after being a beggar, was thrown into the street.”

What is philosophy? What is its essence and specificity? Why is it needed and is it needed at all, if the sciences have “learned” more accurate and rigorous methods for constructing theories than philosophical reasoning? Does it even have a right to exist? Such questions arose before philosophers and remain the subject of ongoing debate to this day.

In the 17th century Descartes outlined the relationship of philosophy with other sciences as follows: “All philosophy is like a tree, the roots of which are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emanating from the trunk are all other sciences, reduced to three main ones: medicine, mechanics and ethics.”

What is the main thread that connects the various historical variants of philosophy into a single whole? It is unlikely that it will be possible to present it as a boundary delineating the content of philosophy. The subject of philosophical reflection has no boundaries. Various questions come into and out of the field of view of philosophers: philosophy constantly peers into social life and responds to the needs of our time, often raising questions that are then resolved in science and the practical activities of people. Along with the transient, temporary zones of philosophical interest, there are also “eternal” problems that always form the subject of philosophy: the meaning of life, the relationship between matter and spirit, the mystery of infinity, the prospects for the future awaiting humanity, the ideals of goodness, justice, humanism, etc. But also the formulation of such problems do not remain unchanged, as well as their solutions proposed by philosophers. The essence and specificity of philosophy, most likely, lies not so much in its topics, which, with the exception of some “eternal” problems, are not constant, but in its choice of its topics, in its approach to the problems it raises, in their interpretation and methods of solving them. In short, in the peculiarities of philosophical thinking.

The traditional question for philosophy - what comes first: matter or spirit - is solved differently in cultural studies than is customary. In culture, meaning and symbol are primary, not things and materials. The material from which a book is made is secondary in culture, but the content of transmitted information, reasoning, and thought is primary.

Thus, “philosophy is a form of social consciousness, a worldview, a system of ideas, views on the world and the place of man in it. Explores the cognitive, socio-political, value, ethical and aesthetic attitude of man to the world. Based on the theoretical and practical attitude of man to reality, philosophy reveals the relationship between subject and object.”

Conclusion

So, spiritual culture acts as an activity aimed at spiritual development man and society, to create ideas, knowledge, spiritual values ​​- images of public consciousness. The subject forms of spiritual culture are the results of spiritual activity and relationships between people, the development and realization of human abilities.

It should be noted that spiritual culture is not identical to spiritual production, spiritual processes as such; it captures in this production its creative side, innovations, achievements, productive, but not reproductive side. Spiritual culture expresses the development of subjects of spiritual production, the level of not just mastering the spiritual wealth of humanity, but their increase.

List of used literature

1. Bystrova A.N. World of culture (fundamentals of cultural studies). Tutorial. - M.: ICC “Marketing”; Novosibirsk: LLC Publishing House UKEA, 2000. - 680 p.
2. Karmin A. S. Culturology: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, 2004. - 928 p.
3. Kravchenko A.I. Culturology: Textbook for universities - M.: Academic Project; Trixta, 2003. - 496 p.
4. Culturology: Textbook / Ed. Prof. G.V. Dracha. - M.: Alpha, 2003. - 432 p.
5. New illustrated encyclopedic dictionary / Ed. Col.: V.I. Borodulin, A.P. Gorkin, A.A. Gusev, N.M. Landa and others. M.: Great Russian Encycl., 2000. - 912 p.

Kravchenko A.I. Culturology: Textbook for universities - M.: Academic Project; Trixta, 2003. - p. 18

New illustrated encyclopedic dictionary / Ed. Col.: V.I. Borodulin, A.P. Gorkin, A.A. Gusev, N.M. Landa and others. M.: Great Russian Encycl., 2000. - p. 767

There are different ways to analyze the structure of culture. Since culture acts, first of all, as a prerequisite for all types of socially significant activities, the main elements of its structure are forms of recording and transferring social experience. In this context, the main components of culture are: language, customs, traditions, values ​​and norms.

Language is a system of conventional symbols that correspond to certain objects. Language plays a vital role in the process of socialization of an individual. With the help of language, cultural norms are assimilated, social roles are mastered, and behavior patterns are formed. Each person has his own cultural and speech status, which denotes belonging to a specific type of linguistic culture: a high literary language, vernacular, local dialect.

Tradition is a form of sociocultural reproduction associated with the transmission from generation to generation of the basic elements of normative culture: symbols, customs, manners, language. The need to preserve these basic norms is determined by the very fact of their existence in the past.

Social norm- is a form of sociocultural regulation in a certain social sphere, characterizing an individual’s membership in a given social group. A social norm establishes acceptable boundaries for the activities of representatives of specific social groups, ensures predictability and standardization of people’s behavior in accordance with their social status.

Value is a category indicating the human, social and cultural significance of certain phenomena of reality. Each historical era is characterized by a specific set and a certain hierarchy of values. Such a value system acts as the highest level of social regulation and forms the basis for the formation of personality and the maintenance of normative order in society.

Material and spiritual culture.

Considering culture by its carrier, material and spiritual culture are distinguished.

Material culture includes all areas of material activity and its results: housing, clothing, objects and means of labor, consumer goods, etc. That is, those elements that serve the natural organic needs of man belong to material culture, which in literally its content satisfies these needs.

Spiritual culture includes all spheres of activity and its products: knowledge, education, enlightenment, law, philosophy, religion, art. Spiritual culture is connected, first of all, not with the satisfaction of needs, but with the development of human abilities that are of universal importance.

The same objects can belong to both material and spiritual culture at the same time, and also change their purpose in the process of existence.

Example. Household items, furniture, clothing in everyday life satisfy natural human needs. But, being exhibited in a museum, these things already serve to satisfy cognitive interest. Using them you can study the life and customs of a certain era..

Culture as a reflection of the spiritual abilities of the individual.

Based on the form of reflection of spiritual abilities, as well as on the origin and nature of culture, we can conditionally distinguish three following forms: elitist, popular And massive.

Elite, or high culture includes classical music, highly artistic literature, poetry, fine arts etc. It is created by talented writers, poets, composers, painters and is aimed at a select circle of art connoisseurs and connoisseurs. This circle may include not only “professionals” (writers, critics, art critics), but also those who highly value art and receive aesthetic pleasure from communicating with it.

Folk culture arises to a certain extent spontaneously and most often does not have specific authors. It includes a variety of elements: myths, legends, epics, songs, dances, proverbs, ditties, crafts and much more - everything that is commonly called folklore. Two component features of folklore can be distinguished: it is localized, i.e. connected with the traditions of a particular area, and democratic, since everyone takes part in its creation.

Mass culture began to develop in the mid-nineteenth century. It is not distinguished by high spirituality; on the contrary, it is mainly of an entertaining nature and currently occupies the main part of the cultural space. This is an area without which it is impossible to imagine the lives of modern young people. Works of mass culture are, for example, modern pop music, cinema, fashion, modern literature, endless television series, horror films and action films, etc.

Sociological approach to understanding culture.

In the context of the sociological approach, culture is a system of values ​​and norms inherent in a particular social community, group, people or nation. Main categories: dominant culture, subculture, counterculture, ethnic culture, national culture. Considering culture as a characteristic of the life activity of various social groups, the following concepts are distinguished: dominant culture, subculture And counterculture.

Dominant culture- is a set of beliefs, values, norms, and rules of behavior that are accepted and shared by the majority of members of society. This concept reflects a system of norms and values ​​that are vital for society and form its cultural basis.

Subculture is a concept with the help of which sociologists and cultural scientists identify local cultural complexes that arise within the framework of the culture of the entire society.

Any subculture presupposes its own rules and patterns of behavior, its own style of clothing, its own manner of communication, and reflects the peculiarities of the lifestyle of various communities of people. Russian sociologists are currently paying particular attention to great attention studying youth subculture.

As the results of specific sociological studies show, the subcultural activity of young people depends on a number of factors:

Level of education (for people with a lower level of education, for example, vocational school students, it is noticeably higher than for university students);

From age (peak activity is 16 - 17 years old, by 21 - 22 years it decreases significantly);

From the place of residence (more typical for the city than for the village).

Counterculture is understood as a subculture that is in a state of open conflict in relation to the dominant culture. Counterculture means rejection of the basic values ​​of society and calls for the search for alternative forms of life.

Specifics of modern mass culture.

Back in the 19th century, philosophers who studied culture turned to analyzing the essence and social role of mass and elite culture. Mass culture in those days was clearly viewed as an expression of spiritual slavery, as a means of spiritual oppression of a person, as a way of forming a manipulated consciousness. She was contrasted with high classical culture, which was perceived as a way of life characteristic of the privileged strata of society, intellectuals, aristocrats of the spirit, i.e. "colors of humanity"

In the 40-50s of the twentieth century, a point of view took shape on mass information as new stage culture. It was successfully developed in the works of the Canadian researcher Herbert Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980). He believed that all existing cultures differ from one another in the means of communication, because it is the means of communication that form the consciousness of people and determine the characteristics of their life. As many cultural scientists note, the concept of McLuhan and his followers is a typical optimistic concept of mass culture.

The main function of mass culture is compensatory and entertaining, which is complemented by a socially adaptive function, implemented in an abstract, superficial form. In this regard, Western researchers have repeatedly emphasized that Mass culture turns people into curious observers of life, looking at illusory world video images as an objectively existing reality, and the real world as an illusion, an annoying hindrance to existence. Consumption of samples of mass culture, according to the testimony of many psychologists, returns adults to the infantile stage of perception of the world, and turns young consumers of this culture into passive creators, indiscriminately absorbing the ideological “rations” prepared for them.

American researchers of popular culture argue that today it functions as a spiritual drug. Immersing the human mind in the world of illusions, mass culture becomes a school of stereotypes that shape not only mass consciousness, but also the corresponding behavior of people. When defending this position, it was often assumed that human inequality is natural and will exist forever. That there will always be an elite in any society, that it is the elite that constitutes the intellectual ruling minority, highly active and highly intelligent.

Civil liberties;

Spreading literacy among all segments of the population;

National psychology and self-awareness, most clearly expressed in national art.

Scientists distinguish two levels national culture:

Expressed in national character and national psychology;

Represented by literary language, philosophy, high art.

Ways to master national culture:

Unlike an ethnic group, each nation creates specialized cultural institutions: museums, theaters, concert halls and etc.

The formation of national identity is facilitated by the national education system: schools, higher education institutions.

Today, the main goal of national education is the moral education of the individual, instilling such socially significant qualities as love, humanism, altruism, tolerance as the desire for freedom and justice, equality of rights and opportunities, and a tolerant attitude towards the most diverse manifestations of human essence.

Culture and civilization.

In cultural studies, next to the concept of culture there is the concept of civilization. This term arose later than the concept of “culture” - only in the 18th century. According to one version, its author is considered to be the Scottish philosopher A. Ferrugson, who divided human history into eras:

savagery,

barbarism,

Civilizations,

meaning by the last, the highest level social development.

According to another version, the term “civilization” was coined by French Enlightenment philosophers and was used by them in two senses: broad and narrow. The first meant a highly developed society based on the principles of reason, justice and religious tolerance. The second meaning was closely intertwined with the concept of “culture” and meant a set of certain qualities of a person - an extraordinary mind, education, politeness, refinement of manners, etc., the possession of which opened the way to the elite Parisian salons of the 18th century.

Modern scientists define civilization according to the following criteria:

Historical time (ancient, medieval, etc.);

Geographical space (Asian, European, etc.);

Technology (industrial, post-industrial society);

Political relations (slave, feudal civilizations);

Specifics of spiritual life (Christian, Muslim, etc.).

Civilization means a certain level of development of material and spiritual culture.

In the scientific literature, the definition of civilization types is carried out according to the following criteria:

The commonality and interdependence of historical and political fate and economic development;

Interpenetration of cultures;

Availability of a sphere of common interests and common tasks from a development perspective.

Based on these characteristics, three types of civilization development have been identified:

Non-progressive forms of existence (Australian aborigines, American Indians, many tribes of Africa, small peoples of Siberia and northern Europe),

Cyclical development (countries of the East) and

Progressive development (Greco-Latin and modern European).

At the same time, in cultural studies there has not been a unified view on understanding the essence of civilization as a scientific category. So, from the position of A. Toynbee, civilization is considered as a certain stage in the development of the culture of individual peoples and regions. From the perspective of Marxism, civilization is interpreted as a specific stage of social development that began in the life of the people after an era of savagery and barbarism, which is characterized by the emergence of cities, writing, and the formation of national-state entities. K. Jaspers understands civilization as “the value of all cultures,” thereby emphasizing their unified universal character.

The concept of civilization occupies a special place in the concept of O. Spengler. Here, civilization is interpreted as the final moment in the development of the culture of a particular people or region, meaning its “decline.” Contrasting the concepts of “culture” and “civilization”, in his work “The Decline of Europe” he writes: “... civilization is the inevitable fate of culture. Here the very peak has been reached, from the height of which it becomes possible to solve the most difficult questions of historical morphology.

Civilization is the most extreme and most artificial state of which the higher type of people is capable. They... completion, they follow becoming as what has become, life as death, development as numbness, like mental old age and the petrified world city behind the village and soulful childhood. They are the end without the right of appeal, due to internal necessity, they always turn out to be a reality” (Spengler O. The Decline of Europe. Essays on the Morphology of World History: in 2 vols. M., 1998. Vol. 1., p. 164.).

With all the diversity of existing points of view, they largely coincide. Most scientists understand civilization as a fairly high level of development of material culture and social relations and consider the most important signs of civilization to be: the emergence of cities, the emergence of writing, the stratification of society into classes and the formation of states.

— its production, distribution and preservation. In this sense, culture is often understood as the artistic creativity of musicians, writers, actors, painters; organizing exhibitions and directing performances; museum and library activities, etc. There are even narrower meanings of culture: the degree of development of something (work or food culture), characteristics of a certain era or people (Scythian or Old Russian culture), level of education (culture of behavior or speech), etc.

In all these interpretations of culture, we are talking about both material objects (paintings, films, buildings, books, cars) and intangible products (ideas, values, images, theories, traditions). Material and spiritual values ​​created by man are called material and spiritual culture, respectively.

Material culture

Under material culture usually refers to artificially created objects that allow people to adapt in an optimal way to natural and social conditions of life.

Objects of material culture are created to satisfy diversity and are therefore considered as values. When speaking about the material culture of a particular people, they traditionally mean such specific items as clothing, weapons, utensils, food, jewelry, housing, and architectural structures. Modern science, by examining such artifacts, is able to reconstruct the lifestyle of even long-vanished peoples, of which there is no mention in written sources.

With a broader understanding of material culture, three main elements are seen in it.

• Actually objective world, created by man - buildings, roads, communications, devices, objects of art and everyday life. The development of culture is manifested in the constant expansion and complexity of the world, “domestication”. It is difficult to imagine the life of a modern person without the most complex artificial devices - computers, television, mobile phones, etc., which lie at the basis of modern information culture.
• Technologies - means and technical algorithms for creating and using objects of the objective world. Technologies are material because they are embodied in specific practical methods of activity.
• Technical culture - These are specific skills, abilities, . Culture preserves these skills and abilities along with knowledge, transmitting both theoretical and practical experience from generation to generation. However, unlike knowledge, skills and abilities are formed in practical activity, usually by example. At each stage of cultural development, along with the complexity of technology, skills also become more complex.

Spiritual culture

Spiritual culture unlike material, it is not embodied in objects. The sphere of her existence is not things, but ideal activity associated with intellect, emotions, etc.

• Ideal forms the existence of culture does not depend on individual human opinions. This - scientific knowledge, language, established moral norms, etc. Sometimes this category includes the activities of education and mass communication.
• Integrating forms of spirituality cultures connect disparate elements of public and personal consciousness into a whole. At the first stages of human development, myths acted as such a regulating and unifying form. In modern times, its place has been taken, and to some extent -.
• Subjective spirituality represents the refraction of objective forms in the individual consciousness of each individual person. In this regard, we can talk about the culture of an individual person (his knowledge base, ability to make moral choices, religious feelings, culture of behavior, etc.).

The combination of spiritual and material forms common cultural space as a complex interconnected system of elements constantly transforming into each other. Thus, spiritual culture - the ideas, plans of the artist - can be embodied in material things - books or sculptures, and reading books or observing objects of art is accompanied by a reverse transition - from material things to knowledge, emotions, feelings.

The quality of each of these elements, as well as the close connection between them, determines level moral, aesthetic, intellectual, and ultimately - cultural development of any society.

The relationship between material and spiritual culture

Material culture- this is the entire area of ​​human material and production activity and its results - the artificial environment surrounding humans.

Things- the result of human material and creative activity - are the most important form of its existence. Like the human body, a thing simultaneously belongs to two worlds - natural and cultural. As a rule, things are made from natural materials and become part of culture after human processing. This is exactly how our distant ancestors once acted, turning a stone into a chop, a stick into a spear, the skin of a killed animal into clothing. At the same time, the thing acquires a very important quality - the ability to satisfy certain human needs, to be useful to a person. It can be said that useful thing— the initial form of existence of a thing in culture.

But things from the very beginning were also carriers of socially significant information, signs and symbols that connected the human world with the world of spirits, texts that stored information necessary for the survival of the collective. This was especially characteristic of primitive culture with its syncretism - integrity, indivisibility of all elements. Therefore, along with practical utility, there was symbolic utility, which made it possible to use things in magical rites and rituals, as well as to give them additional aesthetic properties. In ancient times, another form of thing appeared - a toy intended for children, with the help of which they mastered the necessary cultural experience and prepared for adult life. Most often these were miniature models of real things, sometimes having additional aesthetic value.

Gradually, over thousands of years, the utilitarian and valuable properties of things began to separate, which led to the formation of two classes of things - prosaic, purely material, and things-signs used for ritual purposes, for example, flags and emblems of states, orders, etc. There has never been an insurmountable barrier between these classes. So, in the church, a special font is used for the baptismal ceremony, but if necessary, it can be replaced with any basin of suitable size. Thus, any thing retains its sign function, being a cultural text. With the passage of time, the aesthetic value of things began to acquire more and more importance, so beauty has long been considered one of their most important characteristics. But in industrial society, beauty and utility began to be separated. Therefore, many useful, but ugly things and at the same time beautiful expensive trinkets appear, emphasizing the wealth of their owner.

We can say that a material thing becomes a carrier of spiritual meaning, since the image of a person of a particular era, culture, social status, etc. is fixed in it. Thus, a knight’s sword can serve as an image and symbol of a medieval feudal lord, and in modern complex household appliances it is easy to see a man of the early 21st century. The toys are also portraits of the era. For example, modern technically sophisticated toys, including many models of weapons, quite accurately reflect the face of our time.

Social organizations They are also the fruit of human activity, another form of material objectivity, material culture. The formation of human society took place in close connection with the development of social structures, without which the existence of culture is impossible. In primitive society, due to the syncretism and homogeneity of primitive culture, there was only one social structure - the clan organization, which ensured the entire existence of man, his material and spiritual needs, as well as the transfer of information to subsequent generations. With the development of society, various social structures began to form, responsible for the everyday practical life of people (labor, public administration, war) and for satisfying their spiritual needs, primarily religious. Already on Ancient East the state and cult are clearly distinguished, at the same time schools appeared as part of pedagogical organizations.

The development of civilization, associated with the improvement of technology and technology, the construction of cities, and the formation of classes, required a more effective organization of social life. As a result, there were social organizations, in which economic, political, legal, moral relations, technical, scientific, artistic, sports activity. In the economic sphere, the first social structure was the medieval guild, which in modern times was replaced by manufactory, which today has developed into industrial and trading firms, corporations and banks. In the political sphere, in addition to the state, there appeared political parties and public associations. The legal sphere created the court, the prosecutor's office, and legislative bodies. The religion has formed an extensive church organization. Later, organizations of scientists, artists, and philosophers appeared. All cultural spheres existing today have a network of social organizations and structures created by them. The role of these structures increases over time, as the importance of the organizational factor in the life of mankind increases. Through these structures, a person exercises control and self-government and creates the basis for life together people, to preserve and pass on the accumulated experience to the next generations.

Things and social organizations together create a complex structure of material culture, in which several important areas are distinguished: Agriculture, buildings, tools, transport, communications, technology, etc.

Agriculture includes plant varieties and animal breeds developed as a result of selection, as well as cultivated soils. Human survival is directly related to this area of ​​material culture, since it provides food and raw materials for industrial production. Therefore, people are constantly concerned about breeding new, more productive species of plants and animals. But proper soil cultivation is especially important, maintaining its fertility at a high level - mechanical tillage, fertilization with organic and chemical fertilizers, land reclamation and crop rotation - the sequence of cultivating different plants on one piece of land.

building- places where people live with all the diversity of their activities and life (housing, premises for management activities, entertainment, educational activities), and construction- results of construction that change the conditions of economy and life (premises for production, bridges, dams, etc.). Both buildings and structures are the result of construction. A person must constantly take care to maintain them in order so that they can successfully perform their functions.

Tools, fixtures And equipment are intended to provide all types of physical and mental labor of a person. Thus, tools directly affect the material being processed, devices serve as an addition to the tools, equipment is a set of tools and devices located in one place and used for one purpose. They differ depending on what type of activity they serve - agriculture, industry, communications, transport, etc. The history of mankind testifies to the constant improvement of this area of ​​material culture - from a stone ax and a digging stick to modern complex machines and mechanisms that ensure the production of everything necessary for human life.

Transport And communication routes ensure the exchange of people and goods between different areas and settlements, contributing to their development. This area of ​​material culture includes: specially equipped communication routes (roads, bridges, embankments, airport runways), buildings and structures necessary for the normal operation of transport (railway stations, airports, ports, harbors, gas stations, etc.), all types of transport (horse-drawn, road, rail, air, water, pipeline).

Connection closely related to transport and includes postal services, telegraph, telephone, radio and computer networks. It, like transport, connects people, allowing them to exchange information.

Technologies - knowledge and skills in all listed areas of activity. The most important task is not only the further improvement of technology, but also the transfer to next generations, which is possible only through a developed education system, and this indicates a close connection between material and spiritual culture.

Knowledge, values ​​and projects as forms of spiritual culture.Knowledge are a product of human cognitive activity, recording information received by a person about the world around him and the person himself, his views on life and behavior. We can say that the level of culture of both an individual and society as a whole is determined by the volume and depth of knowledge. Today, knowledge is acquired by a person in all spheres of culture. But gaining knowledge in religion, art, everyday life, etc. is not a priority. Here knowledge is always associated with a certain value system, which it justifies and defends: in addition, it is figurative in nature. Only science, as a special sphere of spiritual production, has as its goal the acquisition of objective knowledge about the world around us. It arose in antiquity, when there was a need for generalized knowledge about the world around us.

Values ​​- ideals that a person and society strive to achieve, as well as objects and their properties that satisfy certain human needs. They are associated with a constant assessment of all objects and phenomena surrounding a person, which he makes according to the principle of good-bad, good-evil, and arose within the framework of primitive culture. Myths played a special role in the preservation and transmission of values ​​to subsequent generations, thanks to which values ​​became an integral part of rites and rituals, and through them a person became a part of society. Due to the collapse of myth with the development of civilization, value orientations began to be consolidated in religion, philosophy, art, morality and law.

Projects - plans for future human actions. Their creation is connected with the essence of man, his ability to carry out conscious, purposeful actions to transform the world around him, which is impossible without a previously drawn up plan. This implements creativity man, his ability to freely transform reality: first - in his own consciousness, then - in practice. In this way, a person differs from animals, who are able to act only with those objects and phenomena that exist in the present and are important for them at a given time. Only man has freedom; for him there is nothing inaccessible or impossible (at least in fantasy).

In primitive times, this ability was fixed at the level of myth. Today, projective activity exists as a specialized activity and is divided in accordance with what projects of objects should be created - natural, social or human. In this regard, design is distinguished:

• technical (engineering), inextricably linked with scientific and technological progress, which occupies an increasingly important place in culture. Its result is the world of material things that create the body of modern civilization;
• social in creating models of social phenomena - new forms of government, political and legal systems, methods of production management, school education, etc.;
• pedagogical to create human models, ideal images of children and students, which are formed by parents and teachers.
• Knowledge, values ​​and projects form the foundation of spiritual culture, which includes, in addition to the mentioned results of spiritual activity, the spiritual activity itself in the production of spiritual products. They, like the products of material culture, satisfy certain human needs and, above all, the need to ensure the life of people in society. For this, a person acquires the necessary knowledge about the world, society and himself, and for this, value systems are created that allow a person to realize, choose or create forms of behavior approved by society. This is how the varieties of spiritual culture that exist today were formed - morality, politics, law, art, religion, science, philosophy. Consequently, spiritual culture is a multi-layered formation.

At the same time, spiritual culture is inextricably linked with material culture. Any objects or phenomena of material culture are based on a project, embody certain knowledge and become values, satisfying human needs. In other words, material culture is always the embodiment of a certain part of spiritual culture. But spiritual culture can only exist if it is materialized, objectified, and has received one or another material embodiment. Any book, picture, musical composition, like other works of art that are part of spiritual culture, need a material carrier - paper, canvas, paints, musical instruments, etc.

Moreover, it is often difficult to understand what type of culture - material or spiritual - a particular object or phenomenon belongs to. Thus, we will most likely classify any piece of furniture as material culture. But if we are talking about a 300-year-old chest of drawers exhibited in a museum, we should talk about it as an object of spiritual culture. A book, an indisputable object of spiritual culture, can be used to light a stove. But if cultural objects can change their purpose, then criteria must be introduced to distinguish between objects of material and spiritual culture. In this capacity, one can use an assessment of the meaning and purpose of an object: an object or phenomenon that satisfies the primary (biological) needs of a person belongs to material culture; if it satisfies secondary needs associated with the development of human abilities, it is considered an object of spiritual culture.

Between material and spiritual culture there are transitional forms - signs that represent something different from what they themselves are, although this content does not relate to spiritual culture. The most famous form of sign is money, as well as various coupons, tokens, receipts, etc., used by people to indicate payment for all kinds of services. Thus, money - the general market equivalent - can be spent on buying food or clothing (material culture) or purchasing a ticket to a theater or museum (spiritual culture). In other words, money acts as a universal intermediary between objects of material and spiritual culture in modern society. But there is a serious danger in this, since money equalizes these objects among themselves, depersonalizing objects of spiritual culture. At the same time, many people have the illusion that everything has its price, that everything can be bought. In this case, money divides people and degrades the spiritual side of life.

Material culture - these are the achievements of the human mind in the development of productive forces and production relations of society . It is also a set of those values ​​that are aimed at satisfying consumer, material needs and interests of people. Mainly, the needs for food, clothing, housing, means of transportation, physical health, warmth, light, household items, etc. This is the process and result of human material activity. Material culture is the culture of labor and material production, the culture of everyday life, the culture of attitude towards one’s own body and physical culture.

Analyzing the internal structure of material culture, within the framework of material activity, we should first of all highlight economic (economic) activity aimed at creating material conditions for human life as the creator of a “second nature”. It includes the means of production, methods of practical activity (production relations), as well as creative aspects of human everyday economic activity.

Features of material (technological) culture:

1) She is not concerned with the “value dimension” of activity. Its meanings are concentrated around WHAT and HOW to do, FOR WHY TO DO IT.

2) Values: efficiency, accuracy, strength, utilitarianism(utility);

3) Rationalism. Evolution from mysticism to rationality.

4) In relation to spiritual culture, it plays a subordinate role, service role. The goals of the development of science and technology are determined by the needs of the development of spiritual and social culture.

5) Performing a service role, it turns out to be an indispensable condition for any cultural activities. Professional excellence.

Spiritual culture is a set of norms and values ​​related to satisfying the intellectual needs of people and contributing to the formation of reasonable moral, psychological qualities and abilities in them. Spiritual culture is the process and results of spiritual production (religion, philosophy, morality, art, science, etc.). This area of ​​culture is very extensive. It is represented by the richest world of science and art, morality and law, politics and religion. Of course, all the values ​​of spiritual culture are recorded, preserved, passed on from generation to generation only in the material sphere, indirectly: language, ideology, values, customs, etc. The elements included in spiritual culture cannot be touched with our hands, but they exist in our consciousness and are constantly maintained in the process of interaction. Spiritual culture is represented and functions in a much richer, more extensive objective world and norms of relationships than material.

So, spiritual culture acts as an activity aimed at the spiritual development of man and society, at the creation of ideas, knowledge, spiritual values ​​- images of public consciousness. The subject forms of spiritual culture are the results of spiritual activity and relationships between people, the development and realization of human abilities.

The main forms of spiritual culture: myth, religion, morality, art, philosophy, science. Spiritual culture captures the creative side, innovation, achievements, the productive, not the reproductive side.

Features of spiritual culture:

1) N utilitarianism. She is essentially selfless. Its cornerstones are not benefit, not profit, but “joys of the spirit” - beauty, knowledge, wisdom. People need it for its own sake.

2) Greatest With freedom of creativity. The human mind, not connected with utilitarian considerations and practical necessity, is capable of breaking away from reality and flying away from it on the wings of fantasy.

3) creative activity becomes a special spiritual world created by the power of human thought. This world is incomparably richer than the real world.

4) Sensitivity. Most responsive to environmental changes. She is able to detect the slightest changes in people’s lives and respond to them with changes in herself. The most fragile area of ​​culture, the one that suffers the most during social cataclysms, needs the support of society.

But it is impossible to differentiate and contrast the material and spiritual with each other as 2 special areas of culture. They are like different sides of the same coin. For, on the one hand, the whole culture as a whole is spiritual, because it is the world of meanings, i.e. spiritual entities. On the other hand, it is entirely material, because... presented in sensory-perceptible codes, signs, texts. Therefore, by material culture it makes sense to understand not some special area of ​​culture, different from spiritual culture, but the “sign shell” of any culture. Any work of art is a material phenomenon, since it is always embodied in something. But at the same time, any work of art is an expression certain meanings, reflecting the values ​​and ideology of society and era. This division makes it possible to verify that any cultural phenomenon is an objectified result of the ideal, spiritual content of human activity. Thus, architectural buildings are both works of art and serve practical purposes.