Tolerance in intercultural communication. Modern problems of science and education

Attempts to determine the essence of tolerant consciousness traditionally proceed from the recognition of the significance of the entire spectrum of socio-political, economic, cultural, value, legal and other dominants. Most often, tolerance is associated with the formation of a legal and political culture, the affirmation of the principle of respect for human rights and freedoms, the cultivation of attitudes of tolerance, respect for the culture and values ​​of other peoples, the formation of an active denial of violence as a way of resolving conflicts, racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, terrorism, and also with the education of a culture of peace. However, if we highlight the national aspect in the understanding of tolerance, it is mainly expressed in a certain attitude of representatives of various ethnic groups towards each other.

The connection between tolerance and intercultural communication implies tolerance towards differences in the way of life, traditions, values, and ways of behavior of representatives of other national communities. Despite the simplicity of this formulation, it is “tolerance” that is one of the most difficult concepts to define. In particular, it is very difficult to distinguish the indifferent-tolerant, indifferent attitude of some representatives of ethnic groups towards others from a positive-tolerant attitude.

Often ethnic hostility and denial are aimed at ethnically formative features of this or that society, i.e., on those features of the national whole that actually distinguish it from other societies. This is where the difficulty lies in defining and implementing tolerant principles of interethnic community life. The feeling of closeness and kinship for representatives of the same ethno-national integrity is concentrated on common segments of culture - customs, way of life, social behavioral manifestations, etc. It is the unity of the sociocultural whole within the framework of one ethno-territorial group that serves as the basis for understanding and participation of members of this group in a common national space. Tolerance within one national community does not pose a problem - neither at the level of definition, nor in the context of practical implementation, since representatives of the same social space share common archetypal value and behavioral attitudes of society. Therefore, the “internal” principle of tolerance within the framework of a certain ethnic whole refers to a single history and understanding of the closeness of seemingly different individuals of a given society Selezneva E. V., Bondarenko N. V. Development of tolerance of civil servants. M., 2008- p.18.

The affirmation of tolerance means nothing more than familiarization with the common culture of an ethnic group and, in general, is embodied in the traditional principles of enlightenment. Within one ethnic group, differences give way to a more significant unity, expressed in the sociocultural similarity of individuals of the ethnic group. The situation is different with the definition of tolerance in the context of cultures that are different from each other.

Differences between representatives of different ethnic groups social groups sometimes they surpass the sociocultural whole, which can become the basis for understanding and sympathy, empathy among individuals of different ethnic groups.

One way or another, the difficulty in defining tolerant lies in the fact that the basis of tolerance is collective consciousness, which includes a common sociocultural space containing a common language and a sense of ethnic closeness.

American researcher S. Stouffer believes that the development of social and cultural diversity increases the need to organize mechanisms for the protection of civil liberties for the functioning of a high-quality democratic society. It is noteworthy that Stouffer takes an optimistic position on the issue of the development of tolerance, arguing that the level of tolerance in the sphere of politics and culture is constantly increasing. Tolerant consciousness and formation tolerant relations. M., 2002- p.76.

If we talk about the change in the level of tolerance in European and American consciousness, Mandock and Sanders believe that tolerance has not acquired greater importance for mass consciousness. In their study “Tolerance and Intolerance,” the authors, based on statistical observations, note that the level of tolerance did not change during the period under study. This is noteworthy because this period of history coincides with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of the world order from bipolar to unipolar.

Joseph Wagner develops a different approach to the concept of tolerance. He understands tolerance not so much in the context of a stratified society, but in the formation and development of its moral spheres. If Stouffer and other researchers use a functional approach to interpret tolerance, that is, as a system of norms necessary for the reasonable and harmonious functioning of society, then Wagner endows tolerance with anthropological features - ethical collective consciousness at a certain stage of development gives rise to a system of values ​​of social coexistence.

Of course, these approaches harmoniously complement each other, since, firstly, awareness of the need for tolerant forms of communication can only appear in the face of social conflicts and contradictions, which may be a consequence of the differentiation of cultures, ways of life, and value scales of different social groups. Secondly, the very question of resolving conflict situations and contradictions by peaceful means, the question of harmonious coexistence different cultures in a multifaceted world is possible only within the framework of a developed and defined system of ethical moral standards. It is difficult to imagine that the concept of the need for harmonious coexistence with neighbors could arise in the minds of the average representative of the Golden Horde during the Tatar-Mongol invasions of the 13th-14th centuries. Tolerance at this stage of development of history and consciousness was not included in the scale of values ​​as a significant category. Thus, the perceived need for tolerance reflects both the development of social differentiation and the formation of morality in society.

One of the significant approaches to the problem of tolerance in the context of world globalization and crisis is demonstrated by members of the Club of Rome. The collective efforts of the authors are reflected in several highly respected studies. The work of Mikhailo Mezarovich and Eduard Pestel “Humanity at the Turning Point” is significant. The features of the new world order in the context of the problem of globalization are reflected in the collective monograph “Revisiting international order”, edited by Jan Tinbergen Tolerant consciousness and the formation of tolerant relationships. M., 2002- p.43.

The main position of the representatives of the Club of Rome is related to the statement of the deep crisis in the current state human society: “The main principle of the club members is expressed in the study of the deep pathological state and inconsistency of all humanity... a contradiction that penetrates into all aspects human life" The most important point of the modern existence of the world community should be the principles of tolerance. The significance of the problems posed within the framework of the research of the Club of Rome lies in the fact that the new sought-after world order, in addition to economic, institutional and other components, must also include a new ideology of coexistence, i.e. ideology of tolerance.

The most important component of a rational world order is the ideology of tolerance, which acts as a system of norms that determines the coexistence of different cultures and societies in a single world space.

Thus, understanding tolerance within the framework of research by Western authors is associated with the search for a new world strategy for the existence of the international community.

Within the framework of domestic social philosophy and sociology, there are several approaches to the definition of tolerance. In particular, L.M. Drobizheva defines tolerance as “the willingness to accept others as they are and interact with them on the basis of consent.” In this definition, interethnic communication is based on the principle of accepting the uniqueness and originality of other cultures. V.A. Tishkov, a famous Russian researcher, gives a simpler definition of tolerance as “respect and non-interference.” This simplicity captivates with its apparent clarity, but uncertainty arises due to the fact that it remains unclear on what exactly should be based the respect of representatives of different, often hostile cultures for each other.

Thus, Tishkov’s position contains an irreducible educational principle: the basis of tolerant interaction of national groups is associated with the knowledge and familiarization of opposing cultures. Despite the fact that this position is very simple and understandable, it is associated with one difficulty in defining tolerance: Tolerance in intercultural dialogue / resp. ed. N. M. Lebedeva, A. N. Tatarko. M., 2005.- p.78.

Tolerance within the framework of interethnic communication is possible only where there is a desire for it, for complicity. Tolerance is a consequence of the awareness of the common supra-ethnic, supra-confessional component of individuals of various social groups. However, if a certain ethnic society is closed in internal mass stereotypes and dogmas, and does not contain factors pushing it to rationalize its own culture, then such a society will inevitably be intolerant, since it is closed in its local value guidelines and does not in any way correlate them with the principles of peaceful coexistence. Tolerance is associated with a certain development of the value dominants of the individual.

The peculiarity of modern contradictions in the sphere of defining tolerance is that the international community simultaneously affirms the significance, originality, value of different cultures and the value of a single world of universal human values. This is precisely where the multidimensionality of the problem of tolerance lies: while recognizing the sociocultural value of local ethnosocial groups, people often contradict universal values, and vice versa. Phenomena such as authoritarianism and totalitarianism are denied as significant values ​​by representatives of democratic societies. However, it is precisely these values ​​that are considered mandatory components of power in some Eastern cultures.

An even more serious question is related to the problem of what should be considered universal human values. At some point historical development In social thought, European and Western became universal. As is known, the enlighteners understood the development of culture strictly linearly. All societies go through the same path of development, expressed in the change of the same forms of society. This meant that the European model of development of capitalist society is mandatory for all cultures and national groups without exception. This, in turn, led to the conclusion that “backward” societies would inevitably follow the European path of development, adopting European values. This principle in history served as the basis not only for the Europeanization of the countries of Asia and Africa, but also for their colonization and extermination of the indigenous population, since European culture was recognized as higher and more developed.

As is known, the modern international community has rejected the educational principle in the approach to the development of culture, recognizing the unconditional importance of non-European values. Interesting in this regard are the conclusions of social psychologists and ethnopsychologists, reflected in the works of N.M. Lebedeva, O.V. Lunevoy, T.G. Stefanenko, M.Yu. Martynova. In particular, it is generally accepted that the development of African countries according to the European scenario is impossible. Consequently, the model of value development that took place during the era of enlightenment is a thing of the past. It is obvious that ethnic tolerance presupposes something in common between different ethnic cultures. This community is nothing more than a community of path. Tolerance in ethnic communication is associated with the search for a single global ideological position that would be shared by representatives of different ethnic and national cultures. Tolerance in intercultural dialogue/resp. ed. N. M. Lebedeva, A. N. Tatarko. M., 2005.- p.64.

The above positions reflect a diverse understanding of ethnic tolerance in the modern world. In particular, this is expressed in the fact that within the framework of international legislation, on the one hand, the principle of nations (ethnic groups) of self-determination is proclaimed, including in relation to state jurisdiction, but, on the other hand, the indivisibility and immutability of state borders is affirmed. It is here that the inevitable contradiction between the particular and the general lies, allowing individual national groups to self-determinate, including in relation to state territories, and at the same time the inviolability of states in their territorial status quo is affirmed.

Thus, we can say that the principles of ethnic tolerance are the principles of respectful attitude and dialogue between different national groups.

Representatives of various national and religious communities generally advocate similar principles based on the affirmation of the rapprochement of cultures.

It is traditionally believed that some modifications are possible in understanding the principles of ethnic tolerance. For example, V. Lektorsky offers a level understanding of tolerance (Fig. 3):

Rice. 3. Level understanding of tolerance Ilyinskaya S. G. Tolerance as a principle of political action: history, theory, practice. M., 2007- p.44

As Kenneth Wayne believes, interethnic dialogue will be organic and constructive only if it has a direct, natural meaning. This means that tolerance presupposes not only a certain hypothetical and abstract respect for the values, attitudes and beliefs (positions) of representatives of different cultures, but also respect for the very bearers of values ​​and attitudes - directly for people of different socio-cultural spaces Antonyan Yu. M., Davitadze M. D. Ethno-religious conflicts: problems, solutions. M., 2004- p.31.

Ethnic tolerance is defined within the framework of respectful dialogue and interaction between different ethnic groups. The principle of ethnic tolerant dialogue presupposes many positions, attitudes, and value parameters that are considered equal. The modern state of understanding tolerance is characterized by a refusal to monopolize the truth, and an inherent desire to proclaim openness and readiness to compromise. This means the variability and situationality of various forms of ethnic communication.

You should pay attention to the specifics of the teacher’s work in developing such a quality as tolerance.

Teachers of a multinational team must do everything to ensure that their work is well thought out, carefully planned, and consistent in all its stages. The main elements of this activity are:

studying the specifics of representatives of different nations. Acquaintance with morals, customs, traditions. We must not allow a biased attitude towards representatives of some nationalities and, conversely, grant privileges to others. A teacher must always be fair to every person, regardless of his nationality;

the teacher’s understanding of the nature of relationships, the moral and psychological atmosphere in a multinational team;

The activities of the teacher in uniting the multinational team are important.

The main requirement for a teacher is to turn to each specific person, representative of a particular nation. He must have a clear understanding of the opinions and positions of each student regarding nationally charged problems that arise in the team. International education should occupy a special place in uniting a multinational team. In a multinational team, it is necessary to organize a decisive struggle against remnants in the consciousness and behavior of people, to do everything possible to eradicate prejudices, selfishness, and national limitations;

Efforts to prevent conflict situations in the team should be considered an obligatory activity of the teacher. It is necessary to work not only with the entire team, but also with each individual. Oppression based on nationality should be suppressed;

The most important element of educational activities in a multinational team is the formation of a culture of interethnic communication (round tables, national holidays, conversations about various religions, international friendship clubs). These events should have a sense of tact and delicacy in relations with representatives of different nationalities.

Ethnopsychological research is gaining great importance. The gnostic component of the educator’s activity includes the study of:

national psychological characteristics of those being brought up;

features of the process and results of one’s own activities, its advantages and disadvantages.

An essential sign of a high level teacher is his ability to manage interethnic communication in his class and find a way out of a conflict situation.

Formation of intercultural tolerance among future teachers as one of the prospects for the development of higher education.

Most of the states on the planet are multinational, therefore, the most important condition for the strength of the state is the formation of friendly multinational relations based on a flexible national policy, primarily in the field of education.

The problem of deepening the interaction of peoples and their cultures, tolerance, respect for each other and for people of different religious affiliations is becoming increasingly urgent.

The problem of tolerant attitude of different peoples towards each other also affected small towns, since the process of population migration is most noticeable in small towns. About a dozen different nationalities live in many regions of our country: Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Gypsies, Georgians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Tatars, etc. Therefore, at the present level, in the conditions of world globalization and integration, it is necessary to educate and train in the spirit of tolerance towards the culture of various ethnic groups , and this is only possible within the framework of a multicultural education. A lot of cultural education is called upon to create in educational institutions such a favorable socio-psychological environment in which every student, regardless of his identity, has the same opportunities as everyone else to realize his constitutional right to receive an equivalent education, to realize his potential and social development during the study period.

One of the most important goals of education is to orient the child towards universal human values. Racist and nationalist prejudices not only do not correspond to them, but also harbor enormous anti-humanistic potential. Therefore, today it is so important to find effective mechanisms for raising children in the spirit of tolerance and respect for the rights of people of all races and peoples.

A very important problem is the teacher and his role in raising a tolerant personality. It is difficult to imagine that a teacher who is intolerant of others will be able to instill in a student a tolerant attitude towards other people and other cultures. The methods of educating a tolerant personality that we are considering will only be reproducible when they are carried out by a teacher who is sensitive to the characteristics of the child in his dialogue with another culture.

In pedagogical practice, very often situations arise when a teacher inadequately and biasedly assesses the abilities and level of knowledge of students only on the basis of the students’ belonging to a different culture. The teacher must be able to take into account not only the individual and personal characteristics of students with a different identity. National psychological characteristics can facilitate or hinder the adaptation of representatives of a particular nation to the requirements of a teacher. For example, peoples North Caucasus tend to immediately resist if the methods of educational influence are unusual or incomprehensible to them. Therefore, the teacher needs to become familiar with the morals, customs, and traditions of the people whose representatives are included in the student body. Ignorance of national psychological characteristics leads not only to a decrease in the effectiveness of educational activities, but also to the emergence of interethnic tensions and mutual alienation.

Therefore, it is very important to develop tolerance among future teachers already at the stage of preparation for professional teaching activities at a university. To develop intercultural tolerance among future teachers, it is necessary to introduce them to diverse cultures and study them in depth. In this way, students will learn to appreciate and respect representatives of other cultures.

The preparation of qualified teachers ready to implement the educational strategy should begin in pedagogical educational institutions: pedagogical universities, colleges. It should be noted that the students themselves do not always have tolerant relationships. Moreover we're talking about not only about the intolerance of future teachers towards representatives of any national or social group, but about intolerance towards the child’s personality in general. The origins of this lie in a misunderstanding of the nature of the child; in unformed sensitivity, goodwill, and lack of pedagogical orientation. Here, the solution to the problem is seen in the targeted correction of the position of the future teacher by social and psychological services (although this does not always lead to the desired result).

Symptoms of teacher intolerance towards a child are:

• - ambition;
• - wariness in communication;
• - irritation;
• - increased sensitivity;
• - sharp emotional outbursts (indignation, hatred), discriminatory behavior;
• - intimidation tactics;
• - negative verbalization towards children; - an aggressive and hostile position towards the child, towards a person who is different from the teacher.

Such manifestations are impossible and incomparable with the activities of a teacher, with one of the most humane, peace-making activities - human education.

Students must develop the following skills:

• - communication with children of different ethnic groups;
• - detecting problems in the adaptation of children who find themselves in a different ethnic environment;
• - providing assistance in adaptation to such children;
• - forecasting the emerging interethnic confrontation in children's team and provision of preventive assistance;
• - ensuring the protection of children from violence, bullying, humiliation from both peers and adults;
• - organizing public gaming leisure; - organizing leisure activities during national holidays.

The pedagogical mechanisms of migrant children's rooting in a new environment have been studied. Creating a cultural space for the migrant that orients the child towards the ideal of a person who strives for self-realization and has a sense of responsibility, who knows how to think critically and appreciate the spiritual and material wealth accumulated by humanity, and respect an individual who is sensitive to the constantly changing world. Increasing the cultural level of the individual, since culture acts as a universal mechanism for the formation of an integral person. A major role in the harmonious development of adaptation relations is played by mastering the national and cultural values ​​of the new place of residence, awareness of the harmony of the universal, national, international, assimilation of the cultural achievements of other peoples (V. A. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev).

In developing the problems of migrant pedagogy, researchers apply a number of provisions of the theory and practice of multicultural education. The nature of the interrelations between the universal, national, and international in world pedagogical science is considered in the concept of “multicultural education,” adapting migrant children to a new sociocultural situation. The internationalization of education is an objective and constantly evolving process that took place in various forms long before the formation of nations and national educational systems in their current form was completed. It is associated not so much with pedagogical borrowings, which also took place, but with general parallel processes and general socio-economic and cultural phenomena developing in the world. Today, this phenomenon is quite actively studied by foreign teachers and there are different approaches to its assessment, but the prevailing view is that universalism and education are possible only if the diversity of social and political systems, cultural and linguistic traditions of different countries is preserved. This implies that we are not talking about the unification of national educational systems or their “harmonization”, but about the need for their greater orientation to the needs of a rapidly changing and increasingly interdependent world.

The concept of “world education”, applied in the context of “migrant pedagogy”, is understood in the school of E.V. Bondarevskaya as a system of institutions and activities that ensure the organization of the process of cognition, taking into account the leading trends in the transfer of experience and personal development inherent in a particular era. A phenomenological analysis of world education reveals and interprets its important function: it is an area of ​​concrete interaction between national educational systems and their individual elements at the global, regional, national levels, and at the level of a specific educational institution. Another quality of the modern educational environment for migrant children is the interaction of local educational environments, the creative use of innovative environments of one country in the unified educational space of other regions.

The inclusion of the southern Russian educational region in global educational processes, as shown by the study of the formation of the category “migrant pedagogy”, is a necessary condition integrity educational system for a migrating group of children and youth. This also has a positive impact on understanding on the eve of the 21st century the formation of a new type of education that meets the needs of human development and self-realization in a new sociocultural situation. This is the theory of personality-oriented education of the humanistic type by E.V. Bondarevskaya, V.V. Serikova, S.V. Kulnevich, orienting the pedagogical community towards non-violent, culturally compliant education, creating conditions for a person’s creative self-realization in a new cultural, educational and socio-religious environment, which is especially typical for migrants and immigrants.

In studying the content of migrant pedagogy E.V. Bondarevskaya, I.V. Babenko apply ethnological knowledge, which allows, in relation to migrants, to study the relationship between personality and culture, the genesis, and formation of personality in isolation from the culture of the social community. Researchers introduce such concepts as ethnologists and ethnographers, such as acculturation, assimilation, intercultural communication, national realities, etc.

The introduction of the term “acculturation” makes it possible to understand not only the process of a child’s assimilation of a new culture (Russian), but also to analyze socio-pedagogical and psychological mechanisms, patterns of socialization, and the relationship between native and appropriated culture. Assimilation (forgetting one’s native language and adopting another) does not occur earlier than the third generation, but with the use of countermeasures (settling in communities, colonies, one’s own mass media, content national schools) may not take place at all for any length of time. These processes form the type of personality “personality at the border of cultures”, which is stated in the problems of migrant pedagogy.

The system of professional training for teachers to work with migrant children includes the following components: student mastery of professional culture; teacher-researcher training; formation of the teacher’s personality; fundamentalization of education; providing a broad general humanitarian education; technicalization of humanities education; ensuring a high level of practical mastery of professional skills; integration of courses in pedagogy, psychology and foreign language methods; the possibility of individual self-realization; differentiated assessment not of knowledge, but of professional skills, professional excellence. Development of content and methodology for implementing the principle of cultural conformity in student-oriented systems with a diverse student population, identification of requirements for teacher training to work in such systems.

Thus, this study in the pedagogical science of the South of Russia has identified educational and scientific-pedagogical problems, the solution of which will contribute to more successful adaptation of migrant children in a foreign cultural environment:

• - development of communication through educational means as a new level of culture in a multinational society;
• - development of adaptation and educational programs; integration of migrant children into society through education; ensuring the relationship between social, cultural and linguistic adaptation, the need to ensure bilingualism and biculturalism in the education of migrant children;
• - creating conditions for them to preserve their own language, intellectual and emotional contacts with their native culture; taking into account the “threshold of mentality” when different cultures come into contact;
• - training of teachers focused on working with migrant children, in terms of their mastery of several languages ​​and cultures (personal education at the border of cultures), capable of organizing a dialogue of cultures.

Identification and partial solution of these problems opened up the possibility of deeper modern interpretation the principle of cultural conformity of personality-oriented education, the essence of which is revealed in the study as ensuring in education the harmony of universal, international, national and individual-personal culture. The nature of the relationship between the universal, international and national is reflected in the concept of “multicultural education”, education of a new type that meets the needs of human development and self-realization in a new socio-cultural situation, especially migrant children.

The requirements for the professional training of a teacher focused on working with migrant children have been identified: mastery of the theory of multicultural education, understanding of the socio-psychological characteristics of migrant students, mastery of the technology of designing cross-cultural integrated courses, taking into account the peculiarities of the mentality of students, and the ability for dialogic communication.

Some educational technologies for the professional training of teachers to work with migrant children have been tested, in particular, a special course on pedagogical linguistic and cultural studies "The threshold of mentality in the contact of different cultures", the program of which was developed and tested on the basis of the Russian State Pedagogical University and the Dortmund "Auslandsgeselschat" (Germany). It is shown that an effective solution to the problems of teaching and raising migrant children can be provided in a person-oriented educational process.

This is due to the fact that person-centered education is an education that not only equips a person with knowledge, skills, and abilities, but also helps him in solving his problems. life problems. In the context of personality-centered education, education is considered as a humanitarian practice aimed at caring and helping migrant children, restoring their natural and anthropological rights (to ethnicity, housing, a healthy lifestyle, etc.), and overcoming social disintegration and marginalization.

The culturally consistent, person-oriented environment of the Russian school is a necessary condition for reducing and partially overcoming socio-psychological tension, discomfort, existential vacuum, fear, hopelessness and other stressful conditions in which migrant children find themselves.

The study of distinctive features and the development of a general mentality scheme creates the prerequisites for the formation of personally significant qualities of students and the national ideal. Creating a cultural space for the migrant that orients the child towards the ideal of a person who strives for self-realization and has a sense of responsibility, who can think critically and appreciate the spiritual and material wealth accumulated by humanity, respect the individual who is sensitive to the constantly changing world and help creatively enrich it - these are the main tasks migrant pedagogy.

Almost any person is able to intuitively distinguish good behavior from bad, but this quality is not innate to a person; it is formed in the process of practical communication between people and expresses their historical experience of collective and individual ideas, feelings and attitudes. In this regard, the formation of tolerance occurs in the process of intercultural communication, in which feelings of respect for other peoples, their traditions, values ​​and achievements are cultivated, dissimilarity is realized and all the ethnic and cultural diversity of the world is accepted. The model of tolerant relations in such a context is a society in which freedom and tolerance of any opinion prevail. Tolerance is the mutual freedom that people use to believe and say what they believe to be true, so that everyone expresses their beliefs and opinions without any violence.

Tolerance as an imperative for the interaction of peoples and cultures is based on the existence of differences in human communities and respect for these differences. But the fact is that there are different differences - cultural, ethnic, racial, social, etc. Tolerance presupposes unconditional recognition and respect for most of these differences, since they are the result of natural historical development. However, tolerance does not imply unconditional tolerance for social inequality in its extreme manifestations. A tolerant approach in intercultural communication means that certain cultural characteristics of an individual or group are recognized as only one of many and cannot subjugate all the others. It acts as a condition for maintaining differences, as the right to difference, dissimilarity, otherness. With this approach, the perception of a foreign culture occurs on the basis of comparison of previous experience and new, comparison with similar elements of one’s own culture simultaneously on a rational and sensory-emotional basis. Human feelings stimulate understanding

tion or hinder it, set its boundaries. During this comparison, one becomes accustomed to the world of a foreign culture.

Manifestations of tolerance in intercultural communication are relative. Americans do not understand why Russians tolerate domestic disorder, violation of consumer rights, failure to comply with laws on the part of officials, household vandalism, and violation of human rights. The Russians, in turn, are perplexed why the Americans, who are showing high degree tolerance towards sexual minorities or some manifestations of religious hatred, do not allow an alternative point of view on issues of women's rights, politics, the role of the United States in the world, etc.

Various manifestations of tolerance are also expressed in the fact that Americans, in the process of interaction, much more than Russians, strive for compromise and smoothing out contradictions, while Russians are more prone to emotions and extremes. On the other hand, Americans usually expect quick decisions and actions, while Russians tend to wait, testing the reliability of their partners and establishing more trusting relationships with them.

A positive understanding of tolerance is achieved through understanding its opposite - intolerance, or intolerance, which is based on the belief that your group, your belief system, your way of life is superior to all others. The basis of intolerance is the rejection of another for the fact that he looks different, thinks differently, acts differently. As a result of this, intolerance is formed, which gives rise to the desire for domination and destruction, to deny the right to exist to those who adhere to different standards of life. In practice, intolerance manifests itself in a wide range of forms of behavior - from ordinary impoliteness and disdain for people of another nationality and culture to ethnic cleansing and genocide, the deliberate and targeted destruction of people. The main forms of manifestation of intolerance are:

Insults, ridicule, expressions of disdain;

Negative stereotypes, prejudices, prejudices based on negative traits and qualities;

Ethnocentrism;

Discrimination on various grounds in the form of deprivation of social benefits, restriction of human rights, artificial isolation in society;

Racism, nationalism, exploitation, fascism;

Xenophobia in the form of ethnophobia, migrant phobia;

Desecration of religious and cultural monuments;

Expulsion, segregation, repression;

Religious persecution.

In modern life, these forms of intolerance give rise to a variety of reasons, and therefore the problem of targeted education of tolerance is relevant. Any culture, for its preservation and survival, must educate and educate its carriers with its own values ​​and norms, and educate them in such a way that they become conductors of tolerance towards other cultures, preserving and reproducing their traditional cultural differences.

In conditions of multiethnicity, multilingualism, multiculturalism, the education of tolerance is multifaceted and most often acquires the character of multicultural education, the main goals of which are the following:

Deep and comprehensive mastery of culture own people as a prerequisite for integration into other cultures;

Forming ideas about the diversity of cultures in the world and cultivating a positive attitude towards cultural differences;

Creating conditions for integration into the cultures of other peoples;

Formation and development of skills and abilities to effectively interact with representatives of different cultures;

Education in the spirit of peace, tolerance, humane interethnic communication.

Main educational principle in achieving the stated goals can serve principle of dialogue, which allows us to combine in the thinking and activities of people different cultures, forms of activity, value orientations and forms of behavior that are not reducible to each other. This meaning of the dialogue is due to the fact that:

Dialogue is considered not only as a heuristic method for assimilating any knowledge, but also as a factor that determines the essence and meaning of the transmitted information;

Dialogue gives real practical meaning to the interaction of cultures communicating with each other;

Dialogue becomes a permanent basis in the development and interaction of cultures.

The principle of dialogue used in intercultural communication means respect and recognition of all national cultures in the structure of modern world culture. Its main content is the formation of a tolerant attitude towards people who differ in ethnic, religious and other characteristics. Practical recommendations developed by American researchers can help with this. K. Sitaram And R. Cogdell, which can be called a code of intercultural communication, according to

How much they contribute to the development of a tolerant attitude towards foreign culture.

1. Recognize that a representative of any culture does not set world standards.

2. Treat the audience's culture with the same respect as you would treat your own.

3. Do not judge the values, beliefs and practices of other cultures based on your own values.

4. Always remember to understand cultural basis other people's values.

5. Never assume the superiority of your religion over the religion of another.

6. When communicating with representatives of another religion, try to understand and respect this religion.

7. Strive to understand the customs of preparing and eating food of other peoples, which have developed under the influence of their specific needs and resources.

8. Respect other cultures' ways of dressing.

9. Do not demonstrate aversion to unusual smells if they may be perceived as pleasant by people of other cultures.

10. Do not rely on skin color as the “natural” basis of relationships with this or that person.

11. Don't look down on someone if their accent is different from yours.

12. Understand that every culture, no matter how small, has something to offer the world, but no culture has a monopoly on all aspects.

13. Do not try to use your high status in the hierarchy of your culture to influence the behavior of other representatives of another culture during intercultural contacts.

14. Always remember that no scientific data confirms the superiority of one ethnic group over another 1.

In the formation of these attitudes, it is extremely important that people understand the need not only to preserve ethnic and cultural identity, without which normal psychological well-being of a person is impossible, but also to develop films of culturalism. Both of these trends must be intelligently and harmoniously combined with each other. Only those who have a positive ethnocultural identity

1 Sitaram K., Cogdell R. Fundamentals of intercultural communication // Man. - 1992. - No. 5. - P. 106.

Thus, a person is capable of ethnic and cultural tolerance, of living in a modern, increasingly globalizing world.

The formation of these attitudes of a tolerant attitude towards a foreign culture is also achieved through targeted intercultural communication, which includes several stages.

I. General acquaintance with the culture of a particular country:

Awareness of those factors that make up the uniqueness of a given culture, and those distinctive features of one’s culture that can affect successful communication with representatives of another culture;

Searching for opportunities to gain experience in intercultural interaction with representatives of a foreign culture in a familiar environment in order to really experience the peculiarities of this interaction and cultural differences.

II. Language training:

Mandatory introductory study of the language of the culture intended for communication;

Development of language skills through self-education (listening to audio tapes, watching educational films, reading newspapers and magazines, conversations with native speakers of a given language);

Accumulation of individual vocabulary necessary for initial stage cultural adaptation in a foreign culture;

Use acquired language knowledge and skills whenever possible.

III. Specialized cultural training:

Collection and study of information about the cultural identity of the relevant country:

Preparing for the inevitable culture shock;

Obtaining the necessary practical advice from people familiar with the culture of a given country;

Get more information from tourist guides.

Bibliography

1. Arutyunov S.A. Peoples and cultures: Development and interaction. - M., 1989.

2. Bondyreva S.K., Kolesov D.V. Tolerance (introduction to the problem). - M., 2003.

3. Grushevitskaya T.G., Popkov V.D., Sadokhin A.IJ. Fundamentals of intercultural communication. - M., 2002.

4. Erasov B.S. Social cultural studies. - M., 1994.

5. Zinchenko V.G., Zusman V.G., Kirnoze Z.I. Intercultural communication. Systems approach. - Nizhny Novgorod, 2003.

6. Lebedeva N. Introduction to ethnic and cross-cultural psychology. - M., 1999.

7. Leontovich O.A. Russia and the USA: Introduction to intercultural communication. - Volgograd, 2003.

8. Pavlovskaya A.V. Russia and America. Problems of communication between cultures. - M., 1998.

9. Persikova T.N. Intercultural communication and corporate culture. - M., 2002.

10. Platonov Yu.P. Ethnic psychology. - St. Petersburg, 2001.

11. Sitaram K., Cogdell R. Fundamentals of intercultural communication // Man. - 1993. - No. 2-4.

12. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication. - M., 2000.

<Гг?

^5~G>

Chapter 10 Typology of cultures

The modern cultural picture of the world includes a huge number of cultures and civilizations. Each of them enriches world culture with its achievements, unique events and phenomena, the study of which requires a certain ordering, or typology. Without typology, it is impossible to rationally comprehend the entire diversity of the cultural world and obtain a holistic understanding of the essence of specific cultures. In addition, the typology of cultures helps to understand one’s own culture, to see what is common that unites peoples and at the same time distinguishes them from each other.

In the most general sense, typology means a certain classification of phenomena according to the commonality of some characteristics. Or, in other words, typology- This scientific method, which allows you to systematize any objects based on their generalized model. In this understanding, the typology of culture makes it possible to identify and classify various groups of cultural objects for the most complete study, comparison and description.

The problem of cultural typology is one of the urgent and controversial problems in modern Russian cultural studies. Throughout the development of cultural thought, many different typologies have been created. Their authors were philosophers, sociologists, historians, artists, etc. They used a wide variety of cultural, social or geographical phenomena as criteria, or grounds, for the typology of cultures: religion, territorial affiliation, ethnic identity, historical periodization, economic structure, etc. As a result, formational, civilizational, cultural-historical, regional-territorial, ethnonational, demographic and other typologies of culture were created. As a rule, the choice of criterion for classification was determined by the interests of a particular study, its tasks and goals. Moreover, each typology has a certain methodological significance, contains a certain heuristic potential, is distinguished by strong and weaknesses and makes it possible to comprehend only a certain aspect of culture.

Modern cultural knowledge is represented by various typologies and classifications of cultures, of which the most famous and widespread are historical, formational, civilizational and regional-ethnic typology.

10.1. Historical typology of cultures

This typology is based on the identification of individual historical periods and eras in world history, within which various specific historical types of culture arose and functioned. Historical typology is based on the Christian idea of ​​time as a linearly directed process from the past through the present to the future. In this line of world-historical development, there were four kingdoms (Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian and Roman), the development of which occurred in a cyclical manner in accordance with the natural processes of changing seasons. According to the doctrine of the four kingdoms, the entire history of mankind was divided into four periods: the Stone, Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages.

Stone Age- the oldest in the development of human culture, during which tools and weapons were made of stone and people learned to make fire artificially. In turn, modern science began to divide the Stone Age into three stages: Old Stone (Paleolithic), when, in fact, Homo sapiens appeared; medium stone (Mesolithic), when the spear, bow and arrows were invented; and new stone (Neolithic), when man moved from appropriating the fruits of the earth to their cultivation and cattle breeding. In the Stone Age, the beginnings of art appeared - cave paintings, stone and bone sculpture, pottery, as well as primitive religious cults in the form of totemism (belief in the consanguinity of a human race with a certain type of animal or plant), fetishism (worship of inanimate objects ), animism (belief in souls and spirits) and magic (belief in the ability to influence surrounding objects and phenomena with the help of witchcraft).

Copper Age- this is a period of development primitive culture, during which the clan system was formed and strengthened. Here, along with stone, wooden and bone tools labor, copper tools and products appeared as a result of the emerging metallurgy. Economic activities become more diverse, as cattle breeding and hoe farming develop along with hunting and gathering. Elements of pictography are being formed - pictorial writing that facilitates the spiritual continuity of generations. The main achievement of the Copper Age culture was the invention of the wheel.

Bronze Age - the time of the emergence and flourishing of the world's most ancient civilizations - Sumerian and Ancient Egyptian. They enriched human culture with the invention of the plow, the development of irrigation systems, the construction of majestic palaces and pyramids, expressive wall and funerary paintings, and sculpture.

In addition, they also gave humanity the first writing systems - cuneiform and hieroglyphic writing. During the same period, important scientific knowledge was developed - decimal and sexagesimal notation systems, the foundations of algebra, geometry, astronomy, the first calendars, sundials and water clocks.

Iron Age entered the history of world culture with the discovery of technology for obtaining iron, making weapons and tools from it for agriculture and processing building materials. Some ethnic cultures entered the Iron Age by the end of the 2nd millennium BC. Among them is ancient culture, which in many ways became the basis of modern European culture and civilization.

10.2. Formational typology of cultures

For a long time in our national science a formational typology of cultures prevailed, according to which history was divided into eras, the latter being interpreted as certain socio-economic formations. This typology is based on the assertion that the mode of production determines the superstructure, an element of which is culture. With a change in the method of production, the formation as a whole and the content of its culture change: the qualitative composition of the elements of culture, the nature of the connections between them change, its functions are transformed, its role in the system of spiritual values ​​changes, etc. From this it is concluded that the type of culture coincides with the type of socio-economic formation, and in accordance with this, primitive, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist types of culture are distinguished in the cultural history of mankind.

According to supporters of this typology, the real The World History, starting from primitive and ending with capitalist society, is just the prehistory of humanity. Culture and spiritual life in this era do not have independent significance, since the characteristics of human life and society are determined by the way people produce and reproduce their material life. The material production of each society develops in the following sequence: communal production, Asian mode of production, production of small owner-producers, wage labor. All these methods of production are just the prehistory of humanity. The capitalist form of production gradually becomes universal and the most efficient, which leads humanity to the transition from prehistory to history, from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

Culture was considered a derived factor from economic relations in society, from the dominant form of property. IN

Within this approach, the formational typology was supplemented by a class typology of cultures, according to which each class of antagonistic formations created its own type of culture. With this approach, the analysis of any cultural phenomenon began with its assignment to one of the classes, to one or another value system. The history of culture in this version appears as a struggle between two trends, two types of cultures - progressive, expressing the interests of the working class, and conservative, protecting the interests of the exploiting class.

10.3. Civilization typology of cultures

TO mid-19th V. in cultural studies has developed new situation, which contributed to the emergence of a new typology of cultural research. It was based on the idea of ​​the simultaneous coexistence in history of closed cultural types generated by the diversity of natural and climatic zones on Earth. Peculiarities natural conditions and the climate in each of them largely determine the possible and most effective methods of survival, life support, obtaining food, building housing, cutting clothes, etc. All these features in their totality inevitably determine the overall social organization societies, the type of relationships between its members, their worldview, mythology, etc., that is, the general type of culture.

Communities that found themselves in the same natural and climatic conditions were able to develop the same methods of adaptation to them and therefore can be considered as more or less of the same type in their main characteristics. They are called cultural and economic types.

The existence of cultural and historical types that differ in their characteristics is direct evidence that there is no single history of mankind; it represents a succession of these types, each of which lives its own, separate life. Any cultural and economic type is a separate civilization, not reducible to others and not derived from others. Each unique cultural and economic type evolves from an ethnographic state to a state state and from it to civilization.

The founders of this typology are considered to be the Russian scientist N.Ya. Danilevsky and the German thinker O. Spengler, who sharply criticized the traditional scheme of historical development for European science: antiquity - Middle Ages - Modern times, rejected the opposition East - West, considered it necessary

We want to overcome Eurocentrism in understanding the cultural and historical development of humanity.

However, this typology gained its wide influence and distribution in cultural studies and sociology of the 20th century. Here the most famous works were the works of the English historian A. Toynbee and the sociologist P. Sorokin. Toynbee presented history as a set of cultural and civilizational types, distinguished by the dominant types of religion in them. In his opinion, the history of each individual culture can be understood not from itself, but only in comparison with the history of other cultures. Therefore, the main subject of research should not be a separate state or humanity as a whole, but civilization, which is not identical to society, since it is longer in time, territory and numerous in population.

Civilization is the basis of cultural-historical typology, its unique unit and primary element. Toynbee first identified 21 civilizations, which differ from each other in origin and degree of isolation. In the course of his further research, the number of civilizations he identified reached 37; they compiled a detailed typological map of the cultural history of mankind.

The problem of cultural typology was analyzed by P. Sorokin in connection with the problem of cultural dynamics. He considered both problems in the context of the cultural history of mankind. In his research, Sorokin proceeded from the fact that culture is not a conglomerate of various phenomena, but a systemic formation, all of whose components are permeated with one fundamental principle and express a dominant value of this type culture. It is the dominant value that determines this or that type of culture. Depending on values, there are three historical types of culture: ideational, sensual and idealistic. Thus, Sorokin proposes his own classification principle and special terminology to designate the types of cultures he has identified, trying to bring a single classification basis under his typology - the relationship between the material and spiritual principles in culture.

The alternation of the types of culture identified by him is subject to strict laws: the ideational type is replaced by the idealistic, and the latter is replaced by the sensual type of culture, which completes the entire historical and cultural cycle. But the process of cultural development does not end there. Having gone through the indicated typological triad, culture continues its development by repeating those typological forms and in the same sequence. When moving from one type to another, society always experiences a cultural crisis.

10.4. Linear typology of cultures by K. Jaspers

In the second half of the 20th century. The concept of a typology of cultures by the famous German philosopher K. Jaspers, based on the idea of ​​“axial time,” gained wide popularity. Agreeing with the criticism of Eurocentrism and the basic ideas of the theory of local civilizations, Jaspers at the same time insists on the unity of the world historical process. In essence, he returns from the cyclical interpretation of history to the Christian idea of ​​​​linear history, with a beginning and an end, meaning and purpose. Exploring the historical development of culture, he introduces the concept of “axial time,” which captures a special critical moment in world history that occurred in the 6th century. BC e. At this time, a certain epochal shift occurred in the life of the peoples of the Mediterranean and the peoples adjacent to them. The beginning of a time-progressive, extremely dynamic and relatively continuous European history was laid. The “Axial Age” of culture, according to Jaspers, is a kind of “center” of history. Before this, the development of man, society and culture proceeded mainly in a local manner. With the advent of "Axial Time", many countries and regions became involved in the flow of Axial Time history. They set the direction of progressive, progressive development, which to this day serves as the core beginning of the world historical process. After him, the possibility of a universal, united development of humanity opened up. But this possibility has not yet been realized, although practical conditions for such implementation have been created within the framework of European culture.

The Axial Age is based on a faith that unites all humanity. None of the world religions can be such a faith, since all religions have more often separated people than united them. He is convinced that a common faith for humanity can only be a philosophical faith that has deep roots in historical tradition; it is more ancient than Christianity or Islam. The time of birth of philosophical faith is the sought-after “axis” of world history, or “axial time.” This time is approximately between 800 and 200 years. BC. During this period of time, spiritual movements arose simultaneously in China, India, Persia, Palestine and Ancient Greece, which shaped the type of person that exists today. “Axial Age” is the time of birth of both world religions, which replaced paganism, and philosophy, which replaced mythological consciousness. Then, almost independently of each other, several spiritual centers were formed, internally related to each other. The main thing that brought them together and was the main characteristic of the “axial time” was the breakthrough of the mythological worldview, which formed the spiritual basis of the “pre-axial” cultures.

The “Axial Age” puts an end to man’s direct mythopoetic relationship to the world and to himself. This awakening of the spirit is, according to Jaspers, the beginning of the common history of humanity, which until then had been divided into local, unrelated cultures.

Based on these considerations, Jaspers divides the entire history of mankind into three successive periods: prehistoric, historical and the period of world history. Each of them is distinguished by its own specificity, determined by the peculiarities of man’s relationship to the nature around him, to other people and to himself, that is, the corresponding special type of culture.

IN prehistoric era, the dominant type of culture was pre-axial, in which man almost did not extract himself from nature and the animal world, he only became human and mastered the language system. Unity with nature gave rise to mythological worldview and thinking. During this period, people were forced to unite and communicate in order to ensure their biological existence, which determined their attitude towards the world around them and other people, and determined the specifics of their communication connections. The prehistoric period ended approximately at the end of the 4th millennium BC, when the great cultures of antiquity began to form: Sumerian, Egyptian, Aegean, etc.

The next phase in the cultural history of mankind is historical period- created another type of culture - axial culture. Within this type, a type of person close to the modern begins to develop. The most important result of this period was the cultural revolution, which marked the beginning of the “Axial Age” and the “axis of world history.” At this time, the foundations of scientific and philosophical knowledge, art, and world religions were laid, and a transition took place from mythological thinking to rational thinking, to science. The “axial” era also saw a transition from man’s direct relationship to himself and the world to a qualitatively new level of self-awareness. There was a person’s comprehension of himself as an individual.

Third historical phase - world history- forms the global unity of humanity and a single world culture. This historical period was prepared by the great geographical discoveries, which became the basis for the unity of different cultures. The currently developing third phase in the history of mankind is its future history. However, an analogy for this type of culture should be sought not in the “axial” era, but in the era when man invented tools and learned to use fire. This marked the beginning of technology

ical line of human development, which did not form the basis of “world history”. IN future history For humanity, a new “axial time” must begin, the contours and results of which cannot yet be imagined.

10.5. Modern approaches to the typology of cultures

Of the modern approaches to this issue, the typology of cultures proposed by the Canadian sociologist and cultural scientist is of interest Herbert McLuhan. His views are based on the idea that the center of culture is the means of communication that shape people's consciousness and their way of life. A change in means and methods of communication changes a person’s view of the world and forms of activity. From this point of view, he distinguishes preliterate (non-literate), written (book) and screen (information) societies and cultures.

IN pre-written In society, people conveyed their life experiences through oral speech, which dominated people’s communication, being woven into the practical activities of the “tribal man.” Therefore, the perception of the world and all forms of communication here turn out to be based on hearing and other senses. A person in this type of culture does not yet separate himself from other members of society, his thinking is predominantly mythological, and his perception of the world is syncretic. In preliterate cultures, special attention is paid to rituals, fortune telling, and prophecies. They are built on customs and collective experience, which act as a form of social memory. Therefore, preliterate culture attaches great importance to natural signs that help remember the time when agricultural work began; it is focused on material objects and things, because the latter help preserve acquired experience (the shape of things is directly related to the materials from which they are made, and therefore to manufacturing technology). The most important means of communication and transmission of information here is language, which ensures not only direct communication between people, but also their labor activity, but also creates the prerequisites for the formation of the spiritual sphere of culture.

Written cultures were formed for the first time in the civilizations of the Ancient East (Sumer, Ancient Egypt) around the 4th millennium BC. and continue to exist in our time. The basis of this type of culture is writing, which has different techniques, based on different languages, different cultural traditions and forms of spiritual culture. The emergence of writing significantly changes culture, as it stimulates the development and dissemination of rational knowledge, the expansion of social relations, the emergence of social hierarchies and

formation of a national state. Moreover, writing is the most effective form of collective memory.

A special stage in development written culture becomes the invention of printing, which formed a new view of the world in the form of “linear perspective.” Not hearing and touch, but vision began to determine the image of the world of the coming era. Since that time, an increasing number of people have the opportunity to become familiar with any knowledge, finally consolidating the dominant position of science in European culture, which results in the development of technology and the industrial revolution.

Informational, or screen, culture is born under the dominance of electronics, when modern means of mass communication create fundamentally new forms of communication. The transition from books to screens as the main means of communication has, in a sense, brought people back to the 20th century. to the initial stage of development, where the plasticity of speech made it possible to express any, even the most fantastic images. The development of screen technology has increased the importance of touch and hearing in communicating with others. Electronic media are bringing culture back to the oral tradition that took place in ancient times. However, its fundamental difference from the latter is that it has a global communication network installed. Thanks to this difference, information culture makes it possible for anyone with modern means of communication to obtain any knowledge without leaving their own home. It greatly facilitates contacts between people, destroying national, state and cultural boundaries between them, actively forming a single world culture based on global technologies.

Another option for the modern typology of cultures is their division into traditional and modern (modernized).

Traditional cultures are characterized by isolation and isolation from other cultures, which, due to their alienness, are perceived as hostile. Hence, relationships between people within traditional culture are built on the principles solidarity- nobility, honesty, justice, respect for members of one’s team. This is especially noticeable among peoples at a low stage of development. Very often their ethnonym (self-name) translated means “real people.” These principles do not apply to strangers, “fake” people - representatives of other ethnic groups and communities, turning into mutual distrust, hatred, and treachery. Thus, even today, many Australian or African tribes, impeccably honest in their relations with each other, do not consider it shameful to deceive or steal something on occasion from representatives of other tribes or from a white man.

The phenomenon of tolerance in the context of modern intercultural interaction

The specificity of human existence as a social being is due to the fact that its formation and further process of functioning are possible only in the process of living together, as a result of which the process of socialization occurs. A feature of the social way of life of people is the need for their mutual coexistence, which is realized in various spheres of everyday interaction: political, economic, legal, religious, ethnonational, artistic, etc. The diversity of these spheres is closely related to the specific conditions of human development and existence in each of the historical periods. stages, which is characterized by the characteristics of the occupied ecological niche, socio-cultural way of life, ways of life, socio-political and economic conditions, etc.

Due to sociocultural and individual characteristics, due to the uniqueness of living conditions, people see and hear differently, they have different values, life attitudes and belief systems, which can provoke tension and conflict during interaction. But the specificity of the socio-historical development of people is such that they strive for integrity and mutual understanding of their existence in the process of communication. And here the definition and search for the phenomenon that unites people within a single sociocultural space becomes especially important. The basis for constructive interaction can be the idea of ​​tolerance as a necessary condition conflict-free coexistence. The solution to the problem of tolerance must be sought in specific types of socialization of people, in their specificity, growing out of ethnonational, sociocultural and subcultural traditions.

Recently, in the modern scientific community, the problem of tolerance has been given a lot of attention. Conferences are held, monographs and scientific publications are published, special programs, one way or another affecting the phenomenon of tolerance. The phenomenon of tolerance is one of the most pressing topics of our time, attracting the attention of scientists from various fields of knowledge, both in the social and humanities - ethnic, cross-cultural and political psychology, sociology, philosophy, cultural anthropology, and natural sciences, including genetics, biology, and medicine.

The formation of attitudes of tolerant consciousness and behavior, religious tolerance and peacefulness is of particular relevance for modern society. This is due to the fact that the modern world, rapidly mastering the multi-level space of intercultural relations, actualizes the need to study the ethno-national characteristics of behavior and skills of effective intercultural communication of subjects that make up a single socio-cultural space. The problem of tolerance attracts close attention of researchers in connection with the modern process of globalization, since it represents ideal model relative universalization of ethnocultures of a single region. The development of this problem is essential for a deeper understanding of the current situation in conditions of interaction at the global and regional levels.

On the threshold of the 21st century, the problem of tolerance has acquired particular relevance in connection with the process of globalization, confronting civilizational, religious, national and ethnic identities different cultures and peoples. Therefore, today it is very relevant:

1) theoretical understanding of tolerance as a multifactorial and multifaceted phenomenon;

2) analysis of theoretical research in connection with the study of the everyday world of people;

3) the formation of a tolerant consciousness among people united within a sociocultural community.

The main concept of our study is “tolerance”, so it is necessary to turn to its etymology to clarify the essence of this ambiguous phenomenon. Based on existing linguistic translations, the concept of “tolerance” is a kind of synonym for “tolerance”. So, from Latin “tolerantia”, English – “tolerance, toleration”; German – “toleranz”; French – “tolerance” means patience.

Although tolerance is identified with the concept of “patience,” we consider it as a special type of tolerance, which has a brighter active orientation. Therefore, in our understanding, tolerance is not passive submission to the opinions, views and actions of others; not submissive patience, but an active moral position and psychological readiness for tolerance for mutual understanding between ethnic groups, social groups, with the aim of positive interaction with people of a different cultural, ethnic, religious or social environment. An active moral position and psychological readiness for tolerance are the main components of the concept of “tolerance”.

Therefore, we will understand tolerance as consciously respectful tolerance and a person’s sincere ability to put up with someone or something, as well as to treat someone or something condescendingly. Understanding tolerance as a specific psychological attitude, oriented in the process of interaction between people towards a respectful perception of other ethnic or religious identity, other cultures, customs and lifestyles, shows it as the highest moral value. Associated with the process of communication aimed at internal independent psychological overcoming or weakening intolerance and rejection of what is different from one’s own (i.e., dissimilar, different) at the level of one’s own mentality, associated with weakening the reaction to any unfavorable factor in interreligious, interethnic and, in general, interpersonal relationships and the desire for peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding, tolerance is a necessary condition for the coexistence of people at various levels of life.

To determine the specifics of tolerance, we need to rethink this phenomenon itself, firstly, as a type of relationship; secondly, as a specific feature of a person; thirdly, as a form of self-reflection.

1. Tolerance as a type of relationship.

Considering tolerance as a type of relationship, we first of all need to note that tolerance is a complex and rare phenomenon of the coexistence of people for the simple reason that the foundation of the community is tribal consciousness. We unite in commonality with those who share our beliefs, or with those who speak the same language or have the same culture as us, or with those who belong to the same ethnic group. In essence, common language and a sense of ethnic affinity have served as the foundations of community throughout human history. At the same time, we tend to be hostile or fearful toward “others”—those who are different from us, and difference can occur at any level of biological, cultural, or political reality. Therefore, in order for a person to exist comfortably, it is necessary to develop in him the desire and ability to establish and maintain community with people who differ in some respect from the prevailing type or do not adhere to generally accepted opinions. The ability of a person, a community of people, a state to hear and respect the opinions of others is manifested in the desire for mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence, which presupposes the establishment of tolerance as a form of relations.

2. Tolerance as a specific human characteristic.

Due to the fact that human psychology functions according to universal human mechanisms, in all its multidimensionality it will have those spheres of manifestation where the sociotypical behavior of a particular group of people will find its psychological zone of coincidence. This zone of coincidence (ethnotypical styles of behavior, communication, value-semantic sphere) will be the basis of tolerance in the process of interaction and unity of universal human values ​​in the diversity of intercultural differences.

Tolerance is a special type of cultural orientation in which values ​​associated with the highest human needs are dominant. Tolerance, formed by upbringing and education, the specifics of the mentality, ultimately subordinates all private and narrowly selfish goals to the highest supra-individual, universal guidelines. Therefore, there is no doubt that tolerance, mutual respect, understanding, formed by upbringing and education, should become universal values. Diversity and richness of opinions and positions, variability of decisions and development, diversity of cultural traditions - essential characteristics modern relations.

To guarantee tolerance as a principle of living together and mutual respect between representatives of the interaction, it should be recognized as a basic duty and as a personal need, by establishing it as a position of coexistence.

3. Tolerance as a form of self-reflection.

We become or learn to be tolerant, gradually realizing the need for self-reflection and self-knowledge. Modern sociocultural communication today is aimed at provoking us to be active, to think, to understand, to solve semantic riddles, and through comprehension of the subjective world of another, to find ourselves. To do this, let us consider the very essence of the phenomenon of tolerance within the framework of a phenomenological analysis of everyday life, i.e. modern understanding of tolerance within the framework of phenomenology, through the description of phenomena as they appear in a person’s imagination, in his consciousness.

The structuring of ethnic forms of interaction is determined not only by the mentality of the ethnos, but also by the life world - everyday life - and the study of it, on the one hand, leads into the sphere of either a way of life or unconscious communicative interactions. Understanding the ongoing processes of interethnic interaction in the modern world is associated with the need for a deeper analysis of the mechanisms of preservation and functioning of an ethnic group and the characteristics of a specific form of interaction between ethnic groups, which, on the one hand, is aimed at the formation of internal self-isolation, and on the other, expanding contacts outside.

Tolerance is the ability for dialogue, which is achieved in the process of learning the world and oneself, which is possible only in the presence of the Other. Thus, dialogue is a necessary condition for development, both intellectual (without the ability, first of all, to perceive, absorbing units of social experience, the development of human thinking would be impossible), and personal, spiritual and cultural, associated with the very specifics of human existence.

It is in the process of interaction between people that the meaning, process and mechanism of dialogue is discovered as a result of the reflection of an object in the “other”, or only in the functioning does the formation of meaning, the phenomenization of a phenomenon occur. M. Bakhtin, turning to a phenomenological analysis of the phenomenon of dialogue, tries to show the way of relationships between the worlds of “I” and “Other”. The philosopher claims that the “Other” is significant not because he is the same as “I”, but because he is different. This “Other” ultimately enriches being. In a dialogue between two subjects, the goal of which is not to unite, since between the subjects there remains a space where various metamorphoses can take place. This intense distance cannot be overcome, and this is not necessary, since this is a space of thought that, separating us from another subject, allows everyone, without becoming different, to leave their previous boundaries. To be different is a privilege for both the Self and the Other. “I” is something different than “you,” which means we are both in a privileged position.

In the process of interaction, it is important to take into account the fact that each person looks at the world through the prism of his own attitudes, which is formed by worldview, language, cultural context, a certain paradigm, etc., and from which it is impossible to free himself. Trying to look simultaneously from several positions is similar to trying to observe an object from several points at once, however, only one point of view is really possible and necessary at the moment. Since it is impossible to free oneself from one’s prism or move completely into the situation of the “Other,” the need for dialogue arises. Thus, in the process of dialogue of cultures, the possibility of complete identification is not provided, but the possibility of bringing cultures closer together is assumed. When approaching the “Other,” observing and trying to understand it, it is important to always remember the highest purpose of a peaceful culture of interaction, thanks to which and relying on which understanding and dialogue are achieved, without which it is impossible to establish a culture of tolerance, the task of which is to understand, accept, and not dissolve in “ friend."

Tolerance as a conscious attitude toward accepting the “Other” through the reverse assumption of the same attitude allows us to maintain relative stability in a society that unites different ethnic cultures. Thus, in the process of interpersonal interaction, tolerance comes from the recognition of the “Other” as a free and equal person, capable of forming his own beliefs, living in accordance with them independently or together with like-minded people, based on the fact that this right does not harm others. Moreover, it (tolerance) acts not as an end in itself, but as a condition for coexistence.

Tolerance is not only moral character an individual, but also a specific technology of interaction between people, which ensures the achievement of goals through balancing interests, convincing various parties of the need to find a mutually acceptable solution. Tolerance is manifested in the right of all individuals to be different, as well as in ensuring sustainable harmony between different faiths, political, ethnic and other social groups, respect for the diversity of different world cultures, readiness to cooperate with people who differ in appearance, language, beliefs, customs and beliefs. Therefore, the formation of tolerant attitudes in a person through teaching him constructive dialogue, methods of negotiation, the ability to listen and respect another point of view is a problem of modern society.

The culture of tolerance is an integral part of the general culture of the individual. In accordance with the Declaration of Principles of Tolerance, which was adopted by UNESCO in 1995, tolerance is considered as a value and social norm of civil society. The Declaration emphasizes that constructive interaction between people and social groups with different values ​​can be achieved based on the formation of attitudes of tolerant consciousness and behavior, religious tolerance and peacefulness, and the development of skills of positive intercultural interaction.

Thus, the concept of “tolerance” is much broader in meaning than just “tolerant attitude”. This is a unique ethical doctrine of our time, claiming to be central place in the “coordinate axis” of the 21st century. People living in an era of erasing moral, ethnic, religious and other boundaries need a new philosophy, an open and understanding community.

Introduction

Chapter 1. The basis of intercultural communication

1 The essence of intercultural communication

2 Tasks and functions of intercultural communication

Chapter 2. The connection between tolerance and intercultural communication

1 Analysis of tolerance and its necessity

2 The problem of tolerance and intercultural communication

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Today we live in a world where different national cultures, peoples and religions intensively interact. This fact, on the one hand, requires building open relationships between people of different cultures. On the other hand, every nation faces the task of preserving its national, religious and cultural identity. However, this desire should not take the form of intolerance towards the bearers of values ​​and religious views of other national cultures. This situation can arise solely due to misunderstanding or ignorance of the history, cultural traditions, and religious teachings of other peoples. Banal ignorance can cause such phenomena as racism, religious discrimination, aggressive nationalism, etc.

Familiarity with the values ​​of individual peoples and main faiths will allow us to get away from prejudices and stereotypes in the perception of other cultures, and will strengthen interethnic and interfaith peace. This confirms the relevance of the chosen topic of the course work.

If we know how other peoples live and are guided in various spheres of activity, we will realize that we have common moral principles If we take an interest in the achievements of other national cultures, we will thereby cultivate in ourselves and in subsequent generations the principles of mutual respect, understanding, and tolerance.

The leading role in the formation of tolerant forms of consciousness and behavior of the individual belongs to educational institutions, which are called upon to make a purposeful contribution to the process of human socialization.

The purpose of this course work is to consider issues of tolerance and its connection with intercultural communication.

To achieve this goal, we need to solve the following tasks:

1.Analyze the essence of intercultural communication,

2.Consider the tasks and functions of intercultural communication,

.Analyze tolerance and its necessity,

.Consider the problem of tolerance in intercultural communication.

The subject of this work is tolerance, and the object is its connection with intercultural communication.

Tolerance is tolerance towards other people who differ in their beliefs, values ​​and behavior. Tolerance as a characteristic of communication and self-identification should be considered a cultural phenomenon. A tolerant political culture means a respectful attitude towards any political manifestations that do not contradict existing legislation. Tolerance in politics can be considered the result of the resolution of many social contradictions on a general social basis and the development of democracy in the form of a rule of law state.

Intercultural communication is a set of various forms of relationships and communication between individuals and groups belonging to different cultures.

Work structure. This course work consists of an introduction, content, conclusion and list of references.

Chapter 1. Basics of intercultural communication

.1 The essence of intercultural communication

When comparing various points of view existing in the specialized literature regarding the vastness of the concept intercultural communication , it is easy to discover that different authors include in it phenomena of a fundamentally different order.

Intercultural communication is a type of conscious extraction/communication of information in the process of interaction of at least two subjects using specially created for this or historically established means of communication (signs and rules for their combination).

Each national culture is divided into many subcultures - ethnic, regional, age, professional, interests, and so on. Communication between carriers of similar cultures can be called intersubcultural. From a scientific point of view, it hardly differs from the usual intracultural one - the common national-cultural baggage turns out to be quite sufficient to achieve mutual understanding. This only applies to the so-called included types of communication, rather than observational ones (see below), which take place in a situation where someone uninitiated observes the communication of representatives of a certain subculture with each other (a patient hears a conversation between doctors, a casual witness hears a conversation between criminals, an adult reads a youth magazine about rock music and so on).

There are several types of such comprehension of one’s own or someone else’s varieties of culture (Fig. 1):

Rice. 1 Types of cultural comprehension

All of the listed options for intercultural interaction can be classified as intercultural communication.

The task of achieving mutual understanding is especially relevant for peoples between whom, for one reason or another, tense relationships have developed. In recent history, one can note entire periods that passed under the sign of this task - for example, détente 70s, Gorbachev's perestroika (one of the elements of which was, as is known, the concept pan-European home ). To be fair, it should be said that this task was solved mainly by politicians and diplomats, as well as the propaganda apparatuses that served them. At the same time, there were also individual attempts by the public to get involved in its decision - remember the so-called public diplomacy or popular at one time teleconferences .

Officially, Russia is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural society. But in practice, the Russian Orthodox Church has big influence on public opinion and politics. The historically established multinational composition of the population of the Russian Federation obliges us to closely study, preserve and develop all the richness and diversity of cultures. Attention to the development of a culture of interethnic relations and the harmonization of ethnic relationships is caused by the geopolitical position of Russia as a multinational state, in which representatives of more than one hundred and eighty nationalities live, which have their own history and have unique features of material and spiritual culture. As V.V. Putin emphasized, “tolerance is the basis of Russian statehood, since Russia throughout its thousand-year history has developed as a multinational and multi-religious state.”

One of the most important forms of social development in a multinational society is the culture of interethnic communication.

Interethnic communication between people is realized against the backdrop of growing social tension, the destruction of a single cultural and educational space, the economic crisis and political instability in society. All this, in turn, stimulates the manifestation of interethnic conflict and leads to an awareness of the need for a culture of interethnic communication as an alternative to interethnic confrontation.

Problems of interethnic cultural communication are currently associated with interethnic conflicts, flows of refugees and internally displaced persons, and are largely due to an overly politicized public consciousness. It is possible to reduce the influence of these unfavorable factors only if it is possible to combine the preservation and revival of the cultures of the peoples of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which form an integral part of the world cultural palette. Current practice interethnic communication requires a different consciousness, the creation of new legal, moral and social norms regulating the relations into which ethnic groups and representatives of different nationalities enter into during the reconstruction of the model and structure of society.

The specificity of cultural education is to provide assistance in integration into the world of culture. Today, a person is increasingly required to show dynamism, constant self-improvement, readiness for constructive interaction (to work in a team), the ability to choose, and the courage to take responsibility. And the main thing is the perception of failure not as the collapse of life, but as an opportunity to overcome difficulties and the prospect of future success. The void that appears in the minds and souls of people in the absence of national culture is inevitably filled with aggression, intolerance, social and political radicalism.

1.2 Tasks and functions of intercultural communication

If we consider the functional purpose of culture, then in most of the humanities a point of view has been established, according to which the functions of modern intercultural communication include the following (Fig. 2):

Rice. 2. Functions of modern intercultural communication

Historical experience shows that any nation in the process of development interacts with other nations in one way or another. Interethnic communication represents public and personal contacts, relationships between people of different nationalities exchanging both material and spiritual values, as well as views, feelings, emotions in the process of their social activities and everyday life.

Interethnic interaction (its forms, structure, content) depends on what stages of ethnic and national identification it occurs at. It is never static, it is always developing and dynamic. As a rule, there are several stages of national identification:

1.Ethnic stage. This is the initial level of sociocultural evolution of an ethnos, associated with the awareness by members of a social group of their community, the differences between “we” and “they”. This phase is characterized by the appearance of an ethnonym (self-name) of an ethnic group, which plays a crucial role in its further transformation. There is also a mythologization of the ethnic archaic (the past of a given social community), usually expressed in the poeticization of the most important ethnic-forming features - language, territory, religion, culture.

2.Determination of sociocultural appearance. The next stage of ethnic dynamics, within which ideas about the characteristics of the national character and its cultural make-up are formed. It was during this period that stereotypes regarding one’s own and other ethnic groups appeared. Interethnic interaction at this stage takes place against a more pronounced national-ethnic background.

3.The stage of accumulation of the national ideal. This level is characterized by the maximum concentration of the national component in society. It is associated with the emergence of a national ideal. National ideal often associated with ideas about the missionary significance of a particular nation. A set of sociocultural guidelines is developed that is recognized as “traditional” for the national group. As a rule, at this level, any contradiction with other nations appears in the form of interethnic confrontation.

Interethnic interaction manifests itself in such forms as interethnic relations and communication, but these concepts are not equivalent. The second has a broader meaning. “Interethnic communication” is accordingly the process of implementing “interethnic relations”. “Interethnic relations” characterize the content, while “interethnic communication” is the form and method of communication between people of different nationalities in the process of their life.

The basis of all communication is interaction, social activities subjects. According to the form of its expression and implementation, interethnic communication and interethnic contacts can be of two types: immediate (direct) and indirect (indirect).

Direct communication involves joint activities in the same enterprises, institutions, in the same production, educational, military groups, in families, and so on. It involves personal contacts, the exchange of thoughts and feelings.

As for the forms of indirect communication, these primarily include material means (exchange of goods, activities, cultural values) and the media (press, television, radio, etc.). If in the process of direct communication specific representatives of individual nations interact, then in the process of indirect communication both their individual representatives and nations as a whole interact as social and ethnic communities that feel the need for interethnic communication.

The state of interethnic relations, characterizing the social situation of modern states and their subjects, determines the potential for local stability and affects the functioning of all spheres of society. Any multi-ethnic society is characterized by an ambiguous attitude of members of one ethnic community towards representatives of other ethnic communities or groups. This inevitably leads to the creation of situations that complicate interethnic relations.

Culture, as a treasury of world experience, records the ways of life of various subjects of human history: from an individual to an ethnic group or society as a whole. Social and cultural changes constitute the largest part of human history; accordingly, groups of subjects of human history, such as nations, are not a once and for all formed community. These communities are, first of all, the result of the development and interaction of cultures, and new forms of cultural differences, like new traditions, constantly arise from the very different sources in the life of nations. In other words, culture in general and the culture of interethnic communication in particular is not a frozen formation, but has a procedural feature that is characterized by a certain dynamism, where the magnitude of the dynamics is determined by the frequency and depth of interethnic relations.

Chapter 2. The connection between tolerance and intercultural communication

2.1 Analysis of tolerance and its necessity

Analysis of scientific literature, dictionaries and encyclopedias is the basis for the conclusion that at present it is impossible to talk about tolerance as a finally formed and generally understood term.

The concept of tolerance was formed over a long period of time and gradually acquired and accumulated more and more diverse meanings in order to fully correspond to modern times.

In Russian linguistics, there are words with a similar meaning - tolerance and tolerance. The word “tolerance” or “patience” (from the verb “tolerate”) is present in almost all dictionaries of the Russian language. In the dictionary V.I. Dahl interprets the word “tolerance” as a property or quality, the ability to tolerate something or someone “only out of mercy, condescension.” S.I. Ozhegov gives the following definition: “The ability, without hostility, to be patient with other people’s opinions, views, and behavior.” Characterize in a similar way this concept and most etymological dictionaries. The noun “tolerance” or the verb “tolerate” contains the basic meaning: passive acceptance of the surrounding reality, non-resistance to it. The word tolerance, found in many European languages, comes from the Latin tolerantia - patience.

Thus, despite the many meanings of the verb “tolerate,” the contemplative sense dominated the definition of the term “tolerance.”

An ethical definition (although tolerance here is related to tolerance), revealing moral essence tolerance (tolerance), reads in the dictionary on ethics: “Tolerance is a moral quality that characterizes a tolerant attitude towards the interests, convictions, beliefs, and habits of behavior of other people. It is expressed in the desire to achieve mutual understanding and coordination of disparate interests and points of view without the use of extreme measures of pressure, mainly by methods of explanation and persuasion.

Formulated in different historical periods and in different schools and directions, philosophical definitions of tolerance and tolerance testify not only to the difference in views on the concept and the problems associated with it, but also emphasize their versatility and variability.

Tolerance is necessary in relation to the characteristics of different peoples, nations, and religions. It is a sign of self-confidence and awareness of the reliability of one’s own positions, a sign of an ideological current open to all, which is not afraid of comparison with another point of view and does not avoid spiritual competition.

Thus, tolerance is a category that provides not only respect for strangers, but also a position that involves expanding the range of personal value orientations through positive interaction with other cultures. This definition emphasizes that tolerant relationships are possible only on the basis of selfless acceptance of another person, regardless of his cultural and social level.

It should be noted that the concept of tolerance, although identified by most sources with the concept of patience, has a more pronounced active orientation. Tolerance is not passive, submissive patience, but an active moral position and psychological readiness for tolerance in the name of mutual understanding between ethnic communities, social groups, in the name of positive interaction with people of a different cultural, national, religious or social environment.

The possibilities for implementing intercultural tolerance in modern Russia, as in any society, depend on a number of factors of a theocratic, legal and practical nature.

We are talking, firstly, about the very understanding of the principle of tolerance, its compliance with those universal attributes of religious tolerance that are recognized by the world community.

Secondly, we should talk about the reflection of this theoretical understanding in state legal documents, its embodiment in legislative acts that provide legal guarantees for followers of various religions.

The theoretical understanding of intercultural tolerance, its interpretation by different social and religious groups of Russians to one degree or another depends on their religious, national, political, patriotic and other predilections. But the prevailing belief among all segments of the population is the need to establish humane and democratic relationships between representatives of different faiths and respect for all faiths.

Official government officials have repeatedly stated their desire to ensure the equality of all cultural associations before the law, to eliminate any form of discrimination on religious grounds, to create conditions for universal tolerance and mutual cooperation among followers of all cultural movements.

These aspirations are reflected in legislative acts. The ideas of tolerance are reflected in the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “The state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of attitude to religion, any forms of restriction of the rights of citizens on the basis of religious affiliation are prohibited” (Part 2, Article 19); “...propaganda of religious superiority is prohibited” (Part 2, Article 29).

However, the legislative enshrinement of any provisions does not mean their implementation in practice. Therefore, in practice there are still violations of both the spirit and the letter of the law. After all, despite all the cardinal ideological, political and legal changes of recent times, our society remains at the same level of mass culture, civilization, with the same traditions.

The public mood, shared by the overwhelming majority of the Russian population, is characterized by a loyal attitude towards people of other faiths and beliefs, a readiness for tolerance, goodwill, cooperation in different areas. Unlike some leaders, the majority of believers do not agree with the idea of ​​exclusivity, the only truth of a particular religion, and even more so with opposing other religions.

Society is interested in its members developing an open mindset, awakening interest in dialogue between followers of different cultures, overcoming prejudice against each other on the basis of religion or nationality, and establishing tolerance and constructive cooperation for the common good.

Finally, we should not forget that almost all religions justify tolerance in the same way.

The concept of tolerance acquires different meanings depending on the field of scientific activity in which this term is applied. But, regardless of the point of view, tolerance characterizes the ability to accept or be ready to accept those external influences that run counter to the internal content, thereby preventing conflict or dangerous situations.

2.2 The problem of tolerance in intercultural communication

Attempts to determine the essence of tolerant consciousness traditionally proceed from the recognition of the significance of the entire spectrum of socio-political, economic, cultural, value, legal and other dominants. Most often, tolerance is associated with the formation of a legal and political culture, the affirmation of the principle of respect for human rights and freedoms, the cultivation of attitudes of tolerance, respect for the culture and values ​​of other peoples, the formation of an active denial of violence as a way of resolving conflicts, racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, terrorism, and also with the education of a culture of peace. However, if we highlight the national aspect in the understanding of tolerance, it is mainly expressed in a certain attitude of representatives of various ethnic groups towards each other.

The connection between tolerance and intercultural communication implies tolerance towards differences in the way of life, traditions, values, and ways of behavior of representatives of other national communities. Despite the simplicity of this formulation, it is “tolerance” that is one of the most difficult concepts to define. In particular, it is very difficult to distinguish the indifferent-tolerant, indifferent attitude of some representatives of ethnic groups towards others from a positive-tolerant attitude.

Often, ethnic hostility and denial are directed at the ethnic-forming distinctive features of a particular society, that is, at those features of the national whole that actually distinguish it from other societies. This is where the difficulty lies in defining and implementing tolerant principles of interethnic community life. The feeling of closeness and kinship for representatives of the same ethno-national integrity is concentrated on common segments of culture - customs, way of life, social behavioral manifestations, etc. It is the unity of the sociocultural whole within the framework of one ethno-territorial group that serves as the basis for understanding and participation of members of this group in a common national space. Tolerance within one national community does not pose a problem - neither at the level of definition, nor in the context of practical implementation, since representatives of the same social space share common archetypal value and behavioral attitudes of society. Therefore, the “internal” principle of tolerance within the framework of some ethnic whole refers to a single history and understanding of the closeness of seemingly different individuals of a given society.

The affirmation of tolerance means nothing more than familiarization with the common culture of an ethnic group and, in general, is embodied in the traditional principles of enlightenment. Within one ethnic group, differences give way to a more significant unity, expressed in the sociocultural similarity of individuals of the ethnic group. The situation is different with the definition of tolerance in the context of cultures that are different from each other.

The differences between representatives of various ethnosocial groups sometimes exceed the sociocultural whole, which can become the basis for understanding, sympathy, and empathy among individuals of different ethnic groups.

One way or another, the difficulty in defining tolerant lies in the fact that the basis of tolerance is collective consciousness, which includes a common sociocultural space containing a common language and a sense of ethnic closeness.

American researcher S. Stouffer believes that the development of social and cultural diversity increases the need to organize mechanisms for the protection of civil liberties for the functioning of a high-quality democratic society. It is noteworthy that Stouffer takes an optimistic position on the issue of the development of tolerance, arguing that the level of tolerance in the sphere of politics and culture is constantly increasing.

If we talk about the change in the level of tolerance in European and American consciousness, Mandock and Sanders believe that tolerance has not acquired greater importance for mass consciousness. In their study “Tolerance and Intolerance,” the authors, based on statistical observations, note that the level of tolerance did not change during the period under study. This is noteworthy because this period of history coincides with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of the world order from bipolar to unipolar.

Joseph Wagner develops a different approach to the concept of tolerance. He understands tolerance not so much in the context of a stratified society, but in the formation and development of its moral spheres. If Stouffer and other researchers use a functional approach to interpret tolerance, that is, as a system of norms necessary for the reasonable and harmonious functioning of society, then Wagner endows tolerance with anthropological features - ethical collective consciousness at a certain stage of development gives rise to a system of values ​​of social coexistence.

Of course, these approaches harmoniously complement each other, since, firstly, awareness of the need for tolerant forms of communication can only appear in the face of social conflicts and contradictions, which may be a consequence of the differentiation of cultures, ways of life, and value scales of different social groups. Secondly, the very question of resolving conflict situations and contradictions by peaceful means, the question of the harmonious coexistence of different cultures in a multifaceted world is possible only within the framework of a developed and defined system of ethical moral standards. It is difficult to imagine that the concept of the need for harmonious coexistence with neighbors could arise in the minds of the average representative of the Golden Horde during the Tatar-Mongol invasions of the 13th-14th centuries. Tolerance at this stage of development of history and consciousness was not included in the scale of values ​​as a significant category. Thus, the perceived need for tolerance reflects both the development of social differentiation and the formation of morality in society.

One of the significant approaches to the problem of tolerance in the context of world globalization and crisis is demonstrated by members of the Club of Rome. The collective efforts of the authors are reflected in several highly respected studies. The work of Mikhailo Mezarovich and Eduard Pestel “Humanity at the Turning Point” is significant. The features of the new world order in the context of the problem of globalization are reflected in the collective monograph “Revisiting the International Order,” edited by Jan Tinbergen.

The main position of the representatives of the Club of Rome is associated with a statement of the deep crisis in the modern state of human society: “The main principle of the club members is expressed in the study of the deep pathological state and inconsistency of all humanity... a contradiction that penetrates into all aspects of human life.” The most important point of the modern existence of the world community should be the principles of tolerance. The significance of the problems posed within the framework of the research of the Club of Rome lies in the fact that the new sought-after world order, in addition to economic, institutional and other components, must also include a new ideology of coexistence, i.e. ideology of tolerance.

The most important component of a rational world order is the ideology of tolerance, which acts as a system of norms that determines the coexistence of different cultures and societies in a single world space.

Thus, understanding tolerance within the framework of research by Western authors is associated with the search for a new world strategy for the existence of the international community.

Within the framework of domestic social philosophy and sociology, there are several approaches to the definition of tolerance. In particular, L.M. Drobizheva defines tolerance as “the willingness to accept others as they are and interact with them on the basis of consent.” In this definition, interethnic communication is based on the principle of accepting the uniqueness and originality of other cultures. V.A. Tishkov, a famous Russian researcher, gives a simpler definition of tolerance as “respect and non-interference.” This simplicity captivates with its apparent clarity, but uncertainty arises due to the fact that it remains unclear on what exactly should be based the respect of representatives of different, often hostile cultures for each other.

Thus, Tishkov’s position contains an irreducible educational principle: the basis of tolerant interaction of national groups is associated with the knowledge and familiarization of opposing cultures. Despite the fact that this position is very simple and understandable, it is associated with one difficulty in defining tolerance.

Tolerance within the framework of interethnic communication is possible only where there is a desire for it, for complicity. Tolerance is a consequence of the awareness of the common supra-ethnic, supra-confessional component of individuals of various social groups. However, if a certain ethnic society is closed in internal mass stereotypes and dogmas, and does not contain factors pushing it to rationalize its own culture, then such a society will inevitably be intolerant, since it is closed in its local value guidelines and does not in any way correlate them with the principles of peaceful coexistence. Tolerance is associated with a certain development of the value dominants of the individual.

The peculiarity of modern contradictions in the sphere of defining tolerance is that the international community simultaneously affirms the significance, originality, value of different cultures and the value of a single world of universal human values. This is precisely where the multidimensionality of the problem of tolerance lies: while recognizing the sociocultural value of local ethnosocial groups, people often contradict universal values, and vice versa. Phenomena such as authoritarianism and totalitarianism are denied as significant values ​​by representatives of democratic societies. However, it is precisely these values ​​that are considered mandatory components of power in some Eastern cultures.

An even more serious question is related to the problem of what should be considered universal human values. At some point in the historical development of social thought, the European and Western became universal. As is known, the enlighteners understood the development of culture strictly linearly. All societies go through the same path of development, expressed in the change of the same forms of society. This meant that the European model of development of capitalist society is mandatory for all cultures and national groups without exception. This, in turn, led to the conclusion that “backward” societies would inevitably follow the European path of development, adopting European values. This principle in history served as the basis not only for the Europeanization of the countries of Asia and Africa, but also for their colonization and extermination of the indigenous population, since European culture was recognized as higher and more developed.

As is known, the modern international community has rejected the educational principle in the approach to the development of culture, recognizing the unconditional importance of non-European values. Interesting in this regard are the conclusions of social psychologists and ethnopsychologists, reflected in the works of N.M. Lebedeva, O.V. Lunevoy, T.G. Stefanenko, M.Yu. Martynova. In particular, it is generally accepted that the development of African countries according to the European scenario is impossible. Consequently, the model of value development that took place during the era of enlightenment is a thing of the past. It is obvious that ethnic tolerance presupposes something in common between different ethnic cultures. This community is nothing more than a community of path. Tolerance in ethnic communication is associated with the search for a single global ideological position that would be shared by representatives of different ethnic and national cultures.

The above positions reflect a diverse understanding of ethnic tolerance in the modern world. In particular, this is expressed in the fact that within the framework of international legislation, on the one hand, the principle of nations (ethnic groups) of self-determination is proclaimed, including in relation to state jurisdiction, but, on the other hand, the indivisibility and immutability of state borders is affirmed. It is here that the inevitable contradiction between the particular and the general lies, allowing individual national groups to self-determinate, including in relation to state territories, and at the same time the inviolability of states in their territorial status quo is affirmed.

Thus, we can say that the principles of ethnic tolerance are the principles of respectful attitude and dialogue between different national groups.

Representatives of various national and religious communities generally advocate similar principles based on the affirmation of the rapprochement of cultures.

It is traditionally believed that some modifications are possible in understanding the principles of ethnic tolerance. For example, V. Lektorsky offers a level understanding of tolerance (Fig. 3):

Rice. 3. Level understanding of tolerance

As Kenneth Wayne believes, interethnic dialogue will be organic and constructive only if it has a direct, natural meaning. This means that tolerance presupposes not only a certain hypothetical and abstract respect for the values, attitudes and beliefs (positions) of representatives of different cultures, but also respect for the bearers of values ​​and attitudes themselves - directly for people of different sociocultural spaces.

Ethnic tolerance is defined within the framework of respectful dialogue and interaction between different ethnic groups. The principle of ethnic tolerant dialogue presupposes many positions, attitudes, and value parameters that are considered equal. The modern state of understanding tolerance is characterized by a refusal to monopolize the truth, and an inherent desire to proclaim openness and readiness to compromise. This means the variability and situationality of various forms of ethnic communication.

Conclusion

In the life of every person, situations of mutual aggression, intransigence and subsequent disappointment arise due to the fact that the problem that caused aggressive confrontation is not only not resolved, but is getting worse. In this case, as a rule, there is an understanding of the ineffectiveness of such behavior. A constructive solution to these problems is possible through the manifestation of tolerance by the participants in a conflict situation.

Tolerance includes a certain knowledge-idea about the object of attitude. In the case of intercultural communication, this is knowledge about another people, features of perception and ideas about it. Knowledge about another people determines our emotional attitude towards them. Knowledge and the emotional attitude conditioned by it, in turn, determine behavior towards this people, the nature of the “treatment” with them. Under the influence of emotions, people become tendentious, biased, and biased. An act committed under the influence of a momentary mood can lead to the creation of a certain model of role relationships with him and become the reason for the emergence of a persistent attitude towards him and an equally persistent certain judgment about this people.

Modern Russia is a multinational and multi-religious country (more than 180 nationalities, more than 70 religious denominations). Naturally, representatives of all nations and beliefs constantly interact with each other. Therefore, the formation of intercultural tolerance is one of the factors influencing the security of the country and its integrity.

The difficulties of ensuring intercultural tolerance in modern Russia are due to a number of circumstances. These are, first of all, negative historical traditions, because issues of freedom of conscience were often resolved in the country in favor of the political interests of the state or some parties.

The complex multi-confessional and multi-ethnic composition of the population creates the need for regular efforts to maintain balanced relationships between different cultures, confessions, between traditional religions and new, including esoteric, religious formations.

ethnic tolerance intercultural communication

Bibliography

1. Aklaev A.R. Ethnopolitical conflictology: analysis and management: textbook. allowance. - M.: Publishing house "Delo" ANKh, 2008.

Artsybashev I.G. On some aspects of the problem of determining tolerance / I.G. Artsybashev // News of the Ural State University. − No. 54, − issue. 4, − 2007.

Astvatsaturova M.A. Diasporas in the Russian Federation: formation and management. - District/D.-Pyatigorsk: SKAGS, 2002.

Bavin P.S. Social geography of xenophobia and tolerance / P. S. Bavin // Polis: Political Studies. − No. 6, − 2006.

Vinokurova L.I. Tolerance: pros and cons / L. I. Vinokurova, Ya. I. Dodu // Humanitarian Research. − No. 2, − 2007.

Global problems and universal values. - M., 2004.

Grishaeva L.I. Introduction to the theory of intercultural communication: textbook. manual for university students in the following specialties: “Theory and methodology of teaching foreign languages ​​and cultures”, “Translation and translation studies”, “Theory and practice of intercultural communication” direction. "Linguistics and intercultural communication" / L.I. Grishaeva, L.V. Tsurikova. Higher professional education. Linguistics (Tutorial) - 4th ed., erased. - M.: Academy, 2007.

Grushevitskaya T.G. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: textbook. for universities, for special purposes "Intercultural communication" / T.G. Grushevitskaya, V.D. Popkov, A.P. Sadokhin; ed. A.P. Sadokhin. - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2003.

Guliev M.A. Some historical information on political tolerance / M.A. Guliev, R.Kh. Ganieva, I.A. Guliyev // Humanitarian and socio-economic sciences. − No. 3, − 2007.

Dal V. Tolerate // Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, 1998.

Denisovsky G.M., Kozyreva P.M. Political tolerance in the reformed Russian society of the second half of the 90s. - M., 2002.

Zhumaeva L.A. Tolerance and intercultural communications - the key to peace / L.A. Zhumaeva // Culture: management, economics, law. − No. 3, − 2007.

Zdravomyslov A.G., Tsutsiev A.A. Ethnicity and ethnic violence // Sociological Journal, - No. 3, - 2003.

Zinoviev I.V. N.S. Trubetskoy on intercultural dialogue and the problem of tolerance / I.V. Zinoviev // Philosophical Sciences. − No. 5, − 2006.

Zolotukhin V.M. Tolerance. - Kemerovo, 2001.

Ilyinskaya S.G. Tolerance as a principle of political action: history, theory, practice. − M.: PRAXIS, 2009.

Krasikov A.A., Tokareva E.S. Religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions. − M.: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006.; Intercultural communication: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Perm. state univ. - Perm: PSU, 2004.

Kruglova N.V. Tolerance and identity: the situation in modern Russia / N.V. Kruglova // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. − Vol. 2, − 2008.

Intercultural communication at the turn of the century: materials of the conference. / Perm. state tech. University (PSTU). - Perm: Perm State Technical University, 2000.

Nesterova N.V. The variety of approaches to understanding tolerance / N. V. Nesterova // Applied psychology and psychoanalysis. − No. 4, − 2006.

Permyakova T.M. Intercultural communication (socio-psychological aspect): textbook. allowance / T. M. Permyakova; Perm. state univ. - Perm: PSU, 2001.

Sadokhin A.P. Introduction to the theory of intercultural communication / A. P. Sadokhin. Cap. spine: Theory of intercultural communication. - M.: Higher. school, 2005.

Sadokhin A.P. Culturology: theory and history of culture. Tutorial. − M.: EKSMO, 2007. #"justify">. Sadokhin A.P. Intercultural competence and competence in modern communication / A.P. Sadokhin // Social sciences and modernity. − No. 3, − 2008.

Sadokhin A.P. Competence or competency in intercultural communication / A.P. Sadokhin // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 19, Linguistics and intercultural communication. − No. 3, − 2007.

Sadokhin A.P. “Friend - Alien” in intercultural communication: approaches to studying the problem / A. P. Sadokhin // Issues of cultural studies. − No. 3, − 2007.

Selezneva E.V., Bondarenko N.V. Development of tolerance among civil servants. − M.: RAGS, 2008.

Skorokhodov V.P. Dialogue of cultures in the era of globalization / V.P. Skorokhodov // Traditional culture. − №1, − 2006.

Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication / S.G. Ter-Minasova. - M.: SLOVO / SLOVO, 2000.

Tolerance: theory. approaches and methods of teaching the basics of tolerance. behavior: [sb. method. materials / author: Zhdanov D.N., Kamakaeva L.I., Mikov P.V. and etc.; edited by Doctor of History A.B. Suslova, D.P. Ponosova]. - Perm: Publishing house. I. Maksarova: Center for Civil. education and human rights, 2006.

Tolerance as a way of life of a modern person / Department. internal politicians, Adm. Governor of Perm. region, Adm. Lenin. district, Perm. state University; [compiled by: O.K. Yakovleva]. - Perm: [b. i.], 2007. In the region. cap.: Me and the other. Tolerance as a way of life of a modern person.

34. Tolerance // Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, 1890-1907 Tolerance and multicultural society. - M., 2003.

35. Tolerance as a cultural universal. - Kharkov, 1996.

Tyagunov F.F., Tolpykin V.E. orBondyreva S.K. Tolerant consciousness and the formation of tolerant relationships: theory and practice. Sat. scientific - 2nd ed. − M.: MPSI, NPO MODEK, 2002.

Fedyunina S.M. Intercultural communication as sociocultural phenomenon/ CM. Fedyunina // Bulletin of Saratov State Technical University. − No. 1, − 2006.

Walzer M. On tolerance / trans. I. Mürnberg; ed. M.A. Abramov. - M.: Idea-Press: House of Intellectuals. book., 2000.

Habermas Yu. When should we be tolerant? On the competition of visions of the world, values ​​and theories / J. Habermas; lane with him. A. A. Zotova // Sociological research. − №1, − 2006.

Chang Lee. On the problems of the theory and practice of intercultural communication / Chang Li // Graduate student and applicant. − No. 2, − 2006.

Shalin V.V. Tolerance. - Rn/D., 2000.

Me and the other one. Tolerance as a way of life of a modern person / Administration Lenin. district; [compiled by: O. K. Yakovleva - Ph.D., Associate Professor. department sociology and political science Perm. state University]. - Perm: [b. i.], 2007.

Yankina N.V. Intercultural tolerance as a component of intercultural communication / N.V. Yankina // Bulletin of Orenburg State University. - T. 1, - No. 1, - 2006.

44. British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online. tolerance noun (ACCEPTANCE). #"justify">. "Declaration of principles on tolerance". Paris, France: UNESCO. Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on November 16, 1995. Declaration of Principles of Tolerance, approved by resolution 5.61 of the UNESCO General Conference of November 16, 1995.

46. ​​Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. New York, NY: United Nations, Department of Public Information. January, 1999. Page 2. Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations<#"justify">#"justify">47. Follow-up report on the United Nations Year for Tolerance. − New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly. Resolution A/51/201. − 1996.