Contributes to the formation of intercultural tolerance conclusion on the modern. Development of intercultural communication in the educational workshop “my intercultural tolerance”

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 lifestyle, 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 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.

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. Tolerant consciousness and the formation of tolerant relations. M., 2002- p.76.

If we talk about the change in the level of tolerance in European and American consciousness, Mandok and Sanders believe that tolerance has not become more important 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 a certain system 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 of the times Tatar-Mongol invasions XIII-XIV 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 Tolerant consciousness and the formation of tolerant relations. M., 2002- p.43.

The main position of the representatives of the Club of Rome is associated with a statement of the deep crisis in the current 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 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/ answer 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 on internal mass stereotypes and dogmas, it does not contain factors pushing it to rationalize 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 one world 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. 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 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 (ethnicities) to self-determination is proclaimed, including in relation to state jurisdiction, but, on the other hand, the indivisibility and immutability of state borders. 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 variability and situationality various forms ethnic communication.

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, and special programs are organized that in one way or another address 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 human sciences - ethnic, cross-cultural and political psychology, sociology, philosophy, cultural anthropology, and in the natural sciences, including genetics , biology, medicine.

The formation of attitudes of tolerant consciousness and behavior, religious tolerance and peacefulness has for modern society special relevance. 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 due to modern process globalization, since it represents an ideal model of the 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, which brings together civilizational, religious, national and ethnic identities of 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 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 special type 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 life together and mutual respect between representatives of 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 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 accomplished, 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 a moral characteristic individual person, 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 a 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.

The problem of education of tolerance, as a holistic manifestation of personality, must be considered as one of the most important priorities in the educational value system of the 21st century, an indicator of the spiritual culture of the individual and the spiritual wealth of a person.

The relevance of this work is due to

modern trends in education, as well as the need to train highly professional, moral, enterprising specialists who are able to collaborate, have critical thinking, and are ready to interact both in the field of professional activity and in interpersonal and intercultural relations.

This work is not an exhaustive problem of cultivating tolerant consciousness among students; Further ways are needed to create continuous models of tolerance formation at all stages of learning.

Download:

Preview:

Ministry of Culture of the Saratov Region

State educational institution of secondary vocational education

"SARATOV REGIONAL COLLEGE OF ARTS"

(Branch of the state educational institution of secondary vocational education

"SARATOV REGIONAL COLLEGE OF ARTS" in Balakovo)

Methodological report on the topic:

“FORMATION OF INTERCULTURAL TOLERANCE

WHEN TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES"

Prepared by:

Simonova Natalya Iosifovna,

Teacher of the Central Committee "General Education,

Humanitarian and social

economic disciplines"

Balakovo

2015

INTRODUCTION

The globalization processes taking place in the world are reflected in the language education system in terms of intercultural contacts. The thematic components of the academic discipline “Foreign Language” are increasingly problems that have planetary value: people and national cultures; problems of war and peace; environment; overcoming ethnic prejudices and age discrimination; global communication networks - Internet; the latest technologies and people.

Preparing students for intercultural communication involves the formation of a number of personality qualities, including tolerance. The content of education of these personality traits is being actively developed by modern scientists. For example, E.I. Passov considers the following aspects to be the main content of education:

• instilling immunity to nationalism, chauvinism, etc.;
• instilling a sense of patriotism, a desire to represent one’s country with dignity, and a readiness to defend it;
• fostering an understanding of the historical role of the people (the country of the language being studied) in international life, respect and good attitude towards the country and its people, its history and traditions, etc.;
• instilling confidence in the benefits of universal human values;
• nurturing the correct attitude towards true and imaginary values.

MAIN PART

Tolerance (from the Latin tolerantia - tolerance) is a quality that characterizes the attitude towards another person as an equally worthy person and is expressed in the conscious suppression of feelings of rejection caused by everything that is perceived in another as alien (appearance, manner of speech, tastes, lifestyle, beliefs, etc.). Tolerance presupposes a disposition towards understanding and dialogue with others, recognition and respect for their right to be different.

The formation of intercultural tolerance when teaching a foreign language as a means of intercultural communication is possible only when the training is close to real communication. Students need to be taught tolerant communicative behavior, which is associated with the formation of politeness, speech etiquette skills, political correctness and a culture of communication. This means learning the formulas of polite treatment, namely: the ability to give an emotional assessment (express joy, pleasure, sympathy, location, satisfaction, interest, approval, the ability to calm someone down), the ability to express agreement, encouragement to action, offer of help, invitation , accepting an invitation, etc.

In order for a person who grew up in one linguistic culture to be able to understand the characteristics of another culture and treat them tolerantly, it is necessary that the educational process not only be aimed at improving communication skills, but also contribute to the familiarization of students with the cultural phenomena of the country of the language being studied. Moreover, along with the description cultural characteristics country and the native speaker of the language being studied, it is advisable to discuss the problems of an ever-changing global world: problems of racism, discrimination, ethnocentrism, national problems and ways to resolve them.

A cultural barrier can be a real factor preventing mutual understanding between communication participants. To overcome it, it is necessary to prepare students for real communication in a foreign language with native speakers. There is a paradox here, since preparation for real intercultural communication consists of training communication in a foreign language with peers belonging to the same culture. This is one of the essential features of intercultural communication when teaching a foreign language, namely, preparation for real intercultural communication, for real interaction between speakers of two cultures is indirect, since the process of teaching a foreign language is carried out outside the language environment, far from the real functioning of the languages ​​being studied and crops

The process of teaching a foreign language contributes in the best possible way to the formation of tolerance, since the goal of teaching a foreign language is to teach real communication with representatives of different cultures, the development of intercultural communication, which is one of the main conditions for the formation of tolerance. For participants in intercultural communication, general knowledge about culture and special knowledge about the cultural standard, skills in intercultural activities are important in order to act effectively and with a minimum of misunderstanding and conflicts.

Intercultural communication is a complex multifaceted process of interpenetration and interaction of cultures. Students' mastery of the values ​​of their native culture allows them to more accurately, deeply and comprehensively perceive other cultures. The study of another, and with it one’s own culture, must be critical, but critical in the sense of a discriminating, non-evaluative comparison. You cannot judge other cultures if they do not violate fundamental human rights. That is, the concept of equal value of cultures should be at the forefront. In this regard, work with linguistic and cultural texts is paramount.

The quality of teaching largely depends on the teacher’s ability to select linguistic and regional studies material. Understanding a foreign culture consists of searching for differences between samples of one’s own and another’s culture and understanding this culture. Regional studies texts occupy great place in the process of learning a foreign language. The content of such texts should be meaningful for students and be new to them.

The concept of culture when selecting texts should include the following aspects:

1. Geography, monument cities.
2. Customs, traditions, self-awareness of peoples.
3. Outstanding people.
4. Education system.
5. Painting, architecture, sculpture.
6. Classical (folk) music.
7. Prose, poetry, folklore.
8. Monuments of art and literature
9. Cinema, theater, media, TV.
10. Public and religious organizations, funds.

Textbooks for secondary educational institutions in a foreign language contain material of a regional nature, which allows for the implementation of the sociocultural component, offering information about different countries, developing students’ skills to represent their country in comparison with other countries. Students learn to build speech and non-speech behavior taking into account the cultural characteristics of the language being studied while understanding a unified system of ethnic values ​​of peoples. Educational material is presented and practiced in tasks that modulate real-life situations everyday use language.

Over the years I have been practicing a variety offorms of organization educational activities: training in small groups, group, pair and individual work. It is important that with any organization of communicative activity an optimal psychological climate is created to achieve a cognitive goal, on the one hand, and on the other, that during the execution of the task a certain culture of communication, methods of communication and the provision of mutual assistance can be traced. These ways joint activities needs to be trained.For the formation of a tolerant personality of a student, mastering behavior during a conversation is important. It includes the specifics of greetings, promises, approval, disapproval, regret, apology, requests, compliments, invitations, thanks, etc. To avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to distinguish between words that are false friends of the translator, such as academic, artist, angina, accurate, etc.

Thus, during the collective cognitive activity of students, the following is achieved:

• awareness of the purpose of the activity, which requires the combined efforts of all members of the student group;
• establishing relations of mutual responsibility and dependence between group members in the process of activity;
• control by students over the performance of work, i.e. reflection – analysis of activity, allowing one to understand how to evaluate the results of individual and group participation in it;
• communication, during which students acquire the ability to ask questions, listen to their opponents, analyze and interpret what they hear, and organize a discussion;
• interaction through which students begin to realize that the success of their educational activities depends on the success of each member of the learning group.

The organization of reflection plays a special role in the teacher’s activities in promoting tolerance. Reflective skills help students understand their uniqueness, individuality and purpose, which are manifested through the analysis of their subject activity. “If the physical senses for a person are the source of his external experience, then reflection is the source of internal experience, a way of self-knowledge, necessary tool thinking."

In my practice I use techniques for forming reflection:

• Technique “Schematization” - “Draw or mark on the diagram the level of your achievements” [Appendix No. 1].
• “Ban” technique - the teacher establishes a ban on the expressions: “I don’t know how”, “I don’t want to”.
• “Demonstration” technique - the teacher shows an assessment of the actions “It seems to me that our work is going very well. This probably happens because at the beginning we clearly defined the goals and outlined the steps to achieve it...”, “Now with my intonation I wanted to emphasize how I feel about...”,
• Technique “Ask yourself” -“Why did I first understand this way and then another?”, “How?” "How did I do this?" and for what?" (“Why am I doing this?”)[Appendix No. 2].
• "Story within a story" technique - “Describe the actions of your partner in today’s training session”, “describe the actions of the teacher in today’s training session, recreate the concept of the lesson”, etc.

Reflections are divided into:

• intellectual– determining the basis of activity, assessing one’s own positions, the ability to predict the subsequent course of actions, the ability to go back and evaluate the correctness of the chosen plan;
• personal – the ability to analyze oneself, adequate self-perception, the ability to identify and analyze the reasons for one’s behavior, as well as its effective parameters and mistakes made;
• communicative– the ability to “take the place of another,” showing empathy, understanding the reasons for the actions of another subject in the process of interaction, analyzing past situations and taking into account the actions of others, understanding one’s qualities in the present in comparison with the past and predicting development prospects.

One of the promising areas in psychological and pedagogical work on developing communicative competence in students is considered to be art technologies - learning carried out using the means of artistic creativity. It is good because it does not depend on cultural experience and social status, is particularly “soft” compared to other methods.

Art technologies are methods that use the non-verbal language of art for personal development and provide the opportunity to contact the deep aspects of spiritual life, with the inner reality consisting of thoughts, feelings, perceptions and life experiences. Art technologies are based on the fact that artistic images can help a person understand himself and, through creative self-expression, make his life happier.

When working with visual materials, I encourage students to use lines, shapes, different colors and shapes to depict objects.“Draw yourself: what you look like now, how you would like to look when you get older; when you get old, when you were younger. “Draw where you would like to be: perfect place, favorite place.“Draw a gift that you would like to receive. What would you like to give? Who could give this to you? Who could you give this to?” The perception of other points of view, positions presented clearly, contributes to successful communication in a foreign language.

The use of music in the classroom achieves a number of goals:
allows you to calm down or, conversely, activate, tune, interest; helps develop communication and creative possibilities students; increases self-esteem; promotes the establishment and development of interpersonal relationships; forms valuable practical skills - games on musical instruments; improves speech function;
Correctly selected music has a positive effect on a person.

The greatest psychological effect can be exerted by a combination of two or more methods of art technology.To achieve learning productivity, the teacher foreign language must involve a large amount of cultural knowledge and use a wide variety of forms and methods of teaching and education.

CONCLUSION

All of the above forms of work: the use of linguistic and regional studies material, collective cognitive activity students, reflection techniques, art technologies contribute to the transfer to students of the culture of the countries of the language being studied, promote their involvement in the dialogue of cultures, develop their creative and cognitive skills, tolerance.

The need to develop tolerance arises from the very first days of study, since students entering their studies come from different social groups, with different life experience. Beginning in the first year, it is important to teach students to think critically about their own views, to accept others as significant and valuable, and to be tolerant of them. This contributes to the development of cooperation and harmonization of relations in student group, which ultimately makes the learning process more fruitful.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Passov, E.I. The concept of higher professional pedagogical education on the example of foreign language education / E.I. Pass. - Lipetsk. – 1998. – P. 67.
2. Usheva, T.F. Formation and monitoring of students’ reflective skills: Methodological manual. – Krasnoyarsk, 2007. – 88 p.
3. Khutorskoy, A.V. Activity as the content of education [Text] / A.V. Khutorskoy // Public education. – 2003. – No. 8 – P. 107-114.
4. Scientific library of dissertations and abstracts. Access mode:

   Appendix No. 1

   Appendix No. 2

   How to think more effectively?

   “6 Thinking Hats” by Edward de Bono

   Red Hat.

   Emotions. Intuition, feelings and premonitions. There is no need to give reasons for feelings. How do I feel about this?

   Yellow Hat.

   Advantages. Why is this worth doing? What are the benefits? Why can this be done? Why will this work?

   Black hat.

   Caution. Judgment. Grade. Is it true? Will it work? What are the disadvantages? What's wrong here?

   Green Hat.

   Creation. Various ideas. New ideas. Offers. What are some of the possible solutions and actions? What are the alternatives?

   White Hat.

   Information. Questions. What information do we have? What information do we need?

   Blue Hat.

   Organization of thinking. Thinking about thinking. What have we achieved? What to do next

   
   1

   The phenomenon of tolerance is analyzed from the standpoint of the diversity and inconsistency of interpretations and definitions of this category in sociology, psychology and pedagogy. During the observations, correlation differences are revealed in the dynamics of tolerant attitudes towards other cultures, manifested in the level of familiarization and contact with them in the educational process, in the level of general academic performance and stage of training, as well as depending on the foreign language being studied. The characteristic features and indicators of personality tolerance in the aspect of cross-cultural interaction are identified, as well as the stages of development of an individual’s empathic skills in the process of forming intercultural tolerance of students. The mechanism for the formation of intercultural tolerance and its functioning in reality is considered, which is a set of actions, including: perception, the formation of a linear connection, the formation of an assessment, the production of an appropriate attitude and motivation. A method of pedagogical influence on the formation of intercultural tolerance is proposed, which consists in shifting the emphasis from the internal attitudes of students to the existing, initially identified characteristic positive patterns, images, judgments, assessments, reactions and behavior options of a subject of a different culture.

   intercultural tolerance

   cross-cultural interaction

   1. Asmolov A.G., Soldatova G.U., Shaigerova L.A. On the meaning of the concept “tolerance” // Century of Tolerance: Scientific and Journalistic Bulletin. – M.: MSU, 2001. – P. 8–18.

   2. Eremina N.V., Tomin V.V. Cross-cultural interaction: from experience in the framework of additional linguistic education of students of non-linguistic universities // Professional linguistic education: mat. VIII Int. scientific-practical conf. July 2014 – N. Novgorod: National Research University of Narkh and GS, 2014. – 631 p. – pp. 478–483.

   3. Isaev E.A. Formation of a tolerant attitude of students towards another culture in the process of teaching a foreign language // Izvestia Sarat. un-ta. New ser. Ser. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. – 2014. – T. 14, issue. 1. – pp. 96–99

   4. Ksenofontova A.N., Eremina N.V., Tomin V.V. Theoretical and applied aspects of development speech activity: monograph. – Orenburg: State Educational Institution OSU, 2006. – 263 p.

   5. Ksenofontova A.N., Tomin V.V. Internet dialogue and media interaction in the development of students’ speech activity // Bulletin of Orenburg State University: Appendix “ Humanitarian sciences" – 2005. - No. 12. – P. 54–59.

   6. Mannanova M.A. Cultivating intercultural tolerance among university students in linguistic education: Abstract of thesis. dis. Ph.D. ped. Sci. – Orenburg, 2010. – 23 p.

   8. Sakharova N.S., Tomin V.V. Development of academic mobility of university students in the modern space-time of higher professional education // Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. – 2013. - No. 2. – P. 221–225.

   9. Solodkaya A.K. Willingness of participants pedagogical process to cross-cultural interaction: criteria for cross-cultural competence and ethnic tolerance // Naukovi pratsi. Pedagogy. – 2012. – Issue 176. T. 188. – P. 102–107.

   10. Tomin V.V. Vector of dialogue relations in the system of pedagogical interactions // Almanac of modern science and education. – Tambov: Certificate, 2013. - No. 4. – P. 189–191.

   11. Tomin V.V. Interaction technologies as a factor in the development of students’ speech activity: Abstract of thesis. dis. Ph.D. ped. Sci. – Orenburg, 2006. – 22 p.

   12. Bennet M. J. Overcoming the Golden Rule: Sympathy and Empathy // Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Selected readings. – Boston. London: Intercultural Press, 1998. – 272 p.

   The processes of internationalization and globalization taking place today in politics, culture, economics and affecting the interests of various countries, whose population is somehow drawn into migration flows, contribute to the mixing of individual ethnic groups and entire nations, increase the impact of media and push the boundaries of cross-cultural communications. However, it is obvious that with the deterioration of the multi-ethnic situation, the economic situation, along with the growth of self-awareness and national, ethnic identity The degree of tension in interethnic relations rises quite sharply, which can lead to confrontation, conflicts and even aggression.

   The historical events taking place on the world stage in the 21st century are once again confirmation that the orientation of the entire international community and each state separately towards the formation of tolerance, tolerance of religion and religious differences, peacefulness, unacceptability of extremism, xenophobia is becoming especially important and relevant today and meaning.

   Meanwhile, content analysis of the phenomenon of tolerance reveals a number of problems. Firstly, this is the fragmentation, diversity and inconsistency of definitions and interpretations of the category “tolerance”, which can be filled with some specific meaning depending on the scientific field and in what context this term is used - medical, ethical, philosophical, political, psychological etc. . Secondly, there is a significant preponderance in the study and coverage of the psychological and sociocultural aspects of tolerance, in contrast to its pedagogical characteristics. At the same time, the work of scientists on the means of forming and nurturing a tolerant attitude of an individual is no less diverse: this is the well-known ideology of the consolidation of society (A.G. Asmolov), and the “doctrine of tolerance” (B.S. Gershunsky), and individual author’s experimental methods (A.O. Nasledova, A.N. Utekhina, E.P. Sokolova, etc.), and design technology (V. Kilpatrick), etc.

   In addition, empirical observations reveal correlational differences in the dynamics of tolerant attitudes towards other cultures according to the level of familiarization and contact with them in the educational process, according to the level of general academic performance and stage of training, as well as depending on the foreign language being studied. At the same time, the potential of this academic discipline in the formation of intercultural tolerance of students in the university space is clearly underestimated. Accordingly, the question arises about the need to make changes to the educational process, to identify the complex pedagogical conditions, promoting the creative realization of the individual and increasing its evaluative adaptability, reducing tension and confrontation in multicultural relations among students, eliminating negative stereotypes and national and cultural prejudices in order to ensure effective, positive and productive cross-cultural interaction.

   Based humanistic ideas, where the main place is given to the value of the merits and virtues of the individual, emphasizing the distinctiveness of one person from another - and such diversity in a broad sense acts as the value and richness of culture - tolerance is the norm for finding a compromise between interacting cultures, along with a willingness to accept other people's opinions, views, landmarks. At the same time, tolerance is also an undeniable factor in preserving one’s own individuality, uniqueness, originality and authenticity.

   1) to denote a personal property, which manifests itself in the ability to maintain self-regulation under conditions of aggressive influence of the external environment;

   2) to indicate the ability to calmly perceive and behave in relation to another individual.

   IN general outline tolerance in sociology, pedagogy and other humanities and social sciences acts as tolerance, a calm attitude towards the diversity of cultures, views and worldviews, as well as towards the appearance, manners and behavior of other people, taking into account that such characteristics are not characteristic of oneself. In addition, the phenomenon is interpreted as a special personality trait, a feature of individual consciousness, the dynamics of the formation of which can be influenced accordingly.

   To understand the essence, structure, components, mechanisms, principles, patterns and other characteristics of cross-cultural interaction, studies devoted to ethnic (intercultural) tolerance are also of interest.

   Intercultural tolerance is defined as the ability to tolerate a foreign culture - both in general and its individual representatives, a different value system, a different way of life and way of life, different behavior and appearance, dissimilar traditions, alien opinions and beliefs. Considering this phenomenon as a quality of personality, we can talk about acceptance of the surrounding reality in all its diversity, respectful attitude, complicity and empathy, manifestation of positive prerequisites for establishing contacts with other ethnic groups in conditions of harmony and agreement.

   O.S. Sahakyan, V.I. Baev, T.P. Zorina, V.A. Labunskaya agree that on superficial level intercultural tolerance manifests itself in “critical situations of interpersonal and intrapersonal choice, accompanied by psychological tension. The degree of its expression depends on a person’s experience of communication with representatives of other ethnic communities.”

   Moreover, as A.K. describes Licorice, personal tolerance in general, as well as intercultural or ethnic tolerance in particular, is characterized by such indicators as: humanity, humanity(man, his identity and inner world- there is a priori value); reflexivity(knowledge, understanding and acceptance of individual strengths, and, most importantly, all shortcomings in the aggregate); love of freedom, equality and parity relations; responsibility(especially at the time of decision making); confidence in their strengths, abilities and " globalself-esteem"(E. Aidman, M. Rosenberg, R. W. Tafarody); self-control(primarily in critical situations); variability(the ability to perceive and evaluate reality from different angles, to react adequately in the current situation); susceptibility, perceptivity(the ability to notice various properties of people, including the inner world through visual diagnostics of behavior); self-irony And sense of humor; flexibility(correct use of speech communication tools, strategies and tactics of intercultural communication); empathy(accompanied by qualitative changes personality in the process of its intellectual and emotional participation in the experience of another person (M. Bennett, K. Rogers, R. Katz)).

   The process of forming intercultural tolerance in students is inextricably linked with the development of empathic personality skills, which has at least six levels (according to M. Bennett) and each of which is a mandatory stage of the next one.

   1. Conscious acceptance of the differences and versatility of objective reality in different personal projections.
   2. Identifying oneself with a certain nation, ethnic community, conscious cultural identity.
   3. The presence of boundaries of one’s own identity with the possibility of their expansion and penetration into other cultures.
   4. Showing a motivated interest in cultural differences.
   5. Transformation of a situation of empathy into a personal, individual experience.
   6. Regeneration of one’s own identity after “controlled immersion” in a different sociocultural environment.

   The mechanism for the formation of intercultural tolerance and its functioning in reality is a set (a certain sequence) of actions. Let us consider in general the stages of this process using the example of an idealized model with the participation of two representatives of different cultures (in a broad sense): “a” and “b”.

   A mandatory (fundamental) condition for the formation of intercultural tolerance of personality “a” is readiness to the process of cross-cultural interaction, where the starting point is the moment perceptions individual “a” of some subject “b” of a different attribute. Next, it is formed linear connection, mediated by the knowledge of “a” about the existence of the subject “b” in the space-time of objective reality and the “attribution” of certain (subjective) properties to him on the basis of the existing knowledge system, information field and previously obtained individual experience of “a”. The next stage, which has perhaps the most important, determining, critical significance for constructing the process of cross-cultural interaction, is the direct formation assessments from side "a" relative to "b". If the estimate has coordinates with a “plus” sign, then a positive attitude to the subject “b” with the subsequent formation of a relatively stable positive motives to it, the result of which is a natural tolerance of "a". Conversely, an assessment that is in the negative plane leads to a negative attitude and provokes a negative impulse towards “b”, and ultimately to natural intolerance(in a wide range - from “momentary” disrespect to global meta-manifestations: ethnocentrism, xenophobia, genocide) or problematic tolerance(subordination/hierarchy; benefits; intent; education). It is obvious that at this stage the positive evaluation of “a” creates the prerequisites for establishing feedback from the object “b”, which, in turn, moves from the opposite “a” starting point towards “a”, a similar “a” sequence of formation of intercultural tolerance passes simultaneously.

   Considering all of the above, it is logical that only if there is an established positive two-way (mutual) connection between subjects “a”<=>"b" we're talking about really about shaping intercultural tolerance. However, this statement, in our opinion, is not entirely fair, at least from the standpoint of interaction pedagogy (E.V. Korotaeva). We believe that the process of forming intercultural tolerance can be subject to “artificial” pedagogical influence, is amenable to some prediction and, if necessary, some adjustment depending on the pursued didactic, social, cultural-economic and other goals. It should be noted that such opportunities are “open” mainly before the moment of perception by subject “a” of subject “b” and the building of primary linear connections. If subjects have entered the active phase of evaluating each other and consolidating the received assessment, then the influence of external (psychological, pedagogical, etc.) factors gradually, mathematically speaking, tends to (but does not equal) zero.

   Accordingly, the process of forming intercultural (ethnic) tolerance in pedagogical practice must be carried out before “a” begins to perceive “b” in objective reality (it is important that reality online or offline does not matter). In other words, it is necessary to “shift the emphasis” of the ability, right and choice of independently forming an assessment about the subject “b” from internal socio-psychological motivation, mentality, national identity, cultural identity, and sometimes the temporary “situation of uncertainty” of personality “a” into the existing (pre-established), initially identified characteristic positive(idealized) patterns, images, judgments, assessments, reactions and behavior options of the subject “b x”, “by default” aimed at creating his (“b x”) benevolent, positive image. Then, having formed in conditions educational process a certain “idealized” cross-cultural tolerance to the image of the subject “b x”, and, accordingly, a (conditionally educational) tolerant attitude and encouragement towards it on the part of “a”, we believe that the process of real cross-cultural interaction between “a” and “b” has the desired effect (productive) reciprocal influence: a (=> b x)<=>b.

   Likewise, taking into account the “interests” of all participants in such an interaction model, the complete picture of the proposed bipolar relationship in the absence of external additional “stimuli” looks like this: a (=> b x)<=>(a x<=) b.

   The productivity of cross-cultural interaction in this aspect acts as the effectiveness, success and potential “conjunctural strength” of the integrative system of “interaction” itself as a category - counter-directed vectors of mutual influence, maximally conducive to the individual psychological, social, cultural, speech and other possible self-development of the interacting parties, in within which there is mutual exchange and enrichment of intellectual, cultural, emotional, activity and other spheres of personality.

   The result of the formation of intercultural tolerance of a university student as a factor of productive cross-cultural interaction can be expressed, among other things, in his international academic mobility, in order to develop in practice we use such “active and interactive learning technologies as: case method, insight, brainstorming, design and holographic techniques, business and role-playing quasi-professional games”, as well as the latest didactic developments in the field of information field and electronic educational environment (Moodle, Web 2.0, MOOCs).

   The phenomenon of tolerance is an unstable, dynamic phenomenon, a property and characteristic of a person, subject to qualitative changes under the influence of external and internal factors. Being a holistic personal formation, intercultural tolerance expresses the internal vector of the subject of interaction in relation to foreign cultural participants in this process. The formation of tolerant attitudes of students, which include knowledge about the system of universal human values, the values ​​of society concentrated in culture, their meaningful acceptance, internal motivation for positive interaction with representatives of another culture is a key, mandatory condition for readiness and a system-forming factor for productive cross-cultural interaction.

   This study requires further consideration of the issue, consisting in the study, identification and disclosure of such indicators of cross-cultural interaction as intercultural literacy, polysubjective dialogue, multi-interaction, and the individual’s ability to adapt culturally.

   Reviewers:

   Yankina N.V., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of International Relations of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Orenburg State University", Orenburg;

   Temkina V.L., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Head. Department of English Philology and Methods of Teaching English at the Orenburg State University, Orenburg.

   Bibliographic link

   Tomin V.V. FORMATION OF INTERCULTURAL TOLERANCE OF STUDENTS AS A FACTOR OF PRODUCTIVE CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION // Modern problems of science and education. – 2015. – No. 1-1.;
   URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=17779 (access date: 03/12/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

   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 realize that we have common moral principles, if we are interested in the achievements of other national cultures, then we will thereby cultivate in ourselves and in subsequent generations the principles of mutual respect and understanding , 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 great 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. The modern practice of interethnic communication requires a different consciousness, the creation of new legal, moral and social norms that regulate 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. The national ideal is 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, the social activity of 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 a variety of sources in the process of 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.” Most etymological dictionaries characterize this concept in a similar way. 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.”

   The ethical definition (although tolerance here is correlated with tolerance), revealing the moral essence of tolerance, appears in the dictionary on ethics: “Tolerance is a moral quality that characterizes a tolerant attitude towards the interests, beliefs, beliefs, habits in the 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.

   Philosophical definitions of tolerance and tolerance formulated in different historical periods and in different schools and directions indicate not only 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, and cooperation in various fields. 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 takes on 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. − No. 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 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.