Dynamics of culture. Tradition and innovation

The combination of traditions and innovations is inherent in any culture. The former embody a conservative principle, ensure the stability of social order, the latter contribute to the development of society and culture, expand the horizons of knowledge, spiritual world of people.

A distinctive feature of traditional culture is its strict adherence to behavioral patterns adopted from previous generations. These patterns are learned from childhood by elders. The most important conditions ensuring their preservation and transmission from generation to generation are imitation and obedience. Related to this is the veneration of elders, characteristic of traditional society, who act as custodians of accumulated social experience, teachers and judges, whose decisions and instructions must be followed unquestioningly.

Everything that violates the “testaments of fathers and grandfathers” is encountered in traditional societies with caution and caution, i.e. Such societies are characterized by xenophobia and condemnation of any attempts at creativity aimed at updating traditional norms of life and activity. The consequences of this are the stability of everyday life, everyday psychology, economic structure, and forms of social structure.

In turn, an innovative culture is receptive to innovation and dynamic. She is not concerned with carefully preserving traditions coming from the past and easily allows various kinds of deviations from them. As a consequence of this, the normativity of culture weakens, the scale of life values is blurred, and various behavioral deviations appear that do not meet with much indignation in society. Morality is being shaken, morality is falling.

At the same time, the collectivist principle gives way to individualism. The personality becomes autonomous, capable of independently determining life goals, ideals, forms and means of activity.

An innovative culture is characterized by aspirations for knowledge, education, criticality and independent thinking. Belief in the power of the human mind is spreading. Changes in society, unlike traditional culture, please people rather than frighten them.

In his cultural concept A.S. Akhiezer explains the difference between traditional and innovative cultures by the peculiarities of people's thinking. When alternative ideas collide, people look for a way out either by inversion, i.e. accepting one of the alternatives, or through mediation - finding a way to combine and synthesize them. Inverse thinking operates only with ready-made solutions and is influenced by emotions, while mediative thinking is associated with creative efforts to create new ideas, with the help of which the homogeneity of alternative positions is overcome. The inverse logic of thinking aims a person at the “value of reproduction”, rotation in the same circle of concepts, intransigence to other people’s opinions and the fight against everything that goes beyond the usual collective attitudes. It dominates traditional cultures. Mediational logic encourages the “value of progress”, changing initially occupied positions, taking into account other opinions, analysis and generalization of different views, their creative development, leading to the formation of new meanings.

However, despite all this, it is impossible to draw a clear boundary between traditional and innovative cultures. No innovation stays innovative for long. Over time, it turns into a tradition. At the same time, any tradition initially arose as an innovation. Thus, many rituals and customs characteristic of the present time were once completely new for our ancestors, and what is created today for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will become a tradition passed on from generation to generation.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select the type of work Diploma work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text PhD thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

Culture, like any dialectically developing process,

There are sustainable and developing (innovative) sides.

The sustainable side of culture is cultural tradition, thanks to

which accumulates and transmits human experience in history, and

each new generation of people can update this experience, relying on

their activities on what was created by previous generations.

In so-called traditional societies, people, assimilating culture

They reproduce its samples, and if they make any changes, then

within the framework of tradition. On its basis, culture functions.

Tradition prevails over creativity. Creativity in this case manifests itself

is that a person forms himself as a subject of culture, which acts

as a certain set of ready-made, stereotypical programs (customs, rituals, etc.)

activities with material and ideal objects. Changes in themselves

programs occur extremely slowly. This is basically the culture

primitive society and later traditional culture.

Such a stable cultural tradition in certain conditions

necessary for the survival of human groups. But if one or another

societies abandon hypertrophied traditionalism and develop

more dynamic types of culture, this does not mean that they can refuse

from cultural traditions in general. Culture cannot exist without traditions

Cultural traditions as historical memory are an indispensable condition for not

only the existence, but also the development of culture, even in the case of creative

qualities new culture, dialectically denying, includes

continuity, assimilation of the positive results of the previous

activity is a general law of development that also applies to the sphere of culture

of particular importance. How important is this question in practice?

The experience of our country also shows this. After the October Revolution and in

circumstances of the general revolutionary situation in artistic society

culture, a movement arose whose leaders wanted to build a new one,

progressive culture based on complete denial and destruction

previous culture. And this has led in many cases to losses in

cultural sphere and the destruction of its material monuments.

Since culture reflects differences in worldviews in the system

values in ideological attitudes, therefore it is legitimate to talk about reactionary and

progressive trends in culture. But it does not follow from this that it is possible

discard the previous culture - create a new one from scratch

high culture is impossible.

The question of traditions in culture and attitudes towards cultural heritage

concerns not only the preservation, but also the development of culture, i.e. creation

new, an increase in cultural wealth in the process of creativity. Although

creative process has objective prerequisites both in reality itself and in

cultural heritage, it is directly carried out by the subject of creative

activities. It should be noted right away that not every innovation is

creativity of culture. Creating something new becomes creativity at the same time

cultural values when it does not contain universal content,

acquiring general significance, it receives echoes from other people.

In the creativity of culture, the universal organic is fused with uniqueness:

Each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about artistic

work, invention, etc. Replication in one form or another has already

known, already created earlier - this is distribution, not creation

culture. But it is also necessary because it involves a wide range of people in

the process of functioning of culture in society. And the creativity of culture

necessarily involves the inclusion of something new in the process of historical development

culture-creating human activity, therefore, is

source of innovation. But just as not every innovation is a phenomenon

culture, not everything new that is included in the cultural process is

advanced, progressive, corresponding to the humanistic intentions of culture. IN

culture has both progressive and reactionary tendencies. Development

culture is a contradictory process that reflects a wide spectrum

sometimes opposite and opposing social class,

national interests of this historical era. For approval of advanced

and the progressive in culture must be fought. This is the concept of culture,

developed in Soviet philosophical literature.

(continuity) – necessary condition and the mechanism of creative, constructive activity, increment of culture.

Continuity goes back to tradition.

6.2. Tradition, innovation and innovation

Continuity and tradition permeate the cultural life of a society. Culture contains both stable (traditions) and changeable (innovation) aspects. Traditions and innovation are two sides of a single process of cultural development; they are like two sides of a coin.

Stability and inertia in culture are manifested in the phenomenon of tradition.

The role and significance of traditions

Traditions (Latin traditio: transmission) include elements of sociocultural heritage (ideas, values, customs, rituals, ways of perceiving the world, etc.), the process and methods of their inheritance. They are preserved and passed on from generation to generation. This ensures the stability (“vitality”) of traditions and culture as a whole.

Traditions arose in time immemorial and have long determined the entire social and personal life of a person. They contained instructions, moral and aesthetic norms, rules and skills for economic activity and everyday life (building homes, healing, marriage, raising children, etc.). Closedness cultural life, limited change, absence or poor development of writing in ancient times contributed to the increase regulatory role and the meaning of traditions in people's lives.

Traditions still serve as a means of regulating social relations and behavior. They perform a regulatory function.

Tradition is a living past inherited from grandparents and great-grandfathers. Stability, repetition, consolidation in myths, religious rituals and rites, norms of behavior and customs have made tradition a universal way of accumulating and transmitting cultural experience. The mechanism for transmitting traditions is voluntary imitation and assimilation.

Traditions provide a spiritual connection between generations; they perform a communicative function.

Traditions exist in all forms of culture - spiritual and material. We can talk about moral, religious, scientific, national, labor, artistic, social, family, everyday and other traditions.

Traditions still permeate all areas of life. Progressive traditions contain centuries-old worldly wisdom; they exist and develop today. At the same time, due to inertia, some relict forms of traditional cultural phenomena (archaisms) are preserved. The system of cultural traditions allows us to maintain the integrity and sustainability (stability) of society and its culture, and preserve the social (historical) memory of the people. Collective memory is the basis of culture, conscience and morality.

Traditions determine the basic trends in the development of certain cultures. Each person, a separate social group, and society as a whole have their own traditions (for individuals, habits). Hence the multiplicity and inconsistency of traditions, cultural forms and their interpretations. The diversity of cultures existing in the world is largely due to the multiplicity of corresponding cultural traditions.

Traditions are continuous, irreversible and irrenewable.

If a tradition naturally exhausts itself and is cut short or is artificially interrupted, its re-creation is doomed to failure. Traditions die out when the needs that brought them into existence cease to exist, in the absence of which they cannot be revived.

traditions that once satisfied them have already lost their roots in the surrounding reality.

The forced interruption of tradition irreversibly violates the inertia of its existence in consciousness and everyday life; the habit of performing it is lost and the need for this tradition dries up. There occurs, as philosophers say, a “break in gradualism” (leap), which, due to the laws of dialectics, no longer allows it to be restored in the same form and quality. An artificially revived tradition is not viable, no matter how skillful its restoration may be.

Such a pseudo-tradition, even if it satisfies nostalgic expectations or ethnographic interest, cannot be strong and durable, since the need for it has already died out or life has found other ways to satisfy those needs that were previously served by the reconstructed tradition.

Traditions can only continue, develop, evolve and die off naturally, but it is difficult to return to them, just as it is impossible to step into the same river twice.

Therefore, one should not discard traditions, destroy old spiritual values, or cross out historical memory.

On the other hand, culture cannot live only by tradition. New generations of people are creatively processing the cultural achievements of the past. For example, fashion (innovation) always “corrects” custom (tradition).

Innovation and pioneering

Culture and society cannot exist and develop without renewal and innovation as creative activity for the production of innovations (lat.innovatio: renewal, innovation).

Innovation is the emergence and spread of an object (subject, phenomenon or process) or characteristic feature that did not previously exist within a given culture.

Innovation can be the result of intracultural invention or intercultural borrowing.

Innovations usually arise where and when people’s living conditions sharply worsen or, conversely, improve; innovations are usually not born in the monotony of everyday life. In innovation, the playful element is also important.

Innovation is scientific discoveries and inventions; new ideas, theories and works in science, literature, art, politics; artistic and architectural styles and the works of art performed in them and the buildings erected; new generations of machines, mechanisms and electronic devices; fundamental improvements in everyday life, etc. This is the creative contribution of an individual or team, proposed over 1–2 generations for inclusion in social memory

Innovation is the creative process of creating new cultural patterns (innovations, innovations) based on continuity.

Innovation and innovation are a necessary condition for the development of culture and society.

Aristotle stated: “All men by nature strive for knowledge.”

The thirst for knowledge and curiosity are the two main engines of innovation, and the ability to update is the most important trait of a person in general and an innovator in particular.

Innovation in the psychological sense is the ability to change, experiment, improvise and the ability to question what has long been familiar and see things in a new light, a willingness to take risks.

Innovation is a function of mature people. Young people are more inclined to play than adults; their active curiosity promotes discovery. But the invention still needs to be put into practice, made into an integral part of the lifestyle, that is, to achieve public recognition of the innovation. And here a conflict arises: what younger man, the greater the innovator he is, but the older he is, the sooner he will be able to persuade others to adopt innovations.

Therefore the peak innovative creativity falls at the age of “under forty”.

The ideal innovator, according to the modern English biologist Desmond Morris, should be mature enough to have knowledge and life experience, but at the same time – young enough not to lose the game’s beginnings and not be afraid of risk. Not surprisingly, most innovation occurs between the ages of 35 and 40. The creative zenith, says D. Morris, is 38 years. Of course, there are exceptions, for example, innovators in mathematics are usually younger; in politics, they are more mature people1.

Acting as the opposite of traditions, cultural innovations form a dialectical unity with them. For innovation and tradition are the designation of the same phenomenon, only at different stages of its existence. Innovation is its infancy, and tradition is its old age. Traditions do not develop overnight; they initially arise as innovations. And only useful innovations turn into traditions over time. Therefore, there are always fewer traditions than innovations.

All traditions begin as innovations, but not every innovation becomes a tradition.

We can say that tradition is a surviving innovation.

Any innovation arises and is introduced into everyday life only where and when there is a pressing social need for it and the corresponding social conditions. No power, no authority can simply, on command, elevate innovation to the rank of tradition.

Usually, an innovation becomes a tradition and is recognized as such in everyday life after 75–100 years, after at least three generations have passed, when the stories of contemporaries about the appearance of the innovation are already forgotten, and the tradition itself becomes a habit. Nowadays, due to the acceleration of scientific and technological progress and the pace public life this period is reduced to 20–30 years (the time it takes to reach active life new generation).

The number of innovations and the speed of their implementation are constantly increasing.

1 Morris D. New is always extremes, but mediocrity only causes stagnation // Deutschland. 2004. N 4 (August–September). P. 48–49.

Before our eyes, once strong epistolary traditions (the habit of writing letters) are becoming a thing of the past, replaced by e-mail and SMS correspondence; visiting cinemas is replaced by watching TV shows, videotapes and DVDs; typewritten texts are giving way to computer typing; Various forms of interactive communication on the Internet are becoming commonplace.

Cultural innovations can be divided into two groups:

1) arising from different nations independently of each other as an intracultural invention (primary);

2) originated in one or several centers of culture and subsequently spread widely as a result

intercultural borrowing during contacts between peoples - trade, migrations and wars (secondary).

Since ancient times, traders, warriors and migrants have been peddlers of culture.

At the dawn of mankind, innovations of the first group were: the ability to make tools, make fire and build houses; articulate speech; the original forms of religion, art and morality; agriculture, cattle breeding and crafts, etc. They are determined general patterns development of various human communities.

The second group of innovations includes rice and chess in India, gunpowder and tea in China, coffee in Ethiopia, potatoes in America. Many important innovations originated initially in Ancient Egypt and Sumer (Mesopotamia). This included cultivating the land with the help of domestic animals, artificially irrigating fields, smelting and processing metals, riding in chariots, building cities and funeral temples, and the emergence of writing.

The transformation of innovation into tradition does not happen immediately and not without struggle. To do this, they must be tested over time and receive public recognition. For example, the introduction of potatoes in Russia in the second half of the 18th century was accompanied by resistance from peasants (the so-called potato riots), and only in the 19th century did it become a traditional agricultural crop.

However, not every innovation, but only the socially necessary, becomes a fact of culture. Novelty for the sake of novelty

The concept of tradition and innovation can be correlated with different layers of human culture and human history. The tradition arose and developed in primitive culture, where a certain set of symbols and knowledge was passed on from generation to generation and mastered by all members of the primitive community. While the birth of civilizations as centers in the midst of the primitive periphery required something more, namely the emergence of cultural innovations. Civilization is formed on the basis of a Neolithic village, whose community was united by tradition. Collective cohesion had the character of conservation, holding in one place. Despite this, the Neolithic community had rich cultural potential; the needs of community members gradually increased, which led to an increase in cultural variability and individuality. Creative powers begin to concentrate and localize in the middle of the primitive periphery, which gives rise to the process of the formation of civilizations as large cultural new formations.

For civilization to grow, it was necessary to have a constant innovation process. But in order to establish a constant process of growth, it was necessary to have a core base on which to rely innovation process. It is tradition that has become the cultural core on which civilization is based. Because the first civilizations arise as a result of creativity that goes beyond tradition. But the process of growth of civilizations could not occur on its own. Despite the fact that civilization arises spontaneously, civilizational processes are the result of human thinking and human activity. Civilization can be defined as a cultural unity, a way of survival of representatives of different cultures on the same landscape. For the further cultural process, constant innovative growth, a mechanism was needed that would overcome the conservation of tradition, but at the same time would not destroy the very foundations of traditional ideas.

Such a mechanism in civilization was a patriarchal society, where the cruel dictate of the older generation contributed to the birth of protest in the souls of the younger generation, which, as a rule, led to innovative processes in society. The younger generation sought to separate itself from the older generation, acquire new values, and localize new family, in which the next younger generation will follow a similar path of disassociation from the older generation.

It should be noted that the patriarchal family begins to form in the Neolithic village, which was characterized by a sedentary, measured way of life. The head of a patriarchal family becomes the oldest man in the clan, who with his power unites several generations of closest relatives. In principle, a Neolithic village could become home to one or more patriarchal families. The development of agriculture, cattle breeding, and crafts required the involvement of male physical strength, while the woman was assigned the function of homemaker.

In a patriarchal society, religious systems take shape, where at the head of the pantheon of gods is supreme god- a creator whose formidable power extended over gods and people. IN religious systems Patriarchs and forefathers stand apart - people who continue to create peace at the level of human history. The patriarchs were called upon to convey sacred knowledge about the creator, the beginnings of ethics and the necessary knowledge about life and society. In religious systems, a special place is occupied by the image of the house as a microcosm in the macrocosm, and the principle of human activity as the arrangement of primitive, primordial chaos, transforming it into an ordered cosmos.

Patriarchy presupposes patrilineal relationships, where kinship is counted through the paternal line and the wife goes to live with her husband's family. Property is transferred either according to the principle of primogeniture, or is distributed only among sons. Later, property could be distributed unevenly between sons and daughters in favor of the sons.

Productivity in a civilization differs sharply even from productivity in a Neolithic community. Civilization, whose integral feature is the social pyramid, is a complex interweaving of traditions and innovations. Those members of society who were the direct producers of innovations belonged to the lower classes, the keepers of traditions. And the social elite, who were consumers of innovations, most often acted as innovators in politics and art. Reform activities have long been the province of representatives of the ruling minority, who sometimes called for a return to traditional values.

In civilization, the patriarchal form of the family has become entrenched, acquiring more prominent features. The relationships between members of society in civilization take the form of a social pyramid, with belonging to a social stratum or social group coming to the fore. The formation of social and state institutions, the emergence of the figure of the ruler leads to the projection of patrician relations onto members of society. The image of the state and the ruler is interpreted as a father figure. The main requirement for social and state institutions is a fatherly attitude, fatherly care for members of society. Relations between social strata and groups represent an intertwining of traditions and innovations.

It should be noted that the patriarchal family performs a number of functions:

The patriarchal family becomes the basic social unit in civilization, patriarchal relations are the prototype and basis of religious, economic, political, social and cultural relations in society.
Patrisamily relations contribute to the preservation and maintenance of traditions, as well as the constant innovation process in civilization. At the same time, the innovation process in civilization is associated with the destruction of old traditions and the creation of new traditions.

As civilization develops, patrician relationships are transformed and modified. It should be added that civilization consists of many centers and peripheries. The intracivilizational periphery is based on a fossilized Neolithic village in which a patriarchal family arose. The intracivilizational periphery is the cultural core on which the individuality of each civilization is based. And innovative processes are associated with civilizational centers, where large influxes of population from the periphery are concentrated. Centers are cities, authorities and institutions that contribute to innovation processes in society. Social processes Society is characterized by a temporal experience of what is happening. Therefore, the rhythm of social life in the center is subject to quantitative and qualitative changes. Civilization processes in the centers are modified and innovative.

At the very beginning of civilization, patrician relationships were concentrated in cities. But as civilization developed, as a result constant growth innovations, the urban environment weakened rigid patrician family relations, made a person more free from family in socially. On the contrary, in the villages and provinces the patriarchal form of the family flourished, ossified, and turned into a completely stable unit of the rural community. In cities, patriarchy has transformed from an intrafamily connection into one of the forms social relations. In the cultural space of civilization, patriarchy is associated with the problem of “fathers” and “children”. In connection with the theme of the center and the periphery, it can be summarized that the periphery is the center of patriarchal life, the keeper of traditions, and the center, in terms of patrician relations, acts as a formidable father-creator and ruler who makes changes in the life of society.

In modern society, despite the rejection of traditional values, patriarchal relations in a modified form are preserved in the family and society and remain the main form of the civilizational way of life.

Conclusion: tradition is the cultural core of a civilization, on which its individuality rests, but innovation is necessary for the development of civilization itself. Cultural innovation set the necessary dynamics of all spheres of human activity within civilization.

The article attempts to reveal the mechanisms of contact and mutual influence of various components of the modern cultural field, both patriarchal and traditional, and those that arose in the era of modernity and postmodernity. The author proceeds from an analysis of the essence of such concepts as tradition (traditional culture, ethnoculture) and innovation to the context of the intersections of phenomena that are deeply rooted and innovative in nature, exploring different points of view on this subject.

Among the possible concepts and interpretations of this problem, the author dwells on the possibility of choosing whether tradition corresponds to roots or new technologies, information culture, noting that modern stage The development of culture is marked by the desire for symbiosis and synthesis of everything that came before it, and fundamentally new possibilities of technology.

The article is an attempt to uncover the mechanism of connections and influence of different parts of the culture both patriarchal, traditional and the one s appeared in the epoch of "modern" and "postmodern". Author, observing different opinions and the ories, goes from the analysis of basic ideas as traditional culture, ethnic culture and innovation to the conception of interaction phenomena which are rooted deeply and the same time are novelties by there nature.

Amidst many conceptions and interpretations of this subject author selected the one that considers the choice of conformity either to the traditions and roots or to the modern technology and information culture. Author notes that the latest stage of cultural development is characterized by aspiration to the synthesis of traditional staff and absolutely newest technical possibilities.

To the question “what is tradition?” Many famous authors tried to answer, among whom were the philosophers W. Windelband and E. Husserl,

Ogorodova Alena Vladimirovna- Associate Professor of the Department of Pop Orchestra and Ensemble of the Belgorod State Institute of Culture and Arts (Belgorod).

historians L. Febvre and M. Blok, anthropologists R. Redfield and B. Malinovsky, sociologists F. Tennis, M. Weber and E. Durkheim. And yet, the theory of tradition was never created. What we have today are only certain approaches to theory, sometimes outlined only in the most general outline. They were most often created separately from each other and related to different facts, which led to a significant difference in points of view and filling the term “tradition” with a wide variety of meanings.

However, the term is very widely used today. Clear signs of emotional approval or disapproval of “tradition” are easily traced in a variety of scientific discussions of the 20th century, when opponents advocate either “modernity” or tradition, without bothering to explain what, in fact, is hidden under these conventional names. They directly appeal to the emotions that famous words tend to evoke in our culture. Some set themselves the task of freeing people from the “yoke of the past”, others - to explain to people that connection with the past is the only source of life. Both see in tradition not so much a fact as a value.

So, for example, if the term “tradition” is understood in its literal meaning, then – as the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences states – “all elements of social life will be traditional, with the exception of those relatively few innovations that each century creates for itself, and those direct borrowings from other societies, which can be observed when the process of diffusion takes place.” But with this understanding, the concept of “tradition” becomes almost synonymous with the term “culture”.

The “Philosophical Dictionary” defines the concept of “tradition” as follows: “Tradition (Latin Traditio - transmission, tradition) - historically established customs, rituals, social institutions, ideas and values, norms of behavior, etc., passed on from generation to generation. ; elements of socio-cultural heritage that are preserved in society or in individual social groups ah for a long time." In other words, the concept of “tradition” in this source is identified with spiritual culture. The dictionary also adds an evaluative, emotional and tasteful side to this, distinguishing between progressive and reactionary traditions.

The Dictionary of Cultural Studies gives a broader definition: “Tradition is a social and cultural heritage transmitted from generation to generation and reproduced in certain societies and social groups for a long time. Traditions include: objects of sociocultural heritage (material and spiritual values)

ti); processes of sociocultural inheritance; methods of this inheritance. Tradition is defined as certain cultural patterns, institutions, norms, values, ideas, customs, rituals, styles, etc.” . In other words, according to this definition, tradition is both spiritual and material culture, as well as processes and methods of cultural inheritance.

It becomes obvious that the word "tradition" is most often used to designate one of hundreds modern definitions concept of "culture". Consequently, “traditional culture” is a certain stable part of culture that remains minus its “variable” part - the one that changes from generation to generation.

There is an opinion that the closest thing to the term “traditional culture” is the concept of “folk culture”, because it is the people who are the main creator and custodian of traditions.

The concept of “folk” also has many interpretations - “relating to the people,” “closely connected with the people, corresponding to the spirit of the people, their culture, worldview.” However, V. Zhidkov and K. Sokolov note the ambiguity of the key concept of “people”: it is defined as “the population of a country, state” or “a cultural and historical community of people connected by the same origin and language.”

At the same time, the cultural dictionary provides two important clarifications related to the definition of the concept of “folk culture”. Firstly, “its common feature is its non-professional status.” Secondly, an indication that it is a picture of the world. It turns out that its “invariant content” consists of “ideas about nature, space, man’s place in the world, religious and mythological concepts about man’s relationship with the supernatural.” higher powers, ideas about the ideals of wisdom, the power of heroism, beauty, goodness, about the forms of “correct” and “wrong” social behavior and the structure of life, about serving people, the homeland, etc.” .

Folk (traditional) culture can be characterized by ethnic characteristics, i.e. in the depths of which ethnic group it is formed and acquires its ethnic characteristics and characteristics. In this case, the adjective “ethnic” is added to the concept of “folk culture” and is read as one concept “folk ethnic culture”.

N. Gorelik emphasizes vitality ethnic cultures, which in modern conditions preserve “...their language, traditional features life in cities, or the way of life in them. In modified

In its new form, the ethnic group also retains customs, myths, religious faith, moral and artistic values ( folk art)". For example, deeply traditional oriental cultures successfully “fit” into the modernization process: they “... while modernizing, ignore the root paradigms of this process, hiding archetypes in the depths of the psyche.” M. Kuzmin, with some challenge, opposes progressivism with his fundamental conservatism, reliance on the church, historically defined, defining rituals and even life, on privacy“: “doing your job, living at home and family, decorating and illuminating every step with custom - this is what is needed solely and exclusively.” The religious and philosophical basis of any traditional culture is also noted by A. Khvylya-Olinter.

Along with this, there is an opinion that tradition is necessarily something conservative, inert, and must be overcome; that this category rather refers to the ordinary, everyday. K. Chistov rightly notes in this regard that “... in every state of culture and in every tradition there are elements of different times in origin, and not always the oldest of them have the least relevance.” The same idea is developed and given practical confirmation by the director of the Belarusian ensemble “Stary Olsy”, performing medieval music, D. Sosnovsky: “Tradition is not a bone formation. Tradition improves over time; those. any living tradition does not collapse, it absorbs the influences of other cultures and digests it within itself.”

It is also important to analyze the degree of interaction between traditional and innovative elements in various philosophical, cultural and logical aspects.

The term “innovation” (lat. Innovatio) is: 1) innovation, novelty; 2) a set of measures aimed at introducing new equipment, technologies, inventions, etc. into the economy; modernization; 3) a linguistically new phenomenon in the language (for example, a lexical idiom).

At this stage, the term “innovation” has acquired a general social meaning. This is due to the role that innovation has begun to play in today’s world, having transformed into a sociocultural phenomenon. Based on this, it is hardly possible to dwell on the definition given in the study by S. Kryuchkova, which describes the innovation process as a movement from fundamental scientific ideas to applied use and consumption.

At this stage of development of this sociocultural phenomenon, at least two ways of generating innovation have been identified. One of them

is associated with the so-called “internal functional conflict”, i.e. the discrepancy between the value systems and interests of various social groups, as a result of which certain social contradictions. As a result of compromise, new ways of interaction between people and the social structure as a whole are developed, which often leads to a rather radical reorganization of the entire social organization society without destroying it as a cultural integrity.

Another way to generate innovation is usually defined as creativity. Among the various motivations for creativity, the following stand out: social order, intuitive insight of a professional; personal dissatisfaction with the course of events, the state of things in society; human ambitions and claims, as well as certain complexes of physical limitations or individual inferiority, psychical deviations, initiating a non-trivial look at problems, etc. In connection with a certain scientific uncertainty about the nature of the emergence of, for example, intuitive insight, we note that modern synergetic approaches allow us to look at this process from a new point vision. Because the creative thinking personality is a process of self-organization of internal (neuro- and psychophysiological) and external (sociocultural) factors, then the synergetic foundations of neural networks make it possible to understand the underlying mechanisms of the emergence of new ideas that are difficult to study using traditional methods. On the other hand, this process is greatly influenced by interpersonal communication, as well as information from the surrounding sociocultural environment. Thus, the synergetic approach allows us to avoid a one-sided interpretation of the generation of innovations as exclusively the result of a certain social order.

Analyzed scientific approaches allow us to consider the specifics of the relationship between traditional and innovative, tradition and modernity. The technology of this process includes several stages. At the first stage, the destruction of previous cultural institutions occurs, the emergence and accumulation of contradictions and tensions between old forms that have lost their relevance and new vital interests and needs. As a result, a state of chaos, always present from a synergetic point of view in sociocultural system along with the processes of ordering, it significantly intensifies, expands and deepens, capturing almost all of its areas. In this case, the destructive beginning of chaos as a state of natural spontaneity can prevail and, through bifurcation, shocks, lead either to collapse

cultural system as the apotheosis of the destructive side of chaos, or to sociocultural anomie - “a value-normative vacuum”, “inconsistency of the value world” according to R. Merton, which eliminated the “function of stabilizing society” according to T. Parsons.

Thus, anomie seems to many thinkers to be one of the most dangerous results of the development of destructive processes in the sociocultural system and is one of the regularities of the initial stage of the transitional type of culture. This pattern finds its manifestation in the “situation of rupture” (according to B. Erasov), a violation of continuity, which to one degree or another is inherent in the initial stage of any transitional type of culture. In such conditions, the rate of innovation generation increases significantly. However, they are not yet filled with meaning; their cognitive content is absent. This leads to a total substitution value guidelines, which is replaced by cultural omnivory. It is then that the danger of losing reliance on tradition and the loss of the originality of national culture increases. Obviously, due to self-protective tendencies, as well as the desire to restore a holistic picture of the world at the personal and social-group level, interest in mythology and myth-making is being renewed and updated.

The renaissance of cultural myth-making is especially noticeable in initial stage transitional type of culture, because, according to researchers, myth turns out to be a connecting link between ancient and modern times, not only because “poetically minded people yearned for it, but also because the very structure of the myth reflected similarities cultural situations different eras." Thus, the mythologization of consciousness within the framework of a transitional type of culture is a consistent stage in the development of cultural dynamics.

The next pattern is related to the semiotic sphere of culture. In the functioning of culture as a sign system, meaning-genetic processes always occur that create certain dissystemic elements that significantly contribute to the generation of innovative fields. At the same time, initially, culture simply does not notice dis-systemic new formations, since it does not yet have the semantic tools to comprehend and describe them. Subsequently, elements of the dissystemic sphere gradually begin to be conceptualized in improper, substituted forms as something syncretically fused with system blocks already known in culture. And only after the dissystem elements are naturally organized into their own system, alternative to the original one, are more or

less adequate and rather specialized forms of description and understanding of these elements. From this moment the interaction between the system and the countersystem begins.

Thus, in conditions of chaos and “cultural omnivorousness,” tradition has unconditional priority, preserving culture as a self-developing system from collapse. Innovations, despite their abundance and diversity, play a subordinate role. We can say that, in general, traditionalization prevails, which is understood as “the constitutionalization of traditions and other elements of culture and social structure, which ensure the priority of prescribed norms and rules of behavior of subjects (traditional actions) in comparison with the possibilities of their innovative actions.”

However, traditionalization is not the only possible and optimal strategy social existence. IN cultural dynamics as a result of the development of reflection, the ability to assimilate, but not reject innovations, changes are observed that lead to the smoothing out of the contradictions that have arisen between tradition and innovation, and the beginning of their dialogue. As a result, a new relationship between traditions and innovations arises, which constitutes the essential feature of the next, second stage of dynamic changes in the transitional type of culture. An important pattern of the new stage is the awareness of mass level discrepancies between the desired (innovations) and reality (traditions), triggering a universal mechanism of self-organization.

The internal impulse that initiates the processes of self-development and self-organization of culture, according to N. Gorelik, is utilitarianism, understood as a value-semantic paradigm of human activity. Utilitarianism can be qualified as one of the entropy mechanisms of the dynamics of a transitional type of culture. If the core of traditionalism is based on the authority of tradition, then utilitarianism, based on the principle of benefit, demonstrates its “value omnivorousness,” i.e. not only forms some of its own specific values, but also uses other values - traditionalism and liberalism. “The actualization of utilitarianism against the background of traditionalism,” notes E. Yarkova, “means, in essence, the birth of a new image of what should be, which, not excluding the old, traditional one, exists as a second voice, an echo in the polyphonic score of culture. In philosophical categories, this can be conceptualized as a phenomenon of bifurcation of the vector of culture: one part of it is still directed towards traditional, absolute, transcendental meanings, and

the other turns to utilitarian, relative, immanent meanings.”

The further dynamics of the relationship between traditions and innovations constitute the essence of the next, third stage of development of the transitional type of culture. It is characterized, first of all, by the emergence of a conflict between two images of what should be, due to the subordinate position of tradition. It is here, at this critical point, that the fate of the transitional type of culture is decided. An adequate solution to this contradiction leads to the birth of a new phenomenon, which represents the germ of the future, a new type of culture. Thus, we can say that a new type of culture assimilates utilitarian values, overcoming their limitations, and makes utilitarianism one of the elements of self-organization of culture.

An original interpretation of the relationship between traditional and innovative elements is offered by A. Dugin: “Simple inertial conservatism is always paired with modernism, and modernism certainly wins - it is ahead, at least in the current era... Modernists - they are closer to the abyss, they know that there is no further way and we need to take off. But a conservative is always sure that there is still solid ground, and does not want to go to the abyss. But the modernist always drags the conservative towards the abyss, and he resists... Therefore, the work of creating the art of “new empires” is the work of modernist artists who, in fact, authentically experienced the dramatic experience of the abyss. It is very important here that the Japanese, Russians, Arabs are now involved in the process of modernity, i.e. ethnic groups that organically belong to traditional society. Nihilism must wash away all conservative prejudices to reveal a global, totalitarian fundamentalism. We will build “ecstatic empires” - after all, only ecstaticism can resist the technocratic and bureaucratic “Empire”. “New empires” will arise only from a sharp impulse forward, but not from attempts to defend something out of inertia.” However, about the simultaneously operating two principles in culture - conservative, turned to the past and maintaining a continuous connection with it, and creative, aimed at the future creating new values - stated even earlier by H.A. Berdyaev, emphasizing that in culture “... a revolutionary, destructive principle cannot operate. The revolutionary principle is essentially hostile to culture, anti-cultural. Culture is unthinkable without hierarchical continuity, without qualitative inequality. The revolutionary principle is hostile to any hierarchism and is aimed at the destruction of qualities.”

Thinking about modern culture and art precisely in the context of the intersections of traditional and innovative elements, I. Zemtsovsky considered the same paradoxical phenomena. One of them is that “... art, willingly and unwillingly, strives to be “today” (chronologically, in its themes and trends), and at the same time, like any creativity, it cannot help but rush into the future.” Tradition is “...this is also a functioning, an expression of the qualitative certainty of time, outside of which it cannot exist and dies.” Traditions are capable of changing beyond recognition, until they become their opposite, but it is impossible to avoid their presence altogether; In this regard, let us cite as an example the words of K. Marx: “The traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare over the minds of the living.”

Another pattern of modern culture, according to I. Zemtsovsky, is the continuous change in perception and assessments of the past, present and future, as a result of which the same phenomena can appear in different light, and different phenomena can be integrated by our perception or radically (but also not forever) to be overestimated.

The specificity of the relationship between tradition and modernity also worries D. Sosnovsky: “Every culture has always looked back, and in every culture there were people who believed that this was a decline. I sure that modern culture- a full-fledged normal culture with its own characteristics. Therefore, it is another period, a separate period in the development of culture. Moreover, modern culture, for the first time in history, is trying to synthesize all previous periods taken together; because it is a strange symbiosis of everything that came before it and at the same time, something created absolutely from scratch, based on fundamentally new technical capabilities, on completely new technologies. I like to live in this time when there is both old and completely new. Moreover, this is combined in the same people, in the same events, cultural and artistic phenomena. Our modern culture gives us the opportunity to choose in art: to a greater extent conform to tradition and roots and to a lesser extent conform to this new technological, information culture. Or vice versa, to be more modern and less attached to antiquity. The absolutely natural desire of any new generation and any new period is to create their own.”

Thus, we state that the interaction of traditional and innovative elements in various spheres of human activity (sociocultural, ethnic, geopolitical) at the present stage is one of the most current problems culture.

LITERATURE

1. Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity. M., 1989.

2. Bulyko A.N. Modern dictionary of foreign words. M., 2005.

3. Gurevich P. Music and the struggle of ideas in modern world. M., 1984.

4. Dal V.I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language: 2nd ed. St. Petersburg ; M., 1881. T. 2.

5. Dugi" A. Pop culture and signs of the times. St. Petersburg, 2005.

6. Zhidkov V.S., Sokolov K.B. Art and picture of the world. St. Petersburg, 2003.

7. Zemtsovsky I.I. Folk music and modernity (On the problem of defining folklore) // Modernity and folklore: Articles and materials / Comp. V.E. Gusev, A.A. Gorkovenko / Rep. ed. V.E. Gusev. M., 1977.

8. Kryuchkova SE. Innovations: philosophical and methodological analysis: Author's abstract. diss... Doctor of Philosophy M., 2001.

9. Kudryavtsev P. Stara Olsy // Jazz-square. 2005. No. 5 (59).

10. Kuzmin M.A. Poems and prose / Comp., author. entry articles and notes. E.V. Ermilova. M., 1989.

11. Cultural studies. XX century: Dictionary. M, 1997.

12. Lapin N.I. The problem of sociocultural transformation // Questions of philosophy. 2000. No. 6.

13. Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 8. M., 1967.

14. Moiseev N.N. To be or not to be... for humanity? M., 1999.

15. PidalR. Selected works: Trans. from Spanish M., 1961.

16. Pokrovsky N.E. Loneliness and anomie (philosophical and theoretical-sociological aspects): Author's abstract. diss... Doctor of Sociol.Sc. M., 1996.

17. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. M., 1958.

18. Philosophical Dictionary. M., 1991.

19. Khvylya-Olinter A. A look at spirituality, morality and progress // Missionary Review. 2003. No. 4.

20. Chistov K.V. Folk traditions and folklore: Essays on theory. L., 1986.

21. Shevchenko N.I. The future of Russia lies in knowledge of the pure origins of folk culture! // Sociocultural dynamics region: Collection of materials scientific-practical conference. Issue III / Under general. ed. prof. SI. Kurgansky, A.N. Berdnik, E.V. Shvareva. Belgorod, 2003.

22. Shchukin V.G. In the world of wonderful simplifications (towards the phenomenology of myth) // Questions of Philosophy. 1999. No. 11.

23. Yarkova E.H. Utilitarianism as a stimulus for self-organization of culture and society // Social Sciences and modernity. 2002. No. 2.