Test work on the main trends in the development of modern domestic culture. General trends and features of the development of modern culture Characteristics of modern trends in cultural studies

The relevance of the topic of culture, its current state and development trends is beyond doubt. The relevance of the problem under consideration is due primarily to the fact that the modern world is oversaturated with conflicts and disasters, the main reason for which is the clash of people professing different cultural values. This could be religious strife, the desire of autonomies to gain independence, the struggle of financial groups. By examining the motives of such conflicts, one can always find differences in spiritual values ​​among the conflicting parties. There are groups of people who perceive foreign culture as something hostile. Fortunately, there are those who, on the contrary, understand and recognize the equivalence of any manifestations of spirituality and culture. Consequently, modern civilization will be able to resist self-destruction only if, in addition to technological progress and an increase in material values, the spiritual potential of its culture becomes the basis for the development of society. Thus, cultural values ​​have not lost their significance today.

In addition, the relevance of the problem of culture is associated with the so-called “crisis of culture”. Almost every day we hear addresses from Russian President D.A. on TV screens. Medvedev and other famous politicians about the need to improve the level of culture in our society. It should be noted that the topic of culture is relatively new for our school. Previously, this topic was studied in cultural institutes, art and theater schools, and philosophy departments at universities. There are special textbooks and programs on the theory of culture that were written in the spirit of, so to speak, stagnant times. The entire understanding of culture was reduced mainly to the Marxist-Leninist one, little attention was paid to world culture and the teachings of foreign authors. It was believed that the “true” culture is in our country, and its development is possible only on the basis of a certain ideology. However, the perestroika processes forced us to look differently at our own cultural achievements and evaluate them more modestly. It is also important that our domestic culture was recognized as part of the world.

Today we need new assessments and ideological approaches; in particular, it is necessary to recognize that the level of culture of a society is represented not in individual highest achievements, but in the everyday life of millions of people. It’s exactly the same here as in physical culture: we have world-class achievements in many sports, but the general physical culture of the masses is very low. And this, as we know, affects the health of society as a whole.

The achievement of recent years has been the understanding of a simple fact: what matters first of all is the level of culture of ordinary human life. That is, the culture of everyday life, production, the culture of streets and public institutions, the culture of everyday communication between people. Society and the state can either promote the development of culture, or, on the contrary, hinder its development. However, they will never replace an individual in creating culture.

But what is culture? Why do we miss it? What does it mean? How is it that there is a lack of culture? What exactly is missing? There are people, there are houses, there are cars, mechanisms, factories, there are theaters and libraries too. What is missing, what is perceived as a lack or low level of culture?

In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to turn to the history of the origin of the word and concept “culture”. Note that it is necessary to distinguish between a word and a concept. The word appears before the concept and serves to designate or name something. The concept already contains an understanding of the designated object or action, i.e. expresses a person's attitude towards him.

So, the word “culture” appeared in Latin. It was used in treatises and letters by poets and scientists of Ancient Rome. It denoted the action of cultivating or processing something. Roman statesman and writer Marcus Porcius Cato(234-149 BC) wrote a treatise on agriculture, the name of which in Latin would sound something like this: agriculture. This treatise is devoted not just to cultivating the land, but specifically to caring for a plot, a field, which presupposes not only the cultivation of the soil, but also a special emotional attitude towards it. There is, for example, advice on purchasing a plot of land. Cato wrote that one should not be lazy and walk around the plot of land being purchased several times. If the site is good, the more often you inspect it, the more you will like it. This is the “like” you should definitely have. If it doesn’t exist, then there won’t be good care, i.e. there will be no culture.

Consequently, the word “culture”, even in its early days of use, meant not only processing, but also veneration, perhaps even worship. It is no coincidence that there is also a related word “cult”.

The Romans used the word “culture” with some object in the genitive case: culture of behavior, culture of speech, etc. The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC) used the word to refer to spirituality. He considered philosophy to be the culture of the spirit or mind. Basically, all cultural historians agree that this implies the influence of philosophy on the mind with the purpose of processing it, educating it, and developing mental abilities. But another meaning can be found here if we remember Cato. Philosophy is not only the cultivation or education of the mind, but also its veneration, respect for it and worship of it. And indeed: philosophy was born out of preference for the spiritual principle in man, out of respect for this principle.

In the Middle Ages, the word “cult” was used more often than the word “culture”. What was meant was the possibility and ability to express the creative power and will of God through a certain attitude towards him and ritual. As is known, there was also the concept of chivalry, i.e. a kind of cult or culture of valor, honor and dignity.

During the Renaissance, there was a return to the ancient meaning of the word “culture” as the harmonious and sublime development of man, containing his active, creative beginning.

In its independent meaning, the concept of “culture” appeared in the works of the German lawyer S. Pufendorf(1632-1694). He used it to denote the results of the activities of a social person. Culture is opposed to the natural or natural state of man. This sense of something extra-natural, something developed and cultivated by man has been preserved to this day in the concept of “culture”. Culture was understood as the confrontation of man and his activities with the wild elements of nature, its dark and unbridled forces. This concept is used more and more often in the sense of enlightenment, education, and good manners of a person. It is no coincidence that the birth of the concept of “culture” coincided in time with the emergence and development of new relations in society towards man and nature.

It was New Times. Its novelty lay in the fact that people for the most part began to live not in accordance with the rhythms, cycles or patterns of nature, but in the mode of urban life. A new way of life became the basis for a person’s new idea of ​​himself. The labor activity of the townspeople also mattered. Even in the Middle Ages, village artisans made up the original population of cities. Gradually, the craft gained independence and lost its service character in relation to agriculture. Ultimately, it rose above him and became an indicator of Man’s superiority over nature, turning it into the means and object of his actions.

The city dweller was, as it were, fenced off from nature; his life was largely artificial or simply man-made, if we mean craft as his main occupation. This gave him a reason to recognize himself as a bearer of culture. By the way, city-polises were understood in antiquity as unique cultural spaces.

Bourgeois”, “burghers” (as the first inhabitants of medieval cities in Western Europe were called) gradually turned into a new class - the bourgeoisie. This process was accompanied by the accumulation of capital and the emergence of a mass of poor people, i.e. proletarians. Naturally, it was the bourgeoisie who became the owner of cultural values.

In addition, it was the era of technical and industrial revolutions, the emergence of machine production, the era of great geographical discoveries and colonial conquests. Life, activity and its results were increasingly determined by the person himself. This was especially obvious in comparing the life of a European and a resident of overseas colonies. The obviousness of the determining role of man served as the basis for the understanding of culture as an independent phenomenon.

All these events were accompanied by the formation of a new worldview. Not only people’s relationships with each other and with nature changed, but also everyone’s relationship with God.

Man no longer needed a mediator to communicate with him; he bore personal responsibility for his actions directly before God. On the other hand, an earthly measure of personal success and dignity appears: property and wealth in general, which every person could possess. In the era of initial accumulation of capital, this wealth could still arise through robbery, but as legal relations took shape in bourgeois society, personal initiative and enterprise became the source of success and well-being. A person had to hope and rely only on himself. A type of active, calculating person was being formed, for whom his own work became his own measure. We must not forget that all this happened against the backdrop of poverty and deprivation of the masses, whose situation was perceived as the result of a person’s lack of necessary business qualities. Naturally, such qualities included, first of all, rationality and enlightenment - what generally distinguishes a person from an animal. “Knowledge is power,” proclaimed the English thinker and one of the founders of modern philosophy, F. Bacon. Only a knowledgeable person is actually a person and can count on the obedience of nature. And an indicator of knowledge is the ability to do something reasonable and expedient, which ultimately elevates a person above the elements of nature as a cultural being.

French enlighteners of the 18th century. (Voltaire, Condorcet, Turgot) reduced the content of the cultural-historical process to the development of human spirituality. The history of society was understood as its gradual development from the stage of barbarism and ignorance to an enlightened and cultural state. Ignorance is the “mother of all vices,” and human enlightenment is the highest good and virtue. The cult of reason becomes synonymous with culture. This position of the enlighteners reveals pride, “secret arrogance,” as E. Soloviev called this trait. The revaluation of reason and culture became the subject of Rousseau's philosophizing. He did not associate any hopes for the eradication of vices in man with the progress of culture and contrasted the depravity and moral depravity of a civilized person with the simplicity and purity of morals of the patriarchal life of people.

It was typical for the figures of the Enlightenment to search for the meaning of history precisely in connection with the concept of “culture.” The attitude towards history, in which not only something happens, but is naturally formed, develops, and grows, took shape in the concept of “philosophy of history,” which was introduced into use by Voltaire. The concept of “civilization,” as established by the French linguist E. Benveniste, appeared in European languages ​​in the period from 1757 to 1772. It contained the idea of ​​a new way of life, the essence of which was urbanization and the increasing role of material and technical culture. The term “humanitarianism” or “humanitarian” was increasingly used in relation to an educated person with extensive knowledge in all spheres of human activity, to whom “nothing human is alien.” It was believed that a person acquires his knowledge by studying the “liberal arts” and classical languages. In this way, an idea of ​​the cultural level or cultural norm was formed.

The Enlightenmentists contributed to the fact that man’s sensory relationship to reality became the subject of rational or scientific knowledge. The German philosopher Baumgarten (1714-1762) called the science of perfect sensory knowledge the term “aesthetics,” which later began to be used by some thinkers as a synonym for culture in general.

The concept of “culture” in classical German philosophy. Rousseau was the founder of a critical attitude towards culture. In essence, this attitude became the main motive in the teachings of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and philosophers of Germany at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. For them, the contradictions and factors that existed in bourgeois culture and civilization that impeded the free development of man and his spirituality were obvious. Culture easily turns into its opposite if the material, mass, quantitative principle begins to predominate in it. Culture is the self-liberation of the spirit, thanks to which nature becomes more perfect and spiritual. The means of liberation of the spirit were called moral (Kant), aesthetic (Schiller, romanticism), philosophical (Hegel) consciousness. Culture, therefore, was understood as the area of ​​human spiritual freedom. This understanding was based on the recognition of the diversity of types and types of culture, which are the steps in a person’s ascent to the freedom of his own spirit.

The role of human spiritual liberation was critically rethought by K. Marx. The condition for such liberation must be fundamental changes in the sphere of material production and relations in society. The liberation and development of genuine culture is associated in Marxism with the practical activities of the proletariat, the political and cultural revolutions that it must carry out. All history is a successive series of socio-economic formations, each of which is more culturally developed than the previous one, which is determined by the development of the method of material production. This development is the basis of the unity of world culture.

In Marxism, therefore, culture is understood as the sphere of practical human activity, as well as the totality of the natural and social results of this activity. The development of culture is a contradictory process of interaction between “two cultures,” each of which expresses the interests and goals of antagonistic classes. Culture, having gone through the stages of resolving contradictions, will ultimately become the unity of man and nature and will have a universal (communist) character. The condition for achieving such a state of culture is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elimination of private property and the construction of a classless society.

In Marxist teaching, each formation has its own type of culture. It follows from this that each type of culture, like culture as a whole, is the result of human activity and represents a variety of changes in nature and society. Moreover, activity or labor act only as socially productive forces of man. Outside of this activity, as well as outside of society, a person simply does not exist. A person is a cultural being to the extent that he participates in social (material or spiritual) production. It not only creates culture, but also turns out to be its result and its actual content. In this understanding, culture can be defined as a way of naturally and socially conditioned active existence of a person.

Variety of definitions of the term “culture”. According to cultural theorist L.E. Kertman, there are over four hundred definitions. This is due to the diversity of culture itself and the use of this term. This situation exists, of course, not only with the word “culture”. The word “science,” for example, also has a very wide range of definitions. We are usually irritated by the lack of any one definition. But this comes from our mental laziness, from the desire to memorize and remember rather than understand and comprehend. The diversity of definitions of culture should not irritate us, since behind it lies the diversity of culture itself. And its diversity is one of the main reasons for its existence at all. Culture is like life: it exists only because it is different. And the monotony of culture is a sign of its approaching death.

From all the variety of definitions of culture, one can single out, according to L.E. Kertman, three main approaches, conventionally called anthropological, sociological and philosophical. The essence of the first approach is the recognition of the intrinsic value of the culture of each people, no matter what stage of its development it is at, as well as the recognition of the equivalence of all cultures on earth. In accordance with this approach, any culture, like any person, is unique and inimitable, being a way of life of an individual or society. There is not just one level of culture in the world, to which all peoples should strive, but many “local” cultures, each of which contains its own values ​​and has its own level of development. To understand the essence of this approach, we provide several definitions. Culture is:

- “everything that is created by man, be it material objects, external behavior, symbolic behavior or social organization” (L. Bernard);

- “a general way of life, a specific way of adapting a person to his natural environment and economic needs” (K. Dawson);

- “the entirety of the activity of a social person” (A. Kroeber);

- “everything that is created or modified as a result of the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals interacting with each other or mutually determining behavior (P. Sorokin);

- “a way of life followed by a community or tribe” (K. Whisler).

It is easy to see that with an anthropological approach, culture is understood very broadly and in content coincides with the entire life of society in its history.

Sociological understanding of culture. Too broad a definition and lack of indication of any specific characteristics make it difficult to understand culture. The sociological approach tries to identify precisely such signs. Culture here is interpreted as a factor in the organization and formation of the life of a society. It is understood that in every society (as in every living organism) there are certain culture-creating “forces” that direct its life along an organized, rather than chaotic path of development. Cultural values ​​are created by society itself, but they then determine the development of this society, the life of which begins to increasingly depend on the values ​​it produces. This is the uniqueness of social life: a person is often dominated by what is born of himself. Here are some definitions of culture characteristic of its sociological understanding. Culture is:

- “strong beliefs, values ​​and norms of behavior that organize social connections and make possible a common interpretation of life experience” (W. Becket);

- “inherited inventions, things, technical processes, ideas, customs and values” (V. Malinovsky);

- “language, beliefs, aesthetic tastes, knowledge, professional skills and all kinds of customs” (A. Radcliffe-Brown);

- “a general and accepted way of thinking” (C. Jung).

In 1871, the book “Primitive Culture” by the English ethnographer E. Tylor was published. He is, so to speak, one of the fathers of cultural studies. In general, his views can be attributed to the anthropological understanding of culture, but he had several definitions of it, including those close to the sociological. “From an ideal point of view, culture can be looked at as the general improvement of the human race through the higher organization of the individual with the goal of simultaneously promoting the development of morality, strength and happiness of man,” wrote E. Tylor. Here, culture includes such aspects of the development of society as “general improvement”, “higher organization”, and “goal”. These seem to be understandable things, but the difficulty is that, as they say, they cannot be touched or seen directly. And yet it is difficult to argue against the fact that they play a major role in the life of a person and society.

Philosophical approach to culture differs from other approaches precisely in that, through analysis, certain features, characteristics, and patterns are identified in the life of society. They are understood as what constitutes the basis of culture or the reason for its development. Here it is important to understand the specifics of the philosophical approach as such, and not only to culture. Philosophy usually deals with that which is inaccessible to simple, direct perception. We are not talking about any special, abstruse things. Philosophy explores what already seems understandable and known. But it often turns out that in reality we do not have an understanding, that it just seemed to us that we understood something. You need to look with special vision - speculation, i.e. understand, not just watch. Seeing and understanding are two different things. Philosophy deals With understanding. That's why The philosophical approach to culture is not limited to describing or listing cultural phenomena. It involves penetration(through thinking, understanding) into their essence. Culture is understood as the “content” or “way of being” of society. Here are some definitions in line with this approach:

- “culture is a relatively constant intangible content transmitted in society through the process of socialization” (G. Becker);

- “a symbolic expression rooted in the subconscious and brought into the public consciousness, where it is preserved and remains in history (D. Regin).

Thus, it is important to note that from a philosophical point of view, culture is understood not simply as a sum of ideas or things that can be isolated, separated from each other, described. Man’s whole world is the world of his culture, and the question of culture is, in essence, a question about man himself, about his human way of existence and about his attitude towards himself. This attitude is characteristic only of man, and to understand its essence, its birth and development is the task of research in the field of philosophy of culture.

Let us now return to the problems of modern culture and the main trends in its development. Of course, the development of world culture in the 21st century. is a complex and contradictory process. It was influenced by a number of factors:

Two world wars and several local ones;

Dividing the world into two camps;

The establishment and fall of fascist regimes in a number of countries;

Revolutionary pro-communist movement;

Collapse of the socialist system, etc.

All this made its own adjustments to the world cultural and historical process. In the 21st century, there are four types of cultural activities:

1. religious;

2. actually cultural:

a) theoretical-scientific,

b) aesthetic and artistic,

c) technical and industrial;

3. political;

4. socio-economic. The socio-economic sphere has received the greatest development. Lately you can see process of industrialization of culture, which is manifested both in the development of science and technology, and in the emergence of technical branches of culture, as well as in the industrial production of works of literature and art.

The scientific and technological revolution has entered a new stage of its development. Today, the problems of automation and computerization of production are being solved. But the scientific and technological revolution had not only positive, but also negative consequences. It led to the formulation of the question of human survival, which was reflected in artistic creativity.

The industrialization of culture led to the movement of the center of world cultural progress to the most economically developed country - the USA. Using its industrial power, the United States gradually expanded its influence in the world. American stereotypes of thinking and cultural values ​​are being imposed. This was especially clearly reflected in the development of world cinema and music. The expansion of the United States created the preconditions for establishing a monopoly in the field of culture. This forced many European and Eastern countries to intensify efforts to preserve their cultural and national traditions. However, this problem still remains unresolved. This seems problematic, especially with modern means of communication.

Exacerbation of social contradictions in the 20th century. contributed politicization of culture. This was expressed in its ideologization, in the political content of works of literature and art, in their transformation into means of propaganda, in the use of scientific and technological achievements for military-political purposes, as well as in the personal participation of cultural figures in socio-political movements. All this led, to a certain extent, to the dehumanization of world art.

Related information.

The future of culture is being laid today. Right now, radical changes are taking place in people's lives, which open up unprecedented opportunities and create unprecedented dangers. Which of the modern trends in social development will be of decisive importance for the culture of the future? Firstly, it should be noted that the coming decades will be characterized by the accelerating development of the scientific and technological revolution. There will continue to be a steady trend towards replacing scarce raw materials with the most widespread desire to save the most important components of the production process: materials, energy, human labor. In the near future, automation will cover the entire production process from start to finish. New areas and types of production activities will become widespread. One of the decisive places among them will be taken by bioengineering and biotechnology. The scope of human production activity will expand: widespread exploration of the world's oceans and space will become possible.

Spheres of intellectual labor will increasingly turn into the main branches of material production. The process of intellectualization of labor will continue, i.e. The number of people engaged in mental work will increase. When enjoying free time, this social group is characterized by a desire to join cultural values. Consequently, the importance of culture in society will increase.

The second factor determining trends in social and cultural development is the growing interdependence of the human community.

The unity of the world market, which developed back in the 19th century, has undergone changes. It has become global in the truest sense of the word, including all countries regardless of region. Industrial relations between countries are very closely intertwined. Regional economic integration has received widespread development.

Throughout the 20th century. Transport developed rapidly. Communications have also undergone a revolutionary transformation. Today, any information can be reproduced and delivered in any form in the shortest possible time: printed, visual, auditory. The availability of transmitted information and the possibility of its individual consumption have expanded.

The consequence of all this was the growing intensification of the exchange of cultural values. As a result of the expanded interaction of national and regional cultures, a qualitatively new situation arose. A world culture, a common fund of civilization, began to take shape more and more clearly. This process will take many decades, if not centuries, to complete. But the primary contours of such a fund are obvious. There is every reason to talk about the generally recognized achievements of world literature, fine arts, architecture, science, industrial knowledge and skills. All this contributes to the fact that humanity is increasingly aware of itself as a global community.

Interdependence is also manifested in the fact that, along with the cultural achievements of various peoples, the negative phenomena that exist among them are becoming increasingly widespread.

The third factor, which largely determines the trends in social and cultural development today, is emergence and aggravation of global problems. These are problems that affect all countries and peoples in one way or another, and the solution also depends on the joint efforts of countries and peoples.

In the middle of the 20th century. appeared on the planet the threat of omnicide - total self-destruction of the world community and life as a result of nuclear and environmental disaster. Global problems of our time are studied global studies, considering the problems of man and his future. In this regard, modeling the future state and trends of global problems is becoming widespread.

In 1968, an independent community of leading scientists from different countries of the world emerged, called the Club of Rome. Periodically, this organization makes reports that are addressed to all governments and peoples of the world. Already the first reports made a shocking impression.

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

The colossal growth of the world population, which increases by 1 million people every 4-5 days, leads to a huge increase in the demand for energy and raw materials. Uncontrolled population growth is outpacing the increase in food production. Moreover, it is happening in places where there is already high unemployment and severe poverty, and the task of providing millions of people with new jobs is difficult to achieve.

This applies primarily to developing countries, where the population is predominantly young, which will lead to further population growth. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century. it will increase from 5 billion to 8.5 billion people. Industrialized countries will face the problem of slow population growth and the problem of aging. By the middle of the next century they will make up less than 20% of the world's population.

A situation is possible when the closed world of rich countries, armed with the latest and most powerful weapons, will confront hordes of hungry, unemployed and uneducated people from the outside. Living conditions in developing countries could trigger waves of mass migration on an unprecedented scale that may be difficult to contain.

The situation in the future may be further complicated by the fact that many of the factors that previously contributed to social cohesion have now weakened. These are religious faith, respect for the political process, faith in ideology and respect for the decision of the majority.

A serious problem is the huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. With the elimination of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the likelihood of its use decreased. However, the accumulation of such weapons is in itself extremely dangerous,

The solution to all these problems will require increased cooperation from humanity, and this is impossible without a serious shift in the scale of values, without a deep restructuring of the sphere of spiritual life and culture.

An important factor, which largely determines the future of culture, is what is already today fundamental changes are taking place in the consciousness of humanity. Their key point is the search for a holistic view of man in the context of his natural - in fact, cosmic - habitat. The first result of this search can be called formation of a new view of the world, i.e. new quality of culture.

a) The modern perception of the world is materialistic; the concept of matter that is emerging today is acquiring a new meaning and is interpreted as a set of ordered energy flows that influence each other in their flow, giving rise to unpredictable processes and autonomously arising phenomena.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contact of religions can occur in four main directions:

orthodox rejection;

tolerant coexistence;

mystical unity;

4) historical unity.

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

Tolerance is usually based on the following approach: other religions may contain recognition of the revealed truth, and their founders may be outstanding, deeply religious personalities, but only their own religion contains the comprehensive truth. Supporters of tolerance have existed in different religions at all times. Currently, there is a constant trend towards an increase in the proportion of believers who are tolerant of other religions.

The third direction can be defined as mystical unity. The inherent truth and revelation of every religion are recognized fundamentally and unconditionally. Supporters of this position make the choice of their religion independently, and treat other religions with great respect.

The historical unity of religion comes from the premise that religions collectively represent degrees of the divine plan of deliverance. Within this plan, all religions are bound by the following postulates:

All religions have a common basis - belief in the action of divine power;

Religious truth is relative, prophets proclaim only what they are able to perceive;

Revelation is progressive.

Today, for the first time in history, it is possible to consider different paths to a united humanity with a single holistic global religious consciousness.

The next factor, which largely determines the future of culture, is the movement of humanity to a new stage of its development. Theoretically, this stage was predicted earlier by Western futurologists. In 1965, the American scientist Daniel Bell first put forward the hypothesis of a post-industrial society. Bell expressed the idea of ​​changing periods in the historical development of society:

The pre-industrial period covers 1500 - 1750;

Industrial - 1750 - 1956;

Post-industrial - since 1950.

According to this hypothesis, we are talking about a process of reducing the role of industry and increasing the role of the service sector. This sector in post-industrial society becomes the dominant line of development.

In the 70-80s, many different concepts of post-industrial society appeared: super-industrial, technotronic, cybernetic, etc. One of the premises that unites them is that the factor in the emergence of this society is considered to be new generation technology and, above all, information technology. Due to this, the name " Information society"gradually replaces all others.

The main characteristic of the information society is that information becomes a more important component than land, labor, capital, and raw materials. Two main features characterize it:

1) demassification and destandardization of all aspects of economic and social life;

2) high level of innovation, rapid speed of changes occurring in society.

Currently, informatization has affected all regions of the world. However, it is progressing at different rates everywhere. Informatization is not only sociotechnical, but also sociocultural process, which is based on the computer revolution. In this regard, problems arise: the need for psychological preparation, the formation of the information needs of society, the creation of an environment of mass computer literacy, the formation of an information culture, etc.

Changes in the entire noosphere, affecting the spiritual life, thinking, and lifestyle of people, will lead to the formation of a new habitat, the so-called infosphere will be formed. It will change the current picture of the world. Humanity will create a unique information model of the world.

The list of factors determining the shape of the culture of the future can be continued, however, the most significant, in our opinion, seem to be:

the accelerating development of the scientific and technological revolution;

the growth of interdependence of humanity and the formation of a common cultural fund of civilization;

emergence and aggravation of global problems;

fundamental changes in the consciousness of humanity and the formation of a new view of the world;

globalization of religions, the beginning of the transition of interfaith relations to the level of mystical unity;

entry of humanity into the information stage of development.

Functions of culture

Culture determines the development and functioning of society as a whole and man as an integral part of it. Culture is a “second nature”, which includes, on the one hand, life-giving human activity to create material and spiritual values, on the other hand, the activity of selecting, disseminating and storing these values ​​for the purpose of further development and functioning of society on the basis of acquired historical memory . Based on this, we can identify the main functions of culture as a sociological phenomenon.

• Active, creative function of culture: the process of interaction between a person and society and society with a person stimulates the development of the human-creative (humanistic) function, i.e. development of human creative abilities in the diverse forms of his life.
• Cognitive (epistemological) function: the creation of a “second nature” - culture - requires significant cognitive efforts of a person comprehending the world and himself as a member of a social group, society.
• Information function: transfer and exchange of knowledge and experience of life, ensuring the connection of times - past, present and future, forming the historical memory of mankind and its ability to foresight.
• Communicative function (communication function): the interaction of people among themselves, between social groups and society as a whole, providing people with the opportunity to correctly understand each other in this process.
• Value-orientation function: ensuring selection and selectivity of a person’s inheritance of cultural achievements, orienting him towards a kind of “map of life values”, ideals and goals of existence.
• Management function: ensuring the preservation of society as a socio-cultural system; maintaining the activity regime of society, implementing a program for its development towards the target results of this activity on the basis of social and organizational norms for regulating the behavior of individuals developed by humanity in the process of historical development. In this regard, the management function is often called normative and regulatory, when culture acts as a means of social control over the behavior of individuals.

Modern trends in cultural development

It is sometimes argued that not a single cultural process can be assessed unambiguously and categorically in terms of “good or bad.” However, there is one natural criterion for assessing any social process, including cultural ones. This criterion is simple: how does culture serve people? Does it help him live in accordance with universal human values? Does it make him spiritually richer, kinder, nobler, more honest, more compassionate towards the grief and troubles of another person? Everything here is quite clear: if culture serves a person and develops his best – from the standpoint of universal human values ​​– qualities, abilities and inclinations, then this good cultural process, beneficial culture! It is from this position that it is necessary to consider those visible trends in the development of the cultural situation in our country that are unfolding today.

• 1. De-ideologization of culture(elimination of ideological influence on culture) through the abolition of the state monopoly on the implementation of policy in the field of culture. It is believed that, in terms of content, this has led to greater freedom of creativity and freedom of choice in the cultural sphere - processes that are, of course, positive. But freedom of creativity and freedom of choice are good and unconditional only when there is confidence that they are aimed at the benefit of the individual and society as a whole. Is there such confidence today? Unfortunately, no: freedom of creativity and freedom of choice, often implemented according to the principle “I can do whatever I want!”, have led to a loss of control over the quality and level of cultural products offered to consumers.
• 2. Privatization and commercialization embraced culture, regardless of its characteristics and significance in human life and society. The people of Russia are alienated from cultural values, including such values ​​as education, which have practically become paid (including primary and secondary, since school repairs, textbooks and other educational services are often paid for by parents). Culture, understood as the process of spiritual enrichment of a person through the means of music, literature, poetry, painting, etc., has, in principle, become inaccessible to the general public. It is turning into that mass culture and counterculture discussed above. Show business managers invest money only in this highly profitable area, since profit is the only motive for their activities.
• 3. Artificially fueled interest in Russia's pre-revolutionary past, including to its cultural heritage, is a trend intensively cultivated by the media. Sometimes this interest takes on grotesque forms of rehabilitation and resuscitation of an archaic, outdated heritage. For example, in an effort to revive the authority of the church, many forget such gains of a democratic society as the separation of church and state and school from church.
• 4. Trends in the development of national relations are forming very slowly, as this is the largest and most sensitive area requiring tact and political professionalism. Humanity as a whole, not only Russia, is faced with a choice of development strategy: will it be a “clash of civilizations” or “cross-cultural co-evolution”? The solution to the national question and the problem of the diversity of national cultures also depends on the choice of path. Will the world divide into the industrial North and the “global village” of the raw material South, or will it follow the path of searching for a fair distribution of raw materials and energy resources? Perhaps no one will say now what humanity will choose, although there is less and less time left for choice.
• 5. Modern processes of education and enlightenment are extremely complex. The trends in introducing universal higher education and lifelong education are opposed by the processes and phenomena of “secondary illiteracy”, the widening gap between elite culture and mass, low-quality, populist culture.
• 6. The problem of cultural education of young people is of particular concern. A vicious circle has formed here: the low personal culture of the consumer determines the demand for low-quality cultural products, the production of which, in turn, reproduces the low taste of the consumer. A breakthrough here is only possible through the joint efforts of civil society and the state.

The current state of culture causes reasonable concern. One of the global problems in the development of society is the erosion of spiritual culture, which arises as a result of the total dissemination of monotonous information, isolating its consumers from the work of developing ideas about the meaning of existence in the sociocultural process, aggravating the situation of “loss of meaning” in culture.

Overcoming the crisis and preserving culture are based on the main trends of its self-development and evolution.

Culture is an open system, that is, it is not complete, it continues to develop and interact with non-culture. Therefore, to begin with, let us pay attention to the external trend in the development of culture.

Culture is “not nature”; it arose and develops in interaction with nature. Their relationship was not easy. Gradually emerging from the power of natural forces, man - the creator of culture - made of his creation an instrument, an instrument for conquering and subjugating nature. However, as soon as power over earthly nature began to be concentrated in the hands of people, the most perspicacious of them came to the conclusion that, along with nature, culture, within which negative processes arose, fell into slavery to the power of human labor. Having changed the attitude towards oneself as part of nature to the attitude towards nature as an “alien”, man found himself in a difficult situation. After all, he and his body are inseparable from nature, which has become “alien” to culture. Therefore, man forced himself to make a choice between nature and culture. Started in the 18th century. J.-J. Rousseau's criticism of culture in some concepts was carried to the point of its complete denial, the idea of ​​“natural anti-culture” of man was put forward, and culture itself was interpreted as a means of his suppression and enslavement (F. Nietzsche). 3. Freud viewed culture as a mechanism of social suppression and sublimation of unconscious mental processes. And all this at a time when humanity was actively creating ways to suppress nature.

The confrontation between culture and nature has not disappeared today. However, there is a tendency to overcome it. The idea revealed in the teachings of V.I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin noosphere– the future kingdom of Reason, Goodness, Beauty – is finding an ever wider response. As one of the attributes of cultural development, the principle of conformity to nature is recognized, based on mutually mediated ideas of culture’s responsibility to nature, on the one hand, and the relative freedom of “second nature” from “first”, artificial from natural, a certain inevitable distance between sociocultural and biological processes, on the other.

The main patterns of internal development of culture are closely intertwined with the external trend of cultural development, the evolution of its relations with nature.

One of main trends internal development of culture is associated with a change in the balance of physical and mental expenditure of human energy in favor of the latter. Starting from the middle of the 20th century, thanks to the use of scientific and technological advances, the need for hard physical labor began to sharply decrease. Human physical efforts play an increasingly smaller role in the reproduction of the sociocultural process. Culture, thus, increasingly defines itself as a product of the creativity of the human spirit, mind, soul. The value of spiritual efforts in this regard will steadily increase. And if previously natural science knowledge was often considered as a criterion for the progressiveness of culture, now its parity with humanitarian knowledge will be gradually restored.

Another internal trend in the evolution of culture- this is a transition from the confrontation of “local”, “group”, “subjective” cultures to their dialogue. The 20th century introduced intense drama and a tragic sense of irreparable loss into the understanding of the cultural process. The idea of ​​discontinuity of culture and incomparability of cultures is most consistently embodied in the concept of O. Spengler. The perception of the cultures of individual social subjects as “sealed organisms” is based on the belief that each culture grows out of its own unique “proto-phenomenon” - a way of “experiencing life”. The relationship between the “new” counterculture and the “old” culture is characterized from the same positions. Thus, within the framework of the sociology of economic determinism, the carriers of incompatible, mutually exclusive cultures are classes; for the “new” ones, the youth and the older generation. Conflict, mutual misunderstanding and rejection of cultures are seen as an absolute inevitability.

However, the current situation in the sociocultural process demonstrates the futility and even disastrousness of the position of mutual ignorance of cultures. The need for the integrity of culture is comprehended “by contradiction” - through the awareness of the impossibility of its further existence in the form of a conglomerate of cultures.

Another one important trend in the evolution of culture can be expressed as overcoming the conflict (while maintaining the contradiction) between traditional culture and innovative culture. This trend is embodied in the culture of postmodernism.

No matter how conventional the designation of entire eras in the cultural life of society with the concepts of “classicism” or “modernism” is, it allows us to see how discontinuous culture is perceived in a given period.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the “modern” style established itself in culture. Modernism - the desire to reflect reality and especially culture in a new way as “not nature”, as an unnatural, artificial, pure, refined phenomenon - has permeated all spheres of spiritual life and, first of all, art and the humanities. Non-triviality, unconventionality and anti-traditionality are considered within the framework of this style as identical concepts. Gradually, what was modernism was partially included in the tradition, from which the avant-garde of culture carefully distanced itself. However, in the search for forms and meanings that are not in contact with what already existed in culture (and therefore old and unnecessary), the avant-garde led itself into the dead end of the absurd - tuneless music, non-representative painting, non-explanatory science, ideology that serves not self-preservation, but self-destruction a subject of ideology that breaks with the tradition of mythology. The natural need of the creator of culture to express the absurdity and disharmony of the world is satisfied in such a way that it leads to a deepening of the absurd.

In a culture filled with cacaphony, the need for silence is increasingly felt, which is sometimes defined as the only thing that is still missing to replenish the golden fund of cultural values ​​of humanity.

Gradually, “silence” leads to calm, once-burned bridges to traditional culture are restored, and values ​​acquired and developed by the cultures of previous eras reappear in a modern-enriched form. The broken connection of times is being restored, and once again it is revealed that “manuscripts do not burn.”

Contemporary postmodern culture is a culture that painfully but steadily overcomes the gap between the old and the new, the created and the created. Its fabric is saturated with “signs”, symbols of culture; it develops a “consensus” of desires to preserve tradition and keep up with the times.

Finally, the last of the identified trends in the evolution of culture at the present stage reflects the process of change in personality as a subject of culture. The diversity of culture from the external personality becomes internal, turns into the most important characteristic of its internal life.

The one-dimensional person is replaced by a person who perceives contradiction not as a tragedy, but as a stimulus for the unfolding of the creative process.

Self-test questions:

1. How can one define the subject of the sociology of culture?

2. What are the specifics of material and spiritual culture? What is the essence of the social functions of culture?

3. Cultural forms? Basic principles of culture?

4. What is the current state of culture? What are the main trends in its development?

Test No. 1

By discipline: "Culturology"

on the topic of: "Main development trends
modern national culture"

Completed:
student group 67-22V
Kazakov V.A.
Checked:
Burkhanova N.A.

Almetyevsk, 2008

Introduction. 3
1. General trends and features of the development of modern national culture. 5
2. Politicization of Russian culture. 8
3. Features of the cultural process in modern Russia. 21
Conclusion. 24
List of used literature. 25

Introduction.

Modern Russian culture requires deep and multifaceted consideration. On the one hand, being in direct contact with the Russian culture of past centuries in the sense of at least simply a chronological “neighborhood,” modern culture is closely linked with accumulated cultural experience, even if it outwardly denies it or plays with it. On the other hand, being part of world culture, modern Russian culture absorbs, processes, and transforms trends related to the development of culture as a whole. Therefore, to understand the modern culture of Russia, it is necessary to turn to both the Russian culture of previous eras, and to world culture as a whole, to the general trends in the cultural development of our time.
It can also be noted that cultural problems are acquiring paramount importance today also because culture is a powerful factor in social development. “Permeating” all aspects of human life - from the foundations of material production and human needs to the greatest manifestations of the human spirit, culture plays an increasingly important role in achieving the program goals of the social movement, which includes the formation and strengthening of civil society, and the disclosure of human creative abilities, and building a legal state. Culture affects all spheres of social and individual life - work, everyday life, leisure, area of ​​thinking, etc., on the way of life of society and the individual. Culture acquires social influence, first of all, as a necessary aspect of the activity of a social person, which, by its nature, involves the organization of joint activities of people, and, consequently, its regulation by certain rules accumulated in sign and symbolic systems, traditions, etc.
In a radical way, questions of cultural development are posed in our time precisely because these questions are posed by the very life of our society; orientation towards a qualitatively new state of society leads to a sharp turning point in the understanding of traditionalist and innovative trends in social development. They require, on the one hand, the deep development of cultural heritage, the expansion of the exchange of genuine cultural values ​​between peoples, and on the other, the ability to go beyond the usual but already outdated ideas, to overcome a number of reactionary traditions that have developed and been implanted over the centuries, constantly manifesting themselves in the consciousness , activities and behavior of people. In resolving these issues, a significant role is played by knowledge and an adequate modern understanding of modern Russian culture as part of world culture.
The modern world has made significant changes in human consciousness - the human gaze is turned to the limits of life, which is not limited in consciousness by the dates of birth and death. There is a tendency to realize oneself in the context of historical time, in orientation both to one’s historical and cultural roots and to the future, which is seen primarily as a process of expanding international relations, involving all countries of the world in the global cultural and historical process. Thus, significant, first of all, social changes further confirm the importance, on the one hand, of issues of cultural identity, on the other hand, of issues of intercultural interaction
The culture of Russia throughout the twentieth century is an integral part of European and world culture.
Russia experienced two world wars in the 20th century and felt the influence of scientific and technological progress and the transition to information civilization. During this period, cultural processes, mutual influence of cultures, and stylistic dynamics accelerated significantly.
Russia in the twentieth century acted as a catalyst for sociocultural processes on the planet. The October Revolution led to a split of the world into two systems, creating an ideological, political and military confrontation between the two camps. The year 1917 radically changed the fate of the peoples of the former Russian Empire. Another turn, which initiated significant changes in the development of human civilization, began in Russia in 1985. It gained even greater momentum at the end of the twentieth century. All this must be taken into account when assessing sociocultural processes both in modern Russia and in Russia of the Soviet period.
The 20th century gave the Fatherland brilliant scientists and researchers, talented artists, writers, musicians, and directors. It became the date of birth of numerous creative communities, art schools, movements, movements, and styles. However, it was in the 20th century that a totalized sociocultural mythology was created in Russia, accompanied by dogmatization, manipulation of consciousness, destruction of dissent, primitivization of artistic assessments and physical destruction of the color of the Russian scientific and artistic intelligentsia.

General trends and features of the development of modern national culture.

One of the most important problems for modern culture is the problem of traditions and innovation in the cultural space. The stable side of culture, the cultural tradition, thanks to which the accumulation and transmission of human experience in history occurs, gives new generations the opportunity to update previous experience, relying on what was created by previous generations. In traditional societies, the assimilation of culture occurs through the reproduction of samples, with the possibility of minor variations within the tradition. Tradition in this case is the basis for the functioning of culture, significantly complicating creativity in the sense of innovation. Actually, the most “creative” in our understanding of the process of traditional culture, paradoxically, is the very formation of a person as a subject of culture, as a set of canonical stereotypical programs (customs, rituals). The transformation of these canons themselves is quite slow. Such is the culture of primitive society and later traditional culture. Under certain conditions, the stability of a cultural tradition can be attributed to the need for the stability of the human collective for its survival. However, on the other hand, the dynamism of culture does not mean abandoning cultural traditions altogether. It is hardly possible for a culture to exist without traditions. Cultural traditions as historical memory are an indispensable condition not only for the existence, but also for the development of culture, even if it has great creative (and at the same time negative in relation to tradition) potential. As a living example, we can cite the cultural transformations of Russia after the October Revolution, when attempts to completely deny and destroy the previous culture led in many cases to irreparable losses in this area.
Thus, if it is possible to talk about reactionary and progressive tendencies in culture, then, on the other hand, it is hardly possible to imagine the creation of culture “from scratch,” completely discarding the previous culture and tradition. The question of traditions in culture and the attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only the preservation, but also the development of culture, that is, cultural creativity. In the latter, the universal organic is merged with the unique: each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about a work of art, an invention, etc. In this sense, replication in one form or another of what is already known, already created earlier is dissemination, not the creation of culture. The need to spread culture seems to require no proof. The creativity of culture, being a source of innovation, is involved in the contradictory process of cultural development, which reflects a wide range of sometimes opposing and opposing trends of a given historical era.
At first glance, culture, considered from the point of view of content, falls into various spheres: morals and customs, language and writing, the nature of clothing, settlements, work, education, economics, the nature of the army, socio-political structure, legal proceedings, science, technology , art, religion, all forms of manifestation of the “spirit” of the people. In this sense, cultural history becomes of paramount importance for understanding the level of cultural development.
If we talk about modern culture itself, then it is embodied in a huge variety of created material and spiritual phenomena. These are new means of labor, and new food products, and new elements of the material infrastructure of everyday life, production, and new scientific ideas, ideological concepts, religious beliefs, moral ideals and regulators, works of all types of art, etc. At the same time, the sphere of modern culture, upon closer examination, is heterogeneous, because each of its constituent cultures has common boundaries, both geographical and chronological, with other cultures and eras. The cultural identity of any people is inseparable from the cultural identity of other peoples, and we all obey the laws of cultural communication. Thus, modern culture is a multitude of original cultures that are in dialogue and interaction with each other, and dialogue and interaction occur not only along the axis of the present time, but also along the “past-future” axis.
But on the other hand, culture is not only the totality of many cultures, but also world culture, a single cultural flow from Babylon to the present day, from East to West, and from West to East. And first of all, with regard to world culture, the question arises about its further fate - is what is observed in modern culture (the flourishing of science, technology, information technology, regionally organized economy; and also, on the other hand, the triumph of Western values ​​- the ideals of success) , separation of powers, personal freedom, etc.) – the flourishing of human culture as a whole, or, conversely, its “decline”.
Since the twentieth century, the distinction between the concepts of culture and civilization has become characteristic - culture continues to carry a positive meaning, and civilization receives a neutral assessment, and sometimes even a direct negative meaning. Civilization, as a synonym for material culture, as a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature, certainly carries a powerful charge of technical progress and contributes to the achievement of an abundance of material wealth. The concept of civilization is most often associated with the value-neutral development of technology, which can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and the concept of culture, on the contrary, has come as close as possible to the concept of spiritual progress. The negative qualities of civilization usually include its tendency to standardize thinking, its orientation toward absolute fidelity to generally accepted truths, and its inherent low assessment of the independence and originality of individual thinking, which are perceived as a “social danger.” If culture, from this point of view, forms a perfect personality, then civilization forms an ideal law-abiding member of society, content with the benefits provided to him. Civilization is increasingly understood as synonymous with urbanization, overcrowding, the tyranny of machines, and as a source of dehumanization of the world. In fact, no matter how deeply the human mind penetrates into the secrets of the world, the spiritual world of man himself remains largely mysterious. Civilization and science by themselves cannot ensure spiritual progress; culture is needed here as the totality of all spiritual education and upbringing, which includes the entire spectrum of intellectual, moral and aesthetic achievements of mankind.
In general, for modern, primarily world culture, two ways to solve the crisis situation are proposed. If, on the one hand, the resolution of the crisis tendencies of culture is assumed along the path of traditional Western ideals - strict science, universal education, reasonable organization of life, production, a conscious approach to all phenomena of the world, changing the guidelines for the development of science and technology, i.e. increasing the role of the spiritual and moral improvement of man, as well as improvement of his material conditions, then the second way to resolve crisis phenomena involves the return of the human race either to various modifications of religious culture or to forms of life that are more “natural” for man and life - with limited healthy needs, a sense of unity with nature and space, forms of human existence free from the power of technology.
Philosophers of our time and the recent past take one position or another regarding technology; as a rule, they associate technology (understood quite broadly) with a crisis of culture and civilization. The mutual influence of technology and modern culture is one of the key problems to consider here. If the role of technology in culture is largely clarified in the works of Heidegger, Jaspers, Fromm, then the problem of the humanization of technology remains one of the most important unsolved problems for all of humanity.
One of the most interesting moments in the development of modern culture is the formation of a new image of culture itself. If the traditional image of world culture is associated primarily with ideas of historical and organic integrity, then the new image of culture is increasingly associated, on the one hand, with ideas of a cosmic scale, and on the other hand, with the idea of ​​a universal ethical paradigm. It is also worth noting the formation of a new type of cultural interaction, expressed primarily in the rejection of simplified rational schemes for solving cultural problems. The ability to understand someone else's culture and points of view, critical analysis of one's own actions, recognition of someone else's cultural identity and someone else's truth, the ability to incorporate them into one's position and recognition of the legitimacy of the existence of many truths, the ability to build dialogic relationships and compromise are becoming increasingly important. This logic of cultural communication also presupposes corresponding principles of action.

Politicization of Russian culture.

Among the features of modern Russian culture, it is necessary to highlight the strong politicization of the cultural space. The politicization of culture is a process that has quite deep historical roots in Russia. Here, the events of the recently departed twentieth century played a huge role, understanding the significance of which for culture is extremely important.
The revolution in October 1917 marked the beginning of the transition to a new system of social relations, to a new type of culture. The ideal of culture formulated by Lenin as serving the millions of working people who constitute the color of the country, its strength, its future, demanded that culture and art become “part of the general proletarian cause,” that is, culture had to express the interests of the proletariat. In the first post-October decade, the foundations of a new Soviet culture were laid. The beginning of this period (1918-1921) is characterized by the destruction and denial of traditional values ​​(culture, morality, religion, way of life, law) and the proclamation of new guidelines for sociocultural development: world revolution, communist society, universal equality and fraternity.
The provision requiring the opening and making available to the working people all the treasures of art created on the basis of the exploitation of their labor, approved at the Eighth Congress of the RCP (b), began to be implemented almost immediately. The nationalization of culture has acquired enormous scope. Already in 1917, the Hermitage, the Russian Museum, the Tretyakov Gallery, the Armory and many other museums became the property and disposal of the people. The private collections of S.S. were nationalized. Shchukin, Mamontovs, Morozovs, Tretyakovs, V.I. Dalia, I.V. Tsvetaeva.
Somewhat later, from the 1920s. The party's cultural policy began to be implemented systematically. This meant that any philosophical or other system of ideas that went beyond the boundaries of Marxism in its Leninist version was qualified as “bourgeois”, “landowner”, “clerical” and was recognized as counter-revolutionary and anti-Soviet, that is, dangerous for the very existence of the new political system. Ideological intolerance became the basis of the official policy of the Soviet government in the sphere of ideology and culture. In the minds of the bulk of the population, the establishment of a narrow class approach to culture began. Class suspicion of the old spiritual culture and anti-intellectual sentiments became widespread in society. Slogans were constantly spread about distrust in education, about the need for a “vigilant” attitude towards old specialists, who were viewed as an anti-people force.
This principle applied to the creativity of representatives of the intelligentsia to an even greater extent and in a strict form. The establishment of political monopoly in science, art, philosophy, in all spheres of the spiritual life of society, the persecution of representatives of the so-called noble and bourgeois intelligentsia, led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of educated people from the country, caused irreparable damage to elite culture, and led to an inevitable decline in its overall level. But the proletarian state was extremely suspicious of the intelligentsia who remained in the country. Step by step, the institutions of professional autonomy of the intelligentsia - independent publications, creative unions, trade unions - were liquidated.
Ultimately, this ended in the complete defeat of the main body of the old intelligentsia in Russia.
The new culture was directly connected with the heroes of the revolution. In the name of the power of the people, monuments to new heroes were erected on the old pedestals. New revolutionary symbols were seen as a prerequisite for the continuation of the revolution. This position was the basis for changing historical names to the names of living ones. The first post-October decade required the creation of a new proletarian culture, opposed to the entire artistic culture of the past.
The mechanical transfer into the sphere of artistic creativity of the needs of a radical revolutionary restructuring of the social structure and political organization of society led in practice both to the denial of the significance of the classical artistic heritage and to attempts to use only new modernist forms in the interests of building a new socialist culture. Finally, the fruitfulness of the centuries-old functions of artistic culture was generally denied.
The result of this policy was the mass emigration of representatives of Russian culture. In 1922, about 200 writers, scientists, and philosophers who held their own views on what was happening inside the country were sent abroad (L. Karsavin, I. Ilyin, P. Sorokin, I. Lapshin and others). Famous writers, scientists, actors, artists, musicians, whose names rightfully became the property of world culture, found themselves outside of Russia. For various reasons and at different times, A. Averchenko, K. Balmont, I. Bunin, Z. Gippius, D. Merezhkovsky, A. Kuprin, Igor Severyanin, Sasha Cherny, M. Tsvetaeva, A. Tolstoy, P. Milyukov left their homeland , P. Struve, N. Berdyaev, N. Lossky, P. Sorokin, A. Benois, K. Korovin, S. Rachmaninov, F. Chaliapin and many other outstanding figures of Russian culture.
Thus, by the mid-thirties, Soviet national culture had developed into a rigid system with its own sociocultural values: in philosophy, aesthetics, morality, language, everyday life, and science.
The main features of this system were the following:

approval of normative cultural patterns in various types of creativity;
following dogma and manipulating public consciousness;
party-class approach in assessing artistic creativity;
orientation towards mass perception;
education of the nomenklatura intelligentsia;
creation of state cultural institutions (creative unions);
subordination of creative activity to social order.