What types of art belong to Eastern culture. Difference between Eastern culture and Western culture

Reflecting on the question of Russia's place in history and in the modern world, various philosophers in one way or another considered Russia within the framework of the East-West scheme. At the same time, Russia is attributed either to the East or the West, or is recognized as a special country, neither Western nor Eastern.

In the history of Russian thought, for the latter case, several independent concepts of the “East-West” problem are known:

• G. Plekhanov believed that Russia was, as it were, between East and West, leaning first to one side, then to the other.
• N. Berdyaev declared it East-West or West-East.
• The young man predicted a great destiny for her: Russia must unite East and West on the basis of true Christianity.
• According to Eurasians, Russia forms a special world, a “third force”, quite similar to both the West and the East, but not dependent on either of them.

Therefore, in order to navigate all these diverse points of view and understand true position Russia in the world, it is necessary to unambiguously establish the meaning of the original concepts and terms, to draw the boundaries of the concepts “West”, “East” and their correlation with each other.

In the minds of Europeans, the East has always been in a certain opposition to the West. The mysterious and unfamiliar East was woven from contradictions - they spoke, on the one hand, about its constancy and high spirituality and, on the other, about stagnation and slavery. Against the background of the “East,” the uniqueness of the West was more clearly visible; in fact, in the process of comprehending the East, a Western European understanding also took shape.

The East-West paradigm helped Europeans form European identity itself. Therefore, the concepts of “East” and “West” influence our worldview - voluntarily or involuntarily, regardless of our critical or dogmatic attitude towards them.

First theoretical concepts“East” and “West” were used by the philosopher G. Hegel in his works. Under the name “East” it unites three cultural and historical formations:

• Chinese, which includes China,

• Indian, which includes India,

• and the Middle East, which includes the ancient civilizations of Asia, North Africa: Persia, including the people of Zarathustra, Assyria, Media, Iran, Babylon, Syria, Phenicia, Judea, Egypt, as well as the Islamic world.

For Hegel, the “West” consisted of two civilizations that formed in the north of the Mediterranean - Roman and Greek. It is worth noting that there was no place for Russia in Hegel’s system.

Thus, “West” in Hegel’s philosophy had two meanings:

1. broad, including ancient times and Christian culture European peoples;
2. narrow, including only the Christian world.

These interpretations have their supporters and opponents.

“Localists” (N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee), rejecting the “West – East” paradigm, considered only the Western European world as “West”. E. Husserl called Ancient Greece"spiritual homeland" of the West.

K. Jaspers proposed a compromise point of view. He considers Western civilization one of many local ones, but notes it special role in world history, especially in the modern era, and indicates that Western culture is the spiritual heir of the Greek, Jewish and Roman cultures.

Jaspers introduces the concept of “axial time,” universal for all humanity, criticizing Hegel’s “universal axis” associated exclusively with Christianity. But since Christianity itself was the basis only for Western civilization, it is incorrect to choose it as the boundary of this “axial time” for the whole world. The sought-after universality, and with it the fullness of being, existed before, for example, in eastern cultures. Jaspers calls the “amazing era” the time between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC, when different parts of the world had their own prophets: in China - Confucius and Lao Tzu, in Persia and Iraq - Zarathustra, in India - Buddha, in Palestine The Old Testament is being created, philosophy is actively developing in Greece. At this time, a person overcomes his local thinking and becomes aware of himself. But people did not unite into a single formation; however, several centers of world religions and political paradigms were formed.

It is worth noting that Jaspers practically does not use the concept “East”. He views China and India as independent cultural worlds along with the West. In the broad concept of “West” he includes not only Western culture of the 2nd millennium, but also the culture begun by the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Cretan-Mycenaean civilizations, continued in antiquity by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Jews, completed in the Christian era by Byzantium, Russia, Europe, America and Islamic civilizations. In addition, the West in Jaspers’ concept is considered as the cradle of ideas about freedom, democracy, philosophy, and science.

The problem East - West - Russia in the history of philosophical thought

The question of Russia’s place in the East-West-Russia paradigm was first raised in Philosophical Letters.

• Westerners argued that Russia is part of European culture, i.e. West. Slavophiles believed that Russia is a “original spiritual formation.”
• There was a third point of view - the concept of K. Leontyev.

The “pochvennik” gave great support to the ideas of the Slavophiles. Without recognizing the “East-West” paradigm, he developed the idea of ​​the existence of independent cultural and historical types. Russian culture, according to Danilevsky, represented just such a special type of culture.

Almost the entire 19th century in Russian philosophical thought was dominated by the idea of ​​the “specialness” of Russia among other civilizations, which influenced the formation of the national Russian civilizational and historical self-awareness.

This process is embodied in the famous formulas:

• « The history of Russia requires a different thought, a different formula” (A. Pushkin),

• “You can’t understand Russia with your mind” (F. Tyutchev)

• “Rus', where are you going, give me the answer?” (N. Gogol),

• “Why can’t we accommodate last word Him [Christ]? (F. Dostoevsky).

Based on the fact that Russian culture is Christian, Westerners placed it on the third world-historical level Slavic peoples along with the German ones. The Slavophiles, pointing to cultures, contrasted Russia with Western Europe.

Chaadaev believed that Russian culture can combine both reason and imagination, so Russia can become a kind of bridge between the West and the East. He calls Russia the “third force” in history.

The introduction of Russia into the Hegelian triad of “China, India, Middle East” allows for two theoretical possibilities:

1) maintaining the triad with Russia placed “inside” one of the elements;

2) reducing the elements to two and introducing Russia into the triad instead of one of them.

The second possibility clearly has theoretical priority. However, the philosophy of the 19th century was dominated by the idea of ​​Russian identity, so in that era Russian thinkers used the first one.

Vl used the second opportunity in his research. Soloviev, proposing the formula “East-West-Russia” in “Philosophical principles of integral knowledge”.

Vl. Soloviev proposed the idea of ​​a tripartite division of history. He identified three stages of world historical development. Two, according to the philosopher, we have already passed. At the first stage, the “face” of humanity was the East. This was followed by the Christian milestone and the second stage, where the West played a dominant role in history. In this scheme, neither antiquity, nor Byzantium, nor Ancient Rus' Vl. Soloviev does not consider cultural and political formations as significant.

According to Solovyov:

• The East symbolizes the "inhuman God"
• The West is a “godless man.”

The confrontation between the West and the East ends at the third stage, characterized by the establishment of true Christianity. Only young people who are not connected with either the West or the East, for example, Russia, can become the bearer of a new mentality.

Poll topic. Study on your own (will be included in the test questions)

Historical features of Russian culture “east-west”

When it comes to Russia, you can hear a wide variety of opinions about its culture, about its past, present and future, about the traits and characteristics of the Russian people, but there is one thing on which everyone almost always agrees - both foreigners and Russians themselves. This is the mystery and inexplicability of Russia and the Russian soul. There is probably not a single Russian person who does not remember Tyutchev’s poem:

You can't understand Russia with your mind,

A common arshin cannot be measured,

She's going to be special

You can only believe in Russia.

Foreigners often quote Winston Churchill, who said about Russia: “It is a puzzle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”

True, as shown above, the Chinese and Japanese souls also seemed mysterious and incomprehensible to Europeans. So this is not a unique property of the Russian soul.

The culture of any people contains some paradoxes that are difficult to explain even for its bearers themselves, and even more so for outside observers. Culture eastern peoples It is especially difficult for people of Western culture to understand. And Russia is a country lying at the junction of the West and the East. N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “The Russian people are not purely European and not purely asian people. Russia is a whole part of the world, a huge East-West, it connects two worlds” 1. Foreigners are also confused by the fact that the eastern principle in Russian culture does not have clearly defined outlines and is shrouded in a western shell. The author of one of the most popular books about Russia in the West, American journalist H. Smith, notes: “Russian life does not offer any visible tourist exoticism - women in sari or kimono, Buddha figures in temples, camels in the desert - to remind the stranger that here different culture" 2.

Undoubtedly, the geographical position of Russia, born in Eastern Europe and covering the vast expanses of sparsely populated Northern Asia, left a special imprint on its culture. However, the difference between Russian culture and Western European culture is not due to the “eastern spirit”, which is supposedly “naturally” characteristic of the Russian people, as some authors claim 3, for example A. Blok in his poem:

Yes, Scythians- We! Yes, Asians- We,

With slanted and greedy eyes!

But this is a poetic metaphor, and not a scientific-historical conclusion (Blok himself, who wrote these lines, by the way, least of all resembles an Asian with slanted eyes).

The eastern specificity of Russian culture is the result of its history. Russian culture, unlike Western European culture, was formed on different paths - it grew on a land through which Roman legions did not pass, where the Gothic style of Catholic cathedrals did not rise, the fires of the Inquisition did not burn, there was no Renaissance, no wave of religious Protestantism, no era constitutional liberalism. Its development was associated with events of another historical series - with the reflection of the raids of Asian nomads, the adoption of Eastern, Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, liberation from the Mongol conquerors, the unification of scattered Russian principalities into a single autocratic despotic state and the spread of its power further and further to the East.

Traces of the Mongol invasion are deeply etched in the memory of the Russian people. And not so much because he adopted some elements of the culture of the conquerors. Its direct impact on the culture of Rus' was small and affected mainly only in the sphere of language, which absorbed a certain number of Turkic words, and in individual details everyday life However, the invasion was a harsh historical lesson that showed the people the danger of internal strife and the need for a unified, strong state power, and the successful completion of the fight against hordes of enemies gave them the feeling own strength and national pride. This lesson aroused and developed the feelings and moods that permeate the folklore, literature, and art of the Russian people - patriotism, distrust of foreign states, love for the “Tsar-Father,” in whom the peasant masses, who made up the main population of Russia, saw their protector and therefore she constantly supported him in wars with external enemies and in the fight against unauthorized boyars. The “Eastern” despotism of the tsarist autocracy is, to a certain extent, a legacy

Mongol yoke.

Let us consider the most important stages in the formation of Russian culture.

In the Russian philosophical and cultural tradition, in all known typologies, Russia is usually considered separately. At the same time, they proceed from the recognition of its exclusivity, the impossibility of reducing it to either the Western or the oriental type, and from here they draw a conclusion about its special path of development and special mission in the history and culture of mankind. Mostly Russian philosophers wrote about this, starting with the Slavophiles. The topic of the “Russian idea” was very important for and. The result of these reflections on the fate of Russia was summed up in philosophical and historical concepts of Eurasianism.

Prerequisites for the formation of Russian national character

Typically, Eurasians proceed from Russia’s middle position between Europe and Asia, which they consider to be the reason for the combination of features of Eastern and Western civilizations in Russian culture. A similar idea was once expressed by V.O. Klyuchevsky. In the “Course of Russian History” he argued that the character of the Russian people was shaped by the location of Rus' on the border of forest and steppe - elements that are opposite in all respects. This dichotomy between the forest and the steppe was overcome by the Russian people’s love for the river, which was both a nurse, a road, and a teacher of a sense of order and public spirit among the people. The spirit of entrepreneurship and the habit of joint action were cultivated on the river, scattered parts of the population came closer together, people learned to feel part of society.

The opposite effect was exerted by the endless Russian plain, characterized by desolation and monotony. The man on the plain was overcome by a feeling of imperturbable peace, loneliness and sad contemplation. According to many researchers, this is the reason for such properties of Russian spirituality as spiritual gentleness and modesty, semantic uncertainty and timidity, imperturbable calm and painful despondency, lack of clear thought and a predisposition to spiritual sleep, asceticism of desert living and pointlessness of creativity.

The economic and everyday life of Russian people became an indirect reflection of the Russian landscape. Klyuchevsky also noted that Russian peasant settlements, with their primitiveness and lack of the simplest amenities of life, give the impression of temporary, random sites of nomads. This is due both to the long period of nomadic life in ancient times and to the numerous fires that destroyed Russian villages and cities. The result was the rootlessness of the Russian person, manifested in indifference to home improvement and everyday amenities. It also led to a careless and careless attitude towards nature and its riches.

Developing Klyuchevsky's ideas, Berdyaev wrote that the landscape of the Russian soul corresponds to the landscape of the Russian land. Therefore, despite all the complexities of the relationship between Russian people and Russian nature, its cult was so important that it found a very unique reflection in the ethnonym (self-name) of the Russian ethnos. Representatives various countries and peoples in Russian are called by nouns - Frenchman, German, Georgian, Mongolian, etc., and only Russians call themselves by adjective names. This can be interpreted as the embodiment of one’s belonging to something higher and more valuable than people (people). This is the highest for a Russian person - Rus', the Russian land, and every person is a part of this whole. Rus' (land) is primary, people are secondary.

Of great importance for the formation Russian mentality and culture played in its eastern (Byzantine) version. The result of the baptism of Rus' was not only its entry into the then civilized world, the growth of international authority, the strengthening of diplomatic, trade, political and cultural ties with other Christian countries, not only the creation artistic culture Kievan Rus. From this moment on, the geopolitical position of Russia between the West and the East, its enemies and allies, and its orientation to the East were determined, and therefore the further expansion of the Russian state took place in an eastern direction.

However, this choice also had reverse side: the adoption of Byzantine Christianity contributed to the alienation of Russia from Western Europe. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 cemented in the Russian consciousness the idea of ​​its own specialness, the idea of ​​the Russian people as God-bearers, the only bearer of the true Orthodox faith, which predetermined historical path Russia. This is largely due to the ideal of Orthodoxy, which combines unity and freedom, embodied in the conciliar unity of people. Moreover, each person is an individual, but not self-sufficient, but manifested only in a conciliar unity, the interests of which are higher than the interests of individual person.

This combination of opposites gave rise to instability and could explode into conflict at any moment. In particular, the basis of all Russian culture lies a number of insoluble contradictions: collectivity and authoritarianism, universal consent and despotic arbitrariness, self-government of peasant communities and strict centralization of power associated with the Asian mode of production.

The inconsistency of Russian culture was also generated by specific for Russia mobilization type of development, when material and human resources are used through their over-concentration and over-tension, in conditions of a shortage of necessary resources (financial, intellectual, time, foreign policy, etc.), often with the immaturity of internal development factors. As a result, the idea of ​​priority of political factors of development over all other and a contradiction arose between the tasks of the state and the capabilities of the population according to their decision, when the security and development of the state was ensured by any means, at the expense of the interests and goals of individual people through non-economic, forceful coercion, as a result of which the state became authoritarian, even totalitarian, the repressive apparatus was disproportionately strengthened as an instrument of coercion and violence. This largely explains the Russian people’s dislike for and at the same time awareness of the need to protect him and, accordingly, the endless patience of the people and their almost resigned submission to power.

Another consequence of the mobilization type of development in Russia was the primacy of the social, communal principle, which is expressed in the tradition of subordinating personal interest to the tasks of society. Slavery was dictated not by the whim of the rulers, but by a new national task - the creation of an empire on a meager economic basis.

All these features formed such features of Russian culture, as the absence of a solid core, led to its ambiguity, binary, duality, constant desire to combine incongruous things - European and Asian, pagan and Christian, nomadic and sedentary, freedom and despotism. Therefore, the main form of the dynamics of Russian culture has become inversion - a change like a pendulum swing - from one pole cultural significance to another.

Due to the constant desire to keep up with their neighbors, to jump above their heads, old and new elements coexisted in Russian culture all the time, the future came when there were no conditions for it yet, and the past was in no hurry to leave, clinging to traditions and customs. At the same time, something new often appeared as a result of a leap, an explosion. This feature of historical development explains the catastrophic type of development of Russia, which consists in the constant violent destruction of the old in order to make way for the new, and then find out that this new is not at all as good as it seemed.

At the same time, the dichotomy and binary nature of Russian culture has become the reason for its exceptional flexibility and ability to adapt to extremely difficult conditions of survival during periods of national catastrophes and socio-historical upheavals, comparable in scale to natural disasters and geological disasters.

Main features of the Russian national character

All these moments formed a specific Russian national character, which cannot be assessed unambiguously.

Among positive qualities usually called kindness and its manifestation in relation to people - goodwill, cordiality, sincerity, responsiveness, cordiality, mercy, generosity, compassion and empathy. They also note simplicity, openness, honesty, and tolerance. But this list does not include pride and self-confidence - qualities that reflect a person’s attitude towards himself, which indicates the characteristic attitude of Russians towards “others”, their collectivism.

Russian attitude to work very peculiar. Russian people are hardworking, efficient and resilient, but much more often they are lazy, careless, careless and irresponsible, they are characterized by disregard and sloppiness. The hard work of Russians is manifested in the honest and responsible performance of their work duties, but does not imply initiative, independence, or the desire to stand out from the team. Sloppiness and carelessness are associated with the vast expanses of the Russian land, the inexhaustibility of its riches, which will be enough not only for us, but also for our descendants. And since we have a lot of everything, we don’t feel sorry for anything.

"Faith in a good king" - a mental feature of Russians, reflecting the long-standing attitude of the Russian person who did not want to deal with officials or landowners, but preferred to write petitions to the tsar (general secretary, president), sincerely believing that evil officials are deceiving the good tsar, but as soon as you tell him the truth, how the weight will immediately become good. The excitement around the presidential elections over the past 20 years proves that the belief is still alive that if you choose a good president, Russia will immediately become a prosperous state.

Passion for political myths - another one characteristic Russian people, inextricably linked with the Russian idea, the idea of ​​​​the special mission of Russia and the Russian people in history. The belief that the Russian people are destined to show the whole world the right way(regardless of what this path should be - true Orthodoxy, communist or Eurasian idea), was combined with the desire to make any sacrifices (including one’s own death) in the name of achieving the goal. In search of an idea, people easily rushed to extremes: they went to the people, made a world revolution, built communism, socialism “with a human face,” and restored previously destroyed churches. Myths may change, but the morbid fascination with them remains. Therefore, among the typical national qualities is gullibility.

Calculation on the chance - a very Russian trait. It permeates the national character, the life of the Russian person, and manifests itself in politics and economics. “Maybe” is expressed in the fact that inaction, passivity and lack of will (also named among the characteristics of the Russian character) are replaced by reckless behavior. Moreover, it will come to this in the very last moment: “Until the thunder strikes, the man will not cross himself.”

The flip side of the Russian “maybe” is the breadth of the Russian soul. As noted by F.M. Dostoevsky, “the Russian soul is bruised by the vastness,” but behind its breadth, generated by the vast spaces of our country, hide both prowess, youth, merchant scope, and the absence of a deep rational calculation of the everyday or political situation.

Values ​​of Russian culture

The Russian peasant community played the most important role in the history of our country and in the formation of Russian culture, and the values ​​of Russian culture are to a large extent the values ​​of the Russian community.

Herself community, "world" as the basis and prerequisite for the existence of any individual is the most ancient and the most important value. For the sake of “peace” he must sacrifice everything, including his life. This is explained by the fact that Russia lived a significant part of its history in conditions of a besieged military camp, when only the subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the community allowed the Russian people to survive as an independent ethnic group.

Interests of the team In Russian culture, the interests of the individual are always higher, which is why personal plans, goals and interests are so easily suppressed. But in return, the Russian person counts on the support of the “world” when he has to face everyday adversity (a kind of mutual responsibility). As a result, the Russian person puts aside his personal affairs without displeasure for the sake of some common cause from which he will not benefit, and this is where his attractiveness lies. The Russian person is firmly convinced that he must first arrange the affairs of the social whole, more important than his own, and then this whole will begin to act in his favor at its own discretion. The Russian people are collectivists who can only exist together with society. He suits him, worries about him, for which he, in turn, surrounds him with warmth, attention and support. To become, a Russian person must become a conciliar personality.

Justice- another value of Russian culture, important for life in a team. It was originally understood as the social equality of people and was based on economic equality (of men) in relation to the land. This value is instrumental, but in the Russian community it has become a target value. Members of the community had the right to their own, equal to everyone else, share of the land and all its wealth that the “world” owned. Such justice was the Truth for which the Russian people lived and strived. In the famous dispute between truth-truth and truth-justice, it was justice that prevailed. For a Russian person, it is not so important how it actually was or is; much more important is what should be. The nominal positions of eternal truths (for Russia these truths were truth and justice) were assessed by the thoughts and actions of people. Only they are important, otherwise no result, no benefit can justify them. If nothing comes of what was planned, don’t worry, because the goal was good.

Lack of individual freedom was determined by the fact that in the Russian community, with its equal allotments, periodically carried out redistribution of land, striping, it was simply impossible for individualism to manifest itself. Man was not the owner of the land, did not have the right to sell it, and was not even free in the timing of sowing, harvesting, or in choosing what could be cultivated on the land. In such a situation, it was impossible to demonstrate individual skill. which in Rus' was not valued at all. It is no coincidence that they were ready to accept Lefty in England, but he died in complete poverty in Russia.

The habit of emergency mass activity(suffering) was brought up by the same lack of individual freedom. Here, hard work and a festive mood were combined in a strange way. Perhaps the festive atmosphere was a kind of compensatory means that allowed greater ease carry a heavy load and give up excellent freedom in economic activity.

Wealth could not become a value in a situation of dominance of the idea of ​​equality and justice. It is no coincidence that the proverb is so well known in Russia: “You cannot build stone chambers with righteous labor.” The desire to increase wealth was considered a sin. Thus, in the Russian northern village, traders who artificially slowed down trade turnover were respected.

Labor itself was also not a value in Rus' (unlike, for example, in Protestant countries). Of course, work is not rejected, its usefulness is recognized everywhere, but it is not considered a means that automatically ensures the fulfillment of a person’s earthly calling and the correct structure of his soul. Therefore, in the system of Russian values, labor occupies a subordinate place: “Work is not a wolf, it will not run away into the forest.”

Life, not oriented towards work, gave the Russian person freedom of spirit (partly illusory). This has always stimulated creativity in a person. It could not be expressed in constant, painstaking work aimed at accumulating wealth, but was easily transformed into eccentricity or work that surprised others (the invention of wings, a wooden bicycle, a perpetual motion machine, etc.), i.e. actions were taken that had no meaning for the economy. On the contrary, the economy often turned out to be subordinate to this idea.

Community respect could not be earned simply by becoming rich. But only a feat, a sacrifice in the name of “peace” could bring glory.

Patience and suffering in the name of “peace”(but not personal heroism) is another value of Russian culture, in other words, the goal of the feat being performed could not be personal, it must always be outside the person. The Russian proverb is widely known: “God endured, and He commanded us too.” It is no coincidence that the first canonized Russian saints were princes Boris and Gleb; They accepted martyrdom, but did not resist their brother, Prince Svyatopolk, who wanted to kill them. Death for the Motherland, death “for one’s friends” brought immortal glory to the hero. It is no coincidence that Tsarist Russia on the awards (medals) the words were minted: “Not to us, not to us, but to Your name.”

Patience and suffering- the most important fundamental values ​​for a Russian person, along with consistent abstinence, self-restraint, and constant sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of another. Without this, there is no personality, no status, no respect from others. From here stems the eternal desire for Russian people to suffer - this is the desire for self-actualization, to win the inner freedom necessary to do good in the world, to win freedom of spirit. In general, the world exists and moves only through sacrifice, patience, and self-restraint. This is the reason for the long-suffering characteristic of Russian people. He can endure a lot (especially financial difficulties), if he knows why it is needed.

The values ​​of Russian culture constantly point to its aspiration towards some higher, transcendental meaning. For a Russian person there is nothing more exciting than the search for this meaning. For this, you can leave home, family, become a hermit or holy fool (both of them were highly revered in Rus').

On the day of Russian culture as a whole, this meaning becomes the Russian idea, to the implementation of which the Russian person subordinates his entire way of life. Therefore, researchers talk about the inherent features of religious fundamentalism in the consciousness of Russian people. The idea could change (Moscow is the third Rome, the imperial idea, communist, Eurasian, etc.), but its place in the structure of values ​​remained unchanged. The crisis that Russia is experiencing today is largely due to the fact that the idea that united the Russian people has disappeared; it has become unclear in the name of what we should suffer and humiliate ourselves. The key to Russia's exit from the crisis is the acquisition of a new fundamental idea.

The listed values ​​are contradictory. Therefore, a Russian could simultaneously be a brave man on the battlefield and a coward in civil life, could be personally devoted to the sovereign and at the same time rob the royal treasury (like Prince Menshikov in the era of Peter the Great), leave his home and go to war to free the Balkan Slavs. High patriotism and mercy were manifested as sacrifice or beneficence (but it could well become a “disservice”). Obviously, this allowed all researchers to talk about the “mysterious Russian soul”, the breadth of Russian character, that “ You can't understand Russia with your mind».

The concepts of “Eastern culture” and “Western culture” are very relative. Figuratively speaking, the East (which usually means Asia) and the West (represented by Europe and North America) are two branches of the same tree, each developing in its own direction, at the same time, in parallel, but in different ways. Neither of them rises above the other. They have a certain similarity, but there are also enough differences. How are they different? Let's try to figure it out.

Definition

Culture of the East– the culture of countries such as China, India, Japan, as well as other Asian countries, characterized by stability, tradition, and inviolability.

Western culture– culture of European countries and North America, embodying a dynamic lifestyle, rapid development, including in the technological field.

Comparison

The man of the West, unlike the man of the East, has his own mentality, his own views on life, existence, nature and much more. The cultures of the East and West differ in religious, philosophical, scientific and other issues. The main cultural differences between East and West are presented in the table.

Conclusions website

1. The culture of the East is characterized by sustainable historical development, The West is moving forward in spurts.
2. Western culture is characterized by a dynamic way of life; the previous value system is destroyed and another one emerges. Eastern culture is distinguished by its inviolability, non-resistance, and stability. New trends are harmoniously integrated into the existing system.
3. IN oriental culture Many religions coexist side by side. In the West, Christianity dominates.
4. Eastern culture is based on ancient customs and foundations. The West tends to loosen traditions.
5. The West is characterized by scientific, technological, rational knowledge of the world. The East is irrational.
6. Man of the Western world is cut off from nature; he commands it. The man of the East is fused with nature.

Veronica Bode: Today our topic is East and West through the eyes of Russians. Which world do Russians consider their homeland to belong to - Eastern or Western? With what civilization to a greater extent is the image of an enemy associated today? Where do the current anti-Western sentiments originate? And what trends in the development of society do the answers to these questions indicate?

Today Radio Liberty's guest is Igor Yakovenko, professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, sociologist, cultural scientist, doctor of philosophical sciences.

I would like to start with the messages that came to our website on the Internet, to the forum. Listeners answered the question: which world, in your opinion, does Russia belong to - Western or Eastern?

Valentin from Ivanovo writes: “Towards the Western. Russia is a classic representative of Hellenic culture. Despotism is a consequence of Byzantine influence. And the nonsense - like Lenin-Stalin - is superficial, and now it’s also feigned.”

Alex from city “T”: “Which world does Russia belong to? To the world of dreams and phantoms."

Levko: “Russia, of course, belongs to the Western world. None eastern traditions impossible to find in Russian culture. To clarify, the world to which Russia belongs is the world of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chavez and others like them. By the way, we gave birth to all of them (except Marx).

Leonid writes: “Russia will endlessly rise from its knees, holding on to the pants of Western managers. Therefore, she will go her own way, as one famous dead man said.”

Zaira from Moscow: “In spirit - to the East. Territorially – 50 to 50.”

Yuri from Mytishchi: “Vasily Ivanovich, are you for the Beatles or for the Rolling Stones?” Why is there only two options to choose from?

Philip from city N: “To Iran, North Korea, to Hugo Chavez, to the “axis of evil” against which the world is making missile defense.”

Nikolai from Moscow: “The inadmissibility of self-organization of society from below, the absolutization and lack of control of the supreme power, the strict dependence of everyone on the will of the authorities, the doomed obedience of the people, which are characteristic of eastern despotism, have always been the basis of the structure of Russia.”

Igor Grigorievich, your comment, please.

Igor Yakovenko: Well, what do we see? That there are arguments in favor of the belief that Russia is part of the West. Equally, our listeners find arguments in favor of the fact that Russia is part of the East. In general, this problem can be solved formally, say. We know that the Western world is a world of Christian civilization. Russia is predominantly a Christian country. But Christian and Ethiopia, which certainly cannot be attributed to the West. Or you can take another parameter. Most of The population of Russia is Indo-Europeans. But Indo-Europeans are the inhabitants of Iran, Pakistan, India, who also do not belong to Europe. Most of the Russian population lives in Europe. Despite the vastness of Siberia and the Trans-Urals, a minority of the population lives there. But this is a formal criterion. We are faced with a situation in which Russian citizens, not just now, but over the centuries, respond differently, and this in itself is very interesting.

Veronica Bode: Indeed, why choose only from two options? After all, there is still an idea, say, about Russia’s special path, about its, so to speak, special status. And in this sense, perhaps it cannot be classified as either Western or eastern world. According to your observations, Igor Grigorievich, how popular is this opinion today?

Igor Yakovenko: You see, cultural historians have some experience, and so, all countries that are undergoing modernization go through a certain stage - they are sick with the idea of ​​​​a special path. Here “Sonderweg”, that is, “special path”, was the ideology of Germany. This is not England, not France, but it is following a special path. There was a special path, as an idea, in Zaire. And many, many countries moving towards modernization, opposing the leaders of world dynamics, copy these leaders, but at the same time try to maintain their independence, relying on a special path. I think that talking about a special path is rather an expression of a certain stage - the stage of catching up development.

Veronica Bode: Igor Grigorievich, but for Russians today the image of an enemy is still more associated with which civilization - Western or Eastern?

Igor Yakovenko: This is very interest Ask, since it is difficult to give an unambiguous answer. I think that in this regard, Russians are divided into some approximately equal groups. And here it would be useful to turn to history. Let's take the 20th century. He is before our eyes. In the 20th century, the population of Russia, at least twice as a whole, accepted the West, and there were pro-Western sentiments in Russia. The first time is the era of the First World War. In the context of the war with Austria-Hungary and Germany, Russia saw itself as part of the Western world - France, England, America, “we are all fighting these barbarians together.” And in general, there were very strongly expressed pro-Western sentiments in the country. Bolshevik revolution. And what’s curious is that after this revolution this idea of ​​unity with the West does not disappear immediately, it is revived in new form world revolution and so on. But somewhere around the 1930s, Comrade Stalin’s idea of ​​building socialism in a single country wins, and honest, powerful isolationism wins.

Go ahead. Second World War. And again, a certain pro-Western idea is emerging in the country as a whole. Our allies are the British. I remember Soviet records with English songs and lots and lots of funny stuff. But Russia sees itself as part of this world, opposing German fascism. It ended very quickly, quickly ended, this line was broken.

Then in the same twentieth century, at the end Soviet period, at the beginning of perestroika one could notice very powerfully expressed pro-Western sentiments: “we are returning to Europe,” “we are returning to ourselves, to the free world.” Let us note that 5-7-8 years passed – and these pro-Western sentiments began to give way to a completely different attitude towards the West. There have always been Westerners in Russia - a narrow circle, a narrower circle, a less narrow circle, the English Club. But in general, the attitude towards the West cannot be positive for long, as history shows us.

Veronica Bode: Why do you think?

Igor Yakovenko: Well it complex issue. But if you try to answer as briefly as possible, the situation is as follows. Russia inherits ideologically such Byzantium. Byzantium or the Orthodox, Eastern Roman Empire, thought of itself as another Europe. This is not Catholic Europe, not Rome, but it is Byzantium. And this is another Christian project. As we know, this project collapsed in the middle of the 15th century. It was simply conquered, this very Byzantium. And Russia intercepted the ideas of the Third Rome and took over this project. Somewhere in the 19th century, Slavophiles actively supported the idea of ​​​​another Europe. It is curious that in the communist edition this idea of ​​“another Europe”, another alternative to the West, was revived. But by the end of the twentieth century, as we know, it too failed. But, apparently, the idea that we, if the West, in the sense, are the Christian world, then we are something else relative to the present, the West itself, is very strongly rooted in the Russian consciousness.

Veronica Bode: Speaking about the 20th century and the surges of pro-Western sentiment, for some reason you did not mention the 1960s, with their hipsters, passion for jazz, and Western culture. Why?

Igor Yakovenko: Quite deliberately. After all, within these periods there were separate groups that included, yes, indeed, the “sixties” of the twentieth century. Vasily Aksenov, dudes - all this was completely Western. But let's put our hand on our hearts: was it a national, so to speak, general phenomenon or was it one of the subcultures? This, of course, was one of the intelligentsia, urban subcultures, and not only did the authorities suppress it, but the broad masses did not accept it either.

Veronica Bode: Messages about listeners. Olga from Moscow: “If only we could just live in peace with the West and the East, with strangers, without attaching racial labels to them, finally, at peace with ourselves, then you won’t have to rack your brains, answering your question, the answer to which, in fact, cannot be.”

Yana writes: “The Moscow public dresses outwardly brightly, expensively, with oriental sophistication - cannot be compared with European simplicity. At the same time, Europeans and Americans are polite, they give up their seats on the subway, do not pile on top of each other, and do not create “heaps and cramps.” Moscow is the East, definitely.”

Elena from Europe: “The Moscow public is much more reminiscent, for example, of Istanbul than of Stockholm. Of course, Russia is the Eastern world.”

Unsigned message: “The word “Slavs” itself contains the root “slave” - “slaves.” In Europe, official slavery ended with Ancient Rome. He remained in the East for a long time. Slaves cannot dream of freedom, they do not know it, slaves can only dream of becoming slave owners.”

Nikolai Kuznetsov from Moscow: “Russia is multinational and multi-structured, but the order established by the Mongols found fertile soil in it and settled firmly. No wonder in medieval Europe all Muscovites were called Tatars. The Tatar essence of the Russian soul was also noticed by Napoleon, who was distinguished by his extraordinary sharpness of mind.”

Igor Yakovenko: Indeed, the Moscow public is rather closer to the Istanbul audience. I imagine an Istanbul street and the public that walks along it. This observation is certainly true. What does this mean? Russia is a complex phenomenon. It has pronounced oriental features. How they got here, how they gained a foothold is the next, very interesting question. But note that in early XVII centuries in Russia, five people knew Latin, and it was the language of international communication. Of these, in my opinion, there were three Poles, two Lithuanians - and all that is typical. And the Tatar language was the language of the Russian elite in the 13th century - XIV centuries, in the 15th century. Well, one foreign language which they owned. And we must remember this.

Veronica Bode: And now I propose to listen to the voices of Russians. “Should Russia prevent the rapprochement of Ukraine and Georgia with NATO?” residents of Pskov answer a question from Radio Liberty.

Definitely. Because, firstly, it is directly near our border, and secondly, it is still a real threat to our country.

What does it mean to obstruct?.. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and this is their right.

I think so. Because our borders are close. All the same, we all depend on the fact that our country and Ukraine are nearby. And if they join, then somehow it will affect us.

Of course not. Let them join. It's their business.

I have a personal opinion - I am against joining NATO, because this is a bloc that is our enemy. The word is so powerful... We don't need it.

I think yes. Why do we need these enemies nearby?.. Cut off their gas, make some kind of embargo, break off all relations with them, and then set our own conditions.

She must strengthen her boundaries and try to have friends, not enemies, around her boundaries.

There is no need to hinder them, let them go. I think they will try, get enough of NATO and understand from their own experience what NATO is. The Ukrainian people are Slavs, they are their own people, Orthodox, who are not inclined to become a face of the West, of this civilization that brings destruction with it.

Igor Grigorievich, in this survey, anti-Western sentiments are very clearly manifested. What exactly caught your attention?

Igor Yakovenko: First of all, if we remember, it was mainly older people who were against it. And judging by the voice, that's enough traditional culture, a certain level of education. And the arguments “for” were expressed by young people. This is the first thing that is interesting.

Second. Here the following considerations were voiced: Ukraine is Slavic. But the Bulgarians are also Slavic, Orthodox. And Romanians are Orthodox. This doesn't work today. For some reason we are not surprised that the Czechs are in NATO and other countries. But with Ukraine it’s different. And this is already a conversation about imperial consciousness. These are deeper things, of a different order.

Veronica Bode: But the last statement “this world that brings destruction with it” means the Western world...

Igor Yakovenko: Well, this is a very stable ideologeme, and it has existed for a long time: East - creation, West - destruction. Why have we been catching up with this West for centuries? I don’t understand, since it is being destroyed!

Veronica Bode: I will continue to read messages from listeners. Georgy from St. Petersburg: “The answer is absolutely clear: we are Europeans! For someone who has traveled our Russia from West to East and visited China, there can be no other opinion.”

Nikolai from Ulyanovsk: “Our rulers are frightened to flirt with the East, but look to the West with hope.”

Tanya from Moscow: “Russians want to live like in the West, enjoying all the benefits of Western civilization, but at the same time behave like “wild Asians.” But that doesn't happen. That’s why there is no normal life.”

And Ilya from Kazan: “While we think about which world we belong to, we will be overtaken both from the West and from the East. Which, in general, has already happened.”

Igor Yakovenko: Here I was attracted by two opinions. What Tanya wrote is very important, in my opinion: that we want to live according to Western standards, leaving behind some Eastern habits - optionality and much more, to live the way we are used to. It doesn't happen that way. If we want Western standards, then we need to change ourselves. This is a true and indisputable judgment.

But the conversation that (this has already been said in previous statements) while we think about whether we are West or East, someone will overtake us is not entirely the right position. In order to respond to the challenges of the era, it is important to understand who we are. This does not interfere with modernization, does not interfere with the complexity of the world, the construction of a new one, but helps. We need to know who we are, and then it will be easier for us to solve the problems of today and tomorrow.

Veronica Bode: And what is the West in general in the understanding of Russians, according to your observations? How closely are myths and reality intertwined here? And what are the myths?

Igor Yakovenko: Well, Russians are not united, and you and I can see this now, how the audience is scattered into more or less equal halves. For some, the West is a place where there is a tidy life, guarantees of individual rights, dynamics, and progress. And for others, the West is an entity that brings danger and destruction. The simplest thing is to blame it on Soviet propaganda. We know that NATO and imperialism frightened the Soviet people for 70 years. I think the problem is deeper, because attitudes towards the West were complex in both the 19th and 18th centuries. And the point here is not only about confessional confrontations between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but these are some even deeper things related to the fact that the West has chosen a historical strategy, a strategy of life that is different from what Russia chose. Note that Russia itself has never changed. It changes under the influence of external circumstances. Our ideal is a calm stay in an unchanging world. And the West is dynamic, and this is its nature. The rejection of the West is the rejection of a dynamic society by a stable, statically oriented society.

Veronica Bode: Well, now let's turn to the East. The same question: what is included in this concept?

Igor Yakovenko: Well, strictly speaking, the East is terribly heterogeneous, because Islamic East, India or China are completely different things. The West is much more holistic and united.

Veronica Bode: I mean - from the point of view of the Russian, let’s say, the average, not the elite.

Igor Yakovenko: The fact is that, starting with Peter I, Russia is always trying to catch up with the West, so the West is significant. But they know little about the East. This is something generalized that we laugh at: we easily fought with them, easily defeated them, ousted Turkey, say, from the Black Sea coast, and looked down on the East in general. It is not differentiated, it is incomprehensible as a whole, well, something like the Turks, something like the Chinese. Moreover, we easily confuse Turkey with China, Persia with Pakistan.

Veronica Bode: Igor Grigorievich, what information about the Russians, about their public consciousness gives us this attitude towards the West and the East, or the assignment of Russia to one side or another?

Igor Yakovenko: This suggests that Russia has not decided as a whole, as a society, on some fundamental issue: is it choosing a European development strategy and a strategy of existence, or is it ready to follow the East. But she doesn’t really imagine the East either. Russia simply has not decided on its future. And she hasn’t decided because she doesn’t understand her present.

Veronica Bode: But which world does today's Russian prefer - Eastern or Western? Let's just say, which world does he accept more and why? Religion, social system - to what extent are they criteria here?

Igor Yakovenko: The fact is that formally Orthodoxy is part Christendom, undoubtedly. But this is a special part, and we have already talked about it. Concerning social order, then the West declares the values ​​of parliamentary democracy, which, as we know, are very difficult to take root in Russia and are very painful to establish. So this is where problems arise. Economic freedom is also in Russia, as we see, in a complex way included in the situation of a market economy. Therefore, for now we are witnessing the difficult and painful experience of incorporating Western models and Western values ​​into the world.

Veronica Bode: And now we bring to your attention the section “System of Concepts”. Today’s guest of the column is Boris Dubin, head of the department of socio-political research at the Levada Center. He will talk about such a concept as “culture” in sociology.

Boris Dubin: Firstly, for a sociologist, culture is a certain resource for understanding social action. A sociologist deals with social actions and interactions, with their stable forms, and he is interested in the extent to which specific meanings are involved in these forms of action. That is, for a sociologist, culture is a resource for interpreting social actions and social forms. But at the same time, the sociologist cannot forget that, after all, the word “culture” in the European tradition from the end of approximately the 18th century and throughout the 19th century was an extremely loaded term, and, above all, in Germany, in German philosophy and in German social sciences, but also more widely – in European ones. Because culture was some kind of program in its new meaning, not reducible to the ancient, to the Latin, in the new meaning - a program for building modern society. And the sphere of culture included meanings that worked for this modernization program, which, firstly, raised a person, that is, helped him to be an independent being, helped, as Kant said, to walk the earth without the help of authority. Secondly, they directed him to increasingly complex, increasingly high-quality behavior, thinking, action, that is, they were such a mechanism for self-improvement within the person himself. Thirdly, these are meanings that were directed beyond any specific groups of people. Culture belongs to no one, it unites everyone. And fourth and last. Culture is what is embodied in practical action, with all its ideality. Therefore, people of enlightenment, therefore romantics, with all their dreaminess, armchairism, idealization of life, and so on, they were great practitioners, great administrators. And they gave birth new type schools, a new type of university, a new type of mental clinic, a new type of literature, if you like, because they constantly brought these meanings of culture into real, practical, collective action.

Therefore, today I would talk about “culture-1” - this is a kind of objectivist understanding: culture as meanings involved in collective action and interaction. And the second, so to speak, “culture-2” is a certain increased quality of these meanings, their special focus on uniting people, directing them to higher goals and helping them in practical action.