Culture as a subject of study briefly. Artistic culture as a subject of sociological analysis

Culture as a subject of study

Yu.M. Reznik

1. Differentiation of approaches to the study of culture

Diversity of cultural knowledge

There is perhaps no other phenomenon that is so often discussed by scientists and philosophers as culture. There are many definitions of the concept “culture” in the scientific literature. It’s even difficult to list them all.

If we ignore the philosophical and scientific definitions of culture, we can highlight several aspects of culture as a way or sphere of human existence.

1. Culture appears where and when people acquire human traits, go beyond natural necessity and become creators of their own lives.

2. Culture arises and is formed as a set of answers to many questions and problem situations social and natural life of people. This is a common “storehouse” of knowledge, tools and technologies developed by people to solve generally significant problems.

3. Culture generates and “serves” many forms of organization of human experience, providing them with the necessary resources and “channels” feedback. Such diversity does not lead to blurring the boundaries of culture, but, on the contrary, makes social life more stable and predictable.

4. Culture represents a conceivable and inconceivable horizon of possibilities and alternatives for the development of man and society. As such, it determines the context and specific content of people's activities at each given moment of their existence.

5. Culture is the method and result of the symbolic and value-normative construction of reality, its cultivation according to the laws of the beautiful/ugly, moral/immoral, true/false, rational/supernatural (irrational), etc.

6. Culture is the method and result of self-generation and self-comprehension of a person, the existing world of his abilities and generic forces. A person becomes a person thanks to and through culture.

7. Culture is the way and the result of a person’s “penetration” into other worlds - the world of nature, the world of the divine, the worlds of other people, nations and communities within which he realizes himself.

One can continue listing the characteristics and qualities of culture without fully exhausting all the richness of its content.

We will try to highlight and justify the systemic definitions of culture that have developed today in various areas of social knowledge. In this case, several approaches should be distinguished - philosophical, anthropological, sociological and complex, or “integralist” (general theory of culture). /1/

(As a symbol for the “integrative” approach to the study of culture, we will consider general theory culture (OTK), or cultural studies in our understanding. With this approach, culture is considered as a system, that is, an integral set of phenomena and objects)

The difference between them can be summarized as follows (see Table 1).

Table 1.

The relationship between all of the above approaches should be considered, as in the case of a systematically complex study of personality, from the point of view of the relationship between the universal, the particular and the individual. /2/

(See: Reznik Yu.M. Man and society (experience of complex analysis) // Personality. Culture. Society. 2000. Issue 3-4.)

The difference between these approaches to the study of culture as a system can be reduced to the following: philosophy places emphasis on comprehending universal (generic) principles cultural system; social psychology views culture as an individual (that is, as an individual phenomenon), possessing signs of the universal and the particular (cultural styles); Anthropology studies the individual and individual in culture through the prism of the universal or generic development of humanity ( cultural traits and universals); Sociology, on the other hand, pays main attention to the manifestations of the special (typical) in culture, taking into account its individual/individual and universal development (cultural norms and values).

Philosophical approach

This approach has the broadest panorama of vision of culture. As is known, the philosopher considers any phenomenon from the point of view of integrity and existence, universal and value-rational (or subjectively meaningful). Philosophical analysis as opposed to scientific knowledge includes mental procedures that make it possible to express the subject under study in extremely broad categories, as well as through the prism of dichotomies - “ideal-real”, “natural-artificial”, “subjective-objective”, “structure-activity”, etc.

Philosophers and thinkers of all times have tried to determine the meaning or main purpose of culture, and only a few of them, in our opinion, have come close to its true understanding. For some, culture is the known in the world of the unknown, “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” For others, its meaning lies in the endless self-improvement of human nature, the continuous equipping of people with material, intellectual and spiritual means.

In the history of world philosophy of modern times, the concepts of culture are most fully represented in the philosophy of I. Kant, G. Herder, G. F. Hegel, the philosophy of life (A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, W. Dilthey, G. Simmel, etc.), philosophy of history (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, N.Ya. Danilevsky, etc.), neo-Kantian tradition (G. Rickert, W. Windelband, E. Cassirer, etc.), phenomenological philosophy (E. Husserl, etc.) , psychoanalysis (Z. Freud, K. Jung, etc.). These and other concepts are described in detail in a number of textbooks on the philosophy of culture and cultural studies and therefore there is no need to consider them in detail.

In modern Western philosophy, cultural studies are continued by M. Heidegger, representatives of structuralism and post-structuralism (M. Foucault, J. Lacan, J.-F. Lyotard, R. Barthes, etc.).

Here are just some of the most known definitions cultures found in modern philosophical literature: a common and universally accepted way of thinking (K. Jung); the process of progressive self-liberation of a person (E. Cassirer); what distinguishes humans from animals (V.F. Ostwald); a set of factors and changed living conditions, taken together with the means necessary for this (A. Gehlen); part of the environment created by man (M. Herskovich); system of signs (C. Morris, Yu. M. Lotman); a specific way of thinking, feeling and behaving (T. Elliot); a set of material and spiritual values ​​(G. Frantsev); “a single slice passing through all spheres human activity” (M. Mamardashvili); method and technology of human activity (E.S. Markaryan); everything that a person creates, mastering the world of objects - nature, society, etc. (M.S. Kagan); socially significant creative activity a person, taken in a dialectical relationship with its results (N.S. Zlobin); the production of man himself in all the richness of his connections with society (V.M. Mezhuev); the sphere of realization of ideal-value goals, the implementation of the ideal (N.Z. Chavchavadze); spiritual existence of society (L.Kertman); system of spiritual production (B.S. Erasov), etc./3/

(A detailed systematization of philosophical definitions of culture is given in the book by M.S. Kagan “Philosophy of Culture” (St. Petersburg, 1996).

Attempts by individual philosophers to reduce culture to “external” goods and conditions of people have yielded nothing. It “cultivates” not only physical nature, but also man from the inside, albeit with the help of material or symbolic intermediaries. In this sense, culture is the self-manifestation and self-disclosure of human nature in the objects of the material and spiritual world. Without this, it is difficult to understand the essence of culture.

As domestic researchers show, the philosophical study of culture presupposes striving for the fundamental foundations of human existence, for the depths of the people’s self-awareness.

(See: Culturology: Textbook / Edited by G.V. Drach. Rostov-on-Don, 1999. P. 74)

Within the framework of the philosophical approach today there are several positions that express various shades and semantic meanings of the concept “culture”./5/

(We will dwell in more detail on the characteristics of the positions of domestic researchers who have made a significant contribution to the development of the philosophy of culture)

1. Culture is “second nature,” an artificial world, that is, created by man in his own image and likeness or for his own needs, not clearly dictated by natural necessity (as opposed to everything natural) and the power of instinct.

In the philosophical literature, attempts are made to indicate essential features that make it possible to record the qualitative difference between culture and nature. Its emergence was facilitated, according to P.S. Gurevich, by the use of fire and tools, the emergence of speech, methods of violence against oneself (taboos and other restrictions), the formation of organized communities, the formation of myths and images./6/

(See: Gurevich P.S. Culturology: Textbook. M., 1999. P. 35-36)

At the same time, activity is considered as a kind of mediator between nature and culture. It is in activity and through activity that people adapt and transform the natural world, turning it into the world of culture.

Thus, a group of scientists working under the leadership of M.B. Turovsky, ten years ago, proposed a similar version of culture, the understanding of which is based on the actualization of the personal principle in history. M.B. Turovsky in his programmatic article “Culture as a Subject of Research” believed that it is necessary to place such a system-forming factor as the subjectivity of the process of cultural development at the center of cultural research./7/

(Turovsky M.B. Philosophical foundations of cultural studies. M., 1997. P. 318)

It is not the average individual, but the individual who is considered as the subject of the cultural-historical process. “Culture as an object of scientific study,” he further emphasizes, “can be defined only by the parameters of a person’s personal involvement in the active development of the world.”/8/

(Ibid. p. 323)

In other words, the object of scientific study of culture is, in his opinion, the subjective (personal) aspect of history, which is determined by him and his followers from the point of view of the development of human activity or the use of human abilities to realize his human destiny.

The above position, supplemented by a number of opinions (see the works of V.M. Mezhuev, N.S. Zlobin, etc.), is based on the opposition of culture as the personal-creative principle of history and sociality as a transpersonal-regulating factor. To regulate the excess of human creativity, social institutionality develops its own rules and restrictions. Instead of external regulation that limits the space of personal freedom and creativity of a person, a model of activity-based communication is proposed that increases the degree of freedom of the individual through the affirmation of a person’s internal self-restraint. As a result, there is a displacement of external regulation, which strictly determines the implementation of his abilities./9/

(See: ibid. pp. 336-339)

An objection to such a consideration of culture can be the thesis about the dual nature of culture, its simultaneous institutionality (the externally regulating function of culture) and personal determination or self-determination (creative function). It is impossible to reduce all the diversity of cultural manifestations to just one personal element or aspect of history. Thus, one concept (“culture”) is replaced by another, no less general in content (“personality”).

From our point of view, personality and culture are not only of the same order, but also complementary concepts that express different, although interconnected, aspects of social reality. Here we agree with the position of V.J. Kelle and M.Ya. Kovalzon, who consider history from the point of view of three interrelated approaches - natural-historical, activity-based and personal. Personal aspect the historical process has a completely independent meaning, it cannot be reduced to the content of culture, and, conversely, the development of culture is not uniquely determined by the personal existence of a person in the world.

We agree that “culture, characterized in the most general form, is, therefore, the development of man as a generic, that is, a conscious, creative, amateur being.”

(Kelle V.Zh., Kovalzon M.Ya. Theory and history (Problems of the theory of the historical process). M., 1981. P. 240)

But this is only one aspect of the development of culture, which does not exhaust its entire content. It hardly makes sense to “tear off” the subject from other components of activity.

Two other interpretations are associated with the idea of ​​culture as a certain state or quality of activity.

3. Culture is considered as a specifically human, supra-biologically developed “way of activity,” as well as a technology for its implementation, that is, how and in what way a person realizes his active essence. Therefore, culture in this context is derived from activity. It covers not only what a person creates, but also how he creates it, that is, the methods of his activity. Moreover, the latter is of decisive importance.

In the domestic philosophical literature, two main directions of activity-based analysis of culture have been formed: the system-technological direction of cultural research (M.S. Kagan, E.S. Markaryan) and the subject-activity direction (V.Zh. Kelle, M.Ya. Kovalzon, M. B. Turovsky, V. M. Mezhuev, etc.). Despite the controversy between M.S. Kagan and E.S. Markaryan, their position coincides in the main thing: culture expresses the technological component of people’s social life.

Another group of scientists connects the understanding of culture with the principle of activity. It is activity that is considered by V.Zh.Kelle and M.Ya.Kovalzon as an explanatory principle of culture. This position is confirmed by them in different periods of creativity: culture is nothing more than “as a specifically social way of life and self-development of a person,” and its study “is associated with the study of people’s activities ... and with the development of man himself”; /11/

(Ibid. p. 241)

“we accept the point of view that activity is the last foundation of culture; culture is created, exists and is reproduced in activity.”/12/

(Kelle V.Zh. Culture and sociality // Comprehension of culture. Yearbook. Issue 7. M., 1997. P. 261)

4. Culture is a special type of human activity. This is “the activity of people to reproduce and renew social existence, as well as its products and results included in this activity.”/13/

(See: Modern Philosophical Dictionary. M., 1996. P. 255)

Attempts to connect the concept of culture with activity, including its results, certainly deserve attention. However, to consider culture as a variety of human activity means to follow the path of narrowing its substantive content. Culture is not only and not so much an activity as an introduction to it. The very moment of activity transforms people and their associations into subjects of culture, but the means or results of activity again do not exhaust all the richness and content of culture.

Thus, the essence of the philosophical understanding of culture lies in various attempts to holistically reveal its essence from the point of view of universal connections and patterns.

Anthropological approach

Specifics of anthropological research of culture

The most common understanding of culture in anthropology can be summarized as follows: it is a system of knowledge and beliefs inherited by members of a given society (community) and manifested at the behavioral level. This leads to the main anthropological conclusion: in order to understand the culture of a particular community, it is necessary to study its behavior in everyday life situations.

The specificity of the anthropological approach lies in the focus of the study on the holistic knowledge of man in the context of a particular culture. Moreover, it is necessary to highlight the most common research attitudes or vectors of knowledge in anthropological science: (1) “mirror reflection” as a direct reflection of the cultural world through observation; (2) anthropological reductionism as a whole series of versions or attempts to reduce the entire diversity of culture to the root causes (biological or historical forms), needs and universals; (3) symbolism as an expression of the otherness of culture in a symbolic form; (4) reflexivity, or the ability to express and record on a research “scoreboard” the conscious or unconscious states of the carriers of a certain culture. Let us briefly explain their content.

The first vector of anthropological research of culture is characterized by an attitude towards a “mirror reflection” of all its sides and features using visual and other means.

“Anthropology,” emphasizes K.M. Klahkon, “holds a large mirror in front of a person and gives the opportunity to look at oneself in all its boundless diversity.” /14/

(Klahkon K.M.K. Mirror for Man. Introduction to Anthropology. St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 32.)

This is why anthropology's favorite method is observation.

B. Malinovsky considered the real basis for the integration of all branches of anthropology as the only science of culture Scientific research, based on the field observation method. For anthropologists at the beginning of the last century, the latter was a model for studying any culture. All generations of scientists who later became theoreticians had to go through this.

The cultural phenomena that are given to us directly in the process of observation contain objective and intersubjective connections, the comprehension of which requires a theoretical approach. Thus emerged various versions of anthropological reductionism (biologism, prehistory, universalism, functionalism, or functional analysis of culture), symbolism, and “reflexive” or interpretive theory.

An important condition for the anthropological knowledge of culture is the determination to search for the biological prerequisites of culture and its pre-modern (traditional or primitive) forms. It is believed, for example, that every cultural phenomenon has its own biological analogue, a kind of “protoculture”. It is also believed that in the process of evolution, man went through all stages of cultural development. Therefore, in order to understand culture, it is necessary to study its primitive forms. It is this circumstance that has given rise to a very widespread misconception (even among specialists themselves) that anthropologists study only primitive societies and cultures. This is how the biological and historical versions of reductionism differ from each other.

The next direction of the anthropological reduction of culture is to find common and unchanging foundations or components characteristic of all times and peoples (cultural universals).

Another type of anthropological reductionism should be considered functionalism. Anthropologists were among the first to recognize the need for an objective analysis of the relationship between human needs and the means of satisfying them that culture develops and provides. The functional conditioning of cultural phenomena became the subject of close study by B. Malinovsky and other classics of anthropology.

However, the role of direct or participant observation in the study of cultural phenomena, including the importance of an objective analysis of their functional connections, should not be overestimated. Therefore the third feature anthropological study culture lies, first of all, in the fact that culture cannot be comprehended only in a direct way, that is, by turning either to the external, sensually perceived and observable facts of its existence, or by identifying the functional relationship between them and the corresponding human needs. The otherness of culture is presented in a system of symbolic means (symbols, cultural codes, etc.), which need to be deciphered and interpreted. That's why great attention Anthropologists focus on the use of semiotics and linguistics methods in the process of studying cultural language. From the point of view of research methodology, this research setting is characterized by the unity of instrumental (or functional) and semiotic (or symbolic) aspects of analysis.

The fourth characteristic feature of the anthropological study of culture is the reflexive doubling of cultural reality, in the desire to reveal the conscious and unconscious states of cultural subjects. It is no coincidence that C. Levi-Strauss emphasized that the anthropologist builds his study of society and culture from the position of the observed. To know this position means to penetrate into the inner world of those being observed, to comprehend not only the state of their consciousness, but also the psychological origins of their symbolic or verbal behavior.

The concept of culture in anthropology

A detailed analysis of anthropological definitions of culture is already contained in a number of Western and domestic publications./15/

(See: Kroeber A., ​​Kluckhohn C. Culture. A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, 1952; Kagan M.S. Philosophy of culture. St. Petersburg, 1996; Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture. M., 1996 ; Belik A.A. Culturology. Anthropological theories of culture. M., 1998, etc.)

We will give only the most general overview, taking as a basis the systematization of A. Kroeber and K. Klahkon.

Descriptive definitions indicate the substantive content of culture. Example: culture consists of knowledge, beliefs, art, morality, laws, customs and some other abilities and habits acquired by a person as a member of society (E. Taylor).

Historical definitions emphasize processes of social inheritance and tradition. Example: culture is a socially inherited set of modes of activity and beliefs that make up the fabric of our lives (E. Sapir).

Normative definitions are divided into definitions based on the idea of ​​a lifestyle, and definitions based on ideals and values. Examples: culture is a way of life followed by a community, culture is a set of standardized beliefs and practices followed by a tribe (K. Whisler); culture is an outlet for excess energy in constant implementation higher abilities person (T. Carver).

The fourth group of definitions are psychological definitions. They emphasize either the process of adaptation to the environment or the process of learning and habit formation. Examples: behavior that must be acquired by each new generation through training (R. Benedict); the totality of all sublimations or reactions, in a word, everything in society that suppresses impulses and creates the opportunity for their perverted implementation (G. Rohaim).

Structural definitions characterize accordingly structural organization culture. Examples: culture is the organized reactions of members of society to recurring situations and living conditions (R. Linton); culture consists of the socially standardized behavior and thinking of a certain group and the material products of its activities (J. Honigman).

A separate group of structural definitions is formed by the concepts of culture by A. Kroeber and K. Klahkon themselves, as well as L. White. In the understanding of the former, culture consists “of internally contained and externally manifested norms that determine behavior, mastered and mediated through symbols; it arises as a result of human activity, including its embodiment in material means. The essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically established) ideas, primarily those to which special value is attributed. Cultural systems can be considered, on the one hand, as the results of human activity, and on the other, as its regulators.”/16/

(See: Belik A.A. Culturology. Anthropological theories of culture. M., 1998. P. 12)

In structural terms, L. White also gives his definition of culture. He characterizes culture as a special “class of objects and phenomena that depend on a person’s ability to symbolize, which is considered in an extrasomatic context.”/17/

(White L. The concept of culture // Anthology of cultural studies. T. 1. Interpretation of culture. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 26)

The structure of culture covers only those connections that connect its individual phenomena, regardless of the human body.

As the research experience of foreign and domestic scientists shows, the anthropological understanding of culture is based on the following basic characteristics. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that none of the characteristics given below exhausts all the content and variety of manifestations of culture studied by anthropologists. On the contrary, they should be considered as interrelated and complementary features.

1. Culture is an institutionally specified method or system of ways to satisfy basic (organic) and derivative (artificial) human needs (the instrumental function of culture).

This approach was most fully developed by B. Malinovsky. Here are some fragments from his work “Scientific Theory of Culture”: “First, it is clear that the satisfaction of the organic or basic needs of man and race is the minimum condition for the existence of every culture... All these most important problems of human beings are solved for the individual through artifacts, through organization into cooperative groups, as well as through the development of knowledge, understanding of values ​​and ethics.”/18/

(Malinovsky B. Scientific theory of culture // Questions of Philosophy. 1983. No. 2. P. 120)

On the basis of organic needs, imperative needs are formed or artificially grown - economic (material products), spiritual (ideas and values) and social ones (customs and norms). Further development of culture is impossible without the constant growth of new needs that it is designed to serve.

One more thing worth noting important fact, which B. Malinovsky points to. The process of satisfying human needs is carried out within the framework of certain institutions - standard units of organization of people's social life, which establish clear rules and prohibitions, traditions and customs. Without these institutional frameworks, it is difficult to imagine civilized forms of human consumption or communication.

2. There is culture special shape or variety social behavior of people.

B. Malinovsky, analyzing the substantive content of culture, comes to the conclusion: “Culture as the broadest context of human behavior is important both for a psychologist and for a social scientist, historian and linguist.”/19/

(Ibid. p. 117)

A formal analysis of anthropological definitions of culture conducted by A.K. Kafanya shows that they are based on one or another type of human behavior. /20/

(See: Kafanya A.K. Formal analysis of definitions of the concept “culture” // Anthology of cultural studies. T. 1. Interpretation of culture. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 91-114)

This is socially inherited behavior, a learned form of behavior (R. Benedict, J. Steward, E. Davis, K. Klahkon, etc.), the ideal content of symbolic or verbal behavior of people (K. Wissler, J. Ford, etc.) , general or standardized behavior inherent in all members of the group (J. Gorer, K. Young, etc.), an abstract form of behavior (A. Kroeber, K. Klahkon, etc.), superorganic or extrasomatic behavior (L. White et al. ) etc.

3. Culture is the world of artifacts (the material nature of cultural objects).

An artifact is understood in science as an artificially created object or item. In cultural anthropology, an artifact is the material and symbolic embodiment of a cultural phenomenon or object.

An artifact cannot be separated from its cultural form and material substrate. It is created and exists only in the context of a specific culture. B. Malinovsky builds his assumptions on this argument. “The task of the researcher of prehistory and archaeologist,” he wrote, “is to reconstruct the completeness of life reality past culture, based on partial evidence provided by material traces.”/21/

(Ibid. p. 116)

Partial evidence or facts refer to the characteristic of the cultural form of an artifact, and material traces refer to the way it is expressed.

4. Culture is a world of meanings and meanings (“interpretive” function of culture)./22/

(The concept of “meaning” literally means that which is associated with thought, mental content object or phenomenon. The meaning characterizes the reason for which this object exists. In contrast to meaning, it expresses the objective function of an object, which it performs in the activities of people, in the process of their communication. In other words, the meaning contains an indication of the originality and identity of a particular phenomenon, and the meaning contains an indication of its content. The same meaning can have several meanings. In the same way, the specific meaning of different linguistic expressions, as a rule, has not one, but several semantic shades)

This approach is shared by some Western and domestic researchers. The symbolic-interpretive approach of K. Geertz is the most complete and developed version of comprehending the semantic content of culture. According to this version, a person lives in a “web of meanings” - a system of meanings that orients him in relation to other people and the world around him as a whole. Therefore, in order to comprehend culture as a unique system of meanings, it is necessary to decipher the meanings of people’s actions and interactions./23/

(Emelyanov Yu.N., Skvortsov N.G., Tavrovsky A.V. Symbolic-interpretative approach in modern cultural anthropology // Essays on social anthropology. St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 107)

From this point of view, culture is not an external force that determines human behavior, but the context of this behavior, in which only activity can be understood.

Further specifying the content of the above approach, A.A. Pilipenko and I.G. Yakovenko write: “Culture is a system of universal principles of meaning formation and the phenomenological products of this meaning formation themselves, which together determine the alien nature of human existence.”/24/

(Pilipenko A.A., Yakovenko I.G. Culture as a system. M., 1998. P. 10)

Cultural reality embodies the phenomenological (objectified) sphere of semantic space, which is determined through the introduction and interpretation of oppositions: “immanent - transcendental”, “discrete - continuous”, “sacred - profane”, etc.

5. Culture is the world of signs and sign systems (semiotic function of culture).

This understanding is close in content to the previous definition. However, there are some specific differences. Unlike meanings, signs and meanings are their symbolic intermediaries. /25/

(A sign is usually understood as an object intended for storing, processing and transmitting information about other objects)

They occupy a middle position between artifacts as material carriers of certain cultural forms and mentality as a way of mental reproduction and construction of reality (meaning-formation system).

Objects and phenomena that depend on a person’s ability to symbolize are called symbols by L. White. They are studied independently of the human body, that is, in an extrasomatic context.

Consequently, signs as elements of human meaning-making activity are included in the structural content of culture thanks to people’s ability to symbolize. They, unlike artifacts as material conductors, are symbolic conductors of activity, and in contrast to institutionally defined ways of satisfying human needs that mediate the interaction between the organism and the environment, they mediate the relationship between different classes of cultural phenomena, regardless of their biological prerequisites or material embodiments.

6. Culture is a unique mechanism built into the information process and producing and transmitting socially significant information (the communicative function of culture). In other words, the product of culture is social information that is developed and preserved in society using symbolic means. Although this understanding is not widespread in anthropology, it should be taken into account when constructing a scientific picture of the cultural world.

In anthropology, several general concepts that characterize the content of culture are usually identified and considered separately. These are the concepts of cultural traits and cultural universals, the concept of acculturation and dialogue of cultures, the concept of inculturation. Let's look briefly at some of them. /26/

(From our point of view, the most complete overview of the concepts of acculturation is contained in the textbook “Culturology”, published in Rostov-on-Don under the editorship of G.V. Drach (author - G.A. Mendzheritsky). The concept of enculturation and the research direction “culture” -and-personality” are set out in the works on cultural and psychological anthropology of A.A. Belik (See: Belik A.A. Culturology. Anthropological theories of culture. M., 1998; Belik A.A., Reznik Yu.M. Sociocultural

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation branch Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University in Pervouralsk

Test

in sociology of culture

on the topic of: Artistic culture as a subject of sociological analysis

Student group:

Stozharova Ksenia Alexandrovna

Checked:

Paramonov I.F.

Pervouralsk, 2013

1. What is artistic culture? What is the connection between artistic culture and art

Culture is a purely human activity, and its products acquire the character of the social memory of humanity, a unique " genetic code"of humanity.

In this sense, culture is a means of transforming the human community into a society. Artistic culture acts as one of the most popular (in the socio-cultural and historical sense) regions of culture, since it is artistic and creative activity that contributes to the formation of non-utilitarian spiritual needs of a person, and therefore arises as a powerful (and not determining) factor in separating a person from simple processes survival and preservation of life.

Artistic culture includes:

) art itself (the system of its works and production artistic values),

) a system of institutions that provide conditions for the production, storage, dissemination, distribution and consumption of artistic culture; preparation artistic frames and management,

) a certain state and direction of the spiritual atmosphere in society associated with artistic and creative activity, that is, public interest in art, its adequate perception, positive public tone towards artists and artistic creativity. The functioning of artistic and creative works in a certain culture gives rise to another very important and at the same time problematic topic: the topic adequate perception art.

Quite often not only in ordinary discussions, but also in research literature One can come across the thesis that the perception of a work should occur at the level of the author’s performance, or, to put it more simply, that the consumer of art should be congenial to the author. It’s like a thesis of acceptance, but it turns a work of art into a closed object, since quite often we understand perfectly well that no one can do this. Therefore, this thesis can only be perceived as an unattainable ideal that should be strived for.

The real existence of a work of art in culture can only occur in the mode of its openness, accessibility in terms of the level of perception, and in terms of value accents.

The simplest model creative act in the sphere of artistic culture is “disobjectification” (translation of the meaning of a work into an understandable language): for example, from verbal language to visual language or vice versa, that is, the transmission of the initial message through another sign system, and then the reverse translation from this sign system to the initial one ( for example, film adaptation of a work of fiction, writing music for a drama, etc.).

Such a seemingly simple procedure can lead to such a significant processing of the primary artistic content that a new work appears before us.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that every person does something similar in the process of perceiving certain works: she introduces what she perceives into the context of her ideas, principles, ideals, standards, for which she “reads” the work of art uniquely.

Therefore, there are reasons to take seriously the thesis that as many as there are those who perceive the work, there are so many options of this work. That is why enriching the aesthetic experience of any person - be it an artist or an ordinary art lover - requires active communication, communication with the aim of exchanging impressions and associations.

Any cultural, creative activity thus presupposes at least two language systems: images and symbols of the completed work and images and symbols generated by this work among those who perceive the work. Obviously, these things are not identical, and this sometimes manifests itself in the fact that the artist himself may value his work more, but for some reason the public may not even notice.

What is the connection between artistic culture and art?

Artistic culture is the totality of all types of artistic activity, including the product and process of this activity. Thanks to artistic culture, a person is able to figuratively reflect and model the world.

The concept of “artistic culture” is broader in scope than the concept of “art”.

Art is a sphere of spiritual and practical activity of people aimed at artistic comprehension and The concept of culture, artistic culture, art of world exploration; This is one of the ways to aesthetically explore the world.

The structure of artistic culture

Specialized level of artistic culture - built on special education or amateur art under the guidance of professionals; ordinary level - everyday art, as well as various types of simulation and play activities.

Structurally, artistic culture includes:

artistic creativity itself (both individual and group);

its organizational infrastructure (creative associations and organizations for placing orders and selling artistic products);

its material infrastructure (production and demonstration sites);

art education and advanced training;

art criticism and scientific art history;

artistic images;

aesthetic education and enlightenment (a set of means to stimulate public interest in art);

restoration and preservation of artistic heritage;

technical aesthetics and design;

public policy in this area.

Central location in artistic culture occupies the arts - literature, painting, graphics, sculpture, architecture, music, dance, artistic photography, decorative and applied arts, theater, circus, cinema, etc. In each of them, works of art are created - books, paintings, sculptures, performances, films, etc.

A person’s ability for artistic creativity is based on the process of sensory perception of reality and a direct emotional attitude towards it, which is expressed in experiences (admiration, disgust, empathy, compassion, etc.) and is fundamentally different from all other forms of comprehension of reality. The sensory experience of reality is expressed through words, sounds, colors, lines, volumes, etc. and ends with the creation of images - subjective reflections of the objective world. At the same time, the degree of coincidence between the emerging images and the reality that gave rise to them can be very different.

In the structure of culture, artistic culture performs important functions of forming a person’s character, transmitting norms and values, meanings and knowledge and is closely related to morality, religion and philosophy, and is also necessary to fulfill the recreational function of culture (rest and restoration of a person).

Describe the functions of artistic culture

The idea of ​​culture as a stable systemic formation that implements a set of functions has a long tradition in the philosophy of culture and cultural studies. The systems approach is initially “based on the principle of the integrity of the phenomenon under study and studies its properties as a single whole, based on the fact that the whole has qualities that its individual components do not have (the presence of such qualities is the whole, its own indeed, it differs from the total sum of the “parts” from which it is composed).” Integrity here is considered a defining property; in addition, the principles of structure and hierarchy are important.

A workable “localized version of the systems approach” (Osokin Yu.V.), which would be adequate for solving the problem of studying the artistic culture of any localization, is associated with an understanding of the artistic life of any systems as a matrix (matrix system). The structural matrix of artistic culture is determined by several main dimensions, the most important of which, according to the author, are the spiritual-substantive, functional, social (organizational-institutional) and spatial (geographical) dimensions. Each of them has its own content and hierarchy, but together they describe artistic culture as a single whole.

The functional excision of the matrix of artistic culture is associated with the functions that it realizes in relation to itself and in relation to society. Of the variety of functions realized by culture and art, the main functions most often identified are those of continuity, ensuring relationships and interaction in social systems, and the function of compensation. It is these functions that will be discussed below.

The chronological dimension of artistic culture, on the one hand, ensures the preservation of artistic values, their transfer from generation to generation and the actualization of each new era. On the other hand, artistic culture must provide constant update art in the context of changes occurring in all spheres of public life, and in accordance with the logic of the development of art. In this case, the main matrix will have two cuts, since the dynamics of artistic culture is a two-pronged process: culture is oriented towards the past and is nourished by tradition, on the other hand, artistic culture is innovative, created today, reflecting the current meanings of today. Consequently, the long-term dimension of the time matrix looks back into the past and reproduces meanings that have features reminiscent of the object or its presence. This excision of the matrix in culture is responsible for the transmission of cultural information over time, because retain information about the structural organization of artistic life. The short-term dimension of the time matrix faces reality, the today, remaining an open form to be filled with new meanings. In connection with this double excision, a dichotomous unity of traditions and innovations arises in culture in general and artistic culture in particular.

Considering culture and the artistic sphere from the point of view of traditionality and innovation, the continuity of artistic tradition and, at the same time, its unstoppable renewal, we can say that its nature is dialectically revealed in the multifaceted relationship between the traditional and the innovative, the progressive and the conservative.

In the artistic culture of each era, traditions and innovations are combined in their own way, forming a unique combination of these principles. The artistic life of society is not reduced only to tradition or only to innovation. For the cultural-historical process, both traditionality inadequate to the time and the associated national isolation, leading to the impoverishment of culture and its stagnation, and inorganic innovation, which leads to ignoring the cultural heritage that gives integrity and stability to the socio-cultural system, are equally harmful.

Conservation of previous cultural experience and recognition of its unconditional value reduces the value of innovation. The traditional type of society is focused on the constant reproduction of already existing models in the field of morality, behavior, thought processes, artistic consciousness, etc. Overcommitment cultural heritage hinders social progress, sociocultural systems lose flexibility and lose the ability to adapt culturally. In contrast, the modernized type of social structure is focused on innovation, cultures are dynamic, have a high degree of adaptability to changing conditions, and are constantly being improved.

Continuity and processes of inheritance of cultural phenomena can be both discontinuous and continuous. The cultural values ​​of the past, passing from one generation to another, act as a living element of the culture of each historical era and give cultural development a unified logic and continuous character. There are cultural forms and values ​​that, having arisen in an earlier era, then disappear for some time from cultural use and are revived at a later stage. Their existence violates the harmonious logic of cultural and historical progress and gives it a discontinuous character.

The emergence of gaps in the development of culture is associated with the contradictory nature of social progress. In the history of culture there have been periods of regression, cultural decline, and even cultural disasters that led to the death of entire cultures. But even in cases where entire civilizations perished, they cultural achievements did not disappear without a trace. They one way or another replenished the world treasury of culture and served the goals of cultural and historical progress.

The study of cultural and artistic monuments of different eras and artistic movements indicates that, despite the lack of visible connections between them, the presence of significant differences in materials, techniques and methods of execution, they all exhibit unconditional unity. The basis of this unity is the universality of man’s active exploration of the world and the need for the artistic embodiment of acquired knowledge.

Thus, tradition and innovation in culture, representing a dialectical unity of antinomies, ensure the integrity of culture and artistic life and act as a condition and law of their development. Rethinking, interpreting or rejecting tradition is the source of innovation. At the same time, cultural innovations contribute to the development and enrichment of existing traditions in artistic culture, being a condition for their emergence. The contradictory unity of traditionality and innovation in artistic field reflected in the specificity of the mechanisms of continuity in art. This specificity is expressed in the simultaneous continuity and discontinuity (discreteness) of the cultural-historical process, in the internal unity of artistic culture of different eras and breaks in the process of cultural development.

Interaction and relationships are the most important processes of artistic culture. M. Bakhtin emphasized that the basis and essence of culture is dialogue. “Dialogical relationships... are an almost universal phenomenon that permeates all human speech and all relationships and manifestations of human life, in general, everything that has meaning and significance... Where consciousness begins, there... dialogue begins.”

The art of the 20th century was permeated with interactions at various levels - from the synthesis of artistic traditions of distant historical eras to the synchronistic dialogue of styles, various interspecific and inter-genre interactions. The interaction of arts is certain relationships that arise as a result of the influence of one type of art on another, which lead to their mutual changes. Integration, interaction, synthesis are different types of mutual influence of the arts, differing in the degree of integration.

Interaction, being a structure-forming element of the cultural matrix, has chronological (in time) and “horizontal” (in space or surrounding reality) dimensions.

The interaction of old and new, one’s own and borrowed as an element of artistic culture is carried out in different ways: from the simple penetration of elements of one culture into another, the use of borrowings in accordance with one’s own norms, to a complete synthesis of cultures. If the first preserves the outlines of borrowed phenomena, then during synthesis traditional and borrowed features are indistinguishable.

The very method of such interaction is interesting: they do not communicate abstract cultures, but symbols, archetypes expressed in cultural images (Don Quixote, Tevye the Milkman, Hamlet) and mythologized real images (Napoleon, Dante). It is precisely because of this personification of a foreign culture that we create for ourselves its appearance, its “facial expression.”

In the general dynamics of the artistic process, they are revealed through various types and levels of artistic mutual modalities. “Artistic interactions are the various influences of some artistic phenomena on others, these are the relationships between the elements of art as a developing system, this different shapes cultural dialogue within the art of a given era or contemporary art with the past,” says Yu.B. Borev.

In such a dialogue there are no spatial or temporal restrictions. The mechanism of artistic interactions is similar to the dialogue between the past and the present in our memory, when everything that is preserved from the past becomes a fact of the present. In other words, memory is always relevant and removes time barriers, placing the past and present at one point. Features of artistic dialogism are manifested, for example, in the fact that modern literature appears in interaction with the literature of the 19th century. Namely - in its real form, in the form in which literature XIX centuries, it has understood itself and in the way the literature of the 20th century sees it. O.A. writes interestingly about this. Pavlova.

IN artistic process with all its diversity, certain types of artistic interactions can be distinguished. The first typology can be based on the direction of interaction: the artist is influenced from outside and the artist influences others.

Another typology is intraspecific and interspecific in nature. In the first case we're talking about, for example, about intraliterary or intracinematic contacts, and in the second case - about those situations when theater affects painting, music - on cinema, cinema - on literature and television. Interspecies artistic interactions arise when the worldview, the basic principles of the aesthetic attitude to the world, and the characteristics of the artistic thinking of representatives of different arts coincide. Integration represents the combination of different types of art, which does not lead to the emergence of a qualitatively new phenomenon; the emergence of a new synthetic whole on the basis of art forms that maintain independence, with one of them being singled out as dominant, can be called subordination. Dissolution situations are common individual species art in a qualitatively new artistic reality, which are described as a synthesis-symbiosis, which is typical, for example, for the theater. To create a holistic artistic impression in theater performance an equal connection of literature is necessary, stage interpretation(the art of directing, acting), painting, music. This type of interaction includes cinema, television and photography, where one art absorbs others, remaining itself.

The unification of the arts not as a result of direct linguistic contacts, but at the level of general patterns of artistic thinking is the following type artistic interaction, so-called "complementary synthesis". Here there is a combination of compositional and figurative-linguistic elements, which reveal themselves with the help of the basic principles of artistic thinking, such as theatricality, musicality, plasticity and picturesqueness. Let us note that within the framework of these types of artistic contacts, not only interspecific, but also intraspecific (style, genre) interactions are possible.

Artistic interactions are observed at different levels: individual works, individual artists, artistic movements, directions and schools and at the level of entire eras. The various nuances of these relationships (influence, imitation, imitation, rivalry and many others) are united by a single meaningful message, since the main goal of artistic interactions remains the understanding of one’s uniqueness and the search for a place in life and in art, the search for new consonances with one’s own artistic worldview.

A culturological understanding of the processes of interaction in artistic culture is offered by A.B. Kayak, looking at them as an example musical culture and offering his research methodology. The author notes that the subjects of musical interaction are the professional environment, institutional structures, and broad sections of the audience. Paradigms of musical interaction can be very different, but dialogue and political science turn out to be the most productive, since they give rise to new loci of meaning in artistic thinking. Results and lasting consequences of musical interaction according to A.B. Kayak can be assessed on the basis of such criteria as the criterion of preserving originality, the criterion of dynamic changes, the criterion of enriching and increasing the content of art, as well as taking into account the scale of the musical audience and the role of the professional environment.

Thus, interaction processes permeate artistic culture in synchronic and diachronic directions, and art historical and cultural understanding of them is an important task.

The functioning of art represents the process of realizing social functions, among which a specific sensory-compensatory function can be distinguished. The compensatory foundations of art seem to be another important meaningful dimension of the matrix of artistic culture.

Different discourses provide different pictures of compensatory behavior. To teach a person to hear and see beauty, to empathize with it in works of art - this is precisely one of the tasks of art. A person, perceiving a work of art, empathizes and becomes an accomplice in the action. In a sense, he is immersed in the flow of events being described or shown, completely surrendering to what is happening and experiencing the cathartic effect of art. In general, the perception of works of art, the enjoyment of them in their peak forms, is the highest experience. Art harmonizes feelings and brings a certain order to souls. In art, a person seeks emotional consonance with his inner state, agreement between him and a work of art. This is the psychological understanding of the sensory-compensatory functions of art.

The art criticism interpretation of the compensatory nature of works of art is expressed in the fact that researchers emphasize entertaining, light-weight, and a clear focus on entertainment. Irony and self-parody, in general everything funny, the entire culture of the “lower classes” are also compensatory genres and art movements that do not simply “reduce” high culture, but compensate for its pathos and complexity.

N.A. writes about the compensatory functions of contemporary art. Khrenov in the book “Social psychology of the art of the transition period”). In his opinion, art in general is “a compensatory expression of the spirit of public and private life, which is oppressed by the state.” The oppression of the family as an institution is compensated by art with single heroes and adventurous plots, like heroes of the myth of private life. Discussing cinema and jazz, the author draws attention to the fact that the severity of life during the Great Depression is compensated by the cinema of Hollywood dreams. The spread of cinema cannot be imagined without those compensatory mechanisms of separation from reality and rehabilitation of the lower strata, which significantly influenced the formation and evolution of cinema. Similar reasons explain the spread of jazz music, which first conquered America and then the whole world. The author cites the opinion of M. Lerner that a civilization oriented towards individualism needed compensatory methods that overcome the individualistic and rationalistic orientation in aesthetic forms. Jazz turned out to be more than music.

The compensatory mechanisms of art and their institutional implementation are complex. Sokolov K.B. and Zhidkov V.S., discussing the different degrees of prevalence of certain types of art, explain this by saying that “the function emotional management is realized in different types of art on different sensory material, and, secondly, different types of art are characterized by different degrees of compensatory behavior.” In their opinion, music compensates for the narrow range of human emotions available to him in everyday life, reflecting the internal state of the person as a whole. Instrumental music most removed from everyday life. Obviously, this understanding of the compensatory capabilities of music explains its widespread use in popular culture.

Literature as an art form, on the one hand, is closer to reality, since it describes specific people and events, and, on the other hand, it deals with an imagined world of images, which can be much preferable to the real world. Therefore, the compensatory effect of literature with its very plausible, but still unreal world can be very strong. Excessive fascination with the world of literary characters leads to a departure from reality in the form of a transfer of existence into the world of fantasy and artistic images, subtly noticed and repeatedly described by classics of Russian literature.

The nature of the compensatory nature of fine art is peculiar. According to the cited authors, it is connected with the nature of the worldview of the era. Thus, surrealism as an artistic movement of the 20th century compensates for the narrow worldview of new European culture by creating an alternative, albeit absurd, reality.

But, perhaps, cinema has the greatest resources to compensate for the lack of reality. It combines the abstractness of the image and the virtuality of plot genres (for example, literature). A double pseudo-reality appears, very similar to the real world. The absence of living actors and the impossibility of distancing oneself from them after identification makes the reactions of the movie viewer mass-like. As a result, the compensatory nature of cinema turns out to be maximum in comparison with other forms of art.

Theater arts even more synthetic and abstract. The conventionality of the spectacle and the performance of live actors allow us to speak about the high compensatory capabilities of the theater. However, the small (compared to cinema) scale of the audience does not allow us to classify theater as mass species art, it remains an elitist art form, although it has great compensatory potential.

From the standpoint of cultural studies and sociology, the compensatory functions of artistic culture are expressed in the fact that on top of existing cultural institutions, which act as a form of institutional enslavement, non-institutional forms and supra-institutional modes arise, which are countless and diverse. Society, through public assessment of cultural phenomena, selects from this diversity those that are most operational and convenient to use. Selected compensation mechanisms, extra-institutional and supra-institutional forms of artistic culture are consolidated, “enlarged”, replicated, and subsequently institutionalized. Ceasing to be compensatory, they become the main (titular) forms of culture, for which society, from the depths of its cultural life forms new compensatory phenomena. Compensation is cyclical: it begins with the formation of new methods of compensation and ends with their institutionalization. The history of society and its culture is the history of compressions and the decompressions that follow them, i.e. compensation.

So, artistic culture is determined by several basic dimensions. Its functional dimension is associated with those functions that are realized by it in relation to itself and in relation to society. Of the variety of functions realized by culture and art, the main ones most often identified are the functions of continuity, ensuring relationships and interaction, and the compensatory function. In artistic culture, in connection with temporary excision, a dichotomous unity of tradition and innovation arises. Interaction processes permeate artistic culture in synchronic and diachronic directions. The paradigms of intra-artistic interaction are varied, but the most productive are dialogue and political science. The compensatory foundations of art seem to be another important meaningful dimension of artistic culture, since they provide a compensatory expression of the spirit of public and private life. At the same time, the compensatory mechanisms of art and their institutional implementation are functional and flexible.

What types of art do you know? Analyze the features of the functioning of one of the types of art in modern Russian conditions(specificity of their manifestation and action in various social communities, problems, etc.)

The main types are:

Painting (work done in color, paints, on a plane).

Graphics (work done with lines, strokes, on a plane without paints).

Sculpture (work done in volume by carving, sculpting, casting).

Architecture (the art of creating buildings, structures, complexes of structures).

Decorative and applied arts (the art of decorating).

Nikolai Petrovich Krymov “About painting”

artistic culture art painting

“One of the most important and difficult types of fine art is painting. There is a lot of confusion in defining the concept of realistic painting. Painting is often called a painted drawing, and in general anything done with paints. Some people recognize as painting only what is written broadly, boldly, and sweepingly, and do not consider as painting what is written in detail, smoothly and modestly.

I thought a lot about what realistic painting is, and became convinced that painting is the rendering in tone (plus color) of visible material.

I call tone the degree of light intensity of a color. The correct vision of tone is more important for an artist than the vision of color, because an error in tone gives the wrong color. Without the right tone, it is impossible to truthfully convey the general state of nature, space and material. Some color changes may not affect these three basic elements. realistic painting.

Seeing tone is much more difficult than seeing color. Anyone can easily verify this by trying to determine the difference in the color of two traffic lights. Everyone will say that one traffic light is red and the other is green, but only a few will correctly determine which one is brighter.

There is no doubt that in realistic painting tone plays the main, determining role. All the great realists of the past wrote in tone. Among the best Russian artists I will name Repin, Levitan, Serov, Vrubel, K. Korovin, Arkhipov. (See Repin's painting Sailing)

In my definition of realistic painting, I speak of the rendering of visible material. The transfer of the material of any object placed at such a distance or located in such conditions that this material is not perceived by the eye is contrary to the essence of realistic painting.

For example, depicting a leather suitcase located on long distance or in a dark corner, having lost its visible materiality because of this, the realist artist will paint it with precisely such an object of indefinite material as he perceives this suitcase at the given moment and in the given conditions. It will be absolutely unacceptable in painting if the artist depicts the suitcase as he knows it in general, and not as he sees it at the time of work. One of the elements of naturalism in painting will be the transfer of invisible, but “known” material.

Despite all the elements of painting that I have listed, a picture may not be picturesque if we do not take into account the most important thing - the meaning and influence of the general tone, that is, the general light state of the picture.

Indeed, in nature at twilight everything is correspondingly darker than during the daytime; on a sunny day, all illuminated objects are lighter than on a cloudy day; the room is darker than in the open air; it is darker in the forest than in the field, etc. The sense of general tone is the most important thing in painting. The right tone frees the artist from working out details, gives depth to the picture, and places objects in space. Only such a work can be called picturesque in which the general tone and correct relationships between the tones of individual objects and parts of the picture are captured and found.

In realistic painting, brush stroke, texture, and manner of applying paint do not play any role. Repin, our brilliant painter, has no special texture. Everything is written very simply, but also very true, both in the general tone and in the individual tones of the picture. With real painting, worries about the appearance of the picture, about the “beauty” and originality of the stroke, texture, individuality and various trifles disappear, but in return there remains a lot of concern about the content, about the idea and beauty of what is visible in nature and life, about the charm that truth produces on artist.

One would think that with such a view of painting it would be monotonous and boring - everyone would start painting the same way and there would be no original artists. But this is not true. On the contrary, true originality appears when the artist does not think about it.

I came to the need to convey the general tone in a painting after many sketches painted from life and studying the paintings of great artists of the past.

The most important year for me was 1926; I want to tell young artists about the work and discoveries of this year.

It was in Zvenigorod. One day on a sunny day I went to write a motif that interested me. In a field, near the road, there was a white house with a group of trees adjacent to it. The illuminated house was unusually bright. To paint it, I used almost pure white, to which I mixed very little yellow paint, for fear of contaminating this color of the house, which had become yellowish from the sun’s rays. Then, accordingly, I painted the rest of the landscape - the road, trees, light green field and blue sky. The next day was cloudy. I decided to make a new sketch of the same motif. When I arrived at the place, I saw that my house was glowing like a white spot against the background of the entire landscape. To convey its color, I used pure white. Then he painted the rest of the landscape accordingly. The next day I wrote the same motive in the evening, at sunset. The house burned like a dazzling orange spot against the landscape. To convey it, I took almost pure white, carefully again for fear of over-darkening, mixing very little into it orange paint. But when I put all three sketches side by side, I saw that on a gray day it came out lighter than on a sunny one, and in the evening landscape the house was painted in a tone equal to that of the day. The lie of such a depiction became clear to me.

That same summer I happened to write an evening sketch. To make the sky shine more, I tried to show the earth and trees with a dark silhouette, and I painted the sky with a light one, as if it was happening during the day. I couldn’t get the silhouette right even with the smallest drawing of leaves and detailing. For several evenings I painted a landscape, but I saw that it did not convey the necessary and correct impression. In one of these sessions, while lighting a cigarette, I pointed a burning match at the sky, and in relation to the fire of the match it went out, became dim.

Long before this, I thought that it would be good to have in painting, as in music, a tuning fork, that is, an object that would not lose its luminosity either day or night, neither in winter nor in summer, would be constant, not changing from environmental conditions. I went through various objects in my mind, but it seemed impossible to invent this tuning fork. But here, in the evening, pointing a match at the sky, I realized that its flame could be the tuning fork in painting that I had been looking for for a long time, since neither sunlight nor any other light source can change the tone of its fire.

The next day I ran to the white building from which I had previously painted sketches, and pointed a lit match at the brightly lit white wall - it completely merged with the house. Then I decided to repeat three experimental studies made earlier without any consideration of tone. Coming on a gray cloudy day to paint this white house and pointing a match at it, I saw that it was as much darker than the fire of the match as the shadow falling from the tree on the illuminated wall of the house on a sunny day was darker. I had to darken the white tone of this house a little. And when I added everything else to it - the earth, trees and sky, darkening it in proportion, I saw that this sketch really conveys the gray day, space and material. The same thing happened with the third, evening sketch. The orange tone of the house turned out to be much darker than the tone of the illuminated wall on a sunny day. And although I have now written it a second time more dark paint, than in the first evening sketch, it glowed many times stronger. In general, an object taken in the correct tone will glow more strongly than the same object painted in much lighter, but incorrect tones. This is convincingly proven by Repin's works. “Evening Nights” are written in dark colors, but there is so much light in these dark colors, giving a feeling of genuine vitality to the faces and clothes of the people dancing and sitting at the table. The pieces of paper lying on the floor in Repin’s “The Arrest of the Propagandist” are written in very dark paint, but thanks to the correct overall tone, they appear white and take on the material of thin paper.

The question may arise as to whether it is necessary to change the overall tone of the painting “Evening Night” if you do not show candles burning at the ceiling. Of course, it is impossible, since this would violate the amazing light and color truthfulness of the picture.

Repin and especially Surikov often painted burning candles in their paintings, as they helped them most accurately convey the tones of objects and find a common tone. To make sure how correctly the best Russian painters felt the general tone, you should walk through the halls Tretyakov Gallery by placing a piece of white paper on bright places their works.

When determining artistic quality paintings First of all, it is necessary to pay attention to the fidelity of the general tone, to the general truthfulness and accuracy of the transfer of nature. We, however, have different and meaningless, trivial definitions of the merits and demerits of paintings. They say: tasty, interesting, soft, fresh, light, curious, tough, dry, etc.

When young artists master the general tone, all this will fall away and only “right” and “good” will remain. It’s good if it’s true, and it’s true if it’s good.

Then no one can be deceived by a beautifully written different colors a picture that is erroneous in the overall tone and in the tones of individual objects. Everyone will be convinced that this is not a picturesque, not a real image of nature or reality.

The fidelity of the general tone and the fidelity of the relationships between individual objects in the picture allow the artist to accurately convey the general state of nature without excessive detail, correctly arrange objects in space, convincingly convey their material, that is, convey true life on the canvas.”

List of used literature

1.Dukov E.V., Zhidkov V.S. Introduction to the sociology of art: textbook. allowance for gum. universities St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001

2. Minyushev F.I. Sociology of culture: textbook. allowance. 3rd ed., corrected, additional. M.: KDU, 2009

Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving a consultation.

Theory of culture. Concepts and basic typologies.

There are many definitions of culture, 6 main approaches to defining this term. One of the complex definitions:

Culture- a set of artificial orders and objects created by people in addition to natural ones, this is a certain system of values, a system of norms and rules of behavior in society, a system of knowledge and self-knowledge and a system of development and symbolic designation of the surrounding world. The complexity and ambiguity of defining the concept of culture has led to the emergence of many typologies of culture that try to solve the following basic problems:

1) Why, when and how culture arose;

2) Is it possible for the existence of a single, universal culture or do they all develop locally and do not influence each other in any way;

3) Patterns of interaction and mutual influence of cultures;

4) Reasons for the decline and death of cultures.

Methods of cultural studies

1)Comparative– conducts a comparative analysis of cultural objects within one chronological period.

2)Anthological(anthology - the doctrine of being) - studies the essential, basic characteristics of culture

3)Epistemological(epistemology - theory of knowledge) - studies culture as a way of understanding the world around us.

4)Axiological(axiology – the study of values) – studies culture as a system of basic values ​​and ideas of a certain era.

5)Semiotic– studies culture as a system of signs and symbols.

6)Phenomenological- studies culture as a system of certain phenomena.

7)Content analysis method (sociological) – used to analyze cultural texts; analysis and evaluation of information by identifying semantic units of text and replacing the frequency of mention of these units in a certain sample.

8)Synergistic(founder M. Prigozhin) is a complex method that combines the approaches of game theory, mathematical analysis and mathematical statistics and various cultural theories and develops typologies and models of cultural development and builds forecasts and typologies for its further development.

Dominant culture- a set of social norms, behavior, language, values ​​and religion accepted in society. These signs are often the norm for society as a whole. The dominant culture typically achieves dominance through control social institutions, such as educational institutions, communication, artistic culture, law, political process and business.

CULTURE SPECIFIC. This concept captures the fact that any culture has its own characteristics, which are preserved in a typologically homogeneous community. This specificity means the peculiarity of a given culture, its difference from all others, and manifests itself in different ways.

The specific one can be:

1) “marginal culture” is a borderline, transitional culture that arises on the verge of cultural and historical eras, worldviews, languages, ethnic cultures or subcultures.

2)subculture- part of the culture of a society that differs from the prevailing majority, as well as social groups of carriers of this culture. A subculture may differ from the dominant culture in its own value system, language, behavior, clothing and other aspects.

3) counterculture.

COUNTER CULTURE- the concept of cultural studies, which has three main meanings.

1) Activities to overcome the cultural way of life as such, to return to natural, natural, non-social life.

2) Various types of cultural protest against the dominant system of cultural values ​​(for example, the “hippie” movement, underground culture, etc.), seeking not to destroy this system, but to separate from it, to lead an independent, self-sufficient existence.

3) Activities to destroy the dominant system of cultural values, replacing them with new ones, largely opposite in their characteristics to the values ​​of the old culture, which aggressively overcome and transform it.

Material culture- a set of materialized results of human activity, including:

Physical objects created by man; And

Natural objects used by humans.

SPIRITUAL CULTURE- is a system of knowledge and ideological ideas inherent in a specific cultural and historical unity or humanity as a whole. The concept of “spiritual culture” goes back to historical and philosophical ideas German philosopher linguist and statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt. According to the theory of historical knowledge he developed, world history is the result of the activity of a spiritual force that lies beyond the boundaries of knowledge, which manifests itself through the creative abilities and personal efforts of individual individuals. The fruits of this co-creation constitute the spiritual culture of humanity.

Social culture(culture social relations) - determined by the regulations, values ​​and ideals that determine the behavior of people in society and their social relationships.

MASS CULTURE- Mass culture or pop culture, mass culture, majority culture - culture, widespread, i.e. popular and predominant among the general population in a given society. It includes such phenomena as sports, entertainment, everyday life, music, including pop-music, literature, media, fine arts, including bienale, etc.

ELITE CULTURE- is characteristic of privileged layers of society or those who consider themselves such, distinguished by comparative depth, complexity, and sometimes sophistication of forms. Its main ideal is the formation of a consciousness ready for active transformative activity and creativity in accordance with the objective laws of reality.

MORPHOLOGY OF CULTURE - a section of cultural studies devoted to the structural analysis of culture as a social phenomenon, the study of the patterns of construction and processes of formation of cultural phenomena. For this, three main methods of cognition are used: structural-functional(studying the principles and forms of organizing cultural objects and processes in accordance with the needs, interests and requests of members of society), semantic(exploring the dynamics of cultural forms within the life of three generations) and genetic. (considers the emergence and formation of cultural forms).

ORDINARY CULTURE- a set of ideas, principles, processes, cultural phenomena related to the everyday life of people. At the same time, cultural culture, with all its contradictions and weaknesses, is an organic element of the general cultural system. It is necessary in it as a form of widespread everyday dissemination of culture and as a source of latent formation of previously unmastered cultural skills, some of which are capable of consolidation and, therefore, are subject to further theoretical understanding

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Culture as a subject of study

Yu.M. Reznik

Differentiation of approaches to the study of culture

Diversity of cultural knowledge

There is perhaps no other phenomenon that is so often discussed by scientists and philosophers as culture. In the scientific literature there are many definitions of the concept “culture”. It’s even difficult to list them all.

If we ignore the philosophical and scientific definitions of culture, we can highlight several aspects of culture as a way or sphere of human existence.

1. Culture appears where and when people, acquiring human traits, go beyond the limits of natural necessity and become the creators of their lives.

2. Culture arises and is formed as a set of answers to many questions and problematic situations in the social and natural life of people. This is a common “storehouse” of knowledge, tools and technologies developed by people to solve generally significant problems.

3. Culture generates and “serves” many forms of organization of human experience, providing them with the necessary resources and “channels” of feedback. Such diversity does not lead to blurring the boundaries of culture, but, on the contrary, makes social life more stable and predictable.

4. Culture represents a conceivable and inconceivable horizon of possibilities and alternatives for the development of man and society. As such, it determines the context and specific content of people's activities at each given moment of their existence.

5. Culture is the method and result of the symbolic and value-normative construction of reality, its cultivation according to the laws of the beautiful/ugly, moral/immoral, true/false, rational/supernatural (irrational), etc.

6. Culture is the method and result of self-generation and self-comprehension of a person, the existing world of his abilities and generic forces. A person becomes a person thanks to and through culture.

7. Culture is the method and result of a person’s “penetration” into other worlds - the world of nature, the world of the divine, the worlds of other people, nations and communities within which he realizes himself.

One can continue listing the characteristics and qualities of culture without fully exhausting all the richness of its content.

We will try to highlight and justify the systemic definitions of culture that have developed today in various areas of social knowledge. In this case, several approaches should be distinguished - philosophical, anthropological, sociological and complex, or “integralist” (general theory of culture). /1/

(As a symbol for an “integrative” approach to the study of culture, we will consider the general theory of culture (GTC), or cultural studies in our understanding. With this approach, culture is considered as a system, that is, an integral set of phenomena and objects)

The difference between them can be summarized as follows (see Table 1).

Table 1.

The relationship between all of the above approaches should be considered, as in the case of a systematically complex study of personality, from the point of view of the relationship between the universal, the particular and the individual. /2/

The difference between these approaches to the study of culture as a system can be reduced to the following: philosophy focuses on understanding the universal (generic) principles of the cultural system; social psychology views culture as an individual (that is, as an individual phenomenon), possessing signs of the universal and the particular (cultural styles); anthropology studies the individual and individual in culture through the prism of the universal or generic development of humanity (cultural traits and universals); Sociology, on the other hand, pays main attention to the manifestations of the special (typical) in culture, taking into account its individual individual and universal development (cultural norms and values).

Philosophical approach

This approach has the broadest panorama of vision of culture. As is known, the philosopher considers any phenomenon from the point of view of integrity and existence, universal and value-rational (or subjectively meaningful). Philosophical analysis, in contrast to scientific knowledge, includes mental procedures that make it possible to express the subject under study in extremely broad categories, as well as through the prism of dichotomies - “ideal-real”, “natural-artificial”, “subjective-objective”, “structure- activity" etc.

Philosophers and thinkers of all times have tried to determine the meaning or main purpose of culture, and only a few of them, in our opinion, have come close to its true understanding. For some, culture is the known in the world of the unknown, “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” For others, its meaning lies in the endless self-improvement of human nature, the continuous equipping of people with material, intellectual and spiritual means.

In the history of world philosophy of modern times, the concepts of culture are most fully represented in the philosophy of I. Kant, G. Herder, G.F. Hegel, philosophy of life (A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, W. Dilthey, G. Simmel, etc.), philosophy of history (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, N.Ya. Danilevsky, etc.), neo-Kantian tradition (G Rickert, W. Windelband, E. Cassirer, etc.), phenomenological philosophy (E. Husserl, etc.), psychoanalysis (S. Freud, K. Jung, etc.). These and other concepts are described in detail in a number of textbooks on the philosophy of culture and cultural studies and therefore there is no need to consider them in detail.

In modern Western philosophy, the study of culture is continued by M. Heidegger, representatives of structuralism and post-structuralism (M. Foucault, J. Lacan, J.-F. Lyotard, R. Barthes, etc.).

Here are just some of the most well-known definitions of culture found in modern philosophical literature: a general and universally accepted way of thinking (C. Jung); the process of progressive self-liberation of a person (E. Cassirer); what distinguishes humans from animals (V.F. Ostwald); a set of factors and changed living conditions, taken together with the means necessary for this (A. Gehlen); part of the environment created by man (M. Herskovich); system of signs (C. Morris, Y.M. Lotman); a specific way of thinking, feeling and behaving (T. Elliot); a set of material and spiritual values ​​(G. Frantsev); “a single cross-section passing through all spheres of human activity” (M. Mamardashvili); method and technology of human activity (E.S. Markaryan); everything that a person creates, mastering the world of objects - nature, society, etc. (M.S. Kagan); socially significant creative human activity, taken in a dialectical relationship with its results (N.S. Zlobin); the production of man himself in all the richness of his connections with society (V.M. Mezhuev); the sphere of realization of ideal-value goals, the implementation of the ideal (N.Z. Chavchavadze); the spiritual existence of society (L. Kertman); system of spiritual production (B.S. Erasov), etc./3/

Attempts by individual philosophers to reduce culture to “external” goods and conditions of people have yielded nothing. It “cultivates” not only physical nature, but also man from the inside, albeit with the help of material or symbolic intermediaries. In this sense, culture is the self-manifestation and self-disclosure of human nature in the objects of the material and spiritual world. Without this, it is difficult to understand the essence of culture.

As domestic researchers show, the philosophical study of culture presupposes striving for the fundamental foundations of human existence, for the depths of the people’s self-awareness.

Within the framework of the philosophical approach today, several positions are distinguished that express different shades and semantic meanings of the concept of “culture”. /5/

1. Culture is a “second nature”, an artificial world, that is, created by man in his own image and likeness or for his own needs, not clearly dictated by natural necessity (as opposed to everything natural) and the power of instinct.

In the philosophical literature, attempts are made to indicate essential features that make it possible to record the qualitative difference between culture and nature. Its emergence was facilitated, according to P.S. Gurevich, by the use of fire and tools, the emergence of speech, methods of violence against oneself (taboos and other restrictions), the formation of organized communities, the formation of myths and images./6/

At the same time, activity is considered as a kind of mediator between nature and culture. It is in activity and through activity that people adapt and transform the natural world, turning it into the world of culture.

Thus, a group of scientists working under the leadership of M.B. Turovsky, ten years ago, proposed a similar version of culture, the understanding of which is based on the actualization of the personal principle in history. M.B. Turovsky, in his programmatic article “Culture as a Subject of Research,” believed that it is necessary to place such a system-forming factor as the subjectivity of the process of cultural development at the center of cultural research./7/

It is not the average individual, but the individual who is considered as the subject of the cultural-historical process. “Culture as an object of scientific study,” he further emphasizes, “can be defined only by the parameters of a person’s personal involvement in the active development of the world.”/8/

In other words, the object of scientific study of culture is, in his opinion, the subjective (personal) aspect of history, which is determined by him and his followers from the point of view of the development of human activity or the use of human abilities to realize his human destiny.

The above position, supplemented by a number of opinions (see the works of V.M. Mezhuev, N.S. Zlobin, etc.), is based on the opposition of culture as the personal-creative principle of history and sociality as a transpersonal-regulating factor. To regulate the excess of human creativity, social institutionality develops its own rules and restrictions. Instead of external regulation that limits the space of personal freedom and creativity of a person, a model of activity-based communication is proposed that increases the degree of freedom of the individual through the affirmation of a person’s internal self-restraint. As a result, there is a displacement of external regulation, which strictly determines the implementation of his abilities./9/

An objection to such a consideration of culture can be the thesis about the dual nature of culture, its simultaneous institutionality (the externally regulating function of culture) and personal determination or self-determination (creative function). It is impossible to reduce all the diversity of cultural manifestations to just one personal element or aspect of history. Thus, one concept ("culture") is replaced by another, no less general in content ("personality").

From our point of view, personality and culture are not only of the same order, but also complementary concepts that express different, although interconnected, aspects of social reality. Here we agree with the position of V.J. Kelle and M.Ya. Kovalzon, who consider history from the point of view of three interrelated approaches - natural-historical, activity-based and personal. The personal aspect of the historical process has a completely independent meaning; it cannot be reduced to the content of culture, and, conversely, the development of culture is not uniquely determined by the personal existence of a person in the world.

We agree that “culture, characterized in the most general form, is, therefore, the development of man as a generic, that is, a conscious, creative, amateur being.”

But this is only one aspect of the development of culture, which does not exhaust its entire content. It hardly makes sense to “tear off” the subject from other components of activity.

Two other interpretations are associated with the idea of ​​culture as a certain state or quality of activity.

3. Culture is considered as a specifically human, supra-biologically developed “way of activity,” as well as a technology for its implementation, that is, how and in what way a person realizes his active essence. Therefore, culture in this context is derived from activity. It covers not only what a person creates, but also how he creates it, that is, the methods of his activity. Moreover, the latter is of decisive importance.

In the domestic philosophical literature, two main directions of activity-based analysis of culture have been formed: the system-technological direction of cultural research (M.S. Kagan, E.S. Markaryan) and the subject-activity direction (V.Zh. Kelle, M.Ya. Kovalzon, M. B. Turovsky, V. M. Mezhuev, etc.). Despite the controversy between M.S. Kagan and E.S. Markaryan, their position coincides in the main thing: culture expresses the technological component of people’s social life.

Another group of scientists connects the understanding of culture with the principle of activity. It is activity that is considered by V.Zh.Kelle and M.Ya.Kovalzon as an explanatory principle of culture. This position is confirmed by them in different periods of creativity: culture is nothing more than “as a specifically social way of life and self-development of a person,” and its study “is associated with the study of people’s activities ... and with the development of man himself”; /11/

“we accept the point of view that activity is the last foundation of culture; culture is created, exists and is reproduced in activity.”/12/

4. Culture is a special type of human activity. This is “the activity of people to reproduce and renew social existence, as well as its products and results included in this activity.”/13/

Attempts to connect the concept of culture with activity, including its results, certainly deserve attention. However, to consider culture as a variety of human activity means to follow the path of narrowing its substantive content. Culture is not only and not so much an activity as an introduction to it. The very moment of activity transforms people and their associations into subjects of culture, but the means or results of activity again do not exhaust all the richness and content of culture.

Thus, the essence of the philosophical understanding of culture lies in various attempts to holistically reveal its essence from the point of view of universal connections and patterns.

Anthropological approach

Specifics of anthropological research of culture

The most common understanding of culture in anthropology can be summarized as follows: it is a system of knowledge and beliefs inherited by members of a given society (community) and manifested at the behavioral level. This leads to the main anthropological conclusion: in order to understand the culture of a particular community, it is necessary to study its behavior in everyday life situations.

The specificity of the anthropological approach lies in the focus of the study on the holistic knowledge of man in the context of a particular culture. Moreover, it is necessary to highlight the most common research attitudes or vectors of knowledge in anthropological science: (1) “mirror reflection” as a direct reflection of the cultural world through observation; (2) anthropological reductionism as a whole series of versions or attempts to reduce the entire diversity of culture to the root causes (biological or historical forms), needs and universals; (3) symbolism as an expression of the otherness of culture in a symbolic form; (4) reflexivity, or the ability to express and record on a research “board” the conscious or unconscious states of the carriers of a certain culture. Let us briefly explain their content.

The first vector of anthropological research of culture is characterized by an attitude towards a “mirror reflection” of all its sides and features using visual and other means.

“Anthropology,” emphasizes K.M. Klahkon, “holds a large mirror in front of a person and gives the opportunity to look at oneself in all its boundless diversity.” /14/

This is why anthropology's favorite method is observation.

B. Malinovsky considered scientific research based on the method of field observation to be the real basis for the integration of all branches of anthropology as the only science of culture. For anthropologists at the beginning of the last century, the latter was a model for studying any culture. All generations of scientists who later became theoreticians had to go through this.

The cultural phenomena that are given to us directly in the process of observation contain objective and intersubjective connections, the comprehension of which requires a theoretical approach. Thus emerged various versions of anthropological reductionism (biologism, prehistory, universalism, functionalism, or functional analysis of culture), symbolism, and “reflexive” or interpretive theory.

An important condition for the anthropological knowledge of culture is the search for the biological prerequisites of culture and its pre-modern (traditional or primitive) forms. It is believed, for example, that every cultural phenomenon has its own biological analogue, a kind of “protoculture”. It is also believed that in the process of evolution, man went through all stages of cultural development. Therefore, in order to understand culture, it is necessary to study its primitive forms. It is this circumstance that has given rise to a very widespread misconception (even among specialists themselves) that anthropologists study only primitive societies and cultures. This is how the biological and historical versions of reductionism differ from each other.

The next direction of the anthropological reduction of culture is to find common and unchanging foundations or components characteristic of all times and peoples (cultural universals).

Another type of anthropological reductionism should be considered functionalism. Anthropologists were among the first to recognize the need for an objective analysis of the relationship between human needs and the means of satisfying them that culture develops and provides. The functional conditioning of cultural phenomena became the subject of close study by B. Malinovsky and other classics of anthropology.

However, the role of direct or participant observation in the study of cultural phenomena, including the importance of an objective analysis of their functional connections, should not be overestimated. Therefore, the third feature of the anthropological study of culture is, first of all, that culture cannot be comprehended only in a direct way, that is, by turning either to the external, sensory and observable facts of its existence, or by identifying the functional relationship between them and the corresponding human needs. The otherness of culture is presented in a system of symbolic means (symbols, cultural codes, etc.), which need to be deciphered and interpreted. Therefore, anthropologists pay great attention to the use of methods of semiotics and linguistics in the process of studying the language of culture. From the point of view of research methodology, this research setting is characterized by the unity of instrumental (or functional) and semiotic (or symbolic) aspects of analysis.

The fourth characteristic feature of the anthropological study of culture is the reflexive doubling of cultural reality, in the desire to reveal the conscious and unconscious states of cultural subjects. It is no coincidence that C. Levi-Strauss emphasized that the anthropologist builds his study of society and culture from the position of the observed. To know this position means to penetrate into the inner world of those being observed, to comprehend not only the state of their consciousness, but also the psychological origins of their symbolic or verbal behavior.

The concept of culture in anthropology

A detailed analysis of anthropological definitions of culture is already contained in a number of Western and domestic publications./15/

We will give only the most general overview, taking as a basis the systematization of A. Kroeber and K. Klahkon.

Descriptive definitions indicate the substantive content of culture. Example: culture consists of knowledge, beliefs, art, morality, laws, customs and some other abilities and habits acquired by a person as a member of society (E. Taylor).

Historical definitions emphasize processes of social inheritance and tradition. Example: culture is a socially inherited set of modes of activity and beliefs that make up the fabric of our lives (E. Sapir).

Normative definitions are divided into definitions based on the idea of ​​a lifestyle, and definitions based on ideals and values. Examples: culture is a way of life followed by a community, culture is a set of standardized beliefs and practices followed by a tribe (K. Whisler); culture is an outlet of excess energy in the constant realization of a person’s highest abilities (T. Carver).

The fourth group of definitions are psychological definitions. They emphasize either the process of adaptation to the environment or the process of learning and habit formation. Examples: behavior that must be acquired by each new generation through training (R. Benedict); the totality of all sublimations or reactions, in a word, everything in society that suppresses impulses and creates the opportunity for their perverted implementation (G. Rohaim).

Structural definitions characterize, respectively, the structural organization of culture. Examples: culture is the organized reactions of members of society to recurring situations and living conditions (R. Linton); culture consists of the socially standardized behavior and thinking of a certain group and the material products of its activities (J. Honigman).

A separate group of structural definitions is formed by the concepts of culture by A. Kroeber and K. Klahkon themselves, as well as L. White. In the understanding of the former, culture consists “of internally contained and externally manifested norms that determine behavior, mastered and mediated through symbols; it arises as a result of human activity, including its embodiment in material means. The essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically established) ideas, in first of all, those to which special value is attributed. Cultural systems can be considered, on the one hand, as the results of human activity, and on the other hand, as its regulators."/16/

In structural terms, L. White also gives his definition of culture. He characterizes culture as a special “class of objects and phenomena that depend on a person’s ability to symbolize, which is considered in an extrasomatic context.”/17/

The structure of culture covers only those connections that connect its individual phenomena, regardless of the human body.

As the research experience of foreign and domestic scientists shows, the anthropological understanding of culture is based on the following basic characteristics. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that none of the characteristics given below exhausts all the content and variety of manifestations of culture studied by anthropologists. On the contrary, they should be considered as interrelated and complementary features.

1. Culture is an institutionally specified method or system of ways to satisfy basic (organic) and derivative (artificial) human needs (the instrumental function of culture).

This approach was most fully developed by B. Malinovsky. Here are some fragments from his work “Scientific Theory of Culture”: “First, it is clear that the satisfaction of the organic or basic needs of man and race is the minimum condition for the existence of every culture... All these most important problems of human beings are solved for the individual through artifacts, through organization into cooperative groups, as well as through the development of knowledge, understanding of values ​​and ethics."/18/

On the basis of organic needs, imperative needs are formed or artificially grown - economic (material products), spiritual (ideas and values) and social ones (customs and norms). Further development of culture is impossible without the constant growth of new needs that it is designed to serve.

One more important fact should be noted, which is pointed out by B. Malinovsky. The process of satisfying human needs is carried out within the framework of certain institutions - standard units of organization of people's social life, which establish clear rules and prohibitions, traditions and customs. Without these institutional frameworks, it is difficult to imagine civilized forms of human consumption or communication.

2. Culture is a special form or variety of social behavior of people

B. Malinovsky, analyzing the substantive content of culture, comes to the conclusion: “Culture as the broadest context of human behavior is important both for a psychologist and for a social scientist, historian and linguist.”/19/

A formal analysis of anthropological definitions of culture conducted by A.K. Kafanya shows that they are based on one or another type of human behavior. /20/

This is socially inherited behavior, a learned form of behavior (R. Benedict, J. Steward, E. Davis, K. Klahkon, etc.), the ideal content of symbolic or verbal behavior of people (K. Wissler, J. Ford, etc. ), general or standardized behavior inherent in all members of the group (J. Gorer, K. Young, etc.), an abstract form of behavior (A. Kroeber, K. Klahkon, etc.), superorganic or extrasomatic behavior (L. White et al. .) etc.

3. Culture is the world of artifacts (the material nature of cultural objects).

An artifact is understood in science as an artificially created object or item. In cultural anthropology, an artifact is the material and symbolic embodiment of a cultural phenomenon or object.

An artifact cannot be separated from its cultural form and material substrate. It is created and exists only in the context of a specific culture. B. Malinovsky builds his assumptions on this argument. “The task of the researcher of prehistory and archaeologist,” he wrote, “is to reconstruct the completeness of the living reality of a past culture, based on the partial evidence that material traces provide.” /21/

Partial evidence or facts refer to the characteristics of the cultural form of an artifact, and material traces refer to the way it is expressed.

4. Culture is a world of meanings and meanings (the “interpretive” function of culture)./22/

(The concept of “meaning” literally means what is associated with thought, the mental content of an object or phenomenon. Meaning characterizes what this object exists for. In contrast to meaning, it expresses the objective function of the object, which it performs in the activities of people, in the process of their communication. In other words, the meaning contains an indication of the originality and identity of a particular phenomenon, and the meaning - its content. The same meaning can have several meanings. In the same way, the specific meaning of different linguistic expressions, as a rule, has more than one , but several shades of meaning)

This approach is shared by some Western and domestic researchers. The symbolic-interpretive approach of K. Geertz is the most complete and developed version of comprehending the semantic content of culture. According to this version, a person lives in a “web of meanings” - a system of meanings that orients him in relation to other people and the world around him as a whole. Therefore, in order to comprehend culture as a unique system of meanings, it is necessary to decipher the meanings of people’s actions and interactions./23/

From this point of view, culture is not an external force that determines human behavior, but the context of this behavior, in which only activity can be understood.

Further specifying the content of the above approach, A.A. Pilipenko and I.G. Yakovenko write: “Culture is a system of universal principles of meaning formation and the phenomenological products of this meaning formation themselves, which together determine the alien nature of human existence.”/24/

Cultural reality embodies the phenomenological (objectified) sphere of semantic space, which is determined through the introduction and interpretation of oppositions: “immanent - transcendental”, “discrete - continuous”, “sacred - profane”, etc.

5. Culture is the world of signs and sign systems (semiotic function of culture).

This understanding is close in content to the previous definition. However, there are some specific differences. Unlike meanings, signs and meanings are their symbolic intermediaries. /25/

(A sign is usually understood as an object intended for storing, processing and transmitting information about other objects)

They occupy a middle position between artifacts as material carriers of certain cultural forms and mentality as a way of mental reproduction and construction of reality (meaning-formation system).

Objects and phenomena that depend on a person’s ability to symbolize are called symbols by L. White. They are studied independently of the human body, that is, in an extrasomatic context.

Consequently, signs as elements of human meaning-making activity are included in the structural content of culture thanks to people’s ability to symbolize. They, unlike artifacts as material conductors, are symbolic conductors of activity, and in contrast to institutionally defined ways of satisfying human needs that mediate the interaction between the organism and the environment, they mediate the relationship between different classes of cultural phenomena, regardless of their biological prerequisites or material embodiments.

6. Culture is a unique mechanism built into the information process and producing and transmitting socially significant information (the communicative function of culture). In other words, the product of culture is social information that is developed and preserved in society using symbolic means. Although this understanding is not widespread in anthropology, it should be taken into account when constructing a scientific picture of the cultural world.

In anthropology, several general concepts that characterize the content of culture are usually identified and considered separately. These are the concepts of cultural traits and cultural universals, the concept of acculturation and dialogue of cultures, the concept of inculturation. Let's look briefly at some of them. /26/

(From our point of view, the most complete overview of the concepts of acculturation is contained in the textbook "Culturology", published in Rostov-on-Don, edited by G.V. Drach (author - G.A. Mendzheritsky). The concept of inculturation and research direction " culture-and-personality" are set out in the works on cultural and psychological anthropology of A.A. Belik (See: Belik A.A. Culturology. Anthropological theories of culture. M., 1998; Belik A.A., Reznik Yu.M. Sociocultural anthropology (historical and theoretical introduction). M., 1998, etc.)

Concept of cultural traits. Cultural universals

Cultural traits in anthropology are the basic units of culture. These are further indivisible units of culture (material products, works of art or patterns of behavior). They are divided, as A.I. Kravchenko shows, into universal, inherent in the entire human race, general, inherent in a number of societies and peoples, and unique or specific./27/

American cultural anthropologist J. Murdoch tried to identify and substantiate the fundamental characteristics of culture. He cites seven main features: (1) culture is transmitted through learning; it arises on the basis of learned behavior; (2) culture is instilled by education; (3) culture is social, that is, cultural skills and habits are shared by people living in organized groups or communities; (4) culture is ideational, that is, it appears in the form of ideal norms or patterns of behavior; (5) culture ensures the satisfaction of basic biological needs and secondary needs arising on their basis; (6) culture is adaptive, since it equips a person with mechanisms of adaptation to environmental conditions and to his fellow humans; (7) culture is integrative because it contributes to the formation of the team as a coherent and integrated whole.

Cultural universals express generic principles in culture. According to this concept, the basis or foundation of a cultural system is formed by universals - common features, characteristics or components of culture inherent in all countries, states and peoples, regardless of their geographical and socio-economic situation.

Thus, K. Wissler identified nine fundamental features inherent in all cultures: speech (language), material features, art, mythology and scientific knowledge, religious practice, family and social system, property, government, war.

In 1965, J. Murdoch identified over 60 universals of culture. These are the manufacture of tools, the institution of marriage, property rights, religious rites, sports, body decoration, joint labor, dancing, education, funeral rituals, hospitality, games, prohibitions of incest, hygiene rules, language, etc.

Murdoch's compatriot K. Klahkon believes that cultural universals are based on biological prerequisites (the presence of two sexes, the helplessness of infants, the need for food, warmth and sex, age differences between people, etc.). The views of J. Murdoch and K. Klahkon are close to each other. Therefore, it can be assumed that cultural universals are based on corresponding biological needs (for example, the helplessness of infants and the need for their care and education, recognized in all types of culture).

So, the anthropological approach is distinguished by extreme specificity, orientation towards the study of something else - “intermediate” layers and levels of culture, remote from its institutional core. In the first case, the anthropologist tries to find and point to extremely specific forms or units of culture, to which or thanks to which human life is decomposed into rationally constructed elements called cultural universals. In the second case, he seeks to determine the originality of these elements, distinguishing them from each other. Consequently, he is interested in both the general features of culture (cultural universals) and its specific features.

Sociological approach

General provisions

The essence of the sociological approach to the study of culture lies, firstly, in revealing societal connections and patterns of functioning and development of culture and, secondly, in identifying its social functions.

Culture in sociology is considered, first of all, as a collective concept. These are ideas, values ​​and rules of behavior common to a given team. It is with their help that collective solidarity is formed - the basis of society.

If we use the conceptual scheme of systems of social action by T. Parsons, then the societal level of culture can be considered as consisting of the following components: systems of production and reproduction of cultural patterns; systems of sociocultural presentation (mechanisms for the exchange of loyalty between team members); systems of sociocultural regulation (mechanisms for maintaining normative order and relieving tension between team members).

The problem field of the sociological study of culture is quite wide and diverse. Central themes of sociological analysis: culture and social structure; culture and way of life; specialized and ordinary culture; culture of everyday life, etc.

In sociology, as in social or cultural anthropology, three interrelated aspects of the study of culture exist and compete with each other - subject, functional and institutional. The substantive approach places emphasis, respectively, on the study of the content of culture (system of values, norms and meanings or meanings), the functional approach - on identifying ways to satisfy human needs or ways of developing the essential forces of a person in the process of his conscious activity, the institutional approach - on the study of "typical units" "or sustainable forms of organizing joint activities of people.

"Subject" perspective of sociological analysis of culture

Within this understanding culture is usually viewed as a system of values, norms and meanings that prevail in a given society or group.

One of the first developers of the subject-based approach in sociology can be considered P.A. Sorokin. Considering the structure of sociocultural interaction, he singles out culture - “the set of meanings, values ​​and norms that interacting persons possess, and the set of media that objectify, socialize and reveal these meanings.”/28/

The interpretations of famous Western sociologists N. Smelser and E. Giddens are also adjacent to the substantive understanding of culture.

N. Smelser defines culture as a system of “values, ideas about the world and rules of behavior common to people associated with a certain way of life.”/29/

Culture determines the specifics of human behavior, which, unlike the behavior of animals, is not determined by instincts and is not genetically programmed, but is the result of teaching and learning.

Close to this interpretation is the point of view of E. Giddens, who views culture as a system of values ​​adhered to this group people, the norms that its members follow, and the material wealth that they create./30/

So, culture sets the value, normative and symbolic framework or limits of their tribal life. Consequently, its purpose is to provide participants and subjects of social life with means of sociocultural regulation.

Functional and institutional aspects of cultural analysis in sociology

In sociology, functional analysis is developed along with the institutional study of society and social phenomena.

B. Malinovsky was the first to draw attention to this feature of anthropological and sociological knowledge of culture. Functional analysis is that analysis “in which we try to determine the relationship between cultural performance and human need - basic or derivative... For function cannot be defined otherwise than the satisfaction of needs through activities in which human beings cooperate, use artifacts and consume products."/31/

The second, institutional approach takes as its basis the concept of organization. “In order to solve any problem, to achieve any goal, human beings must organize themselves... Organization presupposes some very specific scheme or structure, the main factors of which are universal.”/32/ (Ibid.)

The institution, in turn, presupposes “agreement regarding a certain set of traditional values ​​for the sake of which human beings unite together.”/33/ (Ibid.)

The use of the specifics of both approaches (functional and institutional) to the study of culture is especially clearly seen in the definitions proposed by B. Malinovsky: it is defined in one case as “an integral whole, consisting of devices and consumer goods, of constitutional institutions for various social groups, of human ideas and crafts, beliefs and customs";/34/ (Ibid. p. 120.)

In another case, culture is understood as nothing more than “an integral composed of partially autonomous, partially coordinated institutions.” /35/ (Ibid. p. 121.)

It is integrated by a number of institutional features: community of blood, cooperation, specialization of activities, the use of power as a mechanism of political organization.

So, from the point of view of B. Malinovsky’s functional concept, culture can, firstly, be decomposed into specific institutions integrated into a single whole based on certain factors, and, secondly, considered as a means to satisfy human needs and achieve his goals.

Social functions of culture

Sociology has come closest to defining and revealing the most important social functions of culture - conservation, transmission and socialization.

1. Culture is a type of social memory of a community - a people or an ethnic group (conservation function). It includes places where social information is stored (museums, libraries, data banks, etc.), inherited patterns of behavior, communication networks, etc.

Among domestic researchers, Yu.M. Lotman and B. Uspensky, T.I. Zaslavskaya and R.V. Ryvkina adhere to this position. For the first of them, the concept of “culture” means the hereditary memory of the collective, expressed in a certain system of prohibitions and regulations. From the point of view of T.I. Zaslavskaya and R.V. Ryvkina, culture is a special social mechanism that allows one to reproduce standards of behavior that have been tested by historical experience and correspond to the needs of the development of society./36/

2. Culture is a form of translation of social experience (translation function).

Many Western and domestic sociologists are inclined to this understanding. They take as a basis the concepts of “social inheritance”, “learned behavior”, “social adaptation”, “complex of behavior patterns”, etc.

This approach is implemented, in particular, in structural and historical definitions of culture. Examples: culture is the totality of a person’s adaptations to his living conditions (W. Sumner, A. Keller); culture covers forms of habitual behavior common to a given group or society (K. Young); culture is a program of social inheritance (N. Dubinin).

3. Culture is a way of socializing people.

This cross-section of the impact of culture on a person is presented in many sociological works. It is enough just to cite the name of T. Parsons to show the level of theoretical elaboration of the above problem.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in sociology other social functions of culture are identified and considered (innovation, accumulation, control, etc.).

What are the shortcomings or limitations of the sociological approach to the study of culture? They can be reduced to one fairly widespread judgment in the sociological community: culture is what it does to people, uniting them into groups based on common values and ideals, regulating their relations with each other through norms and mediating their communications through symbols and meanings. In a word, sociologists who study culture associate this concept with the processes of social interaction between people, especially emphasizing the role of social determinants, underestimating the “internal” content of this complex phenomenon.

The incompleteness of the sociological analysis of culture is to some extent supplemented or compensated for by the anthropological approach. First of all, both approaches differ in the methodological positions of researchers.

As K. Levi-Strauss aptly noted, sociology strives to create a science of society from the point of view of the observer, and social anthropology tries to construct knowledge about society from the point of view of the observed./37/

The difference between anthropological and sociological approaches to the study of culture from the point of view of prevailing attitudes or orientations has already been given by us in a number of other works. /38/

In the most general form, the dividing line between them can be drawn using the following dichotomies: the desire to comprehend human activity from the point of view of its form (form of social interaction) in sociology or from the point of view of its content in anthropology; priority cognition traditional cultures in anthropology and culture of modern societies in sociology; orientation towards the study of “the other” (foreign cultures and customs) in anthropology and the study of “one’s own” (one’s own culture); the study of communality or community culture in anthropology and knowledge of the culture of large social groups in sociology; emphasis on the study of institutional aspects of culture in sociology and priority in the knowledge of extra-institutional cultural phenomena in anthropology; the study of the “systemic” organization of culture, as well as its specialized forms in sociology and the study of the culture of the life world and everyday life in anthropology, etc.

Among the above differences in theoretical approaches In sociology and social anthropology, the view of man and his culture through the prism of the content or form of his activity is especially important. This difference captures a subtle and difficult to comprehend line that separates culture and sociality.

Considering the limitations of one or another approach to the study of culture, it is necessary to develop an approach that would allow us to combine the cognitive capabilities of philosophy, anthropology and sociology as the main areas of knowledge about culture.

Let us summarize the preliminary results summarizing the material in this paragraph:

Modern knowledge about culture has many approaches to the study of culture; The most developed approaches include philosophical (philosophy of culture), anthropological (social and cultural anthropology) and sociological (sociology of culture);

Currently, a new, “integralist” approach is being formed, combining the cognitive capabilities of these areas of knowledge based on the methodology of complex analysis of culture;

With the aim of comparative characteristics of the above approaches to the study of culture, the following parameters are distinguished: a brief definition, essential features, typical structural components, main functions and preferred research methods;

The philosophical approach orients the researcher towards a holistic knowledge of culture by revealing its essence and formulating universal patterns of functioning and development; at the same time, philosophers consider culture as a “second nature” created by man, as a subjective-personal beginning of history, as a method and technology of human activity, as a special type of being or activity of people (creative, spiritual, etc.);

The anthropological approach is aimed, on the one hand, at the direct study of the material and symbolic facts of culture, and, on the other, at identifying common features and universals; anthropologists prefer to consider culture as a way of satisfying needs, as a form of socially inherited and learned behavior of people, as a world of artifacts - material traces from which one can restore the contours of the culture of the past and present, as a world of meanings and meanings that allow one to interpret cultural phenomena as a sign system, expressing the processes of meaning formation of people, finally, as an information process;

The sociological approach is aimed at studying the societal connections and patterns of culture, as well as at determining its main social functions - the implementation of the social memory of society, the translation of social experience, socialization, etc.; at the same time, sociologists use predominantly substantive, functional and institutional methods of analysis;

The fundamental demarcation of anthropological and sociological approaches to the study of culture is outlined along the following lines: emphasis on the study of the form or content of joint activities of people (sociology and anthropology, respectively); modern and traditional types culture; one’s own, that is, one’s own culture, and another, foreign culture; society and community; institutional and “latent”, non-institutional aspects of culture; specialized and ordinary forms, etc.;

Certain shortcomings and limitations of the analyzed approaches are partially or completely removed within the framework of the “integralist” or complex approach, which we will describe later.

Bibliography

culture philosophical anthropological phenomenological

To prepare this work, materials from the site were used http://history.km.ru/

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Concept and classification of types of culture. Features of material culture as a subject of study of the science of cultural studies. Elements of spiritual culture: morality, religion, science and law. The influence of technical means of communication on the process and culture of communication between people.

test, added 11/22/2011


Study of the material culture of the indigenous peoples of Kamchatka: Evens and Itelmens. Study of the material culture of the Evens and Itelmens through the study of homes, vehicles, clothing and shoes. Main industries: fishing, hunting, reindeer herding.

course work, added 12/05/2010


The emergence of calendar poetry in Siberia. Culture of the Siberian region. Specifics and problems of studying the calendar and ritual activities of Siberians. Main directions of studying Russian culture. Russian ritual folklore of Siberia. National holidays and rituals.

test, added 04/01/2013


Three-dimensional model of culture. Scope and features of everyday knowledge. Features of rational and irrational thinking. The incorrectness of contrasting spiritual and material culture. The relationship between social and spiritual culture, types and forms of morality.

abstract, added 03/24/2011


tutorial, added 01/16/2010


Definition and philosophical approaches to understanding culture. The relationship between material and spiritual culture. Cognitive, informative, communicative and regulatory functions of culture. Culturology as a science, its tasks, goals, subject and method of study.

abstract, added 12/12/2011


Subject of cultural studies. Getting to know world culture. Phenomenon of culture. Material, spiritual, historical culture. Complex and multi-level structure of culture. The diversity of its functions in the life of society and man. Broadcasting social experience.

course work, added 11/23/2008


Definition of culture, cultural concepts, its main forms. Culture as a way of transmitting social experience and a way of personal regulation. Historical development ideas about culture. The culture of primitive society, the development of ancient cultures.

abstract, added 10/27/2011


The relationship between culture and nature. The influence of culture on human freedom, on a person’s ability to act in accordance with his interests and goals, based on the knowledge of objective necessity. The noosphere is the sphere of interaction between nature and society.

abstract, added 12/11/2008


Periodization of the Renaissance and its characteristics. The originality of the material culture of the Renaissance. The nature of the production of objects of material culture. The main features of the style and artistic appearance of the era. Character traits material culture.

Yu.M. Reznik

1. Differentiation of approaches to the study of culture

Diversity of cultural knowledge

There is perhaps no other phenomenon that is so often discussed by scientists and philosophers as culture. There are many definitions of the concept “culture” in the scientific literature. It’s even difficult to list them all.

If we ignore the philosophical and scientific definitions of culture, we can highlight several aspects of culture as a way or sphere of human existence.

1. Culture appears where and when people, acquiring human traits, go beyond the limits of natural necessity and become the creators of their lives.

2. Culture arises and is formed as a set of answers to many questions and problematic situations in the social and natural life of people. This is a common “storehouse” of knowledge, tools and technologies developed by people to solve generally significant problems.

3. Culture generates and “serves” many forms of organization of human experience, providing them with the necessary resources and “channels” of feedback. Such diversity does not lead to blurring the boundaries of culture, but, on the contrary, makes social life more stable and predictable.

4. Culture represents a conceivable and inconceivable horizon of possibilities and alternatives for the development of man and society. As such, it determines the context and specific content of people's activities at each given moment of their existence.

5. Culture is the method and result of the symbolic and value-normative construction of reality, its cultivation according to the laws of the beautiful/ugly, moral/immoral, true/false, rational/supernatural (irrational), etc.

6. Culture is the method and result of self-generation and self-comprehension of a person, the existing world of his abilities and generic forces. A person becomes a person thanks to and through culture.

7. Culture is the way and the result of a person’s “penetration” into other worlds - the world of nature, the world of the divine, the worlds of other people, nations and communities within which he realizes himself.

One can continue listing the characteristics and qualities of culture without fully exhausting all the richness of its content.

We will try to highlight and justify the systemic definitions of culture that have developed today in various areas of social knowledge. In this case, several approaches should be distinguished - philosophical, anthropological, sociological and complex, or “integralist” (general theory of culture). /1/

(As a symbol for an “integrative” approach to the study of culture, we will consider the general theory of culture (GTC), or cultural studies in our understanding. With this approach, culture is considered as a system, that is, an integral set of phenomena and objects)

The difference between them can be summarized as follows (see Table 1).

Table 1.

The relationship between all of the above approaches should be considered, as in the case of a systematically complex study of personality, from the point of view of the relationship between the universal, the particular and the individual. /2/

(See: Reznik Yu.M. Man and society (experience of complex analysis) // Personality. Culture. Society. 2000. Issue 3–4.)

The difference between these approaches to the study of culture as a system can be reduced to the following: philosophy focuses on understanding the universal (generic) principles of the cultural system; social psychology views culture as an individual (that is, as an individual phenomenon), possessing signs of the universal and the particular (cultural styles); anthropology studies the individual and individual in culture through the prism of the universal or generic development of humanity (cultural traits and universals); Sociology, on the other hand, pays main attention to the manifestations of the special (typical) in culture, taking into account its individual/individual and universal development (cultural norms and values).

Philosophical approach

This approach has the broadest panorama of vision of culture. As is known, the philosopher considers any phenomenon from the point of view of integrity and existence, universal and value-rational (or subjectively meaningful). Philosophical analysis, in contrast to scientific knowledge, includes mental procedures that make it possible to express the subject under study in extremely broad categories, as well as through the prism of dichotomies - “ideal-real”, “natural-artificial”, “subjective-objective”, “structure-activity” " etc.

Philosophers and thinkers of all times have tried to determine the meaning or main purpose of culture, and only a few of them, in our opinion, have come close to its true understanding. For some, culture is the known in the world of the unknown, “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” For others, its meaning lies in the endless self-improvement of human nature, the continuous equipping of people with material, intellectual and spiritual means.

In the history of world philosophy of modern times, the concepts of culture are most fully represented in the philosophy of I. Kant, G. Herder, G. F. Hegel, the philosophy of life (A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, W. Dilthey, G. Simmel, etc.), philosophy of history (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, N.Ya. Danilevsky, etc.), neo-Kantian tradition (G. Rickert, W. Windelband, E. Cassirer, etc.), phenomenological philosophy (E. Husserl, etc.) , psychoanalysis (Z. Freud, K. Jung, etc.). These and other concepts are described in detail in a number of textbooks on the philosophy of culture and cultural studies and therefore there is no need to consider them in detail.

In modern Western philosophy, cultural studies are continued by M. Heidegger, representatives of structuralism and post-structuralism (M. Foucault, J. Lacan, J.-F. Lyotard, R. Barthes, etc.).

Here are just some of the most well-known definitions of culture found in modern philosophical literature: a general and universally accepted way of thinking (C. Jung); the process of progressive self-liberation of a person (E. Cassirer); what distinguishes humans from animals (V.F. Ostwald); a set of factors and changed living conditions, taken together with the means necessary for this (A. Gehlen); part of the environment created by man (M. Herskovich); system of signs (C. Morris, Yu. M. Lotman); a specific way of thinking, feeling and behaving (T. Elliot); a set of material and spiritual values ​​(G. Frantsev); “a single cross-section passing through all spheres of human activity” (M. Mamardashvili); method and technology of human activity (E.S. Markaryan); everything that a person creates, mastering the world of objects - nature, society, etc. (M.S. Kagan); socially significant creative human activity, taken in a dialectical relationship with its results (N.S. Zlobin); the production of man himself in all the richness of his connections with society (V.M. Mezhuev); the sphere of realization of ideal-value goals, the implementation of the ideal (N.Z. Chavchavadze); spiritual existence of society (L.Kertman); system of spiritual production (B.S. Erasov), etc./3/

(A detailed systematization of philosophical definitions of culture is given in the book by M.S. Kagan “Philosophy of Culture” (St. Petersburg, 1996).

Attempts by individual philosophers to reduce culture to “external” goods and conditions of people have yielded nothing. It “cultivates” not only physical nature, but also man from the inside, albeit with the help of material or symbolic intermediaries. In this sense, culture is the self-manifestation and self-disclosure of human nature in the objects of the material and spiritual world. Without this, it is difficult to understand the essence of culture.

As domestic researchers show, the philosophical study of culture presupposes striving for the fundamental foundations of human existence, for the depths of the people’s self-awareness.

(See: Culturology: Textbook / Edited by G.V. Drach. Rostov-on-Don, 1999. P. 74)

Within the framework of the philosophical approach today, several positions are distinguished that express different shades and semantic meanings of the concept “culture”. /5/

(We will dwell in more detail on the characteristics of the positions of domestic researchers who have made a significant contribution to the development of the philosophy of culture)

1. Culture is “second nature,” an artificial world, that is, created by man in his own image and likeness or for his own needs, not clearly dictated by natural necessity (as opposed to everything natural) and the power of instinct.

In the philosophical literature, attempts are made to indicate essential features that make it possible to record the qualitative difference between culture and nature. Its emergence was facilitated, according to P.S. Gurevich, by the use of fire and tools, the emergence of speech, methods of violence against oneself (taboos and other restrictions), the formation of organized communities, the formation of myths and images./6/