Development of culture in modern Russia. Features of the culture of modern Russia

Trends in the development of culture in the modern world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another internal trend in the evolution of culture is the transition from confrontation of “local”, “group”, “subjective” cultures to their dialogue. The 20th century introduced intense drama and a tragic sense of irreparable loss into the understanding of the cultural process. The idea of ​​discontinuity of culture and incomparability of cultures is most consistently embodied in the concept of O. Spengler. The perception of the cultures of individual social subjects as “sealed organisms” is based on the belief that each culture grows out of its own unique “proto-phenomenon” - a way of “experiencing life.” If in the theory of cultural-historical types, cultural circles, this approach is used when analyzing relations between cultures of different ethnic groups, then in left- and right-wing radical doctrines it is used when comparing cultures of different classes (the theory of “two cultures” in a class society), and in the doctrine “new left”, and then “right” - from the same positions the relationship between the “new” counterculture and the “old” culture is characterized. However, within the framework of the sociology of economic determinism, the carriers of incompatible, mutually exclusive cultures are classes, for the “new” ones - youth and the older generation. Conflict, mutual misunderstanding and rejection of cultures are seen as an absolute inevitability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The creation of modern culture by an individual presupposes its distance from both attempts to abandon the desire for integrity and from a false imitation of integrity. Internal contradiction and the desire to resolve it are the natural state of the spiritual life of the individual as a subject of culture. The one-dimensional person is replaced by a person who perceives contradiction not as a tragedy, but as a stimulus for the unfolding of the creative process.

Literature:

Main:

1. Babosov, E. M. General sociology: textbook. allowance / E. M. Babosov. -Minsk, 2006.

2. Babosov, E. M. Applied sociology: textbook. manual for universities / E. M. Babosov. - Minsk, 1999.

3. Babosov, E. M. Sociology. General sociological theory: textbook. manual for universities / E. M. Babosov. - Minsk, 1998.

4. Giddens, E. Sociology / E. Giddens. - M., 2004.

5. Lapin, N. I. General sociology: textbook. manual for universities / N. I. Lapin. -M., 2006.

6. Sociological encyclopedia / edited by. ed. A. N. Danilova. -Minsk, 2003.

7. Sociology: textbook. manual for universities / under general. ed. A. N. Elsukova. -Minsk. 2004.

Additional:

8. Durkheim, E. On the division of social labor. Method of sociology / E. Durkheim. - M., 1990.

9. Kirienko V.V. The mentality of modern Belarusians as a factor of social reform // Sociology. 1999. No. 1. pp. 35 – 57.

10. Kravchenko, A. I. Sociology: a reader for universities / A. I. Kravchenko. -M., 2002.

Trends in the development of culture in the modern world. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Trends in the development of culture in the modern world." 2017, 2018.

One of the most important problems for modern culture is the problem of traditions and innovation in the cultural space. The stable side of culture, the cultural tradition, thanks to which the accumulation and transmission of human experience in history occurs, gives new generations the opportunity to update previous experience, relying on what was created by previous generations. In traditional societies, the assimilation of culture occurs through the reproduction of samples, with the possibility of minor variations within the tradition. Tradition in this case is the basis for the functioning of culture, significantly complicating creativity in the sense of innovation. Actually, the most “creative” in our understanding of the process of traditional culture, paradoxically, is the very formation of a person as a subject of culture, as a set of canonical stereotypical programs (customs, rituals). The transformation of these canons themselves is quite slow. Such is the culture of primitive society and later traditional culture. Under certain conditions, the stability of a cultural tradition can be attributed to the need for the stability of the human collective for its survival. However, on the other hand, the dynamism of culture does not mean abandoning cultural traditions altogether. It is hardly possible for a culture to exist without traditions. Cultural traditions as historical memory are an indispensable condition not only for the existence, but also for the development of culture, even if it has great creative (and at the same time negative in relation to tradition) potential. As a living example, we can cite the cultural transformations of Russia after the October Revolution, when attempts to completely deny and destroy the previous culture led in many cases to irreparable losses in this area.

Thus, if it is possible to talk about reactionary and progressive tendencies in culture, then, on the other hand, it is hardly possible to imagine the creation of culture “from scratch,” completely discarding the previous culture and tradition. The question of traditions in culture and the attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only the preservation, but also the development of culture, that is, cultural creativity. In the latter, the universal organic is merged with the unique: each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about a work of art, an invention, etc. In this sense, replication in one form or another of what is already known, already created earlier is dissemination, not the creation of culture. The need to spread culture seems to require no proof. The creativity of culture, being a source of innovation, is involved in the contradictory process of cultural development, which reflects a wide range of sometimes opposing and opposing trends of a given historical era.

At first glance, culture, considered from the point of view of content, falls into various spheres: morals and customs, language and writing, the nature of clothing, settlements, work, education, economics, the nature of the army, socio-political structure, legal proceedings, science, technology , art, religion, all forms of manifestation of the “spirit” of the people. In this sense, cultural history becomes of paramount importance for understanding the level of cultural development.

If we talk about modern culture itself, then it is embodied in a huge variety of created material and spiritual phenomena. These are new means of labor, and new food products, and new elements of the material infrastructure of everyday life, production, and new scientific ideas, ideological concepts, religious beliefs, moral ideals and regulators, works of all types of art, etc. At the same time, the sphere of modern culture, upon closer examination, is heterogeneous, because each of its constituent cultures has common boundaries, both geographical and chronological, with other cultures and eras. The cultural identity of any people is inseparable from the cultural identity of other peoples, and we all obey the laws of cultural communication. Thus, modern culture is a multitude of original cultures that are in dialogue and interaction with each other, and dialogue and interaction occur not only along the present time axis, but also along the “past-future” axis.

But on the other hand, culture is not only the totality of many cultures, but also world culture, a single cultural flow from Babylon to the present day, from East to West, and from West to East. And first of all, with regard to world culture, the question arises about its further fate - is what is observed in modern culture (the flourishing of science, technology, information technology, regionally organized economy; and also, on the other hand, the triumph of Western values ​​- the ideals of success) , separation of powers, personal freedom, etc.) - the flourishing of human culture as a whole, or, conversely, its “decline”.

Since the twentieth century, the distinction between the concepts of culture and civilization has become characteristic - culture continues to carry a positive meaning, and civilization receives a neutral assessment, and sometimes even a direct negative meaning. Civilization, as a synonym for material culture, as a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature, certainly carries a powerful charge of technical progress and contributes to the achievement of an abundance of material wealth. The concept of civilization is most often associated with the value-neutral development of technology, which can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and the concept of culture, on the contrary, has come as close as possible to the concept of spiritual progress. The negative qualities of civilization usually include its tendency to standardize thinking, its orientation toward absolute fidelity to generally accepted truths, and its inherent low assessment of the independence and originality of individual thinking, which are perceived as a “social danger.” If culture, from this point of view, forms a perfect personality, then civilization forms an ideal law-abiding member of society, content with the benefits provided to him. Civilization is increasingly understood as synonymous with urbanization, overcrowding, the tyranny of machines, and as a source of dehumanization of the world. In fact, no matter how deeply the human mind penetrates into the secrets of the world, the spiritual world of man himself remains largely mysterious. Civilization and science by themselves cannot ensure spiritual progress; culture is needed here as the totality of all spiritual education and upbringing, which includes the entire spectrum of intellectual, moral and aesthetic achievements of mankind.

In general, for modern, primarily world culture, two ways to solve the crisis situation are proposed. If, on the one hand, the resolution of the crisis tendencies of culture is assumed along the path of traditional Western ideals - strict science, universal education, reasonable organization of life, production, a conscious approach to all phenomena of the world, changing the guidelines for the development of science and technology, i.e. increasing the role of the spiritual and moral improvement of man, as well as improvement of his material conditions, then the second way to resolve crisis phenomena involves the return of the human race either to various modifications of religious culture or to forms of life that are more “natural” for man and life - with limited healthy needs, a sense of unity with nature and space, forms of human existence free from the power of technology.

Philosophers of our time and the recent past take one position or another regarding technology; as a rule, they associate technology (understood quite broadly) with a crisis of culture and civilization. The mutual influence of technology and modern culture is one of the key problems to consider here. If the role of technology in culture is largely clarified in the works of Heidegger, Jaspers, Fromm, then the problem of the humanization of technology remains one of the most important unsolved problems for all of humanity.

One of the most interesting moments in the development of modern culture is the formation of a new image of culture itself. If the traditional image of world culture is associated primarily with ideas of historical and organic integrity, then the new image of culture is increasingly associated, on the one hand, with ideas of a cosmic scale, and on the other hand, with the idea of ​​a universal ethical paradigm. It is also worth noting the formation of a new type of cultural interaction, expressed primarily in the rejection of simplified rational schemes for solving cultural problems. The ability to understand someone else's culture and points of view, critical analysis of one's own actions, recognition of someone else's cultural identity and someone else's truth, the ability to incorporate them into one's position and recognition of the legitimacy of the existence of many truths, the ability to build dialogic relationships and compromise are becoming increasingly important. This logic of cultural communication also presupposes corresponding principles of action.

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.

Similar documents

Definition of the concept of “mass culture”, its appearance, essence, functioning, aspiration towards vulgarity - reduction of the ideal to the level of “average”, commonplace, everyday life. Postmodernism as a new cultural phenomenon and attitude to reality.

abstract, added 06/28/2010


Analysis of postmodernism in public life and its influence on the development of modern art. Philosophical and worldview orientations of postmodernism, their difference from other movements. Aesthetic specificity of postmodernism, its prospects for the future of humanity.

abstract, added 11/24/2009


Art in the space of culture. The laws of its functioning and social role, origin and types. Autonomy of art and the nature of the artistic image. Aesthetic values ​​and their role in society. Modernism and postmodernism in the art of the twentieth century.

abstract, added 05/20/2009


Development trends, humanistic principles and cultural ideals of the 20th century. The development of science, the ideas of a new space culture, the focus on scientific and rational knowledge of the world. Global problems of our time, the crisis of civilization and their reflection in culture.

course work, added 10/24/2009


The role of the "generation of 1898" in Spanish culture. Characteristics of stage genres in Spain at the beginning of the 20th century. Modernist trends in music and its unity with drama. The emergence of Spanish cinema and the manifestations of modernism in the film genre.

course work, added 12/29/2016


Ideological attitudes of communists in relation to artistic culture. The first post-October decade in the development of Russian culture. Totalitarianism and culture (30-50s). Sociocultural situation of the 60-70s. Soviet culture of the 80s.

abstract, added 05/14/2008


Trends in cultural globalization in modern culture. Functions of musical culture and its transformation in the modern world. Features of local musical and cultural traditions. Methods of their functioning in the conditions of modern Russian society.

thesis, added 07/16/2014


Periodization of the development of culture, its evolution and revolution using the example of domestic civilization. The main trends of postmodernism as an expression of disappointment in the ideals and values ​​of the Enlightenment. The significance of the "Silver Age" for the history of the Russian Federation.

Signs of modern culture: dynamism, eclecticism, ambiguity, mosaic, diversity of the overall picture, polycentricity, a break in its structure and the holistic hierarchy of the organization of its space. The development of information technology and the approval of the media shape public opinion and public spirit. The media reflect external, consumer, spiritual life, create certain ideas about the world, shape the destruction of traditionally valued qualities, and provide the effect of suggestion.

Main trends in the development of modern culture

The 20th century has ended... The century of the triumph of science and human intelligence, the century of paradoxes and shocks. He summed up the development of world culture. In this century, culture broke the bonds of regional or national isolation and became international. World artistic culture integrates the cultural values ​​of almost all nations.

A characteristic phenomenon of the twentieth century was a noticeable weakening of those social mechanisms on which people’s lives largely relied in past centuries. First of all, mechanisms of continuity in culture.

An individual strives to become independent, independent of cultural traditions, customs, established rules of etiquette, behavior, and communication. At the same time, internal freedom is increasingly being replaced by external freedom, the independence of the spirit is being replaced by the independence of the body, which gradually leads to a decrease in spirituality and the level of culture.

In modern philosophy and aesthetics, there are quite a lot of reasons that explain these processes. This is the accelerated progress of all aspects of material life, technology, and the industrial sphere, as a result of which a person did not have time to develop spiritually at the same pace. Consequently, he became superficial, in a hurry somewhere, having neither the time nor the strength to stop, peer, realize, and spiritually master the phenomena and facts of reality.

In other cases, technology was reproached with its naked rationalism, technocratic thinking that recognizes nothing but open pragmatism. They also reproached those who found themselves in power, at the levers of managing society, because they, often not possessing proper culture themselves, do not have the opportunity to correctly assess its meaning, and skimp on culture, thereby stimulating degeneration and degradation.

It is likely that all these parallel developing processes have a common root - the weakening of ties between generations in culture. As a result, spiritual culture suffered, and consequently, man suffered, because he was devalued as an individual, his life, nature, and environment were devalued.

What happens to art in the twentieth century? One should not proceed from the naive thought that art “suddenly became bad, decaying, base.” It can never become such without changing its essence, since in all eras it expresses the desire for the spiritual development of man and fights for humanity to carry through all the vicissitudes of history its main achievement - spirituality. And today art is not dying, it is in search of new forms, a new language - in order to find a way to express new spiritual processes that reflect the modern era.

Traditions of humanism. The ideals and attitudes of modern European culture are a fusion of what was discovered by humanity in past centuries and what was achieved by the end of the 20th century.

What forms of social life, patterns of activity, ways of feeling and perceiving the world were weeded out by the “sieve of time”, what basic cultural values ​​were perceived in the 20th century?

Humanistic principles and ideals have become widespread in modern European culture. Humanism is a fairly diverse concept. For example, Renaissance humanism, which affirmed the power and freedom of the creative human spirit, was elitist because its morality was individualistic, relevant to a select few.

The essence of modern humanism is its universality: it is addressed to all people, proclaiming the right of everyone to life, prosperity, and freedom. In other words, this is not elitist, but democratic humanism.

The humanistic orientation of modern culture manifests itself in various “spheres” of modern society - economic, moral, political, artistic, etc. This trend determined, in particular, the formation of political culture. Her values

first recorded in 1789. A comparison of two documents - the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” (XVIII century) and the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (XX century) - shows that the ideas developed during the era of the French Revolution are now accepted in as an ideal by the states of the United Nations.

An article-by-article comparison of the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” (a) and the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (b) provides a lot of interesting information in understanding the formation of a humanistic political culture.

Article 1. “People are born and remain free and equal in rights” (a). Article 1. All people are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (b).

Article 2. “The purpose of every political union is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights are: freedom and security, resistance to oppression” (a). These provisions are contained in articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9.14 (b).

Articles 7,8,11 proclaim freedom of the individual, freedom of conscience, speech and press (a). These provisions are contained in Articles 12, 18, 19 (b).

Article 3. “The source of all sovereign power is always in the nation.” The addition of 1793 proclaimed the duties of society to find work for the poor, provide means of subsistence for the disabled, and take care of the education of all citizens (a). Article 21. “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government.” The remaining provisions are contained in Articles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (b).

The idea of ​​universal equality was put forward by Christianity. Christ taught: everyone is equal before God, for every person, regardless of his social status, has an immortal soul. However, the Christian idea of ​​equality is rather mystical in nature. After all, people are equal not in real life, but in the afterlife.

Modern humanism focuses on achieving the possibilities of equality in real, everyday life. First of all, this is manifested in the democratization of public life and the development of civil society. More and more people are becoming involved in public life as active subjects of social organization.

But these processes also have a negative side; a person becomes too civilized to the detriment of his culture. In this regard, an outstanding humanist and thinker of the 20th century. A. Schweitzer spoke with alarm about the process of cultural degradation. It is also negatively affected by the over-organization of our social conditions. As true as it is that organized society is a prerequisite and at the same time a consequence of culture, it is so obvious

that at a certain stage the external organization of society begins to be carried out at the expense of spiritual life. Personality and ideas fall under the power of the institutions of society, instead of influencing them and keeping them alive. And this leads to a crisis of humanism, a deformation of a person’s personal self-worth. Such a crisis is also associated with the problems of material and spiritual life that appeared in the Middle Ages.

Scientism and technocratism. Another important result of the development of culture, adopted by modern Europe, is the orientation towards scientific and rational knowledge of the world and the associated sociocultural system - science. Already in the 19th century. The first signs appear that science has become a global, leading force in the development of society, uniting the efforts of scientists from different countries. Expanding the scope of application of scientific achievements at the beginning of the 20th century. led to changes in the lives of tens of millions of people living in industrialized countries. But the passion for science, its dominance in the system of spiritual and material values ​​quickly showed its negative sides associated with the impoverishment of the spiritual-emotional, irrational life of a person. The problem of “physicists” and “lyricists” formulated a contradiction that manifested itself in the opposition of two attitudes - scientistic and anti-scientist.

The basis of scientism (from lat. scientia- knowledge, science) lies the idea of ​​scientific knowledge as the highest cultural value. Scientists claim: science, as an absolute standard, is capable of solving all the problems facing humanity - economic, political, moral, etc. Indeed, modern science has penetrated into all spheres of modern society, permeating not only industry, agriculture, but also politics, administrative and military activities. However, not everything in the world is science. There is the sphere of art, faith, human feelings, relationships.

Antiscientism appeared as a reaction to the exaggeration of the role of science. It is characterized by belittling the importance of scientific knowledge, blaming science for causing all sorts of crises - economic, environmental, national. Anti-scientists claim: “Science is the plague of the 20th century.” The situation that arose was described by C. P. Snow in the famous book “Two Cultures.” He noted that the confrontation in question divided everyone into two camps: at one pole - the artistic intelligentsia, at the other - scientists and, as the most prominent representatives of this group, physicists. They are separated by a wall of misunderstanding and sometimes (especially among young people) antipathy and hostility. They have a strange idea about each other. They're so different

refer to the same things that cannot find a common language even in the field of feelings.

The type of scientific and technical culture that initially developed in Europe and then spread throughout the world gave a lot to man for the development of his freedom; first of all, in material life, the technogenic civilization that arose from the ruins of the Middle Ages fully developed. The culture of this civilization was formed on the basis of such relations between man and nature, when man sought to break out of dependence on nature, and the highest values ​​of culture were recognized as the dominance of man over nature, renewal, and the increase in technological and scientific knowledge. The development of technology and technology as a tool for human domination over nature have become the main goals and criteria of social progress.

The global scientific and technical integrity that emerged in the 20th century marked the beginning of the economic unification of the world and the transfer of advanced methods of production culture to all corners of the globe. We are witnessing the growing internationalization of economic relations. One of the expressions of this process has become transnational corporations with their uniform forms of organizational culture operating in dozens of countries and on various continents. These corporations account for more than a third of industrial production, more than half of foreign trade, and almost 80% of new equipment and technologies. The increasing internationalization of life in the modern world is evidenced by the all-encompassing nature of the scientific and technological revolution and the fundamentally new role of mass media and information.

The technogenic attitude towards nature as a means of satisfying not spiritual, but purely technical needs became widespread in the first half of the 20th century. one of the leading trends in the development of European culture. An optimistic worldview, conditioned by the successes of scientific thought, embodied in global industry and technology, served as the basis for the emergence of the characteristic human nature of the 20th century. sensations of the cosmic nature of one’s existence.

However, European culture of the 20th century. reflected the crisis into which technogenic civilization was slowly entering. Modern society, which has given birth to a new type of civilization - industrial society - has led to the dominance of impersonal economic, political, technological structures over living human activity, the individual “I” of genuine culture.

As already noted, technological civilization is based on such a relationship between man and nature, in which nature

is an object of human activity, an object of exploitation, and unlimited. It is characterized by a type of development that can be expressed in one word - “more.” The goal is to accumulate more and more material goods, wealth and, on this basis, solve human problems - social, cultural, etc.

Technogenic civilization is characterized by the idea that nature is inexhaustible precisely as an object of human exploitation. Understanding the depth of the environmental crisis has shattered this idea.

The ideological and scientific-theoretical movement of recent decades has posed the problem of creating a new ecological culture. The environmental crisis has outlined the boundaries of the existing type of economic development. There was a need for new relationships with nature and between people. Considering the modern spiritual situation, Yu. Bochensky identified four of the most important issues facing humanity.

What place does man occupy in Space?

Is there progress?

What is the value of science?

How great is the strength or powerlessness of a person?

Modern answers to these questions are very pessimistic. First, astronomy has shown that the Earth is only a small fragment of the Cosmos as a whole, for beyond the Milky Way there are billions and billions of similar galaxies, the distance between which is measured in millions of light years. For the anthropocentrism of past centuries, cultures, when man was placed at the center of the Universe, this discovery is catastrophic: the myth about the unique qualities of man, the uniqueness of life in the Universe is overthrown. It follows that man cannot be considered as the focus of universal forces.

Humanity is just a speck of dust on the outskirts of existence. The new spiritual situation does not allow us to think anthropocentrically. Modern culture is built on different foundations.

Secondly, the idea of ​​the irreversibility and growth of social progress is radically destroyed. Since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the value of science and scientific and technological progress has been called into question.

One of the methodological approaches that conceptually comprehends the ongoing changes was the idea of ​​the Japanese sociologist E. Masuda. In 1945, he proposed, what seemed fantastic to many at the time, the theory of the “information society.” This is society

united by a single information network, thanks to which humanity has the opportunity to develop common goals, and humans have the opportunity to demonstrate their creative capabilities. The introduction of new information technologies, primarily computer technology and telecommunications systems, has shown that the concept of the information society is not at all utopian.

A new information culture is emerging - a concept used to designate this level of organization of information processes, the degree of intensity of information communication and approaches, the nature of the creation, collection, storage, processing and dissemination of information, which ensure the formation of information as the main cultural resource of social development and human life. , replacing the industrial resource.

All the phenomena and processes considered are far from unambiguous and lead to serious problems in the modern development of world culture. At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. The spirit of the times also causes skepticism about the capabilities of the computer; the exact sciences are no longer considered omnipotent. Hence the feeling of powerlessness that has gripped humanity in the face of the almost uncontrollable forces of scientific and technological progress caused by it. In the most vivid form, these sentiments are expressed in the pessimistic philosophy of existentialism, where human existence is tragic and hopeless.

Postmodernism. In this regard, in the middle of the 20th century. There have been fundamental changes in the nature of Western culture - a special type of worldview is being affirmed, focused on the formation of a living space in which the main values ​​are freedom in everything, spontaneity of human activity, denial of norms and traditions, rejection of authorities, rules, and especially the omniscience of reason . The uncertainty of life, its playful nature, permissiveness, and irrationalism are growing. The role of searching for patterns is sharply decreasing, interest in everyday life, life “here and now”, and novelty as such is growing. The single style of culture is being destroyed, and cultural pluralism is blossoming.

This new culture grows out of the transformation of systems characteristic of classical European industrial society, which outwardly determine the life of an individual. A person does not want to be an element of technological, economic or political systems, where his activities are strictly determined by qualities external to his personal culture. This rigid, deterministic scheme not only weakens - a fundamentally new situation arises, meaning that socio-economic development depends on the state of the spiritual world of the individual, on his development and sociocultural aspirations.

This situation is caused not only by global threats to the existence of humanity, but also by a radical revolution in the system of “man-production” relations. The modern economy is innovative in nature. This means that material and material factors of production cease to be the main carrier of values, as they become obsolete every 3-4 years. Tools, machines, machine tools, production lines are changing literally before our eyes. The main factor in updating production and making a profit is man, his intellectual and creative capabilities. The development of personal qualities, creativity and capabilities, and the education of a highly qualified workforce becomes the most profitable investment of capital. As a result, the social subject becomes increasingly independent from the base, and its freedom increases. In modern society, human choice turns out to be the decisive determinant of socio-historical development.

Mass and elite culture. Rapid cultural changes of the 20th century. are also expressed in the division of artistic culture. If until the middle of the 19th century. Since it was almost exclusively the lot of the free and wealthy upper strata of society, and the people were content with “folklore” culture, then with the rapid growth of the “middle class” the situation is changing dramatically. In cities there are a large number of people who have some free time and money (after working in a factory, in a store) for entertainment and recreation, for consuming works of art that are affordable to them in terms of quality (difficulty of perception) and price.

Demand gives rise to supply, and free spiritual creativity is replaced by the so-called “spiritual production”, living according to the laws of the market. The technical capabilities of reproducing cultural works (radio, cinema, printing, then audio and video products, television), the growing market for these works also makes cultural production a business. Its main goal, like any other business, is to make a profit. Hence the focus on mass production, not of works of art, but of “cult goods”: in business, the main thing is not artistic value, but income, which is immeasurably higher with the mass “stamping” of such goods.

Profit growth depends on sales volume. That is why in mass culture it is so important not to satisfy artistic needs, but to form them, educate them, and prepare the consumer. In addition, mass production presupposes the availability of cultural goods, therefore their production is based on feelings, emotions, needs, etc., inherent in the maximum possible number of consumers. They want to be “in culture” and not strain themselves, so mass culture is a production

simple, publicly available, recognizable, effortlessly perceived artistic images in order to obtain maximum profits. (A striking example is advertising, show business, the main products of Hollywood, comics, detective stories, rock music).

It is important to distinguish mass culture from folk culture. The latter is based on artistic traditions, archetype images (fairy tales, folk songs), while the mass one is based on marketability, the venality of art, which ceases to be creativity for the soul, but becomes a matter for money.

Of course, not all artists greeted these market (“bazaar”) processes with enthusiasm. As a kind of reaction to the inevitable sharp drop in the artistic level in the production of mass culture (which is more than convincingly evidenced, for example, by modern popular music, television series, etc.), a desire arises on the part of some artists to engage in “high” art, art for art’s sake, understandable only to a narrow circle of “select” and not generating monetary income. This is an elitist culture (the elite is the best part); it is designed, so to speak, for “internal” use and often fundamentally strives to complicate its language, to make it inaccessible to most people, perceived only by a select few. This is how the artistic avant-garde is born, characterized by extreme individualism, a bold search for new forms and ideas, and a rejection of traditions. The consumers of elite art are either its creators themselves, or representatives of the political and economic elite, seeking to show their elevation above the crowd.

There is a complex interaction between mass and elite culture (the former, in one way or another, feeds the latter materially, and the elite mass culture – ideologically and figuratively). Each of them has the right to exist, it is only important not to be limited by the framework of mass culture, to strive not only for entertainment, but also for artistic growth and enrichment. The latter is primarily ensured by the perception of the so-called classical (exemplary) culture, represented by the best works of human genius that have stood the test of time.