2 general provisions of the foundations of state cultural policy. Analysis of the projects “Fundamentals of state cultural policy”

Fundamentals of state cultural policy(materials and proposals for the project)

The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation sent materials and proposals for the draft program “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” to the Presidential Administration. On its basis, the project itself will be prepared, after which wide public discussion will begin.

“...Our movement forward is impossible without spiritual, cultural, national self-determination, otherwise we will not be able to withstand external and internal challenges, we will not be able to achieve success in the conditions of global competition» (V.V. Putin, Valdai Club, 09/19/2013).

1. It seems necessary to include a definition of the concept of “culture” in the document being developed.

The reproduction of a social system is impossible without the transmission from generation to generation of the most general ideas about the world order, about what is proper and what is unacceptable - that is, without consolidating the system of values characteristic of a given society. The absence of such a value system leads to the formation of an ideological vacuum, filled randomly, to a split in society, to the adoption by various social groups and individuals of value systems characteristic of other cultures, including those incompatible with the existence of a given society.

It seems that the perception of the system of values characteristic of a given society and the education of morality are carried out through familiarization with culture. At the same time, the term “culture” is understood as a historically developed system of values and norms of behavior, enshrined in the tangible and intangible cultural and historical heritage.

Thus, it is culture in the above understanding of this term that is the unifying basis of Russian society.

The idea of a value system can also be expressed through the concept of a “single cultural and civilizational code.” According to the Passport of the state program of the Russian Federation “Development of culture and tourism” for 2013 - 2020. (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2012 No. 2567-r), the national “cultural code” is “a system of original, dominant values, meanings and views in society (knowledge, abilities, skills, intellectual, moral and aesthetic development, worldview, forms of communication, spiritual enlightenment), formed in the process of historical civilizational development, accepted as a generally accepted norm for self-identification of people, regardless of their ethnicity, and passed on from generation to generation through upbringing, education and training.”

Accordingly, one of the priority expected results of the implementation of the state program “Development of Culture and Tourism” for 2013 - 2020. is the formation among citizens of the Russian Federation of “worldview, social consciousness, behavioral norms that hold the nation together.”

2. It seems necessary to be based on the principle of historicism when developing the foundations of state cultural policy.

First, as a unifying principle of the emerging people, a common worldview arises, based on a specific system of values: a common understanding of good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable, primary and secondary. Then, on this ideological basis, a “spiritual and cultural matrix” of a given people is formed, including cultural, moral, aesthetic and ethical norms, and a national approach to the understanding of beauty. Only then can “local cultural environments” of various communities with their own subcultures emerge from a given culture.

From this approach, in particular, it follows that when pursuing a responsible state cultural policy, only those cultural directions and “local cultural environments” that correspond to the value system adopted in a given state should be encouraged and developed. According to V.R. Medinsky, “let a hundred flowers bloom, but we will water only those that are useful to us” .

3. It seems necessary to base the development of the foundations of state cultural policy on the civilizational principle.

This means a rejection of the point of view that is characteristic primarily of the “liberal-Western” trend in science and which postulates the unity of the development path of all races, nations and other social organisms. Representatives of this trend, as a rule, consider “Western” development as ideal, and all others as deviations from the only correct path.

In contrast to the described approach, the works of a number of thinkers (Danilevsky, Toynbee, Gumilyov, Huntington) substantiate the civilizational principle: humanity is a collection of large communities (super-ethnicities, civilizations, cultures), differing from each other in their attitude to the surrounding world, their value systems and , accordingly, their culture.

Russia, within the framework of this approach, should be considered as a unique and original civilization, not reducible to either the “West” (“Europe”) or the “East”. A brief formulation of this position is the thesis: “Russia is not Europe,” which is confirmed by the entire history of the country and people, as well as numerous cultural and civilizational differences between representatives of Russian (Russian) culture and other communities. (Almost all authors dealing with this topic indicate the existence of such differences.)

In his recent speeches, V.V. points out significant differences between the cultural trends prevailing in the West and traditional values in Russia. Putin.

« We see how many Euro-Atlantic countries have actually taken the path of abandoning their roots, including the Christian values that form the basis of Western civilization. Moral principles and any traditional identity are denied: national, cultural, religious or even gender. A policy is being pursued that puts large families and same-sex partnerships, faith in God or faith in Satan on the same level. The excesses of political correctness go so far that there is serious talk about registering parties whose goal is to promote pedophilia. People in many European countries are ashamed and afraid to talk about their religious affiliation. Holidays are even canceled or called as‑ then according to‑ to another, bashfully hiding the very essence of this holiday - the moral basis of these holidays. And they are trying to aggressively impose this model on everyone, the whole world. I am convinced that this is a direct path to degradation and primitivization, a deep demographic and moral crisis.”

Probably, the document being developed should briefly list those values that are characteristic of Russian culture - with an emphasis not on the detail of this list, but on the fact that these values are traditional for our society.

“Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the norms of morality and ethics that have been formed over millennia, people will inevitably lose human dignity. And we consider it natural and correct to defend these values. It is necessary to respect the right of any minority to be different, but the right of the majority should not be called into question” (speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

“Today in many countries the norms of morality and morality are being revised, national traditions and differences between nations and cultures are being erased. From society they now demand not only a healthy recognition of everyone’s right to freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also a mandatory recognition of the equivalence, strange as it may seem, of good and evil, concepts that are opposite in meaning. Such destruction of traditional values “from above” not only leads to negative consequences for societies, but is also fundamentally anti-democratic, since it is carried out based on abstract, abstract ideas, contrary to the will of the popular majority, which does not accept the ongoing changes and the proposed revision.

And we know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on protecting traditional values, which for thousands of years have formed the spiritual, moral basis of civilization, of every nation: the values of the traditional family, genuine human life, including religious life, life not only material , but also spiritual, the values of humanism and the diversity of the world.

Of course, this is a conservative position. But, in the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, the meaning of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward, but that it prevents movement backward and downward, to chaotic darkness, a return to the primitive state" (Message from the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to the Federal Assembly, 12/12/2013).

“Culture, along with education, shapes the human capital of our country. This is part of our historical code, national character. And therefore, state cultural policy should cover all aspects of life, promote the preservation of traditional values, strengthen deep spiritual ties with the native country, increase trust between people, their responsibility and civic participation in the development of our state.” (V.V. Putin, speech at an extended meeting of the presidium of the Council for Culture and Art, Pskov, 02/03/2014).

4. It seems necessary to base the development of the foundations of state cultural policy on the principle of continuity.

In the 20th century, two powerful attempts were made to change the cultural and civilizational identity of Russia: by the communists in 1917 and by supporters of the “liberal-Western” path of development in the late 1980s - 1990s. As seen and noted by all researchers, Russian and foreign, both attempts to break traditional identity were unsuccessful. A definite confirmation of this thesis is the very fact of the development of the document in question, and this should be stated in the text of the fundamentals of state cultural policy.

“We should be proud of our history, and we have a lot to be proud of. Our entire history, without exception, should become part of Russian identity. Without recognition of this, mutual trust and the movement of society forward are impossible.» (speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

5. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about the state as an active subject of cultural policy.

This understanding of the term “culture” returns us to the original meaning of this word (from the Latin “I cultivate”): the task of the state becomes the “cultivation”, “cultivation” of modern man and society as a whole in accordance with common spiritual, moral, aesthetic values.

The constitutional basis of a unified state policy in the field of culture is the following:

Article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that the Russian Federation is responsible for establishing the foundations of federal policy in the field of cultural development of the Russian Federation;

Article 114 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that the Government of the Russian Federation ensures the implementation of a unified state policy in the field of culture in Russia.

The regulator in this area (the Ministry of Culture of Russia) carries out its activities through a system of cultural institutions, creates legal, economic, information and other conditions for the implementation of modern creative and socio-cultural projects.

The specific tasks of the state can be divided into three groups:

1) in the field of preserving heritage and updating it, involving it in professional, educational, and leisure activities, ensuring free access to it for citizens, introducing the latest technologies for accessing heritage;

2) in the sphere of ensuring the activities of cultural institutions, including by increasing the level of wages, optimizing the personnel training system, optimizing activities and increasing extra-budgetary income, as well as ensuring compliance of the content with the stated objectives of the state cultural policy;

3) in the field of state support for creative projects, the formation of criteria and systems for selecting projects that contribute to the preservation of a single cultural code and its transmission to new generations of Russians.

In light of the above, it is important to point out the incorrectness of the “reactive” approach to state cultural policy. Carrying out any policy by reacting to certain “threats”, “challenges” or events is obviously doomed to failure due to the lack of goal-setting and initiative. The true goal of state cultural policy is not to “respond to threats,” but to purposefully shape the national mentality.

From the above, it also inevitably follows the task of pursuing a unified cultural policy not only in the sphere falling within the powers of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, but also in the most important related sectors - in the field of education, youth policy, migration policy, and especially in the media. A thesis about this must be present in the document being developed.

6. It seems appropriate to include in the document being developed a thesis about the rejection of the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance.

Preservation of a single cultural code requires the abandonment of state support for cultural projects that impose value norms alien to society.

As noted above, the basis of the historical unity of the inhabitants of the Russian Federation is the community of culture, understood as a historically developed system of values and norms of behavior, reflected in the tangible and intangible cultural and historical heritage.

The peoples integrated into the Russian state in the process of its creation accepted this common culture, while simultaneously abandoning national and cultural features unusual for Russian culture. Thus, the inclusion of the territories of the North Caucasus into the Russian Empire was accompanied by a gradual rejection of the peoples inhabiting them from a number of norms of the Sharia culture of that time - such as blood feud, polygamy, slavery, etc.

Historically, Russia's power lay in the ability to understand and appreciate the heritage of its great neighbors - both the wisdom of the East and the pragmatism of the West - but the choice of the Russian path has always been made on the basis of those spiritual constants that have long been inherent in Russia.

This implies a categorical rejection of the ideology of “multiculturalism.” Without denying the right of any nationality to preserve its ethnographic identity, it is unacceptable to impose value norms alien to Russian society.

No reference to “freedom of creativity” and “national identity” can justify behavior that is considered unacceptable from the point of view of Russia’s traditional value system. This does not mean restricting freedom of speech and the rights of citizens, but it does require denying government support to individuals and communities who demonstrate behavior that is contrary to cultural norms. In case of violation of the current legislation and the rights of other citizens, appropriate preventive measures must be applied to such individuals and communities.

Accordingly, when implementing state cultural policy, priority should be given to emphasizing the cultural unity of the peoples of Russia, rather than the differences of national cultures. Taking care of maintaining national cultural characteristics is the right of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In a speech at a meeting of the presidium of the Council for Culture and Art in Pskov on 02/03/2014, V.V. Putin noted that “...we must consider the problems of all cultural genres in the context of the formation of a single unique cultural space of our country.”

So it is in the state program “Development of Culture and Tourism” for 2013–2020. it is stated that support for the diversity of national cultures of the peoples of Russia (one of the key expected results of the implementation of the state program) is carried out precisely “on the basis of a single cultural code.”

This interpretation also determines the correct attitude towards the concept of “tolerance”. This term is usually understood as tolerance for a different worldview, lifestyle, behavior and customs, religion, nationality. It seems, however, necessary to determine the boundary beyond which commitment to tolerance leads to the capitulation of Russian identity to value systems alien to it.

Unfortunately, calls for tolerance are often perceived as legitimizing any form of behavior, regardless of their acceptability from the point of view of the common culture and value system of Russians. This blocks the efforts of the constructive majority of society aimed at preventing socially dangerous standards of behavior, as well as countering the imposition of cultural and value norms that pose a danger to the reproduction of Russian culture and society as a whole.

Tolerance towards representatives of other religions, races and nationalities is a traditional feature of Russian (Russian) culture. This is confirmed by the entire history of the Russian people and the Russian state. The reproduction of this value norm is achieved through the implementation of appropriate cultural policies.

At the same time, the term “tolerance” in its modern understanding does not allow for a clear distinction between racial, national and religious intolerance, on the one hand, and intolerance towards social phenomena that are alien and dangerous from the point of view of Russian society and its inherent values, on the other hand. on the other hand, which leads to the inappropriateness of using the term “tolerance” for the purposes of state cultural policy.

“And this is absolutely objective and explainable for a state like Russia, with its great history and culture, with centuries-old experience of not the so-called tolerance, sexless and sterile, but the joint, organic life of different peoples within the framework of one single state.” (Message from the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to the Federal Assembly, December 12, 2013).

7. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about the decisive significance of cultural identity in the context of global competition.

Globalization means not just the mutual influence of cultures, but their confrontation in all spheres - economic, political, cultural, etc. In this confrontation, our main trump card is our unique civilizational identity, expressed in our historical and cultural heritage and in our value system. Thanks to this identity, the Russian state has survived for more than a thousand years of history; Accordingly, maintaining this identity in the face of global confrontation is the most important task.

Therefore, the enrichment of Russian culture in interaction with the cultures of other peoples is permissible only insofar as this does not erode the basic value core of our culture.

This also implies the need to fight for the preservation and development of Russian culture and the Russian language both inside and outside the Russian Federation, primarily in the states of the post-Soviet space.

“You need to be strong militarily, technologically, economically, but that’s all‑ However, the main thing that will determine success is the quality of people, the quality of society - intellectual, spiritual, moral. After all, in the end, economic growth, well-being, and geopolitical influence are derived from the state of society itself, from how citizens of a particular country feel like a single people, how rooted they are in their history, in values and traditions, Do they share common goals and responsibilities?” (speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

8. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about culture as the basis of social well-being.

A person’s spiritual well-being directly affects his physical condition and the socio-demographic situation in society. (Among the researchers of this problem, one can point to G. I. Rossolimo and M. Nordau; among modern ones, I. A. Gundarov, S. G. Kara-Murza.) The lack of a worldview or the inculcation of alien values (including through the means of pseudo-art) leads to mental ill-being, which manifests itself through an increase in crime, alcoholism, drug addiction; through an increase in morbidity and mortality, a reduction in life expectancy; through an increase in the number of suicides and children abandoned by parents, etc.

And vice versa: treasures of cultural heritage, works of art and effective sociocultural projects have a direct impact on specific parameters of human capital, forming positive socio-demographic trends, motivating people for professional growth and education, for social and creative activity.

The goal of such public policy should not be reduced to the level of a banal increase in the birth rate, as unscrupulous critics do. Of course, increasing the birth rate is an important, but far from the only parameter of human capital. No less important are its quantitative, but its qualitative parameters, which affect the competitiveness (survival) of Russia in the modern world.

Thus, the implementation of appropriate state cultural policy is the most important tool for socio-demographic development.

Financing the cultural sector should be based on the understanding of cultural expenditures as an effective investment in national human capital. The dominant feature of modern cultural policy should be the transition from a “patron state” to an “investor state”, ensuring the formation of an effective cultural environment and the growth of human capital with the help of adequate budgetary mechanisms.

State policy in the field of culture must be highly pragmatic and scientific. Like any investor who wants to get maximum profit, the state is obliged to receive the maximum increase in human capital parameters for every ruble invested in the preservation of cultural and historical heritage, in cultural institutions, and in specific creative projects.

“Human development is both the main goal and a necessary condition for the progress of modern society. This is our absolute national priority today and in the long term. The future of Russia, our successes depend on the education and health of people, on their desire for self-improvement and the use of their skills and talents. ...In developing human capital, we must rely on the entire wealth of Russian culture, on its unique achievements and traditions" (speech by V.V. Putin at the meeting of the State Council “On the development strategy of Russia until 2020” 02/08/2008).

9. It seems that the document being developed should contain the thesis: not everything that is presented under the guise of “contemporary art” has the right to count on state support.

The key principle here can be formulated as follows: no experiments with form can justify content that contradicts the traditional values of our society. Or the absence of any content at all.

Based on scientific research on the influence of art on individual and public consciousness, it is necessary to build interaction with the expert community on the joint selection of projects in the field of contemporary art that meet the priorities of state policy.

This will naturally lead to a revision of the regulator’s relationship with the curators of “contemporary art” in those manifestations that do not carry spiritual and moral content or have a negative impact on society. At a minimum, such “art” should not receive government support. As a maximum, the state must suppress the negative impact on public consciousness.

One should not go to the other extreme. Providing a predictable and targeted positive impact on national human capital requires not primitive propaganda, but effective influence through the means of art, including the use of the most modern technologies.

10. From the text of the document being developed it should be clear that the basis and core of Russian culture is Russian culture.

It is quite obvious that historically it was the Russian people who were and are “state-forming”. Denying this fact is tantamount to denying interethnic differences in general. (About 80% of citizens of the Russian Federation are Russian.) Likewise, the vast majority of the cultural achievements of our country are associated with the names of cultural figures who worked within the Russian cultural tradition.

In his speech at the Valdai Club meeting on September 19, 2013, V.V. Putin characterized the great Russian culture as “the foundation for self-determination of citizens, the source of identity and the basis for understanding the national idea.”

Of course, at the same time, a single Russian culture has absorbed the achievements of all the indigenous peoples of Russia (to the best of their abilities) - as well as the best of world culture.

Contrasting the concepts “Russian” and “Russian” is unacceptable due to their actual identity. It is noteworthy that in foreign languages there is no such distinction. (For example, in English the word “Russian” is translated into Russian as both “Russian” and “Russian” depending on the context; however, in English this is one concept).

“Russia, as the philosopher Konstantin Leontyev figuratively said, has always developed as a “flourishing complexity”, as a state-civilization, held together by the Russian people, the Russian language, Russian culture, the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions of Russia” (speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

“To educate the individual, the patriot, we need to restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must be the foundation for self-determination of citizens, a source of identity and the basis for understanding the national idea "(speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club "Valdai", Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

11. To fully take into account and reflect all of the above theses, it seems advisable to take as a basis the following structure of the document being developed.

1) General part: the main tasks of state cultural policy in Russia and the fundamental approaches to its development.

2) The spiritual and value foundations of Russian civilization, adapted to modern realities, which should form the basis of the “spiritual and cultural matrix” of Russia formed with the help of state cultural policy.

3) Assessment of the current state of culture in Russia, its causes and the degree of compliance with the “spiritual and cultural matrix” formed with the help of state cultural policy.

4) Goals and directions for transforming the current “spiritual-cultural matrix” of Russia in accordance with accepted goals and values.

5) The main strategic directions of state cultural policy, allowing for the implementation of this transformation.

6) External and internal threats that can prevent this, and ways to overcome them.

7) Qualitative characteristics of the planned results, timing and ways to achieve them.

8) Mechanisms that allow this to be realized.

9) Culture as a tool for strengthening Russia’s domestic political influence and achieving its strategic interests.

10) Stages of implementation of medium-term tasks of state cultural policy and the required resource.

12. The purpose of the document being developed is not only to provide the basis for a unified state cultural policy, but also to contribute to a radical change in attitudes towards culture in society and, especially in its leading elite.

“Because if there is no culture, then it is not clear at all what sovereignty is, and then it is not clear what to fight for» (V.V. Putin, speech at an extended meeting of the Presidium of the Council for Culture and Art, Pskov, 02/03/2014).

Culture is more important than the economy, defense and management system, because without culture there will be neither one nor the other, nor the third. And with proper spiritual and moral motivation, all areas of our lives develop qualitatively more efficiently.

And the result will be the preservation and growth of the Russian people and all fraternal peoples inhabiting our country.”

Statement by members of the Academic Council of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences

on the concept of the foundations of cultural policy

Having familiarized themselves with the project “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” prepared by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, employees of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the Academic Council, consider it their duty to state the following.

The project contains a claim to a universally binding ideology, which is directly prohibited by Art. 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The developers of the material openly and demonstratively invade the field of philosophy, believing themselves to be quite competent in this branch of knowledge, while the content of the document does not always correspond even to the student level. The text contains many statements that are one-sided, incorrect and simply false. Such a free and categorical treatment of topics and ideas discussed throughout the history of Russian thought is completely unacceptable in any self-respecting community.

The unambiguity of the thesis “Russia is not Europe,” declared “cornerstone” in this document, causes bewilderment. This purely private judgment can in no way be considered as an indisputable truth. It is a false statement that this thesis is confirmed by “the entire history of the people and the country.” One cannot help but take into account the fact that many historical figures and the best minds of Russia held the exact opposite view.

We believe that the state would be more conducive to the intellectual life of Russia if it promoted in-depth research and discussion of the topic of Russian identity by supporting relevant projects, conferences, discussion platforms, publishing programs, etc. And vice versa, the state will look ambiguous, trying to resolve the most complex philosophical issues in a directive manner. questions.

The principles of state policy in the field of culture should be developed primarily by society itself, and not by anonymous “working groups” under no matter how authoritative the department. In this regard, we consider it necessary not only to revise the content and agenda of this document, but also to reformat the process of its preparation itself, opening up the possibility of involving a wide range of specialists. This, at a minimum, will prevent the misunderstanding between bureaucratic structures and the scientific community that has arisen recently.

The intellectual and spiritual experience of Russia must be comprehended in such a way that this process becomes the basis for the consolidation of society and reaching a new level of cultural development.

Members of the Scientific Council of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences

R.G. Apresyan
A.A. Huseynov
S.A. Nikolsky
A.P. Ogurtsov
B.G. Yudin
A.V. Rubtsov
N.V. Motroshilova
N.I. Lapin
S.V. Month
A.A. Kara-Murza
E.V. Petrovskaya
A.V. Karpenko
V.A. Lecturer's
I.T. Kasavin
P.D. Tishchenko
V.M. Mezhuev
M.S. Kiseleva
IN AND. Arshinov
A.L. Nikiforov
E.L. Chertkova
M.T. Stepanyants
G.B. Stepanova
V.L. Vasyukov

Conflictology and conflicts

Russian Mosaic at a “Roman” villa in Woodchester, Gloucestershire, southwest England (see Cave for details)…

The Ministry of Culture outlined the “Fundamentals of the state cultural policy”

Izvestia publishes the full text of the document sent to the Presidential Administration...

– A working group has been created at the moment, led by [the head of the presidential administration] Sergey Ivanov. The final document itself will take into account the wishes expressed by the Ministry of Culture and other participants in the process, the presidential adviser on culture told Izvestia Vladimir Tolstoy. The idea to formulate the foundations of Russia’s cultural policy arose during a meeting of the Presidential Council for Culture and Art in November 2013. Among the compilers and authors of the document are several dozen people - film directors, public figures, heads of cultural institutions and departments. The key concepts of the draft program are “a single cultural civilizational code”, “civilizational principle”, “multiculturalism”, “tolerance”, etc. A discussion will probably unfold around their interpretation.

– Our country has always had a respectful attitude towards people of other cultures. And there is Western tolerance, almost a medical term. I think everyone understands that it is impossible to be uncritical of all the cultural phenomena that surround us,” said. – Any cultured person must choose what suits him and what does not - even if this choice is called “intolerant”.

Writer, historian and cultural scientist, professor at the Institute of Journalism and Literary Creativity Konstantin Kovalev-Sluchevsky believes that the document of the Ministry of Culture contains “a lot of reasonable things.” “We are embarrassed by the word “Russian,” said Kovalev-Sluchevsky in response to Izvestia’s question about why in the letter there is a division into “Russian” and “Russian” culture. – Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin introduced the term “Russian” into political terminology so as not to offend those who do not want to call themselves Russian. I don’t see anything wrong here; for me these words are synonyms.

Film director Alexander Melnik I agree with the theses set out in the document and believe that Russia is not Europe. – How does Europe treat us today? What did PACE say? They accused us of all mortal sins. “I think now is the time to start a new cultural policy,” said the director. Melnik also added that for 25 years Russia tried to follow the European path, but over time it became clear that “this path is wrong.”

“Our country has no future if we do not appeal to traditional values,” says the artistic director of the Moscow Watercolor School Sergei Andriyaka. – Tradition is family and our rich cultural heritage. When asked by Izvestia whether Kazimir Malevich is part of Russian culture, the national artist answered negatively. – Malevich hung the “Black Square” icon in place as a replacement for our cultural heritage. This is not a cultural value, but a call to emptiness, says Sergei Andriyaka.

Culturologist, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Art of Cinema” Daniil Dondurei criticized the document, saying that "nothing like this has happened since the late 1970s." “I hope that in the final version of this document no stone will be left unturned, and no one will ever want to say that we are not Europeans,” said the publication’s interlocutor.

Izvestia publishes the full text of the document:

Materials and proposals for the draft principles of state cultural policy

1. It seems necessary to include a definition of the concept of “culture” in the document being developed.

Reproduction of the social system is impossible without the transmission from generation to generation of the most general ideas about the world order, about what is proper and what is unacceptable - that is, without consolidating value systems, characteristic of a given society. The absence of such a value system leads to the formation of a worldview that is filled randomly, to a split in society, to the adoption by various social groups and individuals of value systems characteristic of other cultures, including those incompatible with the existence of a given society.

It seems that the perception of the system of values characteristic of a given society and the education of morality are carried out through familiarization with culture. Moreover, under the term "culture" is understood as a historically established system of values and norms of behavior, enshrined in the tangible and intangible cultural and historical heritage. Thus, it is in the above understanding of this term that it is the unifying basis of Russian society. The idea of a value system can also be expressed through the concept “single cultural and civilizational code”.

According to the Passport of the state program of the Russian Federation “Development of culture and tourism” for 2013-2020. (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2012 No. 2567-r), the national “cultural code” is “a system of original, dominant values, meanings and views in society (knowledge, abilities, skills, intellectual, moral and aesthetic development, worldview, forms of communication, spiritual enlightenment), formed in the process of historical civilizational development, accepted as a generally accepted norm for self-identification of people, regardless of their ethnicity, and passed on from generation to generation through upbringing, education and training.” Accordingly, one of the priority expected results of the implementation of the state program “Development of Culture and Tourism” for 2013-2020. is to form among citizens “a worldview, social consciousness, and behavioral norms that hold the nation together.”

2. It seems necessary to be based on the principle of historicism when developing the foundations of state cultural policy.

What this means is that national culture, in the above understanding of this term, is not formed as a “resultant” or some kind of puzzle from the “local cultural environments” of various communities. is formed over a long time in the process of historical development, representing the basis of the identity of a given social community. Culture is the main thing that distinguishes a given community from others. First, as a unifying principle of the emerging people, a common worldview arises, based on a specific system of values: a common understanding of good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable, primary and secondary. Then, on this ideological basis, a “spiritual and cultural matrix” of a given people is formed, including cultural, moral, aesthetic and ethical norms, and a national approach to the understanding of beauty. Only then can “local cultural environments” of various communities with their own subcultures emerge from a given culture.

It should be noted that such subcultures can either correspond or contradict the national culture (or correspond to the cultural attitudes of some other civilizational paradigm) and the very “spiritual-cultural matrix” of the people. From this approach, in particular, it follows that when carrying out a responsible state cultural program, only those cultural directions and “local cultural environments” that correspond to the value system adopted in a given state should be encouraged and developed. According to V.R. Medinsky, “let a hundred flowers bloom, but we will water only those that are useful to us.”

3. It seems necessary to base the development of the foundations of state cultural policy on the civilizational principle.

Meaning refusal from the point of view that is characteristic primarily of the “liberal-Western” direction in, and which postulates the unity of the development path of all races, nations and other social organisms. Representatives of this trend, as a rule, consider “Western” development as ideal, and all others as deviations from the only correct path. In contrast to the described approach, the works of a number of thinkers (Danilevsky, Toynbee, Gumilyov, Huntington) substantiate the civilizational principle: humanity is a collection of large communities (super-ethnicities, civilizations), differing from each other in their attitude to the surrounding world, their value systems and, accordingly, their culture.

Russia within the framework of this approach, it should be considered as a unique and original civilization, not reducible to either the “West” (“Europe”) or the “East”. A brief formulation of this position is the thesis: “Russia is not Europe,” which is confirmed by the entire history of the country and people, as well as numerous cultural and civilizational differences between representatives of Russian (Russian) culture and other communities. (Almost all authors dealing with this topic indicate the existence of such differences). In his recent speeches, he points out significant differences between the cultural trends prevailing in the West and traditional values in Russia.

“We see how many Euro-Atlantic countries have actually taken the path of abandoning their roots, including Christian values, which form the basis of Western civilization. Moral principles and any traditional identity are denied: national, cultural, religious or even gender. A policy is being pursued that puts large families and same-sex partnerships, belief in God or belief in Satan on the same level. The excesses of political correctness go so far that there is serious talk about registering parties whose goal is to promote pedophilia. People in many European countries are ashamed and afraid to talk about their religious affiliation. Holidays are even canceled or called something else, bashfully hiding the very essence of this holiday - the moral basis of these holidays. And they are trying to aggressively impose this model on everyone. I am convinced that this is a direct path to degradation and primitivization, a deep demographic and moral crisis...”(speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

Probably, the document being developed should briefly list those values that are characteristic of Russian culture - with an emphasis not on the details of this list, but on the fact that these values are traditional for our society.

“Without the values embedded in other world religions, without the norms of morality and morality that have been formed over millennia, people will inevitably lose human dignity. And we consider it natural and correct to defend these values. The right of any minority to be different must be respected, but the right of the majority must not be questioned..."(speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club “Valdai”, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

“Today in many countries the norms of morality and morality are being revised, national traditions and differences between nations are being erased. Society is now required not only to recognize the right of everyone to freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also to obligatory recognition equivalence, no matter how strange it may seem, of good And evil, opposite in meaning concepts. Such destruction of traditional values “from above” not only leads to negative consequences for societies, but is also fundamentally anti-democratic, since it is carried out based on abstract, abstract ideas, contrary to the will of the popular majority, which does not accept the ongoing changes and the proposed revision. And we know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on protecting traditional values, which for thousands of years have formed the spiritual, moral basis of civilization, of every nation: the values of the traditional family, genuine human life, including religious life, life not only material , but also spiritual, the values of humanism and the diversity of the world. Of course, this is a conservative position. But, in the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, the meaning of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward, but that it prevents movement back and downward, towards chaotic darkness, a return to the primitive state...”

“Culture, along with education, shapes the human capital of our country. This is part of our historical code, national character. And therefore, state cultural policy should cover all aspects of life, promote the preservation of traditional values, strengthen deep spiritual ties with the native country, increase trust between people, their responsibility and civic participation in the development of our state...”(V.V. Putin, at an extended meeting of the Presidium of the Council for Culture and Art, Pskov, 02/03/2014).

4. It seems necessary to base the development of the foundations of state cultural policy on the principle of continuity.

This refers to the perception of Russian history as a continuous process - from the Russian Empire through the USSR to the modern Russian Federation. The civilizational core of Russian (Russian) culture with its inherent values remains unchanged throughout this period. In the 20th century, two powerful attempts were made to change the cultural and civilizational identity of Russia: by the communists in 1917 and by supporters of the “liberal-Western” path of development in the late 1980s-1990s. As seen and noted by all researchers, Russian and foreign, both attempts to break traditional identity were unsuccessful. A definite confirmation of this thesis is the very fact of the development of the document in question, and this should be stated in the text of the fundamentals of state cultural policy.

“We should be proud of our history, and we have a lot to be proud of. Our entire history, without exception, should become part of Russian identity. Without recognition of this, mutual trust and the movement of society forward are impossible...”(speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

5. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about the state as an active subject of cultural policy.

Ensuring the unity of Russian society and preventing its split under the influence of alien values is possible through the implementation of a unified cultural policy, understood as the education of citizens in the spirit of a common system of values for Russia. This understanding of the term "culture" returns us to the original meaning of this word (from the Latin “I cultivate”): the task of the state becomes the “cultivation”, “cultivation” of modern man and society as a whole in accordance with common spiritual, moral, aesthetic values. The constitutional basis of a unified state policy in the field of culture is the following:

Article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that it is in charge of establishing the foundations of federal policy in the field of cultural development of the Russian Federation;
Article 114 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that the Government of the Russian Federation ensures the implementation of a unified state policy in the field of culture in Russia.

1) in the field of preserving heritage and updating it, involving it in professional, educational, and leisure activities, ensuring free access to it for citizens, introducing access to heritage;

A separate most important task, without the solution of which it is impossible to move in the three directions indicated above, is the support of scientific research aimed at identifying the content of the traditional Russian system of values, specific forms of its expression and transmission from generation to generation through the means of art, its differences from other cultures. In light of the above, it is important to point out the incorrectness of the “reactive” approach to state cultural culture. Carrying out any policy by reacting to certain “threats”, “challenges” or events is obviously doomed to failure due to the lack of goal-setting and initiative.

The true goal of state cultural policy is not to “respond to threats”, but to purposefully shape the national mentality. From the above, it also inevitably follows the task of pursuing a unified cultural policy not only in the sphere related to the authorities, but also in the most important related sectors - in the field of education, youth policy, migration policy and especially in the media. A thesis about this must be present in the document being developed.

6. It seems appropriate to include in the document being developed a thesis about the rejection of the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance.

Preservation of a single cultural code requires the abandonment of state support for cultural projects that impose value norms alien to society. As noted above, the basis of the historical unity of the inhabitants of the Russian Federation is the community of culture, understood as a historically developed system of values and norms of behavior, reflected in the tangible and intangible cultural and historical heritage. The peoples integrated into the Russian state in the process of its creation accepted this common identity, while at the same time abandoning national and cultural features unusual for Russian culture. Thus, the inclusion of the territories of the North Caucasus into the Russian Empire was accompanied by the gradual rejection of the peoples inhabiting them from a number of norms of the Sharia culture of that time - such as blood feud, polygamy, slavery, etc.

Historically, the power of Russia lay in the ability to understand and appreciate the heritage of its great neighbors - both the wisdom of the East and pragmatism - but the choice of the Russian path has always been made on the basis of those spiritual constants that have long been inherent in Russia. This implies a categorical rejection of ideology "multiculturalism". Without denying the right of any nationality to preserve its ethnographic identity, it is unacceptable to impose value norms alien to Russian society. No reference to “freedom of creativity” and “national identity” can justify behavior that is considered unacceptable from the point of view of Russia’s traditional value system. This does not mean restricting the rights of a citizen, but requires denying state support to individuals and communities who demonstrate behavior contrary to cultural norms.

In case of violation of the current legislation and the rights of other citizens, appropriate preventive measures must be applied to such individuals and communities. Accordingly, when implementing state cultural policy, priority should be given to emphasizing the cultural unity of the peoples of Russia, rather than the differences of national cultures. Taking care of maintaining national cultural characteristics is the right of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In a speech at a meeting of the Presidium of the Council for Culture and Art in 02/03/2014, V.V. Putin noted that “...we must consider the problems of all cultural genres in the context of the formation of a single unique cultural space of our country...”

So it is in the state program “Development of Culture and Tourism” for 2013-2020. it is stated that support for the diversity of national cultures of the peoples of Russia (one of the key expected results of the implementation of the state program) is carried out precisely “on the basis of a single cultural code.” This interpretation also leads to the concept "tolerance". This term is usually understood as tolerance for a different worldview, lifestyle, behavior and customs, religion, nationality. It seems, however, necessary to determine the boundary beyond which commitment to tolerance leads to the capitulation of Russian identity to value systems alien to it. Unfortunately, calls for tolerance are often perceived as legitimizing any form of behavior, regardless of their acceptability from the point of view of the value system common to Russians.

This blocks the efforts of the constructive majority of society aimed at preventing socially dangerous standards of behavior, as well as countering the imposition of cultural and value norms that pose a danger to the reproduction of Russian culture and society as a whole. Tolerance towards representatives of other religions, races and nationalities is a traditional feature of Russian (Russian) culture. This is confirmed by the entire history of the Russian state. The reproduction of this value norm is achieved through the implementation of appropriate cultural policies. At the same time the term "tolerance" in its modern understanding does not allow for a clear separation between racial, national and religious intolerance, on the one hand, and intolerance to social phenomena that are alien and dangerous from the point of view of Russian society and its inherent values, on the other hand, which leads to the inappropriateness of use the term “tolerance” for the purposes of state cultural policy.

“And this is absolutely objective and explainable for a state like Russia, with its great history and culture, with centuries-old experience of not the so-called tolerance, sexless and sterile, but the joint, organic life of different peoples within the framework of one single state...”(President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to the Federal Assembly, 12/12/2013).

7. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about the decisive significance of cultural identity in the context of global competition.

The place and authority of the Russian state in the world is determined not only by its political weight and economic resources, but also by its great power, its spiritual, intellectual and innovative potential. Globalization means not just the mutual influence of cultures, but their confrontation in all spheres - economic, political, cultural, etc. In this confrontation, our main trump card is our unique civilizational identity, expressed in our historical and cultural heritage and in our value system. Thanks to this identity, the Russian state has survived for more than a thousand years of history; Accordingly, maintaining this identity in the face of global confrontation is the most important task. Therefore, the enrichment of Russian culture in interaction with the cultures of other peoples is permissible only insofar as this does not erode the basic value core of our culture. This also implies the need to fight for the preservation and development of Russian culture both inside and outside the Russian Federation, primarily in the states of the post-Soviet space.

“You need to be strong militarily, technologically, economically, but still the main thing that will determine success is the quality of people, the intellectual, spiritual, moral quality of society. After all, in the end, economic growth, well-being, and geopolitical influence are derived from the state of society itself, from how citizens of a particular country feel like a single people, how rooted they are in their history, in values and traditions, Do they share common goals and responsibilities..."(speech by V.V. Putin at a meeting of the international discussion club, Novgorod region, 09/19/2013).

8. It seems that the document being developed should contain a thesis about culture as the basis of social well-being.

A person’s spiritual well-being directly affects his physical condition and the socio-demographic situation in society. (From the researchers of this problem, we can point out G.I. Rossolimo and M. Nordau; among modern ones - I.A. Gundarov, S.G. Kara-Murza). The lack of a worldview or the inculcation of alien values (including through the means of pseudo-art) leads to mental ill-being, which manifests itself through an increase in crime; through an increase in morbidity and mortality, a reduction in life expectancy; through an increase in the number of suicides and children abandoned by parents, etc. And vice versa: treasures of cultural heritage, works of art and effective sociocultural projects have a direct impact on specific parameters of human capital, forming positive socio-demographic trends, motivating people for professional growth and education, for social and creative activity. The goal of such a state should not be reduced to the level of a banal increase in the birth rate, as unscrupulous critics do. Of course, increasing the birth rate is an important, but far from the only parameter of human capital. No less important are its quantitative, but its qualitative parameters, which affect the competitiveness (survival) of Russia in the modern world.

Thus, the implementation of appropriate state cultural policy is the most important tool for socio-demographic development. Financing the cultural sector should be based on an understanding of expenditures as effective investments in national human capital. The dominant feature of modern cultural policy should be the transition from a “patron state” to an “investor state”, ensuring the formation of an effective cultural environment and the growth of human capital with the help of adequate budgetary mechanisms. Public policy in the cultural sphere must be highly pragmatic and scientific. Like any investor who wants to get maximum profit, the state is obliged to receive the maximum increase in human capital parameters for every ruble invested in the preservation of cultural and historical heritage, in cultural institutions, and in specific creative projects.

“Human development is both the main goal and a necessary condition for the progress of modern society. This is our absolute national priority today and in the long term. The future of Russia, our successes depend on the education and health of people, on their desire to use their skills and talents. …In developing human capital, we must rely on the entire wealth of Russian culture, on its unique achievements and traditions...”(speech by V.V. Putin at the meeting of the State Council “On the development strategy of Russia until 2020” 02/08/2008).

9. It seems that the document being developed should contain the thesis: not everything that is presented under the guise of “contemporary art” has the right to count on state support.

The key principle here can be formulated as follows: no experiments with form can justify content that contradicts the traditional values of our society. Or the absence of any content at all. Based on scientific research on the influence of art on individual and public consciousness, it is necessary to build interaction with the expert community on the joint selection of projects in the field of contemporary art that meet the priorities of the state. This will naturally lead to a revision of the regulator’s relationship with the curators of “contemporary art” in those manifestations that do not carry spiritual or moral content or have a negative impact on society. At a minimum, such “art” should not receive government support. As a maximum, the state must suppress the negative impact on public consciousness. One should not go to the other extreme. Providing a predictable and targeted positive impact on national human capital requires not primitive propaganda, but effective influence through the means of art, including the use of the most modern technologies.

10. From the text of the document being developed it should be clear that the basis and core of Russian culture is.

It is quite obvious that historically it was the Russian people who were and are “state-forming”. Denying this fact is tantamount to denying interethnic differences in general. (Near 80% citizens of the Russian Federation - Russians). Likewise, the vast majority of cultural achievements in our country are associated with the names of cultural figures who worked within the framework of the Russian cultural tradition.

Culture is more important than economy, defense and management systems, because without culture there will be neither one nor the other, nor the third. And with proper spiritual and moral motivation, all areas of our lives develop qualitatively more efficiently. The main content of state cultural policy should be the formation of a full-fledged person - a citizen of a united Russia, the keeper of the historical and cultural traditions of our civilization and their successor in the conditions of modern innovative development. And the result will be the preservation and multiplication of all fraternal peoples inhabiting our country.”

From the editor

This document is very good, especially against the backdrop of what was happening with culture in Russia over the previous quarter century. And if it is accepted and, most importantly, properly be fulfilled, this will very quickly affect the increase in the cultural level of the country as a whole, and each citizen in particular. However, I would like to add something, just so as not to forget and in the hope that someday it will come to this!

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who is interested. All Conferences are broadcast on Internet Radio “Vozrozhdenie”...

1. On behalf of the President of the Russian Federation, an official high-level state document “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” (hereinafter referred to as the Document) is being prepared. In a transforming country, with changed value bases, state and public institutions, the role of the state and society, the topic of culture is very important. Without exaggeration, this is a theme of the scale of national security and the success and sustainability of the country’s development. But to understand such strong statements, it is necessary to clearly see the threat and watershed in the understanding of the very category of culture and approaches to its cultivation or, conversely, consumer use. The main divide lies in the exact opposite relationship to culture.

On the one hand, following modern liberal trends, culture is the artist’s reflection of the world, always individually, always in conflict and deviation from the norm (famous cultural promoters are quoted). She is purely individual. She is experimental and avant-garde. Culture is a person’s way of self-affirmation and is his private matter. Well, if we continue all this, then by culture we still mean a thing common to the market, and the only thing that matters is its commercial potential. If a film brings in maximum box office revenue, then it is successful. It was this approach that significantly modified the state of the country’s cultural life, the cultural level of the people, and frankly speaking, artists from various branches of culture, art, and literature. Modified in the direction of severe degradation and degeneration.

But culture, as a complex concept, has different meanings and contents in relation to different contexts. Our context is one of state responsibility and management, the constitutional duty of the state “to establish the foundations of federal policy in the field of ... cultural development of the Russian Federation.” This is a question for the whole society and, of course, for the individual himself. Culture in the most important semantic context is the sphere of a person’s existence (or his life) that makes a person human. It is the cultural shell that distinguishes a person from an animal, just as it separates his mind. From a biological point of view, culture is completely irrational. It is irrational from a social Darwinist position. It is rational only from the point of view of a true person, a true, moral human society, serving the cause of good and the high rank of a person.

Culture is the sphere of existence, the creative activity of man to reflect the world through the means of art and literature, which consolidates the high standards of the truly human principle in his existence, moral norms, socializing, i.e. formative and educational a generation entering life, consolidating in its special forms of art and literature the best and civilizationally identical practices developed by the people and creative people over the centuries of the history of a given country.

These are the following functions:

- formation of morality and identity of a person and society;

Socialization of a citizen and patriot of the country;

Organization of leisure and free time;

Providing opportunities for artist creativity.

But there are also counterfunctions of culture that turn it into factors of corruption and desocialization of man and society, factors of decivilization and destruction of identity, which are used in modern interstate confrontations and wars based on soft power. It is they who, in the fight against the true functions of culture, form the main conflict, which is the subject of state cultural policy, as well as the subject of actual assistance, subsidies and organization, including normative ones, of conditions for the harmonious implementation of cultural functions in the country.

The subjects of public relations and their interests in the field of state cultural policy are known (Fig. 2).

This is society, the artist and the state. They have unique legitimate interests of their own. The state: morality and identity of the individual and society in the country. In society: morality, identity and leisure. The artist, the generator of cultural values: creativity and income as a means of living from his professional activities.

But there are two more specific subjects, the presence of which forms the main social conflict of interests, which state policy is designed to regulate. This is a businessman whose interest is exclusively profit. And an agent of external influence in the interstate struggle of other states against Russia, whose interest is the decivilization and corruption of society and people in Russia.

That's why, If the state treats culture not as a high-value social genetics of society, but only as a source of income, then everything turns into the opposite. Values turn into goods, instead of values comes price, and the basest things are sold best and most expensively, since man is not yet perfect at all. This is the key to understanding the problems of cultural degradation in our country. If culture is not thought of as the most important social institution in the field of national security, then damage to the viability, and frankly speaking, even to the defense capability of the country will certainly be caused.

The morality and identity of a person and society or the profitability of commerce from culture - this is the watershed against which the development of the discussed Document on the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy opened.

This is the main challenge in the interpretation of culture. The price of the issue, we repeat, is the national security of the country.

What are Russian realities?

The problem is that, according to sociologists and psychologists, the mass moral and psychological characteristics of the Russian people are steadily degrading to a state of dehumanization, a decrease in the level of their morality, and desocialization. Such qualities as greed, commercialism, cynicism, permissiveness, arrogance, mafia, xenophobia, hostility, violence, aggressiveness are intensified.

Such qualities as selflessness, education, activity, initiative, hard work, ability to cooperate, patriotism, loyalty to comrades, goodwill, sincerity, mutual trust, honesty, sincerity weaken and disappear. (Fig.3).

The reasons lie in the sphere of humanitarian, cultural, informational and educational existence of Russian society. This is the result of the adopted model of its state regulation. Obviously, it must change, which determines the relevance of the Document under discussion.

The very formulation of the question, the publication of the draft Document, and its public discussion cannot be overestimated. “In the beginning there was the word!” The word itself, which is spoken, There is already a big and important event! The very appearance of the draft Document under discussion is a significant event. And we must thank its initiators for this and support them.

However, the Word must be followed by action. But here big professional problems arise. Let's start with what is public policy? Politics is most often understood as the struggle for power and its retention. But then what is state policy?

Of course it is control, in which the subject is the state. And word games "control" “regulation” is no more than games because there is a subject of management (the state), there is an object of management (society, personality and institutions), there are resources (budget and others), there are administrative, motivational and sanctioning levers.

Public policy is management activity. And its composition contains integral elements, without which it will be ineffective. (Fig.4).

If the Public Policy Document the above elements are not defined, it cannot be effective. It turns into a declaration.

Even driving a car is a professional matter. And here is the state! Without mandatory management attributes, public administration is helpless. At best it states the right words, but there is little that follows. If the Document being developed aims to organize public policy, then first it must necessarily define values, and from them the goals. Objectives can be set only after identifying the problems of social relations, understood as obstacles to achieving the goal.

These attributes should be in the Public Policy Document. Next we'll see Do they exist and what quality are they?

There is one more problem. What are the “Fundamentals” of state politicians? 1st year students can be taught basics anything. They acquire professional details in their senior years.

But the question is: can it be implemented in practice? basics politicians? Not the policy itself, but only its foundations? Obviously not. In general, a state administrative document, a normative legal document can be executed only when certain conditions are met. It must contain a mandate obligations, addressee, administrative content and the rest of the above management attributes. If these are still “basics”, i.e. fragmented and non-detailed primary information, guidelines, then someone, in some order, must still develop all the necessary management details for the management work to proceed and the management goal to be achieved. Those. In this case, the Document must contain a special indication of who will do this and in what manner. If the Document contains only the right words, but no management pyramid is built, then you can be sure: the document will not work.

Normative document format technology “Fundamentals of Public Policy” is not very developed, but it is still available. As an example, there already exist:

- “Fundamentals of state policy in the field of environmental development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030” (approved by the President of the Russian Federation on April 30, 2012);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 20, 1994 N 170 (as amended on July 9, 1997) “On the fundamentals of state policy in the field of informatization”

In general, in terms of its class, the Document under discussion is a doctrinal document. At the level of such documents, as Strategies, Concepts, Programs, Doctrines. For example, such as Military Doctrine. Doctrine of food security of the Russian Federation. Doctrine of the development of Russian science. Information Security Doctrine, Naval doctrine, etc.

It is not very good that in the Russian legal system the concept of a doctrinal normative legal document has not yet been defined, it is not positioned in the legal space, below the constitutional “floor”. It seems most appropriate for such a Document to have the character of a general law in order to stand above private laws and other legal acts, organizing them in correspondence with the relevant state policy. (Fig.5).

Those. the most correct form for the Document must be in the form of federal law. After all, this is not just about passing conversation, but about public policy! And such a precedent, as stated above, exists.

The theory of the doctrinal act that sets state policy, says that it must contain three contents. Firstly, political value choice and manifestation, secondly, a binding legal mandate, and thirdly, public management attributes. In this case, its structure should look like this:

Structure of a doctrinal document of public policy

1. General provisions (subject of regulation, status of doctrine, place of state policy, basic concepts and definitions, principles and priorities)

2. Values and goals on the subject of public policy

3. Main actual indicators and trends in the state of the subject of public policy

4. Main current (as of the year of adoption of the Doctrine) government decisions

5. Main problems in the subject public policy

6. Major new public management solutions to problems in the field of public policy

7. Regulatory legal and organizational management acts necessary for the implementation of the program of public management measures, decisions and actions

8. The procedure for implementing the doctrine (monitoring, control, correction, publicity, reporting, responsibility for results)

It is easy to understand that if the specified content is not in the Document, then the state policy cannot be considered definite and given.

As can be seen from the above structure, it actually reflects the political manifestation content in the form of a value-based target choice. The binding legal mandate is contained in paragraphs 6-7.

Finally, public administration attributes are contained in virtually all paragraphs. 2-8.

When following the specified structure A document that aims to organize public policy in any area will be most effective.

2. What's with the above theoretical and methodological point of view, the draft Document “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” presented for discussion?

Let us note in the analysis its main and positive features. But, at the same time, if such an opportunity opens up to release the most important document for the country that forms the state cultural policy, then of course we need to try to bring it to the maximum degree of perfection and, most importantly, efficiency.

Let us ask a number of questions, the answers to which are quite obvious after reading the draft Document.

1. Has its legal status been determined?

– No, the legal status and level of approval of the document is unknown. It is difficult to understand this from the form of the Document, since the form and style of the text is more reminiscent of a literary explanatory note. “Introduction”, “Conclusion”, numerous journalistic remarks are not typical for normative documents.

2. Are the main ones given? concepts and definitions of culture? – state cultural policy? - cultural values? - spiritual values?

Following the example of other documents of this type, a part of the “General Provisions” type should be located first, in which key definitions and concepts are given. This part is not in the Document.

3. How adequate and conceptual are the given in the Document definitions, for example, such as the formula of actually multiculturalism, which has not justified itself in Europe?

This is the formula: “Russian culture and the cultures of the peoples of Russia.” Unlike the Russian language and the languages of the peoples of Russia, for which a very correct formula has been established from the point of view of the bonds and integrity of the country: the Russian language is the dominant language with the possibility of using the languages of the peoples of Russia - cultures are related “on equal terms”. The unified culture of an entire country is not constituted in this way, since in the context of this part of the text of the Document, “Russian culture” is indicated in the formula used as ethnically based. This follows from the logical scheme of mention equality. But Russianness, as an ethnicity, exists simultaneously with Russianness, as a civil identity (Russian-Russian) and Russianness, as a civilized designation. It is no coincidence that in foreign languages these hypostases are not distinguished and they use the same designation - Russian.

The formula should be different, approximately the same as for the Russian language, for which the Document quite reasonably uses it. Multicolor Russian (Russian) culture and cultures of the peoples of Russia.

4. Has the basic value choice been made, which alone allows one to set the goals of public policy?

Yes, but it's incomplete. A number of important points are missing. (See comments below on the text).

5. How accurately and comprehensively are the goals of the state cultural policy?

The goals are given, but require clarification. (See comments below on the text).

6. How complete and justified is the list of principles of this state policy?

The principles are given, but additions and clarifications are required (See comments below on the text).

7. Is there a list of problems that torpedo the main basic goal of state cultural policy and which should form the list of tasks? The task should not be confused with the goal or with the means. A task is a question of how to overcome a problem that prevents you from achieving a goal.

The Document does not provide a list of problems. The problem list should be understood as a list of problems of social relations and a list of regulatory and public management problems that require solutions. Therefore, tasks are “suspended” in the air and do not constitute a system for overcoming the problems of cultural development.

8. What are the tasks? Are they related to the goals and identified problems in the country's development?

There are tasks in the Document, and they declared "strategic". It is unclear why they are strategic. In terms of the semantics of the text, this is more similar to goals rather than tasks. As stated above, without defining problems (which are not formulated in the Document), tasks cannot be set in principle.

9. What are the proposed basic solutions and approaches to solving the problems?

There is no such section in the Document. Although this is the most important thing for determining the content of public policy.

10. Who should manage in this area? Through what resources? How are budgets and public-private partnership opportunities used? What are the ways to control and correct goals? How is the management calendar plan formed? How is ongoing planning, monitoring of cultural development and reporting? Who and how should be responsible for results in this area? How are the mandates distributed between the Russian Federation and the Subjects of the Russian Federation, at least in part of Article 71 paragraph e) of the Constitution on the issue of protecting historical and cultural monuments?

11. How is the Document related to the topic of national cultural autonomy?

This is the most important question, which corresponds to the basic formula of the integral culture of Russia under its multi-ethnicity and multi-religious nature (see above) is not mentioned in the Document.

12. Is the subject of public administration and regulation clearly defined in the Document?

No, since the Document deals with issues of education, upbringing, and information, for which there are independent niches of public administration and state policies.

13. How does this government policy relate to education policy? - state policy in the field of information? – advertising? – urban planning and architecture? - state policy in the field of copyright?

The document does not address these issues. But they are key, e.g. in the context of the main conflict of interests between the need for public accessibility of cultural products and values and the right of the author and artist to their commercial implementation. The listed related areas of state regulation, as the Document rightly declares, should be imbued with aspects of cultural policy, but the question of how exactly this will be ensured is not addressed by the Document.

These are not all the questions to which satisfactory, not even answers, must be given, but the corresponding provisions and sections in the draft Document.

Let's look at a few details about the text of the Document.

The basic concept of culture is missing. There is also no concept of state cultural policy. The document makes an attempt, approaches the need give this definition, pointing to all sorts of different signs of state cultural policy, but still does not give it.

It is based on…».

« State cultural policy assumes…».

“State cultural policy... not seen as…».

“The basis of state cultural policy laid..."

"State cultural policy must be built on …».

“Implementation of state cultural policy assumes…».

The document seems to be trying to characterize from different sides, what is state cultural policy, but does not define it.

What is public cultural policy in terms of legal status and managerial mandate? How does it fit into other government mandates and powers? How is the question of its subject matter and its differentiation from other government policies resolved? No answers given.

For some reason, the Document contains the “Goal of the Russian State and Society,” which consists of listing a certain set of target characteristics of the country. “A strong, united, independent Russia in all respects, committed to its own model of social development and at the same time open.”

Why are only these characteristics chosen and others, such as those required by the constitution, are omitted? The choice does not meet the constitutional definition. Such characteristics given in constitution as a “social, democratic, legal, secular” state. In general, why this obvious departure from the subject of state cultural policy was made is unfounded and incomprehensible.

At the same time, the goal of the state cultural policy itself is given in general very correctly, although not quite complete.

“The goal of state cultural policy is the spiritual, cultural, national self-determination of Russia, the unification of Russian society and the formation (personality formation is important for young people entering adulthood. This is a function of socialization of the younger generation, which is very true. But the equally important need for personality development in the full life cycle of a person is omitted - author's note) moral, independently thinking, creative, responsible personality ( but here the need to form a citizen, a patriot of the country is also omitted - approx. auto) based on the use of the full potential of national culture.

“The content of modern state cultural policy (Actually, the content of public policy is management – author’s note)Russia is the creation and development of a system of education and enlightenment of citizens (these are means, not content. Education has been forgotten. There is no organization of leisure, no organization of free time. Or is this given exclusively to businessmen? What about the artist’s work? Or does he only engage in it at his own peril and risk on market grounds? - author’s note).

Such a gap arises precisely because of the lack of a definition of state cultural policy, a systematic list of cultural functions, problems and a managerial description-assignment of the mandate of this management activity.

The most important topic of moral values is presented in the Document in an erroneous and non-transparent manner.

“In the context of state cultural policy, the understanding of traditional moral values for our country is based on norms and requirements developed by humanity and common to all world religions that ensure the full life of society .( “a full-fledged life of society” is who knows what, completely different, and does not belong to the category of morality in any way. – approx. auto).

Morality is not at all connected with the “full life of society.” This is actually unknown. Morality is a characteristic of truly human qualities, thoughts and deeds of a person, making a person human as opposed to an animal. Above, when illustrating the degradation of the moral state of the Russian people, the corresponding qualities and characteristics of a moral person and society are listed.

A number of journalistic deviations in the text of the Document contain unsuccessful formulations. For example, in the following fragment.

“The state of modern Russian society makes it necessary to prioritize educational and educational functions (Why did the leisure, entertainment, and creative functions disappear? They are obviously no less important. - Author's note.) culture. This will significantly enhance the impact of culture on the processes of personality formation, humanization of education, successful socialization of youth, and the creation of a high-quality information environment favorable for personal development. (Why the information environment, and not the cultural environment? For example, monumental art cannot be classified as an information environment, just like music, theater, etc. - author's note)

The Document makes an attempt to list the principles on which state cultural policy should be based. However, the list the very principle of forming the list is incomplete and unclear.

Lacks, for example, principles such as:

Budgetary resource and government management provision;

Ensuring a combination of the artist’s freedom of creativity and his responsibility for the moral content of cultural products;

Ensuring the priority of the value content of cultural activities over its commercial results.

It is impossible to agree with the Document’s cosmopolitan view of the relationship between Russian culture and world culture.

“- understanding of Russian culture as an integral part of world culture;” (in fact, this is, of course, about the dominant and aggressively imposed culture of the West on the world. The position is passive and secondary. There is no indication here of the identity of Russian culture, its independent role and its own contribution to world culture. - author's note.) .

One of the principles is completely unclear.

“- a combination of universality of purpose (What is this? Moreover, there are several goals. – Author’s note) state cultural policy and the uniqueness of subjects and objects of cultural activity; (what is this? Who are the subjects and what are the objects? Freedom of the artist? Where is this topic in the Document? The topic of creativity? Individuality, experimentation, avant-garde and their relationship with basic values? - author's note)».

Strategic task " 4. Support and development of an information environment favorable for personal development.” is non-core and outside the scope of state cultural policy. This is obviously the subject of state information policy.

There are quite a few language technical blunders. For example, formulas such as “recently...” or “the Russian Literary Society being created and similar structures” are unacceptable, since the Document is assigned a longer life than the current moment.

Such an arbitrary artistic and literary form as, for example, “direct investment in the future of the country”, examples of the use of which are numerous, is unacceptable for such a Document.

The Document does not resolve the issue of types of cultural activities, how culture, literature, and art relate to each other.

Section “IV. Legislative support for state cultural policy must be completely reworked. It is quite obvious that a professional legal analysis of Russian legislation in the light of problems of relations in this area has not been carried out. This follows at least from the fact that a problematic legal analysis can only be carried out after defining a problematic list in the sphere of public relations. But, as mentioned above, there is no problem list in the Document.

In particular, when finalizing the Document, it must necessarily raise the problem of balance, which is greater than what actually exists in Russia copyright and the right of society to free access to cultural products and values.

A number of important tasks are missing from the strategic objectives. For example, the following.

The relationship between public and state institutions ensuring the morality of cultural activities and products, in particular, the so-called the problem of “moral censorship”.

The problematic part of the Document (which is not written out systematically) does not address such important issues as, for example, the following.

The doctrine of values, the doctrine of cultural identity, both Russian and national. As an example, Russian-language replicas of Hollywood cultural products – is this really Russian culture?

The problem of commercialization of culture, state budgetary subsidiary function. Or will box office revenue remain the only measure of quality, for example, of film production?

For some reason, the topic of public administration appeared in the Conclusion (which usually summarizes and draws conclusions from the previous text), but it was not even mentioned in the previous text. This is not the subject of the conclusion, but the most important independent position for such a Document, but it is not presented at all in the text. There is no justification for the need for public administration reform, nor is there a set of problems of public administration in this area, so where the individual fragmented ideas of “reform” come from remains unclear and unsystematic.

Concluding this brief look at the Document under discussion, let us emphasize the main thing. Undoubtedly, The topic raised and the very task of preparing a high-level public administration document in such an important area as culture deserves approval. In this case, one cannot be satisfied with the sad modern tradition of issuing documents of little use, since they do not delve into the essential requirements of management paraphernalia.

The document poses and analyzes the most important elements of the problem it raises, and this is an important step forward from the current situation of market arbitrariness and self-elimination of the state in the sphere of culture. This is the great value and significance of the Document.

The document should be supported in its core, but clearly stated understanding that it needs development and improvement in the above directions. The final document should become as clear as possible in the subject, concepts and value choices, in problem statements and in management attributes, it must acquire status and become a normative legal act. Must acquire a clear management mandate, a programmatic doctrinal character and become efficient in the management part.

It would probably be advisable to additionally involve specialists in the field of regulatory and legal creativity and in the field of public administration in the work of the authors and developers. Important conceptual provisions of the basic concepts, the basic formula of Russian multicolor culture with a Russian dominant, require correction, distinguishing it from the failed formula of multiculturalism. In this regard, it is important to raise the so far overlooked topic of moral censorship, both public and state. Other missed questions will need to be raised.

The document should be finalized and insist on its adoption.

Sulakshin S.S. Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor

For three months, society has been discussing a state document prepared by a working group created by the Presidential Administration. The title of the document is “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy.” Many government agencies and public organizations took part in it, the Internet is active, but, unfortunately, most newspapers and magazines (even the newspaper “Culture”) were practically indifferent, and the main television channels did not join in the discussion of the contents of the document.

An enlightened society is well aware of the difficulties in developing such a document, associated with the essence and characteristics of culture itself and with the long-standing ingrained state practice of treating it not as a main, but as an additional area of activity (hence the residual funding - less than 1% of the federal budget expenditures).

The complexity of developing the “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy of the Russian Federation” is confirmed by the fifteen-year history of the development and non-adoption of the main Law “On Culture” (the current law “Fundamentals of Legislation on Culture” was adopted in 1992, even before the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). It has been amended many times, as a result the internal logic of the law has been destroyed, there are no modern fundamental solutions, and it is difficult to apply to cultural practice.

The need for a new law is obvious. By July 2003, after discussion in 70 regions of the country, the law was submitted for adoption in the second reading, but was rejected (removed from the agenda) for organizational reasons and postponed to the autumn session. As a result, they never returned to consider the law. A number of laws were adopted to improve the management system in the country: the powers of various government bodies and local self-government were clarified. Changes took place in various areas of the country’s life, including culture. It was decided to develop a new law “On Culture” taking into account all the changes that have occurred.

The work proceeded slowly, with long interruptions - this is what happens when no one in the leadership of the state cares or is interested in whether there will be such a law. Only republics and regions showed interest; almost all of them adopted their laws “On Culture,” each in their own way, without waiting for the federal law. The text of the 2003 bill was used as methodological recommendations.

By 2011, a new text of the law “On Culture” was prepared by a working group of the State Duma Committee on Culture. At the last stage, the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, which ceased to exist this year, actively participated in this work. Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture G.P. Ivliev officially announced in several audiences that the development of the law had been completed and had been submitted to the government. However, the bill was not returned to the Duma for consideration. The government is rumored to have given a negative opinion on this bill.

At all stages of the development of the law, I had the opportunity to take part in this work: first - as a deputy of the State Duma, a member of the Committee on Culture, then - as an adviser to the minister, and later - as a member of the working group. Therefore, I know all the “details” well, the entire mechanism of this process, and I am sure that the main thing was missing: the conscious need for this law, the state will to adopt it. I recently received an answer from the Ministry of Culture to the question: when will there be such a law? They answered me that after the adoption of the “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy”.

The state will has been demonstrated: the task of developing the document has been entrusted by the President of the Russian Federation to his administration headed by S.B. Ivanov, a competent, professional working group was created. Apparently, they worked actively, because on April 23, on television, we all saw how the presidential adviser on culture, V. Tolstoy, handed over to the president the prepared draft “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy.” It is expected that there will be wide public discussion and, after revision, the document will be signed in the fall of 2014.

A number of government and public organizations joined in the preparation of the project (on behalf and on their own initiative), and articles appeared in scientific and popular publications. I believe that this is a good indication of interest in solving the problem. I hope that the main working group is familiar with these materials.

And now I would like to dwell on the analysis of cultural projects that have been published and become the topic of discussion.

Pros and cons of the “Review of Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation”

The first document, “Review of Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation,” was published in September 2013 and officially presented at the International Cultural Forum in Ulyanovsk. This document was prepared by a group of scientists from the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, headed by the head of the institute, K.E. Razlogov, heads of cultural bodies of a number of regions. An important feature of the document is that it provides an analysis of cultural policy in the regions of Russia.

Experts from the Council of Europe actively participated in the development. The first experience of joint work appeared in 1996, when the report “Cultural Policy of Russia: History and Modernity, Two Views on One Problem” was prepared. In this report, the views of our specialists and European scientists differed significantly from each other and therefore were presented separately (two views on one problem). Now, through joint work, a common understanding of the problem has been achieved, and the 2013 report has become a common document.
On May 27, 2013, the document was discussed in Strasbourg at a meeting of the Steering Committee on Culture, Heritage and Landscapes of the Council of Europe. The report was generally approved, and a decision was made to submit it (taking into account amendments and comments) by 2015.

When publishing the text of the report in our country, there is an important note: consider the presented understanding of cultural policy to be the opinion of the authors of the document.

Taking into account this note and at the same time respecting the authors and developers of the presented document (I know many of them from numerous works in the field of cultural studies, history of culture and art, art history), I will express my opinion on the content of this report.

First of all, I will try to highlight the productive positions that it contains. Firstly, the authors proceed from the fact that at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries the situation in the country and the world changed dramatically. New phenomena and processes must be comprehended in cultural policy. The report declares a call: to develop a cultural policy that focuses on the needs of the future. So far, this call has not been fully realized, but the desire for this deserves support.

Secondly, Among the factors influencing the development of culture, the following stand out: the modern information situation, new technologies affecting all aspects of society: the Internet and the World Wide Web, which have created new forms of communication between people and the dissemination of cultural products. Visual culture (the world of four screens: cinema, television, computers, mobile phones) has acquired particular importance. All this contains enormous creative potential, and at the same time these processes are internally contradictory. The strengthening of globalist positions in culture as a consequence of the new information situation collides with the desire of each culture for self-determination; the imposition of cultural stereotypes destroys the originality of culture, the peculiarity, and individuality of a person.

Third, the reality of the modern world has become the intensification of migration processes, vertical and horizontal mobility, which has enormous socio-cultural consequences. It was these processes that made the discussion of the problems of multiculturalism and tolerance popular. The report highlights the complexity of these trends, which have both positive and negative consequences. They need to be studied. The essence of a competent cultural policy is to promote the implementation of positive results and neutralize negative ones.

Unfortunately, the general part of the report does not offer experience in solving these problems, domestic and international, although such experience is presented in the analysis of regional cultural policies.

The report proposes a rethinking of the boundaries of culture and the introduction of a broader socially oriented understanding of it, referring to the concept that is used in international UNESCO documents: “culture is the whole complex of the most striking spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group.” That is, the characteristics of the culture of a society and a person must include a way of life, fundamental rights, a value system, traditions and worldview.

One can hardly argue with this, and this means that cultural policy in any country should clearly represent the image, the appearance of this people, the system of values that the people represent, the way of life that they have chosen for themselves. In this case, we are talking about Russian cultural policy. Unfortunately, this is what the report says the least about. I got the impression that the report could be offered to most developed countries; it is devoted to real general problems of cultural development. Should they be part of the cultural policy of our country? Yes, of course, but not only them.

“Russia is not Europe”: discussion of materials and proposals for the draft principles of cultural policy of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation

The second document – “Materials and proposals for the draft principles of state cultural policy” – immediately became the topic of public discussion. We are warned that this text is not final, that this is only a version of the Ministry of Culture (note, the relevant ministry), signed not by the minister, but by his deputy V.V. Aristarkhov. Nevertheless, the document published in the newspaper Izvestia2 immediately became the subject of heated discussion, most often sharply critical. The document is not simple; it must be read carefully, as they used to say, “with a pencil in hand,” and first of all, evaluate the fundamental positions that are contained in it.

The discussion about what Russia is and the culture of Russia - a continuation of the European cultural tradition or something new, previously unknown - is as old as time, it runs through the entire 19th century (the confrontation between Slavophiles and Westerners) and continued into the 20th century. The answer was given a long time ago - convincing and justified: the culture of Russia developed in line with the European cultural tradition, enriching it with the peculiarities of the culture of the Russian people, an original and significant culture. By the way, Europeans have always had an interest in Russian culture. The communists did not hesitate to admit that the sources of Marxism - the science and ideology recognized as fundamental in a socialist society - were the philosophy (dialectics) of Hegel and the materialism of Feuerbach.

This does not reduce the significance and greatness of Russian culture - complex, contradictory, and therefore developing. In Russian literature, we are interested not only in Aksakov, Khomyakov, Tyutchev, Turgenev, but also in Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Nekrasov (we can name many other names).

The “Fundamentals” of the Ministry of Culture categorically states: “Russia is not Europe.” This thesis is defined as the cornerstone of the foundations of state cultural policy. On this basis, the rejection of the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance is proclaimed, clearly distorting the very content of these concepts, replacing them with arguments of illiterate, unprofessional practice of use.

Overall, the document is overly pretentious and ambitious. Let us give just one quote on this matter: “When pursuing a responsible state cultural policy, only those cultural directions and “local cultural environments” that correspond to the value system adopted in a given state should be encouraged and developed.” According to V.R. Medinsky, “let a hundred flowers bloom, but we will water only those that are useful to us.”

The term “useful” itself is hardly appropriate in assessing cultural phenomena. And the question involuntarily arises: who are the judges? If the commission of the Ministry of Culture, then simultaneously with the publication of the document in question, the newspaper “Culture” on two pages spoke about the projects that the Ministry of Culture supports and finances at the expense of the state. Concern for the fate of culture has increased.

“Materials and proposals for the draft principles of state cultural policy” of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation pretend to be scientific, they theorize. Apparently, this is why the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences responded to their publication. His statement, signed by members of the academic council, is extremely critical: “The content of the document does not always correspond even to the student level; the text contains many one-sided, incorrect and simply false statements.”

Defending this project, Vladimir Khomyakov in the newspaper “Culture”, without particularly bothering with arguments, insults the academic council of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Several members of the academic council are defending the very plot on which the society of titled philosophers has been grazing for a quarter of a century, finding themselves unable to produce anything even remotely resembling an understanding of our self-identification, value system and national development goals.” And Vladimir Medinsky “for the first time began to approach culture from the point of view of state interests.”

I do not have the honor of knowing V. Khomyakov, but the works of many scientists at the Institute of Philosophy who signed the statement have long been well known: A.A. Guseinova, B.G. Yudina, A.V. Rubtsova, A.A. Kara-Murza, V.M. Mezhuev and others. They made the most significant contribution to the development of an understanding of culture and the cultural process. Knowledge of their work would make the project of cultural policy incomparably better.

A significant part of the project consists of quotes from the speech of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at a meeting of the Valdai international discussion club in September 2013. We are all familiar with this speech - bright, interesting, controversial. But in this case, even quotes from this speech do not save the project of the Ministry of Culture. It contains many statements that are easily refuted by known scientific data. Thus, revealing the principles of historicism, the authors assert that “first, a common worldview arises as a unifying principle of the emerging people, then a spiritual and cultural matrix is formed, then local cultural environments with their own subcultures are distinguished.”

The real process, from our point of view, goes differently. A worldview, not an ordinary one, but a scientific one, is a long process of formation of consciousness, it is a system of the most general views on the world and man’s place in this world. A person comes to a worldview through awareness of needs, material and spiritual, the formation of interests, and the assimilation of a value system.

Many times, when referring to the terms “values”, “traditional values”, “traditional identity” and so on, the text of the document never reveals their content. And this should be the most important thing. What does Russian culture claim and carry? What values constitute the content of the character of a Russian person? Dmitry Bykov writes in Novaya Gazeta: “The traditional value system for Russia is also not a completely clear concept, because Russia has different traditions. The Russian revolt is senseless and merciless - the same tradition as autocracy...” And further: “Public executions and liberal reforms, state and revolutionary terror fit equally easily into the Russian system of values.”

But traditions have their own development, and those that are in demand by time live on. Fortunately, traditions have the ability to preserve and enhance the best. Despite all the problems and difficulties, society moves forward, and it is very important that people themselves contribute to the establishment of good and bright things. There is a natural desire of a person - to be happy, to make his children live better than himself, and this means that life is prosperous, interesting and successful.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the famous Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky wrote an interesting study “The Character of the Russian People.” Among the most profound character traits he named: religiosity, understood as the search for absolute truths, absolute good; sensitive perception of other people's mental states (they experience the world not through I, but through WE); passion (maximalism, intolerance); diligence, the ability to exert heroic effort; love of freedom; contempt for philistinism and the bourgeois focus on property, on earthly goods, on “living like everyone else.” Respect was aroused by property created by one's own labor and talent. Lossky also notes the inconsistency of the Russian character, its incompleteness, uncertainty.

Reflecting on this topic, I would like to cite one document published in the book by Ksenia Gemp “The Tale of the White Sea”6. In the North, in peasant families, the “Pomeranian mandate” was passed down from generation to generation, from grandfathers to fathers and sons:

Light the candle with ardent wax,
Remember the earthly life of those who left,
Those who left us a legacy are a legacy.
That ancestral covenant -
Eternal primordial wisdom:
Serve your Motherland through military labor,
Illuminate her with the light of reason,
Magnify her with your kind heart,
Sing the true word,
Leave her zealous descendants.
This will be the Motherland
Your gratitude
Happiness is yours
And your reward.

And one more thing, perhaps the most alarming: those who developed materials and proposals for the draft cultural policy of the Ministry of Culture did not take into account that the main readers and implementers of cultural policy would be cultural workers, librarians, employees of museums, cultural centers, cultural centers, creative intelligentsia. What will they find in these fundamentals of cultural policy for their difficult activities? How will museums, libraries, and professional art education develop? How will the inclusion of an expanded definition of culture in the text be reflected in the content of their activities? What will be the criteria and priorities? How will cultural policy take into account the new information situation and other new phenomena?

All these questions primarily concern those who are practically engaged in cultural activities. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Culture’s project does not provide answers to these questions.

New directions of cultural policy in the project of the working group of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation and their public support

The draft “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy”, prepared by the working group of the Presidential Administration, is distinguished by the fact that it is based on an analysis and assessment of the real problems that exist today in the development of culture. Taking an expanded understanding of culture, the document presents new directions in cultural policy, forms of interaction between the state and society in solving the problems of cultural development.

The document has five sections. The largest of them is called “Strategic objectives of state cultural policy” and consists of 11 subsections. It begins with the main thing: preserving the heritage of Russian culture and the cultures of all peoples of Russia as a universal value that determines the identity and vitality of the Russian people.

The document is written in good literary language. The need to adopt the “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” is justified by the fact that Russia, having chosen its path in favor of a sovereign, original, free existence, considers the great Russian culture, its spiritual and moral values to be one of the main components of its development. Our culture has never opposed itself to the European tradition, absorbing the best in the diversity of cultures that is natural in a multinational state.

The goal of cultural policy is the spiritual, cultural, national self-determination of Russia, the unification of society, the formation of a moral, creative, responsible personality based on the potential of Russian culture.

It seems to me very correct to highlight topics in this direction literature and protection of the Russian language. Quite rightly, education, general and professional, and the involvement of children and youth in educational, creative, cultural, local history and other organizations are highlighted as a separate area.

Reflects the features of modern cultural life and the section on supporting not only existing, but also newly created institutions and public initiatives related to various types of cultural activities. I completely agree that they are not a service sector in the usual sense, but perform the most important state and public function of historical and cultural enlightenment and education of society.

Of course, the problem of practical provision of equal rights of citizens to access cultural values, use cultural institutions, to create and engage in cultural activities, and to overcome geographical and social inequality remains relevant, and has recently become more acute. Interesting experience has been accumulated in solving this problem in different regions of the country.

It is important to highlight the topic in a separate section “Support for scientific research in the field of culture and art”, especially now, when these areas of science have suffered significant damage. This refers to the closure of the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, unprofessional alterations to the Institute of Natural and Cultural Heritage and the Institute of Art History. For some reason, cultural studies is missing from the list of sciences about culture and art in the project. I hope that thanks to common efforts the situation in this branch of scientific knowledge will improve, and science itself will be included among the priorities.

I support the project “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy”, prepared by a working group created under the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation. Over the three months since publication, I had the opportunity to attend many discussions of the project by cultural workers, those who practically carry out cultural activities in museums, libraries, music and art schools, urban and rural cultural centers, helping millions of people make their lives more interesting and interesting. more joyful. They overwhelmingly approve of the presented document. Of course, serious comments are made and proposals are made, but basically the project finds support.

What is the meaning and purpose of adopting such a document? The state clearly defines what culture is for it, what place it occupies in its activities and what the state is ready to do for its development. Legislation is developed on this basis. The state proceeds from the fact that it was culture that “focused and transmitted the spiritual experience of the nation to new generations, ensured the unity of the multinational people of Russia, and largely determined Russia’s influence in the world.” Today this property of culture is becoming decisive for the future of the country. It is culture that allows us to reveal the talents, gifts and abilities of every person.

I think that the main reason why the project finds support is that it reflects the pain points that concern people, not only those professionally associated with cultural activities, but also millions of others, which hinder the development of culture, and often destroy its most striking manifestations.

The project denies the understanding of culture as a service sector (this idea is volitional: decrees and orders are approved in culture and education); it considers it necessary to change the ideas of authorities and citizens that cultural activity is a service sector. Cultural institutions perform an important state and public function of historical and cultural education and education of society. This function is comparable in importance to the function of the army and the state itself.

Literaturnaya Gazeta published an article about the discussion of the project at a round table in the Communist Party faction of the State Duma, at which member of the Culture Committee Dmitry Novikov “especially noted that the project does not yet break the approach to culture as a service sector. This remark was complemented by many speakers.” This surprised me, because the project fundamentally rejects the approach to culture as a service sector. This approach will have to be broken in practice, and the project calls for this to be done by proposing a number of measures.

When I read reviews of the draft “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy,” it often seems to me that their authors have not read this document at all or have become acquainted with some other one.

The advantage of this project is a brief and precise definition of the principles of cultural policy, that is, the fundamental foundations on which it is built. I highlight two of them, which are extremely relevant: this is the understanding of Russian culture as an integral part of world culture and the predominance of qualitative indicators when assessing the effectiveness of achieving the goals of state cultural policy.

In recent years, wanting to quickly “harmonize” culture with the peculiarities of market criteria, many quantitative indicators (road map) have been introduced that do not provide an objective assessment of the quality of work of museums, libraries and other cultural organizations. At the same time, filling out roadmaps takes a lot of time, which cultural workers could spend more profitably.

The concept of cultural policy also includes the state’s point of view on a number of other pressing issues that are discussed in society. I would like to support the opinion of the authors of the project on the following points:
– highlighting the educational and educational functions of culture as a priority;
– the broadest possible meaning of the concept of “cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation” and the inclusion in special sections of the development and protection of the Russian language, support of domestic literature;
- to solve the most difficult task - overcoming territorial and social inequality of citizens in realizing the right to access cultural values and participate in cultural activities - issues of cultural development in small and medium-sized cities are highlighted (specific measures are proposed). A program to support the culture of small towns, created by a charitable foundation, is currently being implemented. I am convinced that this program should be state-owned;
– restoration of the proven effective system of early training of professional creative personnel and mass art education. Practitioners undoubtedly also participated in the preparation of the text of the project under discussion. Therefore, the positive things that have recently appeared in cultural life have not gone unnoticed: a significant enrichment of museum life, new functions of museum-reserves, for example, the restoration of traditional forms of economic activity for a particular region, land use, customs and crafts, the development of museum pedagogy, the transformation libraries into centers of intellectual communication and other examples. Despite economic and social difficulties, cultural life does not stop, and new things are constantly being born in it, in demand by life.

Russia is a country of great culture that has made a huge contribution to the spiritual and intellectual achievements of mankind. We have a right to be proud of this. In the development of a new cultural policy, this should be the basis, a resource with which to move forward.

Culture in the development of Russian civilization

The culture of Russia has a centuries-old history of formation. In response to a completely natural question from a foreigner who has come to Russia for the first time and sincerely wants to understand the country and feel its people, each of us will certainly turn to culture. The choice is huge, and everyone will name something special that is especially close to them. I will try to show what you won’t see in other countries. I will invite you to my homeland, to the North. In this region, the beautiful and rich Russian language is still preserved, I will show you the Pinega Houses that have been cut down for centuries, and we will listen to the academic Russian folk choir with its amazing polyphony. Recently, an American arrived in the village of Vershinino, the center of the Kenozersky National Park in the Arkhangelsk region, got out of the car onto the shore of the beautiful and mysterious Kenozer and froze. And then he raised his hands to the sky and exhaled: “Russia is here!”

Yes, of course, he should learn about space centers, and about famous artistic and scientific groups - about everything that our people are proud of. But it is especially important to help him feel people who are strong in spirit and will, with dignity and kindness. Recently, Russian President V.V. Putin quoted M.Yu. Lermontov: “I love my fatherland, but with a strange love” and did not continue further. And then the great poet precisely defined the content of this love (published in abbreviation - author's note):

But I love - for what, I don’t know myself -
Its steppes are coldly silent,
Her boundless forests sway,
The floods of its rivers are like seas...
I love the smoke of a burnt life? You,
In the steppe? overnight train
And on a hill in the middle of a yellow field
Chet? white birches.
With joy unknown to many,
I see a complete threshing floor
A hut covered with straw
Window with carved shutters;
And on a holiday, on a dewy evening,
Ready to watch until midnight
To dance with stomping and whistling
Under the talk of drunken men.

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov (this year we celebrate the bicentenary of his birth) is a brilliant poet who glorified Russian literature, like thousands of other talented Russian artists, writers, actors, singers, who drew his talent from a deep understanding of Russia, its people, that moral wealth that the people carry within themselves. “Bless the work of the people and learn to respect the peasant,” N.A. urged. Nekrasov.

I don’t think this perhaps overly emotional passage is superfluous when analyzing the draft principles of cultural policy. This document must be special, it must be written with a sense of deep understanding of the importance that culture plays in the development of Russian civilization, and preferably in good Russian literary language, so that it would be wanted to be read and re-read not only by those who need it on duty.

Proposals for improving the project “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy”

The presented draft “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” of the working group under the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation needs to be improved. In this regard, a number of proposals and suggestions are offered.

1) The project did not find sufficiently complete and modern coverage of the topic "Business and Culture" or “Culture in the system of market relations”. This is necessary already because over the last twenty years, active efforts have been made, including by the state, to “inscribe culture into the market”: changing the legal form of cultural organizations - transferring them to autonomous, new budget and state-owned ones, introducing market indicators in assessing their activities, commercialization etc. The culture actively resisted, since the consequences of these processes were extremely contradictory, negative results clearly prevailed. But over the years, positive experience of interaction between culture and business has been accumulated, the use and development of which must be stimulated.

2) The project, from our point of view, has not received sufficient development the problem of training cultural workers. All professions necessary for cultural activities require high education and a retraining system. Living conditions are changing, and therefore, her requirements for the profession are changing. At the same time, the previously existing advanced training courses, as a rule, have become paid; most museum workers, librarians, and club workers are not able to pay for them. The significant increase in costs in recent years has increased interest in the profession, but has not solved the problem of personnel renewal.

3) Even before the publication of the draft “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy”, it was clear that the main controversy would revolve around the topic: role and place, the very possibility of the existence of ideology in the project, and in the life of society. And so it happened. One of the first articles about the project in Literaturnaya Gazeta, written by Stanislav Stansky, most harshly accused the project of being highly ideological. From the point of view of the author of the article, this is unacceptable because it contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which denies the very possibility of a single, universally binding state ideology. It was with reference to this article that the need for educational work in educational institutions was denied for almost fifteen years. It would seem to be an obvious absurdity, but the authority of the link was convincing.

Ideology continues to be denied today in a variety of forms. Thus, today’s popular author Dmitry Bykov writes: “We go our own way, and nothing takes us. Give us an ideology - this is hydrogen sulfide, the spirit of Leonty, Prokhaniy, the unbroken Russian shield... We need it to breathe. The oxygen makes us sick.” The most curious thing is that D. Bykov, who curses ideology, is himself extremely ideological: in all his works, from the first lines it is clear what the author stands for and what he is fighting against.

The essence of any ideology is the expression of the position of a person, group of people, society, state on a particular issue. This is natural and necessary. An integral part of such a position is the system of values that a person accepts for himself as the norm of life. The value system is developed by the spiritual experience of generations and each of them makes its own contribution to the intellectual and spiritual wealth of society. I agree that ideology cannot be imposed by violent methods, they are ineffective and most often cause the opposite result. There is a complex process of assimilation, mastery of spiritual experience both in the process of education, and in the process of work, and in life itself.

4) The project “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” makes an attempt to list those moral values that have been developed by culture and the entire experience of life in our country. We find this interesting and productive, although, unfortunately, it is unlikely that obedience to the law has become an accepted virtue among us and there are a number of reasons for this. But non-covetousness, respect for property acquired by honest labor, and rejection of property acquired unjustly are clearly represented.

The people's idea of moral values is clearly enshrined in proverbs - briefly and succinctly formulated rules of life. For example: “Where he was born, he fits in” (compare with the Latin: “Where it is good, there is the homeland”), “A bad world is better than a good quarrel”, “Poverty is not a vice”, “That’s why there is a pike in the sea, so that the crucian dozed”, “Every pine tree makes noise in its own forest”, “Don’t rush with your tongue, hurry with your deeds.”

At the beginning of the year, reflecting on the topic of what can be expected from the beginning of the Year of Culture, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Culture” Elena Yampolskaya dreamed: “What if in the upcoming “Fundamentals” - in the preamble, say - there will be a place for goals and meanings? After all, modern Russia has few documents suitable for meaning-making and goal-setting. There is literally nowhere to record what we live for - not each individual, but all together. So let's write this down in the “Fundamentals of Cultural Policy”. I think this dream is coming true. I hope that the discussion will be critical and constructive and that the Year of Culture will be remembered by the adoption of a stimulating and creative document.

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

2 general provisions of the foundations of state cultural policy. Analysis of the projects “Fundamentals of state cultural policy”

Structure of a doctrinal document of public policy

2. What's with the above theoretical and methodological point of view, the draft Document “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” presented for discussion?

Similar documents