Composition of the Slavs Many tribes were gradually included in the Eastern Slavs. One of these tribes was the Neuroi, about whom Herodotus speaks and the memory of which was preserved in the toponymy of the western regions of ancient Russia. Herodotus describes the customs of the Neuroi as follows: “These people,

Morphology of culture is a branch of cultural studies that studies internal organization cultures that make up its blocks. According to the classification of M. S. Kagan, there are three forms of the objective existence of culture: the human word, a technical thing and social organization, and three forms of spiritual objectivity: knowledge (value), project and artistic objectivity, which carries artistic images. According to the classification of A. Ya. Flier, culture includes clear blocks of human activity: culture social organization and regulation, culture of knowledge of the world, man and interhuman relations, culture social communication, accumulation, storage and transmission of information; culture of physical and mental reproduction, rehabilitation and recreation of humans. Morphology of culture is the study of variation cultural forms depending on their social, historical, geographical distribution. The main methods of cognition are structural-functional, semantic, genetic, general systems theory, organizational and dynamic analysis. The morphological study of culture assumes the following directions studies of cultural forms: genetic (generation and formation of cultural forms); microdynamic (dynamics of cultural forms within the life of three generations: direct transmission of cultural information); historical (dynamics of cultural forms on historical time scales); structural-functional (principles and forms of organizing cultural objects and processes in accordance with the objectives of meeting the needs, interests and requests of members of society).

Within the framework of cultural studies, the morphological approach is of key importance, since it allows us to identify the relationship between universal and ethnospecific characteristics in the structure of a particular culture. The general morphological model of culture - the structure of culture - in accordance with today's level of knowledge can be presented as follows:

• o three levels of connection between the subject of sociocultural life and the environment: specialized, broadcast, ordinary;
• o three functional blocks of specialized activities: cultural modes of social organization (economic, political, legal culture); cultural modes of socially significant knowledge (art, religion, philosophy, law); cultural modes of socially significant experience (education, enlightenment, Mass culture);
• o everyday analogues of specialized modalities of culture: social organization - household, manners and customs, morality; socially significant knowledge - everyday aesthetics, superstitions, folklore, practical knowledge and skills; transmission of cultural experience - games, rumors, conversations, advice, etc.

Thus, in a single field of culture, two levels are distinguished: specialized and ordinary. Ordinary culture is a set of ideas, norms of behavior, cultural phenomena associated with everyday life of people. Specialized The level of culture is divided into cumulative (where professional sociocultural experience is concentrated, accumulated, and the values ​​of society are accumulated) and translational. At the cumulative level, culture acts as an interconnection of elements, each of which is a consequence of a person’s predisposition to a certain activity. These include economic, political, legal, philosophical, religious, scientific, technical and artistic cultures. Each of these elements at the cumulative level corresponds to an element of culture at the everyday level. They are closely interconnected and influence each other. Economic culture corresponds to housekeeping and maintaining a family budget; political - morals and customs; legal culture - morality; philosophy - everyday worldview; religions - superstitions and prejudices, folk beliefs; scientific and technical culture - practical technologies; artistic culture - everyday aesthetics (folk architecture, the art of home decoration). At the translational level, interaction takes place between the cumulative and ordinary levels, and cultural information is exchanged.

There are communication channels between the cumulative and ordinary levels:

• o the sphere of education, where traditions and values ​​of each element of culture are transmitted (transmitted) to subsequent generations;
• o mass media (MSC) - television, radio, print, where interaction takes place between “high scientific” values ​​and the values ​​of everyday life, works of art and popular culture;
• o social institutions, cultural institutions where knowledge about culture and cultural values ​​become available to the general public (libraries, museums, theaters, etc.).

The levels of culture, their components and the interaction between them are shown in Fig. 1.

The structure of culture includes: substantial elements, which are objectified in its values ​​and norms, and functional elements, which characterize the process of cultural activity itself, its various sides and aspects.

Thus, the structure of culture is a complex, multifaceted formation. At the same time, all its elements interact with each other, forming a single system of such a unique phenomenon as culture appears before us.

The structure of culture is a system, the unity of its constituent elements.

The dominant features of each element form the so-called core of culture, serving as its fundamental principle, which is expressed in science, art, philosophy, ethics, religion, law, basic forms of economic, political and social organization, mentality and way of life. Specialist

Rice. 1.

The nature of the “core” of a particular culture depends on the hierarchy of its constituent values. Thus, the structure of culture can be represented as a division into a central core and the so-called periphery (outer layers). If the core provides stability and stability, then the periphery is more prone to innovation and is characterized by relatively less stability. For example, modern Western culture is often called a consumer society, since it is precisely these value bases that are brought to the fore.

In the structure of culture one can distinguish material and spiritual cultures. IN material culture includes: work culture and material production; culture of life; topos culture, i.e. place of residence (home, house, village, city); culture of attitude towards one's own body; Physical Culture. Spiritual culture is a multi-layered formation and includes: cognitive (intellectual) culture; moral, artistic; legal; pedagogical; religious.

According to L.N. Kogan and other culturologists, there are several types of culture that cannot be classified only as material or spiritual. They represent a “vertical” cross-section of culture, “permeating” its entire system. These are economic, political, environmental, aesthetic cultures.

There are dozens of such components. Such familiar phrases as national culture, World culture, urban culture, Christian culture, social culture, artistic culture, personal culture etc. Cultural morphology involves the study of all possible variations of cultural forms and artifacts depending on their historical, geographical and social distribution.

Structure of culture. In accordance with modern ideas, one can outline following structure culture. In a single field of culture, two levels are distinguished: specialized and ordinary. Everyday culture - a set of ideas, norms of behavior, cultural phenomena related to the everyday life of people. Specialized level of culture divided into cumulative(accumulation of professional and sociocultural experience) and translational. At the cumulative level, culture acts as an interconnection of elements, each of which is a consequence of a person’s predisposition to a certain activity. These include: economic culture, political culture, legal culture, philosophical culture, religious culture, scientific and technical culture, artistic culture. Each of these elements at the cumulative level corresponds to an element of culture at the everyday level. They are closely interconnected and influence each other. At the translational level, interaction takes place between the cumulative and ordinary levels, and cultural information is exchanged.

The American culturologist T. Eliot, depending on the degree of awareness of culture, distinguished two levels in its vertical section: the highest and the lowest, understanding by culture a certain way of life that only a select few - the “elite” - can lead. The Spanish culturologist J. Ortega y Gasset put forward the concept of mass society and popular culture. If elite culture is focused on a select, intellectual public, then mass culture is not oriented towards the “average” level of development of mass consumers, and often encourages the primitive inclinations of people.

Mass culture- a form of culture whose works are standardized and distributed to the general public without regard to regional and religious differences.

Elite culture includes fine arts, classical music and literature created by professionals, intended for the educated and upper classes.

Folk culture created by creators from among the people, remains nameless, reflects the spiritual quest of the people, includes myths, fairy tales, proverbs, legends, songs and dances.

Material culture represents the culture of labor and material production; culture of life; culture of topos (i.e. place of residence); culture of attitude towards one's own body; physical culture.

Spiritual culture acts as a multi-layered formation and includes: intellectual culture; moral; artistic; legal; pedagogical; religious.

According to L.N. Kogan and other culturologists, there are types of cultures that cannot be classified only as material or spiritual. They represent a “vertical section” of culture, permeating its entire system. These are economic, political, environmental, aesthetic cultures. Within the framework of the culture of society, we can distinguish subcultures: systems of symbols, values, beliefs, patterns of behavior that distinguish this or that community or some social group from the culture of the majority of society. We can distinguish Western, Eastern, national, professional, and confessional religious subcultures.

According to content and influence, culture is divided into progressive And reactionary. This division is quite legitimate, because culture as a human-forming phenomenon can educate not only a moral person, but also an immoral one. The structure of culture includes substantial elements, which are objectified in its values ​​and norms, and functional elements, which characterize the process of cultural activity itself, its various sides and aspects. The substantial block that makes up the “body” of culture, its substantial basis, includes the values ​​of culture - its products of a given cultural era, as well as the norms of culture, its requirements for each member of society. These include norms of law, religion, morality, norms of everyday behavior and communication between people. The functional block reveals the process of cultural movement. It includes: traditions, rites, customs, rituals, taboos that ensure the functioning of culture. In folk culture, these means were the main ones, because it is non-institutional. Thus, the structure of culture is a complex, multifaceted formation. At the same time, all its elements interact with each other, forming a single system of such a universal phenomenon as culture appears to us.

The dominant features of each element form the so-called “core” of culture, which acts as its fundamental principle, expressed in science, art, philosophy, ethics, religion, law, economics, politics, mentality and lifestyle. Each culture has its own unique value core, which embodies its chronotype, i.e. the specifics of its localization in the world (North, South, East, West, sea, mountain, plain, etc.) and being in the flow of world history. Thanks to the value core, the integrity of a given culture and its unique appearance are ensured. Cultures maintain continuity of existence by transforming their values. The condition for the existence of a culture is its ability to achieve an optimal balance between universal and specific values, which allows, on the one hand, to preserve its identity and originality, and on the other, to find an opportunity for interaction with other cultures.

Functions of culture. You should also pay attention to the main functions , which culture performs in the life of the human community. Let's look at some of them.

The most important - broadcast function(transfer) of social experience. It is often called the function of historical continuity, or information. It is no coincidence that culture is considered the social memory of humanity.

Another leading function is cognitive (epistemological). A culture that concentrates the best social experience of many generations of people accumulates a wealth of knowledge about the world and thereby creates favorable opportunities for its development.

Regulatory (normative) function culture is associated, first of all, with the regulation of various aspects of public and personal activities of people. Culture, one way or another, influences people's behavior and regulates their actions, actions and assessments.

Transformative function of culture(development and transformation surrounding reality are fundamental human needs). Man has an inherent desire to go beyond the limits of the given reality in transformation and creativity.

Protective function of culture is a consequence of the need to maintain a certain balanced relationship between man and the environment, both natural and social. The expansion of the spheres of human activity inevitably entails the emergence of more and more new dangers, and this requires the culture to create adequate protection mechanisms (environmental protection, medicine, public order, technological advances, etc.). The need for one type of protection stimulates the emergence of others. For example, exterminating agricultural pests causes environmental damage and requires funds environmental protection. The threat of environmental disaster currently makes this function of culture a priority.

Semiotic, or sign function - most important in the cultural system. Representing a certain sign system, culture presupposes knowledge and mastery of it. Without studying the corresponding sign systems, it is impossible to master the achievements of culture. Thus, language (oral or written) is a means of communication between people, literary language– the most important means of mastering national culture. Specific languages ​​are needed to understand the special world of music, painting, and theater. Natural Sciences(physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology) also have their own sign systems.

Value-based or axiological function contributes to the formation of very specific needs and orientations in a person. By their level and quality, the level of culture of a person is most often judged.

Humanistic function– formation of the moral character of an individual (culture as a way of socialization of a person, a way of development of a person, his abilities, skills, his physical and spiritual qualities).

CHAPTER 3. TYPOLOGY OF CULTURES.

Typology of cultures– the doctrine of the specific differences between cultures, the main types of world culture. The idea of ​​the existence of certain and independent “cultural-historical types” was first proposed by a Russian thinker of the 19th century. N.Ya.Danilevsky. However, typological ideas about culture became widespread only in the twentieth century. In general, three main principles for identifying cultural differences can be distinguished: 1) geographical – localization of cultures in geographical space; 2) chronological - highlighting independent stages in historical development, i.e. localization in time; 3) national - the study of the distinctive features of culture throughout its historical development. From these three basic concepts all others flow.

The typology of cultures proposed by O. Spengler is that there are Various types cultures that did not change historically, but only coexisted next to each other, remaining impenetrable to one another. Spengler identifies only eight cultures of equal maturity, covering the main parts of the planet: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Apollonian (ancient), magical (Arab), Mayan culture, Faustian culture (Western European). This approach to the typology of cultures is called the theory of “local civilizations”.

One can also highlight the theory of “evolutionary monism” (Hegel) - all countries are included in a single scheme of historical movement on the path from lower, undeveloped to higher, developed forms. Hegel considered the Eastern world to be the lowest stage of development of the spirit in the awareness of freedom.

K. Jaspers creates the theory of “axial time” - the axis of world history is chronologically located between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC, when, all the way from the West to Asia, a sharp turn in the history of development takes place: the struggle of rational experience - Logos - with myth begins, basic concepts and categories are developed, the foundations of world religions are laid. At this time, individualistic consciousness and the development of rational experience are formed. Those cultures where the transition from mythological to rational consciousness did not occur were unable to “step over” the Axial Age. Such cultures had an indirect impact on modern ones through extant cultural traditions, literary and archaeological sites.

Domestic researchers, such as L.S. Vasiliev, M.K. Petrov, L.S. Sedov, considered this problem from the point of view of the “East-West” antithesis.

Despite the presence of many different approaches to the typology and periodization of culture, in modern cultural studies there are several real historical stages and forms of culture: archaic culture; pre-axial culture of ancient local civilizations; culture of East and West in the “Axial Age”; culture of East and West in the Christian era.

There can be many criteria or grounds for a typology of cultures. In cultural studies, there is no consensus on what should be considered types, forms, types, or branches of culture.

Branches of culture should be called such sets of norms, rules and models of human behavior that constitute a relatively closed area within the whole.

Types of culture we should call such sets of norms, rules and models of human behavior that constitute relatively closed areas, but are not parts of one whole.

Any national or ethnic culture we must refer to cultural types. Types of culture include not only regional-ethnic formations, but also historical and economic ones.

Forms of culture refer to such sets of rules, norms and patterns of human behavior that cannot be considered completely autonomous entities; they are not either components any whole. High or elite culture folk culture and mass culture are called forms of culture because they represent a special way of expressing artistic content.

Types of culture we should call such sets of rules, norms and behavior patterns that are varieties of a more general culture. The main types of culture we will include:

A) dominant (national) culture;

B) rural and urban cultures;

B) ordinary and specialized cultures.

Requires special discussion spiritual And material culture. They cannot be classified as branches, forms, types or types of culture, since these phenomena combine all four classification features to varying degrees. It is more correct to consider spiritual and material culture as combined, or complex, formations that stand apart from the general conceptual scheme.

The proposed typology of cultures does not have to be considered the ultimate truth. It is very approximate and lax. Nevertheless, it has undoubted advantages: logical validity and consistency.

CHAPTER 4. CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION.

WITH An important place in the theory of culture is occupied by the question of the relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization. The concept of “civilization” appeared in antiquity to reflect the qualitative difference between ancient Roman society and the barbarian environment, but, as the French linguist E. Benveniste established, in European languages the word civilization took root in the period from 1757 to 1772. It was closely associated with a new way of life, the essence of which was urbanization and the increasing role of material and technical culture. It was then that the understanding of civilization, which is still relevant today, was formed as a certain form of the state of culture, an interethnic cultural and historical community of people who have a common language, political independence and established, developed forms of social organization. However, a unified view on the relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization has not yet been developed. Interpretations vary from their complete identification to categorical opposition. Philosophers of the Enlightenment, as a rule, insisted on the inextricable positive connection between these concepts: only high culture gives rise to civilization, and civilization, accordingly, is an indicator of cultural development and wealth. The only exception was, perhaps, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The call he put forward is well known: “Back to nature!” Rousseau found a lot of negative things not only in civilization, but also in culture itself, which distorted human nature. He contrasted the civilized man of the 18th century with “ Natural man"living in harmony with the world and with oneself. Rousseau's ideas found supporters among the romantics. At the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. the contradictions that existed between culture and civilization became obvious to many: culture easily turns into its opposite if the material, mass, quantitative principle begins to dominate in it.

For the German philosopher-culturologist O. Spengler, entry into the phase of civilization predetermines the death of culture, which is unable to develop harmoniously in the conditions of the mechanistic and artificial nature of civilization. The American ethnographer R. Redfield believed that culture and civilization are completely independent spheres of human existence: culture is an integral part of the life of all, even the smallest and most undeveloped communities of people, the simplest “folk communities,” and civilization is the sum of the acquired skills of people living in very complex and changing societies.

The relationship between these concepts in cultural studies is the cornerstone. Both of these concepts are distinguished by multiple meanings. In the interpretation of their relationship, there are three main trends: identification, opposition and partial interpenetration. The essence of each of these trends is determined by the interpretation of the content of these concepts. In scientific usage there are quite a large number of definitions of culture as a set of values, sometimes material and spiritual (Freud, Tylor), and sometimes only spiritual (Berdyaev, Spengler). The concept of civilization arose in the 18th century and its use is associated with the name of Holbach. The word "civilization" French origin, but originates from the Latin root civilis - civil, state. Exists whole line definitions of the concept of civilization. Of these, the following can be cited: civilization is a synonym for culture; level and degree of social development; the era following barbarism; period of degradation and decline of culture; the degree of dominance of man and society over nature through tools and means of production; a form of social organization and orderliness of the world, based on the priority of the development of new technologies. There is a certain logic in attempts to equate culture and civilization. They are due to similarities, which include:

The social nature of their origin. Neither culture nor civilization can exist outside of the human principle. These characteristics are alien to virgin nature.

Civilization and culture are the result of human activity and, in fact, are an artificial human habitat, in other words, second nature.

Civilization and culture are the result of satisfying human needs, but in one case predominantly material and in the other spiritual.

Finally, civilization and culture are different aspects public life. They cannot be separated without causing damage; dissection is possible only at a theoretical level.

S. Freud took the position of identifying culture and civilization, who believed that both distinguishes a person from an animal.

O. Spengler, N. Berdyaev, T. Marcuse and other thinkers insisted on the position of opposition. Spengler differentiated these concepts purely chronologically; for him, culture is replaced by civilization, which leads it to decline and degradation. “Civilization is a collection of extremely external and extremely artificial states... civilization is completion” 1.

N. Berdyaev believed that throughout almost the entire period of its existence, culture and civilization develop synchronously, with the exception of the source, which enabled the philosopher to draw a conclusion about the primacy of civilization, because the satisfaction of material needs anticipated the satisfaction of spiritual ones. N. Berdyaev primarily identifies differences and emphasizes the special features of both culture and civilization. In his opinion, culture emphasizes the spiritual, individual, qualitative, aesthetic, expressive, aristocratic, stably stable, sometimes conservative principle, and in civilization - the material, social-collective, quantitative, replicated, publicly accessible, democratic, pragmatic-utilitarian, dynamic progressive. Berdyaev notes that the origin of civilization is worldly, it was born in the fight against nature outside of temples and cults.

The position of contrasting the substantive essence of civilization and culture is also characteristic of T. Marcuse, who believed that civilization is a hard, cold, everyday reality, and culture is an eternal holiday. Marcuse wrote: “The spiritual labor of culture is opposed to the material labor of civilization, just as a weekday is opposed to a day off, work is opposed to leisure, the kingdom of necessity is opposed to the kingdom of freedom” 1 . Thus, according to Marcuse, civilization is everyday routine, a harsh necessity, and culture is an eternal holiday, a certain ideal, and sometimes a utopia. But, in essence, culture as a spiritual phenomenon is not only an illusion, but also a reality. Spengler, Berdyaev, Marcuse, putting civilization in opposition to culture as antipodal concepts, still understood that they are interdependent and interdependent.

Thus, civilization and culture coexist together and are the result of human activity to transform nature and man. Civilization allows a person to solve the issue of social organization and orderliness of the surrounding world, and culture allows a person to solve the problem of spiritual and value orientation in it. Russian writer M. Prishvin noted that civilization is the power of things, and culture is the connection of people. For Prishvin, culture is a union of creative individuals, the antithesis of a civilization based on a standard. Both - culture and civilization - coexist in his view in parallel and consist of different series of values. The first includes “personality – society – creativity – culture”, and the second – “reproduction – state – production – civilization” 2.

The main direction of the influence of culture on civilization is carried out through its humanization and the introduction of awareness of the creative aspect into human activity. Civilization, with its pragmatic attitudes, often crowds out culture and compresses its spiritual space. In different historical periods, culture and civilization occupied different shares in society. In the twentieth century, there is a noticeable tendency to increase the space of civilization compared to culture. Currently, the question of searching for real mechanisms and their mutual fruitful coexistence is relevant.

CHAPTER 5. ORIGINALITY OF CULTURAL SCIENCE AS AN COMPLEX SCIENCE.

Culturology, a complex science that studies all aspects of the functioning of culture, from the causes of its origin to various forms of historical self-expression, has become one of the most significant and rapidly developing humanities educational disciplines in recent times. This, undoubtedly, has its own, completely obvious reasons. The subject of cultural studies is culture, and the clearly identified interest in the phenomenon of culture is easily explained by certain circumstances. Let's try to characterize some of them:

1.Modern civilization is rapidly transforming the environment, social institutions, and everyday life. In this regard, culture attracts attention as an inexhaustible source of social innovation. Hence the desire to identify the potential of culture, its internal reserves, and find opportunities for its activation. Considering culture as a means of human self-realization, it is possible to identify new inexhaustible impulses that can have an impact on the historical process, on the person himself.

2. The question of the relationship between the concepts of culture and society, culture and history is also relevant. What impact does the cultural process have on social dynamics? What will the movement of history bring to culture? In the past, the social cycle was much shorter than the cultural one. When a person was born, he found a certain structure of cultural values. It has not changed for centuries. In the 20th century the situation changed dramatically. Now, over the course of one human life, several cultural cycles take place, which puts a person in an extremely difficult position for him. Everything changes so quickly that a person does not have time to comprehend and appreciate certain innovations and finds himself in a state of loss and uncertainty. In this regard, identifying the most significant features of the cultural practice of past eras in order to avoid moments of primitivization of modern culture acquires special significance.

All of the above does not exhaust the reasons that explain the rapid development of cultural studies in our days.

The terminological apparatus of this science, consisting of categories of cultural studies, is gradually being formed. Categories of cultural studies include the most essential concepts about patterns in the development of culture as a system and reflect the essential properties of culture. Based on the categories of cultural studies, cultural phenomena are studied.

The main components of cultural studies are the philosophy of culture and the history of culture, areas of humanitarian knowledge that began to exist quite a long time ago. Having merged together, they formed the basis of cultural studies. In cultural studies, historical facts are subjected to philosophical analysis and generalization. Depending on the aspect on which the main attention is focused, various cultural theories and schools are created. Philosophy of culture is a branch of cultural studies that studies the concepts of the origin and functioning of culture. Cultural history is a branch of cultural studies that studies the specific features of cultures of various cultural and historical stages.

Newer branches of cultural studies, the main parameters of which continue to be formed to this day, are morphology of culture And theory of culture.

Culture became the object of close attention of researchers in the 18th century, the century of Enlightenment.

The German philosopher Herder viewed the human mind not as an innate given, but as a result of education and comprehension of cultural images. By gaining reason, according to Herder, a person becomes the son of God, the king of the earth. He viewed animals as slaves of nature, and in people he saw her first freedmen.

For Kant, culture is a tool for preparing a person to fulfill his moral duty, a path from the natural world to the kingdom of freedom. According to Kant, culture characterizes only the subject, and not real world. Its bearer is an educated and morally developed person.

According to F. Schiller, culture consists of the reconciliation of the physical and moral nature of man: “Culture must give justice to both - not only one rational impulse of a person as opposed to the sensual, but also the latter as opposed to the first. So, the task of culture is twofold: firstly, to protect sensuality from the seizure of freedom, and secondly, to protect the individual from the power of feelings. She achieves the first by developing the ability to feel, and the second by developing the mind.”

Among Schiller's younger contemporaries— F.V. Schelling, brothers A.V. and F. Schlegel etc. – the aesthetic significance of culture comes to the fore. Its main content is proclaimed artistic activity people, as a means of divine overcoming the animal, natural principle in them. Aesthetic views Schelling is most fully presented in his book “Philosophy of Art” (1802 - 1803), where the desire to show the priority of artistic creativity over all other types of human creative activity, to place art over morality and science is clearly visible. In a somewhat simplified way, culture was reduced by Schelling and other romantics to art, primarily to poetry. To a certain extent, they contrasted the reasonable and moral man with the power of the human artist, the human creator.)

In the works of G.F.V. According to Hegel, the main types of culture (art, law, religion, philosophy) are represented by the stages of development of the “world mind”. Hegel creates a universal scheme for the development of the “world mind”, according to which any culture embodies a certain stage of its self-expression. The “world mind” also manifests itself in people. Initially in the form of language, speech. The spiritual development of an individual reproduces the stages of self-knowledge of the “world mind”, starting with “baby babble” and ending with “absolute knowledge”, i.e. knowledge of those forms and laws that govern the entire process from within spiritual development humanity. From Hegel's point of view, the development of world culture reveals such integrity and logic that cannot be explained by the sum of the efforts of individual individuals. The essence of culture, according to Hegel, is manifested not in overcoming the biological principles in man and not in the creative imagination of outstanding personalities, but in the spiritual connection of the individual to the “world mind”, which subjugates both nature and history. “The absolute value of culture lies in the development of universality of thinking,” Hegel wrote.

If we proceed from Hegel’s cultural scheme, then at present humanity is somewhere halfway between its childhood age of ignorance and the final mastery of the “absolute idea”, “absolute knowledge”, which determines its “absolute culture”. Despite the fact that Hegel did not directly devote a single work to culture, his views can be considered one of the first holistic and fairly convincing pre-cultural concepts. Hegel not only discovered the general patterns of development of world culture, but also managed to capture them in the logic of concepts. In his works “Phenomenology of Spirit”, “Philosophy of History”, “Aesthetics”, “Philosophy of Law”, “Philosophy of Religion”, he essentially analyzed the entire path of development of world culture. No thinker had done this before. However, Hegel’s philosophy of culture is not yet cultural science. In Hegel's works, culture does not yet appear as the main subject of study. Hegel actually replaces the concept of culture with the concept of the history of self-disclosure of the “world mind.”

Of particular interest to specialists in the field of philology and linguistics are the views of Hegel’s contemporary – the German esthetician, linguist and philosopher W. von Humboldt, who used Hegel’s concept of “spirit” in relation to the culture of individual peoples. He viewed each culture as a unique spiritual whole, the specificity of which is expressed mainly in language. Emphasizing the creative nature of language as a form of expression of the national spirit, Humboldt explored it in close connection with the cultural existence of the people. Humboldt's works, to a certain extent, marked the transition from a predominantly philosophical understanding of culture (Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Schiller, Schelling, Hegel) to its more substantive study.

However, the work is adequate modern idea about cultural studies, appear only in the 2nd half. XIX century. One of these can rightfully be considered the book of the Englishman E. B. Tylor “Primitive Culture” (1871) . Arguing that “the science of culture is the science of reform,” he viewed culture as a process of continuous progressive development. Tylor gives one of the first definitions of culture of a general nature, which is considered to this day one of the most objective: “Culture or civilization in a broad, ethnographic sense is composed as a whole of knowledge, beliefs, art, morality, laws, customs and some other abilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

In 1869 and 1872 two works appear that are now invariably included among the most significant for the course of cultural studies. This is “Russia and Europe” by Russian researcher N.Ya. Danilevsky and “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music” by the German philosopher F. Nietzsche. Here all the signs of a real cultural study are already evident: material on the history of culture is interpreted philosophically and is accompanied by calculations of a general theoretical order. And most importantly, culture and its forms are the main object of consideration. The views of Danilevsky and Nietzsche on culture will be discussed in the next chapter. It is only necessary to note that the fact of the emergence of cultural studies did not yet mean the emergence of the science itself. Neither Danilevsky nor Nietzsche called themselves culturologists, and they hardly suspected that they were becoming the forefathers of a new science. Danilevsky perceived himself more as a historian, although he was a biologist by training, and Nietzsche quite naturally acted as a philosopher.

In the future, the study of problems related to culture becomes more and more common. Scientists are finding more and more new aspects in this truly limitless phenomenon. V. Dilthey initiates the use of hermeneutics techniques to understand cultural images. He believes that the method of explanation is not suitable for studying phenomena associated with human creativity, and must be replaced by a more subtle and psychological method of understanding. Hermeneutics was originally a method of classical philology, allowing for meaningful interpretation and translation of monuments ancient literature. Dilthey proposes using this method to study cultural eras, recreating their psychological structure. “We explain nature,” Dilthey believed, “and we understand spiritual life (i.e. culture”).” Hermeneutical developments became the basis of the “spiritual-historical school” in cultural studies.

G. Simmel pays special attention to conflicting moments in culture turn of the XIX century- XX centuries, trying to give them a deep objective interpretation. He considers the subject of history to be the evolution of cultural forms, which is carried out in a certain direction. At the beginning of the twentieth century, from the point of view of a philosopher, there is a sharp deviation in the line of cultural development from previous paths. In his work “The Conflict of Modern Culture” (1918), Simmel explains the desire to destroy all old forms of culture with new ones, characteristic of this historical period, by the fact that in recent decades humanity has been living without any unifying idea, as it was until mid-19th century. Many new ideas arise, but they are so fragmentary and incompletely expressed that they cannot meet with an adequate response in life itself, and cannot rally society around the idea of ​​culture. “Life in its immediacy strives to embody itself in phenomena, but due to their imperfection it reveals a struggle against any form,” writes Simmel, justifying his vision of the causes of crisis phenomena in culture. Perhaps the philosopher managed to discover one of the most significant indicators of the cultural crisis as such: namely, the absence of a global, socially important idea capable of uniting all cultural creative processes.

Simmel’s point of view is also extremely interesting because it was expressed precisely at a time when cultural studies was finally turning into an independent science. The feeling of crisis characteristic of assessing the state of culture by the most by different thinkers, to a certain extent, predetermined the completion of the formation of the science of culture. The formation of cultural studies was completed under the influence of certain events in European culture. They testified to a profound change in history, unparalleled in previous centuries. The First World War and revolutions in Russia, Germany, Hungary, a new type of organization of people’s lives, caused by the industrial revolution, the growth of human power over nature and the disastrous consequences of this growth for nature, the birth of the impersonal “man of the masses” - all this obliged us to take a different look at the character and the role of European culture. Many scientists, like Simmel, considered its situation extremely deplorable and no longer considered European culture as a certain cultural standard, they spoke of a crisis and the collapse of its foundations.

At the end of 1915, the Russian philosopher L.M. Lopatin prophetically said that the modern world is experiencing a huge historical catastrophe - so terrible, so bloody, so fraught with the most unexpected prospects that in front of it the mind becomes numb and the head is dizzy... In the now raging unprecedented historical storm, not only is blood flowing in rivers, not only States are collapsing... not only are peoples dying and rising, something else is also happening... Old ideals are crumbling, former hopes and persistent expectations are fading... And most importantly, our very faith in modern culture is irreparably and deeply shaken: because of its foundations, such a terrible animal face suddenly looked out at us that we involuntarily turned away from it with disgust and bewilderment. And a persistent question arises: what, in fact, is this culture? What is its moral, even just life value?

Subsequent events in Europe and in the world showed that Lopatin did not exaggerate the significance of crisis phenomena in culture. It became obvious that man and culture itself could develop in a completely different way than was once imagined by the figures of the Enlightenment and the humanists of the Renaissance, that the ideal of a self-developing creative personality in the 20th century looked simply like a utopia. It turned out that even educated people capable of acts of vandalism and mass destruction of their own kind. A paradoxical situation arose: historical development continued, but cultural development slowed down, reversed, as it were, reviving in man the ancient instincts of destruction and aggression. This situation could not be explained on the basis of traditional ideas about culture, according to which it is a process of organizing and ordering history itself.

Consequently, culturology as a worldview science has finally strengthened its position as a result of awareness among broad layers of society of the crisis state of culture at the beginning of the twentieth century, just as the boom experienced by culturology now is explained by the crisis of the state of culture at the end of the twentieth century.

The attention of the outstanding German sociologist Max Weber was attracted by problems of religion and culture. Within the framework of historical sociology, Weber made a grand attempt to study the role of the Protestant ethic in the genesis of Western European capitalism. His work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1904–1905) subsequently gave rise to a whole series of studies related to the sociological study of the “economic role” of world religions.

Another representative of the Weber family, Alfred analyzed crisis phenomena in culture, insisting on the integrity of world culture, as opposed to the popular ideas of the cyclists, while recognizing the presence of the deepest general crisis of European culture in the 1st half of the 20th century.

The feeling of discomfort and uncertainty was so strong that the first volume of O. Spengler’s work “The Decline of Europe”, published in 1918, was met with unprecedented interest. The book was read and discussed not only by specialists: philosophers, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, etc., but also by all educated people. It has become an integral part of many university programs. And this despite significant criticism of many of the provisions expressed by Spengler. It is legitimate to question the reasons for such interest in this work. After all, Spengler literally repeated some points from what he had written half a century ago. before the work Danilevsky’s “Russia and Europe”, which was noticed only by a narrow circle of professionals.

There is no doubt that it was a cultural and historical situation. The very name “The Decline of Europe” could not have sounded more relevant. Most of Spengler's contemporaries really felt that they were living in a world of collapse of old familiar cultural norms, and inevitably asked themselves whether this meant the end of European civilization in general, or the beginning of the next round in its development. Reading Spengler, people tried to find an answer to the painful question about the fate of culture.

The above statements by Simmel and Lopatin regarding the general cultural situation of the early twentieth century quite accurately reflect the essence of the issue, but for the consciousness of the average person, all the subtleties outlined by both philosophers may not have been so obvious. But even at the philistine level, the culture of that time contained so many innovations that it was extremely difficult to comprehend them and develop a certain attitude towards them. And outside of cultural attitudes, a person cannot exist safely. Let us remember that the beginning of the century was a time of widespread and rapid introduction into life of electricity, and associated radio, telephone, and telegraph. Gramophone recording and cinema appeared. The car goes from being a curiosity to becoming commonplace. Aircraft (airplanes and airships) are created. Much of what seemed fantastic and a dream becomes commonplace, but does not bring much happiness to humanity. There is also a radical breakdown of traditional social structures.

The painfulness of a person’s perception of the entire complex of significant changes was clearly manifested in artistic creativity. The culture of the avant-garde swept away all the attitudes of the past, some of which existed without alternative for more than one millennium. First of all, this is the principle of memesis, or life imitation, which was considered unshakable for literature and visual arts since the time of Aristotle. Visitors to art exhibitions, accustomed to seeing recognizable images of their contemporaries or familiar images of nature, felt extremely insecure in front of the paintings of the Cubists or abstractionists. If we take into account the fact that until now the tastes of most people lean towards realistic art, it is easy to imagine how perplexed those who were the first to come into contact with avant-garde techniques experienced. The foundations of modernist art will be discussed in more detail in the chapter devoted to new trends in the culture of the twentieth century. In the context of this chapter, mention of abstractionism is necessary as another argument in favor of confirming the sharp breakdown of traditional forms of culture, characteristic of the time of the formation of cultural studies.

Many scientists involved in various aspects of humanities have considered it a point of honor to take part in the creation of a general theory of culture, reflecting the multidimensionality and complexity of this concept. The term “cultural studies” did not appear immediately. It was introduced around the 40s. on the initiative of the American cultural researcher and anthropologist L.E. White. In the works “The Science of Culture” (1949), “The Evolution of Culture” (1959). “The Concept of Culture” (1973) and others. White argued that cultural studies represents a qualitatively higher level of understanding of man than other social sciences, and predicted a great future for it. He viewed culture as a kind of integral system of material and spiritual elements, and common law development of culture formulated with almost mathematical precision: “Culture moves forward as the amount of harnessed energy per capita increases, or as efficiency or economy in the means of energy management increases, or both together.” It turned out that by the time White introduced the name into use, science itself was already actively functioning.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that cultural studies to this day remains the most controversial and diverse science. Creating a science of culture equal in logic, internal unity, and fundamentality to other humanities has turned out to be extremely difficult: the object of research itself is too multifaceted. This explains the variety of interpretations of its specifics and components.

“Culturology is focused on understanding the common things that connect different forms of cultural existence of people... Historical and theoretical ways of considering the forms of cultural existence of a person are in unity in cultural studies. Based on this understanding, cultural studies can be considered as knowledge about the past and modern culture, its structure and functions, development prospects,” writes Russian culturologist S.Ya. Levit in the article “Culturology as an Integrative Field of Knowledge,” and his position seems completely justified, fully reflecting the essence of this interesting science.

Culturology: Textbook for universities Apresyan Ruben Grantovich

2.3. Structure of cultural studies

2.3. Structure of cultural studies

Modern cultural studies unites a number of disciplines, each of which ensures the fulfillment of the tasks facing this science. These disciplines can be very roughly divided into theoretical and historical.

The theoretical branch includes:

– philosophy of culture, which studies the most general problems of the existence of culture;

– theory of culture – studying the patterns of development and functioning of culture;

– morphology of culture – the study of various forms of cultural existence, such as language, myth, art, religion, technology, science.

The historical branch, in turn, includes:

– cultural history, which deals with the typology of cultures, comparative analysis development of various cultural and historical types;

– sociology of culture, which explores the functioning of culture in society, the relationship between social and cultural processes.

– practical cultural studies, which determines at what level human activity takes on a cultural character. Obviously, this level is unique for each historical era.