Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal state budget educational
institution of higher professional education
ABSTRACT
in the discipline "Culturology"
Dialogue of cultures in the modern world
Group student.
Teacher
Introduction
1. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world
2. Intercultural interaction in modern society
3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The entire history of mankind is a dialogue that permeates our entire life and is in reality a means of communication, a condition for mutual understanding between people. The interaction of cultures and civilizations presupposes some common cultural values.
In the modern world, it is becoming increasingly obvious that humanity is developing along the path of expanding the interconnection and interdependence of different countries, peoples and their cultures. Today, all ethnic communities are influenced both by the cultures of other peoples and by the broader social environment that exists in individual regions and in the world as a whole. This was expressed in the rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct contacts between government institutions, social groups, social movements and individuals of different countries and cultures. The expansion of interaction between cultures and peoples makes the issue of cultural identity and cultural differences especially relevant. The trend towards preserving cultural identity confirms the general pattern that humanity, while becoming more interconnected and united, does not lose its cultural diversity.
In the context of these trends in social development, it becomes extremely important to be able to determine the cultural characteristics of peoples in order to understand each other and achieve mutual recognition.
The interaction of cultures is an unusually relevant topic in the conditions of modern Russia and the world as a whole. It is quite possible that it is more important than the problems of economic and political relations between peoples. Culture constitutes a certain integrity in a country, and the more internal and external connections a culture has with other cultures or its individual branches, the higher it rises.
1 . Dianalogy of cultures in the modern world
The mutual exchange of knowledge, experience, and assessments is a necessary condition for the existence of culture. When creating cultural objectivity, a person “transforms his spiritual powers and abilities into an object.” And when mastering cultural wealth, a person “disobjectifies”, reveals the spiritual content of cultural objectivity and turns it into his own property. Therefore, the existence of culture is possible only in the dialogue of those who created and those who perceive the phenomenon of culture. Dialogue of cultures is a form of interaction, understanding and assessment of cultural subjectivity and is at the center of the cultural process.
The concept of dialogue in the cultural process has a broad meaning. It includes a dialogue between the creator and consumer of cultural values, and a dialogue between generations, and a dialogue of cultures as a form of interaction and mutual understanding between peoples. As trade and population migration develop, the interaction of cultures inevitably expands. It serves as a source of their mutual enrichment and development.
The most productive and painless is the interaction of cultures existing within the framework of a common civilization. The interaction of European and non-European cultures can be carried out in different ways. It can occur in the form of mutual promotion of development; assimilation (absorption) of one culture by another or both interacting cultures suppress each other, i.e. absorption of Eastern civilizations by Western civilization, penetration of Western civilization into Eastern ones, as well as the coexistence of both civilizations. The rapid development of science and technology in European countries and the need to ensure normal living conditions for the world's population have exacerbated the problem of modernization of traditional civilizations.
While maintaining its cultural core, each culture is constantly exposed to external influences, adapting them in different ways. Evidence of the rapprochement of different cultures is: intensive cultural exchange, the development of educational and cultural institutions, the spread of medical care, the spread of advanced technologies that provide people with the necessary material benefits, and the protection of human rights. cultural exchange social benefit
Any cultural phenomenon is interpreted by people in the context of the current state of society, which can greatly change its meaning. Culture retains only its external side relatively unchanged, while its spiritual wealth contains the possibility of endless development. This opportunity is realized by the activity of a person who is capable of enriching and updating those unique meanings that he discovers in cultural phenomena. This indicates constant renewal in the process of cultural dynamics.
The very concept of culture presupposes the presence of tradition as “memory”, the loss of which is tantamount to the death of society. The concept of tradition includes such manifestations of culture as the cultural core, endogeneity, originality, specificity and cultural heritage. The core of culture is a system of principles that guarantee its relative stability and reproducibility. Endogeneity means that the essence of culture, its systemic unity, is determined by the combination of internal principles. Identity reflects the originality and uniqueness due to the relative independence and isolation of cultural development. Specificity is the presence of properties inherent in culture as a special phenomenon of social life. Cultural heritage includes a set of values created by previous generations and included in the sociocultural process of each society.
2 . Intercultural interaction in modern society
Intercultural interaction is the contact of two or more cultural traditions (canons, styles), in the course and result of which the counterparties have a significant mutual influence on each other.
The process of interaction between cultures, leading to their unification, causes in some nations a desire for cultural self-affirmation and a desire to preserve their own cultural values. A number of states and cultures demonstrate their categorical rejection of the ongoing cultural changes. They contrast the process of opening cultural borders with the impenetrability of their own and an exaggerated sense of pride in their national identity. Different societies react to outside influences in different ways. The range of resistance to the process of merging cultures is quite wide: from passive rejection of the values of other cultures to active opposition to their spread and approval. Therefore, we are witnesses and contemporaries of numerous ethno-religious conflicts, the growth of nationalist sentiments, and regional fundamentalist movements.
The noted processes, to one degree or another, have found their manifestation in Russia. Reforms of society led to serious changes in the cultural appearance of Russia. A completely new type of business culture is emerging, a new idea of the social responsibility of the business world to the client and society is being formed, and the life of society as a whole is changing.
The result of the new economic relations was the widespread availability of direct contact with cultures that had previously seemed mysterious and strange. With direct contact with such cultures, differences are recognized not only at the level of kitchen utensils, clothing, and diet, but also in different attitudes towards women, children and the elderly, in ways and means of doing business.
Interaction is carried out at different levels and by different groups of carriers of the corresponding cultures.
Subjects of intercultural interaction can be divided into three groups:
1 scientists and cultural figures interacting with the goal of learning about someone else’s culture and introducing them to their own;
2 politicians who consider intercultural relations as one of the aspects of social or political problems, including international ones, or even as a means of solving them;
3 population encountering representatives of other cultures at the everyday level.
Identifying the levels of intercultural interaction depending on its subjects helps to avoid abstract formulation of the question and more specifically comprehend the goals of interaction that differ among different groups; the means used to achieve them; trends of each level of interaction and their prospects. The opportunity is revealed to separate the problems of intercultural interaction itself from the social, economic and political problems hidden behind the “clash of civilizations” or dialogue of cultures.
3. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world
Differences in worldviews are one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than the communication itself, in others it is the other way around.
The term worldview is usually used to refer to the concept of reality shared by a culturally or ethnically specific group of people. Worldview, first of all, must be attributed to the cognitive side of culture. The mental organization of each individual reflects the structure of the world. Elements of community in the worldview of individual individuals form the worldview of the entire group of people of a particular culture.
Each individual has his own culture, which shapes his worldview. Despite the differences between the individuals themselves, culture in their minds is composed of generally accepted elements and elements whose differences are acceptable. The rigidity or flexibility of a culture is determined by the relationship between the worldviews of individuals and the worldview of society.
Differences in worldviews are one of the reasons for disagreements and conflicts in intercultural communication. But mastering cult knowledge helps improve intercultural communication.
Worldview defines such categories as humanity, good and evil, state of mind, the role of time and fate, properties of physical bodies and natural resources. The interpretation of this definition includes cultic beliefs regarding the various forces associated with the events that occur daily and with the rituals observed. For example, many eastern peoples believe that an unfavorable atmosphere in the family is the result of the activities of the mythical brownie. If you do not treat him properly (do not pray, do not address sacrifices to him), the family will not get rid of problems and adversity.
The graduate school at Western Kentucky University administered a test that consisted of a single question: “If your half-brother committed an illegal act, would you report it to law enforcement?” Americans and representatives of Western European countries responded in the affirmative, considering notifying law enforcement agencies their civic duty. The only representative of Russia (Ossetian by nationality) and two Mexicans were against. One of the Mexicans was outraged by the very possibility of raising such a question, which he was not slow to speak out about. Unlike Americans and Europeans, he perceived denunciation of his own brother as the height of moral failure. To the credit of Dr. Cecilia Garmon, who conducted the test, the incident was resolved. She explained that neither answer is good or bad in itself. Both must be taken in the context of the culture that the responder represents.
In the Caucasus, for example, if a member of a traditional family (surname or clan) commits an unseemly act, the entire family or clan, which can number up to several hundred people, bears responsibility for his actions. The problem is solved collectively, and the person who broke the law is not considered the only one to blame. Traditionally, his family shares the blame. At the same time, the reputation of the entire family suffers, and its representatives do everything possible to regain their good name.
In some cultures, the purpose of interaction is more important than the communication itself, in others it is the other way around. The first have a specific worldview that reduces all questions to action. A person who has achieved a certain goal through hard work rises not only in his own eyes, but also in public opinion. In such cultures, the end justifies the means. In others, where the priority always remains with the person, relationships are valued higher than the result. In this case, “there are many expressive means that represent the structures of a deeper, highlighted cognitive value of a person’s meaning in comparison with the problem being solved.” Ultimately, cultures are possible in which no goal, even the most important, can rise above man.
Any worldview that has developed in a particular culture is autonomous and adequate in the sense that it is the connecting link between opinion and reality, opening a view of reality as something experienced and accepted. A worldview contains a complex of beliefs, concepts, an orderly understanding of social structures and moral principles, and this complex is unique and specific in comparison with other similar complexes of other sociocultural associations. Despite the acceptability of modifications in culture and the possibility of varying the limit of permissible changes, the worldview is always adequate to the culture and determined by its principles.
No matter how the circumstances develop in this case, representatives of different cultures, while in the process of interaction, inevitably experience certain psychological inconveniences. The driving force behind adaptation is the interaction of at least two groups of people: the dominant group, which has great influence, and the adaptable group, which undergoes a process of learning or adaptation. The dominant group intentionally or unintentionally imposes changes, while the other group, voluntarily or not, accepts them.
Thanks to the globalization of the economy, the process of mutual adaptation of cultures has become more widespread. Of course, on the one hand, this contributes to a more even development of the economy around the world. The whole world is connected by one economic chain; the deterioration of the situation in one country will not leave other countries indifferent. Every participant in the global economy is interested in the well-being of the whole world. But on the other hand, residents of many closed countries are simply not ready for such a sudden foreign cultural invasion, and conflicts as a result of this are inevitable.
More and more theoretical and applied research is currently being devoted to the problems of intercultural interaction, both in Russia and abroad.
When becoming participants in any type of intercultural contact, people interact with representatives of other cultures, often significantly different from each other. Differences in languages, national cuisine, clothing, norms of social behavior, and attitudes towards work performed often make these contacts difficult and even impossible. But these are only particular problems of intercultural contacts. The main reasons for their failures lie beyond the obvious differences. They are in differences in worldview, that is, a different attitude towards the world and other people.
The main obstacle to successfully solving this problem is that we perceive other cultures through the prism of our culture, so our observations and conclusions are limited within its framework. With great difficulty we understand the meaning of words, deeds, actions that are not characteristic of ourselves. Our ethnocentrism not only interferes with intercultural communication, but it is also difficult to recognize, since it is an unconscious process. This suggests the conclusion that effective intercultural communication cannot arise on its own; it needs to be purposefully learned.
Conclusion
The dialogue of cultures has been and remains central to the development of humanity. Over the course of centuries and millennia, there was a mutual enrichment of cultures, from which a unique mosaic of human civilization was formed. The process of interaction and dialogue between cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures and elements of national culture are active for the assimilation of accumulated creative values. The most active process of dialogue between cultures occurs with the assimilation of artistic values close to one or another type of national thinking. Of course, much depends on the relationship between the stages of cultural development and the accumulated experience. Within each national culture, various components of culture develop differentially.
No nation can exist and develop in isolation from its neighbors. The closest communication between neighboring ethnicities occurs at the junction of ethnic territories, where ethnocultural ties become most intense. Contacts between peoples have always been a powerful stimulus for the historical process. Since the formation of the first ethnic communities of antiquity, the main centers of development of human culture have been at ethnic crossroads - zones where the traditions of different peoples collided and were mutually enriched. Dialogue of cultures is interethnic and international contacts. Dialogue between neighboring cultures is an important factor in regulating interethnic relations.
In the process of interaction of several cultures, the opportunity arises for a comparative assessment of achievements, their value and the likelihood of borrowing. The nature of interaction between cultures of peoples is influenced not only by the level of development of each of them, but also specifically by socio-historical conditions, as well as by the behavioral aspect, based on the possible inadequacy of the position of representatives of each of the interacting cultures.
Within the framework of globalization, international dialogue of cultures is increasing. International cultural dialogue strengthens mutual understanding between peoples and makes it possible to better understand one’s own national identity. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans. In 1997, 5 million Americans began to actively practice yoga, an ancient Chinese health-improving gymnastics. Even American religions began to be influenced by the East. Eastern philosophy, with its ideas of the inner harmony of things, is gradually conquering the American cosmetics industry. The convergence and interaction of two cultural models is also occurring in the food industry (medicinal green tea). If previously it seemed that the cultures of the East and West did not intersect, today, more than ever, there are points of contact and mutual influence. We are talking not only about interaction, but also about complementarity and enrichment.
For mutual understanding and dialogue, it is necessary to understand the cultures of other peoples, which includes: “awareness of the differences in ideas, customs, cultural traditions inherent in different peoples, the ability to see the common and different between diverse cultures and look at the culture of one’s own community through the eyes of other peoples”( 14, p.47). But in order to understand the language of a foreign culture, a person must be open to the culture of his own. From the native to the universal, this is the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case will the dialogue be fruitful. When participating in a dialogue of cultures, you need to know not only your own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.
List we useoh literature
1 Golovleva E. L. Fundamentals of intercultural communication. Educational
Phoenix manual, 2008
2 Grushevitskaya T.G., Popkov V.D., Sadokhin A.P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: Textbook for universities (Ed. A.P. Sadokhin.) 2002
3 Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication
4. Sagatovsky V.N. Dialogue of cultures and the “Russian idea” // Revival of Russian culture. Dialogue of cultures and interethnic relations 1996.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Problems and prospects for the development of such a phenomenon as multicultural reality. Dialogue is a natural result of the development and deepening of the relationship between cultures in the modern world. Features of intercultural interaction in the context of globalization of culture.
abstract, added 01/13/2014
The concept of ethnic contacts and their results. Basic forms of ethnic contacts. Analysis of the concept of culture shock. Theories of interethnic interaction: cultural and structural direction. Characteristics of ethnic processes in the modern world.
course work, added 02/06/2014
Youth as a socio-demographic group of the population. Youth and its role in modern society. Problems faced by modern youth. General characteristics of cultural needs. Features of youth in modern society.
course work, added 01/05/2015
The essence and content of information, assessment of its role and significance in modern society, classification, types. Contradictions between the limitations of a person’s ability to perceive and consume information and the growth of information flow. The meaning of bibliography.
abstract, added 01/18/2014
Theories of cultural differences and cultural interaction between peoples. Interaction of cultures and cultural transformation as a form of the globalization process. The increasing social role of culture as one of the factors organizing the spiritual life of people.
abstract, added 12/21/2008
Biography of V.S. Bibler, philosopher, culturologist, creator of the doctrine of dialogue of cultures (dialogics). Methodological features of the lesson, held in the form of dialogue. Dialogue of cultures in education, problems of developing tolerance in interethnic relations.
abstract, added 12/14/2009
What is a library: the importance of libraries in modern society, history of origin, development. Great library power: functions and features of work. Library Russia at the turn of the millennium. New methods and technologies in librarianship.
abstract, added 11/16/2007
Diffusionism as a way of studying cultures appeared at the end of the 19th century. The concept of "diffusion", borrowed from physics, means "spill", "spreading". In the study of cultures it means the dissemination of cultural phenomena through communication and contacts between peoples.
test, added 06/04/2008
Classification of intercultural interactions. Chronotope of the dialogue of modern civilizations. Types of socio-economic formations. Progressive desecularization of the world. Interaction between West and East. The originality of the historical and cultural path of Russia.
abstract, added 11/24/2009
Analysis of the relationship between cultures and languages in today's modern world. Spread of the English language. Culture of English-speaking countries (Great Britain, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India). Language as a mirror of culture.
The idea of a dialogue of cultures or, more precisely, the substantiation of the principle of dialogism in relations between cultures is one of the deepest, most cherished and most productive ideas of the great Russian thinker of the twentieth century M.M. Bakhtin, which received their expression and development in a number of his outstanding works, which were rightfully included in the golden fund of domestic and world culture. Dialogue of cultures is one of the largest discoveries of the twentieth century in the humanitarian field. With the light hand of M. Bakhtin, the problem of dialogue of cultures has become the property of the humanities and social sciences throughout the world. These ideas turned out to be in demand in the theory and practice of intercultural communications, in sociology and political science, religious studies and conflict studies, philosophy and psychology, literary criticism and art history, semiotics and linguistics, in economics and management, pedagogy and methods of teaching and upbringing. Essentially, the concept of “dialogue of cultures” turns out to be universal when characterizing and understanding any international, interethnic, interfaith and interpersonal relations.
For the first time, Bakhtin’s thoughts about the dialogue of cultures as a fundamental principle of cultural and historical development developed in the early periods of his work - Nevelsk (I9I8-I920) and Vitebsk (1920-1924), when he often had to speak at public debates dedicated to philosophical and religious , historical, cultural and literary topics. The era of post-October development itself was filled with a lively, ongoing dialogue, and sometimes a fierce dispute between the old and the new. All of Bakhtin’s works of the 1920s, including the author’s study of Dostoevsky’s work and books published after the author’s arrest and published largely with the participation and under the names of his friends - P. Medvedev, V. Voloshinov, are literally filled with these disputes. They were, indeed, born in dialogue - with like-minded people and opponents, and therefore bore the stamp of topical polemics and polyphony of ideas of the transitional era.
However, the works of M. Bakhtin in the 1930-40s, devoted to the genre of the novel and the novel word, including the problems of the chronotope (i.e., the interpenetration of time and space), as well as F. Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, were created by the author already in a fundamentally different era, marked by the most severe monologism and mental ambiguity. The ideas of dialogue of cultures and the principle of dialogism in the history of culture, defended by Bakhtin at this time, could not but be, in their very essence, a form of ideological resistance to Stalinism and the unbridled cult of the leader, i.e. a form of intellectual opposition to the despotic regime, ideological dogmatism and ideological and aesthetic justification of totalitarianism as such. It is no coincidence that the first publications, after a long silence of the name and works of Bakhtin, of his two largest and most famous works, imbued with the ideas of dialogue and dialogism - “Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics” (1963) and “The Work of Francois Rabelais and the Folk Culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance” (1965) - coincided with the end of the Khrushchev Thaw, and subsequently continued to symbolize the spirit of freedom, openness, pluralism, representing a way of intellectual opposition to stagnation and dogmatism during the Brezhnev rule.
A special place in the development of the idea of dialogue of cultures as a process of gradually developing destruction of official culture, claiming serious unambiguity and ideological dictatorship, belongs to the last of the named works of Bakhtin, defended by him in 1946 as a dissertation entitled “Rabelais in the history of realism.” In this book, most attention was paid to the dialogue between folk laughter culture and official, serious and hierarchically structured culture. However, it also spoke about the dialogue of historical cultures far removed from each other, communicating with each other through the heads of centuries and cultural eras, within the framework of the so-called “great time” (such, for example, are the roll calls of F. Rabelais with antiquity, N. Gogol – with Rabelais, etc.). Bakhtin also did not forget examples of dialogue between contemporary cultures. Thus, using the example of the philosophy of F. Rabelais, set forth in his novel, Bakhtin expresses the hope that, thanks to the dialogue of cultures, humanity will become united, and the emerging universal culture will be built “in a purely Renaissance horizontal of space and time” and not in a “medieval hierarchical verticals", i.e. democratically, not aristocratically. There is, of course, an allegorical subtext here: for Bakhtin, the monological Stalinist era is the “new Middle Ages,” with its bonfires, the Inquisition, religious and political dogmatism, and the “thaw,” a period of democratization that brings freedom of communication and dialogue of cultures, is the revival of culture (in in a broad sense).
In his later writings of the 1970s, Bakhtin particularly insistently defended an understanding of cultural worlds not as closed and complete circles, but as an “open unity.” Each such unity, with all its originality, is included, according to Bakhtin, in a single (albeit not straightforward) process of the formation of human culture. Controversy with the “one-sided, and therefore incorrect” idea that in order to better understand a foreign culture “one must, as it were, move into it” and, “forgetting one’s own, look at the world through the eyes of this foreign culture,” M. Bakhtin argued that “a certain adaptation to foreign culture,” although it is a “necessary moment” in the process of understanding it, is not decisive for creative understanding. The great thing to understand, Bakhtin argued, is out of place understanding - in time, in space, in culture - in relation to what he wants to creatively understand - the ability to be “other”. “Alien culture is only in the eyes another culture reveals itself more fully and deeply.” “One meaning reveals its depths by meeting and coming into contact with another, alien meaning; between them it begins as if dialogue, which overcomes the isolation and one-sidedness of these meanings, these cultures.” “When two cultures meet dialogically, they do not merge or mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched.”
This happens in the scientific or philosophical analysis of cultures, striving for objectivity and evidence. However, in most cases of intercultural communications, something different happens: each culture tends to s read “one’s own” in it (and interpret it primarily in this vein, thereby “mastering” it with one’s own mental means) and, on the contrary, reject “someone else’s” (correspondingly condemning it, discrediting it, displacing it or replacing it with “one’s own”). In this sense, it is possible to say that in the semantic field of each culture there is a configuration of three semantic centers: Self, Other and Self-for-another.
In his early work, published posthumously, “Towards the Philosophy of Action” (1920–1924), M. Bakhtin presents a dialogue in which, on the part of each of the subjects entering into the dialogue, three points operate, which, in the tradition of German philosophy, he calls: I-for-myself, the other-for-me And I-for-another. These three points apply both to interpersonal dialogue and to the dialogue of cultures. Each of these “emotional-volitional central moments” carries a corresponding ideological attitude: “narcissism” ( I-for-myself), "egocentrism" ( another-for-me) and "altruism" ( I-for-another). In any dialogue of cultures there is an interaction of three moments - from each side of the dialogue: I-for-myself– this is the mentality of a culture, its self-awareness; another-for-me– this is the context of the relationship of a given local culture with other local cultures adjacent to it; finally I - For - the other is the place of a given culture in a global, world context, its global aspirations.
The interaction of these semantic centers in each culture with similar semantic centers of another culture in the process of their endlessly developing dialogue determines the nature of intercultural communications at each stage of the historical formation and development of all cultures and subcultures, the formation and struggle of their identities, mutual understandings and ideas about their place in the world culture.
The global aspirations and ambitions of various local cultures, even those belonging to the same historical era, are, as a rule, very heterogeneous and cannot be reduced to one “denominator”.
This is largely due to the fact that, firstly, each history of the formation and evolution of a local culture is different and unique - in comparison with the historical destinies of other local cultures.
Secondly, the connection between each component of a particular culture is also formed in a unique way, forming the semantic “core” of a given local culture. Such a connection is unlike other triple constructions that make up the semantic “nuclei” of other local cultures, and therefore is quite exclusive.
Finally, thirdly, the ambitions of every culture that lays claim to global significance and “universality”, to one degree or another, as well as its mentality and awareness of the locality of the same culture, are aggravated by ethnocultural stereotypes, templates, clichés, shrouded in a “cloud” of unverifiable myths and legends, symbols and metaphors, illusions and misconceptions and, thus, are, in their entirety, a complex, multi-layered, syncretic formation, deeply rooted in mass psychology, religious and philosophical views, in political ideology, in the collective unconscious of a given sociocultural community .
Thus, the dialogue of cultures in general always contains three points:
1) “own”, “special” - for each given culture;
2) “other” or “alien” for each given culture (which is at the same time “us” for the culture with which this culture enters into dialogue);
3) “common” for two cultures, uniting them with each other, making them different components of world culture, in general - cultures.
In accordance with general ideas about the dialogue of cultures, different types of dialogue of cultures can be distinguished:
a) autocommunication (dialogue of local culture with itself in the past, present or future, which is a form of cultural self-awareness);
b) dialogue between two local cultures (including elements of agreement, disagreement and polemics, competition and confrontation);
c) a dialogue between a local culture (or a number of local cultures) and the world culture as a whole (or the culture of the global world community), aimed at identifying the universal, global content of various cultures, their historical and metahistorical commonality.
Thus, the entire history of world and national cultures consists of many dialogues of cultures, gradually forming all cultural and civilizational identities.
Intercultural dialogue in the life of local cultures
Local cultures at a certain stage of their development can go beyond their local (including historical and ethno-national) specificity and claim to be “universal” and “universal humanity,” expressed in one way or another. At the same time, the attribute of “universality” acquired by one or another local culture, being the claim of a particular cultural phenomenon to represent in one aspect or another world culture as a whole or a phenomenon of the “universal”, thereby testifies to the actual relations that develop in the dialogue between one or another local culture and the world as a whole. Consideration of such trends in the context of the history of world culture shows that overcoming localism and a breakthrough into the “universality” in most cases is not the subjective ambition of a particular local culture, but objectively inherent in it potential development of value-semantic content (sooner or later historically actualized in the form of dialogue with other local cultures and world culture as a whole), gradually unfolding, in the process of self-development of a given culture, in an increasingly broader context of intercultural communications).
The relationship of local culture to the world-historical cultural whole, to the cultural practice of all humanity outlines the historical place occupied by a given specific culture in the space of world culture at a certain moment in world history. In the course of world history, the place of each local culture, entering into dialogic relations with other local cultures and the entire cultural world, is constantly changing and is not constant.
The deep essence of culture is manifested in its attraction to harmony, balance, overcoming contradictions, universal humanity, and universality. But this is only one, albeit the most important, side of culture - its, so to speak, “external” side, facing the universal. Another, no less important, side of the phenomenon of culture is, so to speak, “internal”. This side, which expresses in culture all its specific, local, individually unique content, is addressed to its subject, to itself. The dialogical relationships of these aspects of culture form the Civilizational identity of each local culture in the past, present and future. Mentality is a way for a local culture to acquire its uniqueness; globalization is a way of introducing it to the universal, self-representation of local culture to the world community as part of the common heritage. The mental and global components of each individual culture seem to “look” in opposite directions - inside and outside the culture. But, for all their dialectical opposition, both characteristics of culture differently testify to its identity at one or another historical stage of its formation and development.
If mentality is the self-awareness of a local culture (or civilization) as such, felt from the inside it, within the framework of its given natural-geographical, ethnosocial and historical locus, then its global orientations are the self-awareness of local culture as one of the components of world civilization, within the framework of the global semantic space, the view of local culture on itself from outside. Thus, local culture seems to see itself simultaneously in different mirrors: not only in the mirror of its specificity (that is, in a series of other local cultures adjacent to or opposing it), but also in the grandiose mirror of world culture as a whole. In every act of dialogue between cultures, we are faced with two dimensions of cultural identity - local and global.
The processes of globalization that have been unfolding in the world since the last third of the 20th century, and which continue to intensify and expand in the 21st century, mean not only the incorporation of individual local cultures into the world cultural context, but also the acquisition of each of them, to one degree or another, of global significance, then eat your own global dimension. It is obvious that such trends - the attraction of local cultures to the world - arose long before modern globalization processes. Thus, the campaigns of Alexander the Great and the crusades of the Middle Ages, the humanism of the Renaissance and the rationalism of the enlighteners of the 17th–18th centuries, the great geographical discoveries, starting with the voyage of Columbus or the circumnavigation of Magellan, and the policy of colonialism of the leading European countries, which forced people of different ethnic and racial identity to feel the contradictory unity of the world, the great revolutions that shook the world, and the world wars that drew dozens of countries, hundreds of peoples, millions of warring people into the crucible of worldwide confrontation.
Along with the mental projection of local culture onto the “screen” of world culture, we can observe the reverse process - the projection of world culture (“universality”) onto local culture, a kind of ethno-interpretation of globalism. Both processes are directly related to globalization.
When it comes to the “Japanization” or “Taiwanization” of traditional Chinese culture, the “Africanization” or “Islamization” of Western culture in South Africa or Algeria, the “Latin American emissions” (in the form of famous television series and film actors) to the USA, Europe or Russia, about the “Americanization” of European, Islamic or Russian culture, we are faced with local images world culture, that is, with the phenomenon of recoding global values and ideas in terms and images of a particular local culture. The localization of world culture, of course, is not a discovery of the 20th century (for example, the notorious “Petrine reforms” in Russia are a typical example of early Russian localization of European culture), although it was in the 20th century that the localization of world culture became as widespread in the world as globalization local culture.
An important moment in the history of Russia of balancing between the globalization of one’s time and the localization of a specific culture (using the example of Russian culture of the 16th–18th centuries) was presented in his works by Y. Lotman. The scientist characterizes the cultural-historical process in Russia as “alternating periods of self-isolation”, during which an equilibrium structure with a high level of entropy is created, eras of “rapid cultural development”, and an increase in the information content (unpredictability) of the historical movement. Subjectively, periods of equilibrium structures are experienced as eras of greatness (“Moscow is the Third Rome”) and metastructurally, in self-descriptions of culture, they tend to assign themselves a central place in the cultural universe (that is, they claim global significance and have global claims). Disequilibrium, dynamic eras are prone to low self-esteem, place themselves in the space of the semiotic and cultural periphery and are marked by the desire to rapidly follow, overtake the “cultural center” (in this case, Western Europe), which appears both as attractive and as potentially hostile (such eras are distinguished by their pronounced locality and dramatically experience the loss of their former global significance).
In many cases, the localization of the achievements of world culture by a particular culture depends on the “intermediary culture.” For example, in ancient times, Greek culture acted as the “scientific” and “artistic” culture of Rome, the entire Roman Empire, and finally, the Hellenistic Mediterranean as a whole. In the Middle Ages, Latin, Byzantine or Old Bulgarian cultures acted as intermediary cultures in the spread of Christianity - the globalist doctrine of the time - respectively in Western Europe, in Eastern Europe and in Ancient Rus'. In the East, a similar role in the Islamization of many Turkic and Indo-European peoples (a kind of medieval “globalization” of Asian peoples and their cultures) was played by the classical medieval Arab culture of the Caliphate period (in linguistic, psychological and anthropological terms - Semitic). In South, Southeast and East Asia, Buddhism spread in a similar way, and the role of intermediary culture was played by Tibetan culture. During the era of European colonization of the peoples of Asia, Africa and America, such intermediary cultures were, first of all, the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese cultures of the New Age. All these and other intermediary cultures fulfilled the mission of cultural localization in the context of their cultural and historical eras and contributed to the formation and development of the global role of the intermediary cultures themselves.
During the existence of the USSR, the globalizing intermediary culture of the Soviet empire, which performed a consolidating, integrating, ideological, cultural-educational, supra-ethnic and supranational function (“bundle of functions”) in relation to the entire set of cultures of a multi-ethnic state, was Russian Soviet culture, interpreted as a means of interethnic communication (intercultural dialogue). Actually, this non-nationally interpreted Russian culture was the semantic and organizing core of the entire multinational Soviet culture, which acted, in a certain sense, as the experience of globalization on a sixth of the world’s landmass. All positive and negative achievements and losses of Soviet culture during its historical existence and beyond (in the post-Soviet period - the development of the cultures of the “fragment” countries of the former Soviet Union) should be considered precisely in the light of the globalization processes of the twentieth century.
In this regard, Soviet culture can and should be considered as: 1) a conglomerate of cultures with a specifically Soviet mentality; 2) a local community of heterogeneous cultures, united by a common relationship to the world community and a common international civilizational mission (Soviet localization of world culture); 3) a prototype of the global unity of peoples and their cultures as a single world civilization (the experience of Soviet globalization). In each of these qualities, Soviet culture (as long as it existed as a structural and functional whole) claimed the role of intermediary culture on the scale of the world community in order to consolidate the “proletarians of all countries”, the “world communist and labor movement”, the unification of all revolutionary and democratic forces, anti-colonial and national liberation movements, etc. The collapse of the USSR, the crisis of communist ideology, the transformation of the post-Soviet cultural and political space changed the meaning of Soviet culture, but did not shake its global status as an intermediary culture, in one respect - having fulfilled its mission and even in some ways continuing to fulfill it, and in another in relation - failed to cope with its obviously utopian task - to unite humanity around a common goal - the construction of communism throughout the world and the transformation of all cultures - into Soviet and socialist (and in fact - into post-Soviet and post-communist).
In the simplest case, the localization of culture is determined by the immediate cultural environment of a given local culture. Often localization is directly related to continental affiliation (Europeanism, Americanism, Africanism, etc.). A common variant of the connotation of localization is the linguistic relationship of adjacent cultures (Anglo-Saxon, Romano-Germanic, Latin American, Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Polynesian cultures, Arabic culture, etc.). The division of cultures and civilizations according to confessional and religious principles (Islamic - Christian, Sunni - Shiite, Orthodox - Catholic and Protestant, Buddhist - Hindu, etc.) also refers to the qualification of localizations.
Of particular note are those cases when a particular culture has two or more local contexts that are significant for its functioning and interpretation. So, for example, Russian culture has existed since ancient times in two different local contexts: one is the Slavic cultures (starting with the Eastern Slavs, then the Southern and, finally, the Western Slavs); another context is the cultures of the peoples of Russia (Turkic and Finno-Ugric, first of all; then – North Caucasian, Paleo-Asian cultures of the Far North, Siberia and the Far East, etc.). Both local contexts are important for the history of Russian culture, but it is characteristic that over time the significance of the first of them, Slavic, is gradually decreasing, complicated by religious, political and interethnic factors, and the second, Eurasian, is gradually increasing, despite confessional and ethnic barriers, which is undoubtedly associated with the action of integrative mechanisms of the imperial type - both in pre-revolutionary times and in the Soviet period of the history of Russian culture and the intensity of the corresponding dialogues of cultures in Russia and the USSR.
I will give other examples of dual localizations. Armenian and Georgian cultures, which developed for a long time surrounded by Islamic cultures and Caucasian peoples, on the one hand, were formed in the conditions of the Caucasian local context; on the other hand, in a difficult confrontation with alien cultural trends, they defended their Christian identity, to one degree or another oriented towards Europeanism and starting from belonging to the Asian East (Arab, Persian, Turkish and other influences). The Christian identity of these Transcaucasian cultures contributed to the formation of a localization that included Russian and European components. Both types of localization - Caucasian and Russian-European - in their contradictory combination introduce acute conflict and intense dynamism into both Armenian and Georgian cultures.
Of particular interest is the problem of localizing Jewish culture, which is important for understanding Russian culture as a whole. The culture of a people that had been dispersed for many centuries could not but give rise to a dual locality. On the one hand, the people who wanted to preserve their national identity had to cultivate their ancient traditions (Hebrew, Judaism, religious and everyday rituals, dating back to the original ancient Palestinian origins). Here culture has realized a dialogue with its historical past. On the other hand, the people could not help but strive for cultural survival in a foreign cultural environment, and therefore intensively adapted to the surrounding cultures - Spanish, German, Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian - through dialogue with adjacent cultures. In particular, Yiddish traditions are largely explained by the adaptation of Jewish characteristics to German culture at a certain stage of Jewish migration and intercultural communication of peoples in medieval Europe.
Thus, two complementary local contexts of Jewish culture were formed - Israeli-Palestinian and European, equally important for the cultural self-awareness of Jews and the formation of the corresponding cultural identity (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc.). The first local context is associated with the formation of Jewish global identity (the Jewish messianic idea and the concept of world Zionism), with the second - an equally characteristic tendency of Jewish culture of the global order - cosmopolitanism as a cultural form of supra-ethnicity (also a kind of globalization, although no longer purely Jewish).
The multidimensional context of the localization of US culture, which is in many respects comparable to the Russian one, is interesting in its own way. One aspect of American localization is the continuation and development of pan-European globalism (Euro-Atlanticism), which on the American continent brings the United States closer to Canada; another American local context has a strong “link” to indigenous cultures (this is, first of all, the memory of the culture of the North American Indians, but at the same time, other layers of Mesoamerican culture); thirdly, this is an African-American localization, fundamentally important for the ethnic identity of the black heritage of the United States, but today increasingly acquiring global significance; finally, fourthly, this is a Latin American local context that unites the United States with other peoples and cultures of the American continent. It was the “four-valued” local context of American culture, brought to life by the multidimensionality of local dialogues of cultures on the continent, that predetermined its global status as a “mill of nations”, mixing all kinds of mentalities, i.e. contributed to the formation of the American version of globalization with its claims to world domination and military-economic monopoly, to the establishment of a “new world order” in the world and the establishment of the principle of “unipolarity.”
Just like thousands of years ago, the world cannot do without strife and wars, only now their local nature can transform into a global conflict that can cover the entire globe. A dialogue of cultures, as exemplified by countries that have joined forces against global terrorism, will help prevent danger.
Dialogue and culture
Let's understand the concepts. Culture is everything that humanity creates in the material world and in the spiritual sphere. It undoubtedly unites people, since it uses the same “codes” characteristic of Homo sapiens as a species. For example, in the cultural baggage of all peoples there is an understanding of such concepts as beginning and end, life and death, good and evil, encrypted in myths and creativity. On these common points of contact between different cultures, their dialogue is built - interaction and cooperation, the use of each other's achievements. As in any conversation, in the dialogue of national cultures there is a desire to understand, exchange information and indicate one’s own position.
Ours and others
Often people judge the culture of another people from the point of view of superiority. The position of ethnocentrism is characteristic of both the West and the East. Even ancient Greek politicians divided all the people of the planet into primitive barbarians and exemplary Hellenes. This is how the idea was born that the European community is a standard for the whole world. With the spread of Christianity, pagans became a despised part of society, and the truth was considered the prerogative of believers.
A vile product of ethnocentrism is xenophobia - hatred of other people's traditions, thoughts and views. Examples of dialogue between cultures, as opposed to intolerance, prove that relationships between peoples can be civilized and fruitful. In the modern world, the process of dialogue is becoming more intense and diverse.
Why is dialogue needed?
Cooperation not only contributes to the creation of a global culture, but also sharpens the uniqueness of each of them. Interaction allows us to solve global planetary problems together and saturate our spiritual space with the achievements of other ethnic groups.
The modern understanding of the dialogue of cultures takes into account the fact that today, thanks to the Internet, every person has a unique opportunity to satisfy the hunger for information and get acquainted with the world's masterpieces.
What is the problem?
Being participants in various kinds of intercultural relations, people differ quite greatly in terms of customs, languages, national clothing, cuisine, and norms of behavior. This makes contact difficult, but the real problem lies elsewhere.
The fact is that each person tends to perceive another through the prism of his own, familiar and understandable. By perceiving other civilizations through the framework of our own, we narrow the possibility of dialogue between cultures. Example: the world of pygmies, alien to the European, living in the equatorial forests of Africa, makes him look down on this people. And only scientists closely involved in the study of pygmy tribes know how amazing and “advanced” their culture is and to what extent they coexist harmoniously with the planet than the so-called civilized people. The sad thing is that communication obstacles are most often unconscious.
Is there a way out? Undoubtedly! Effective cultural interaction between peoples is possible if it is studied purposefully and patiently. It is necessary to understand that to be a cultured people, as well as such a person, means to have a developed sense of responsibility and morality.
Eastern and Western models: action and contemplation
Nowadays, the dialogue between the cultures of the West and the East has acquired particular significance. The first is focused on technology and the dynamic, active development of all areas of life, the second model is more conservative and flexible. If we use gender formulas, we can say that Eastern culture is similar to the feminine principle, and Western culture resembles the male type of perception of reality. Western mentality is characterized by a division of the world and concepts into black and white, hell and heaven. In the Eastern tradition, the world is understood as “all in all.”
Russia between two worlds
Russia is a kind of bridge in the dialogue between the cultures of East and West. It unites both traditions and acts as a mediator between them. Cultural scientist and philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin believed that this mission could lead to one of three outcomes:
1. Cultures develop a single common position based on synthesis.
2. Each culture retains its originality, and through dialogue is enriched by the achievements of the other side.
3. Realizing the fundamental differences, they refrain from interaction, but do not quarrel or fight.
Does Russia have its own cultural highway? Our country's place in contradictory cultural contacts has been viewed differently in different eras. In the middle of the century before last, the Slavophile and Westernist views on this problem clearly stood out. Slavophiles considered Russia's path to be special, linking this exclusivity with deep religiosity and emotionality. Westerners argued that the country should take on the richest achievements of Western civilization and learn from it.
During the Soviet era, the cultural identification of Russia completely acquired a political, class connotation, and the conversation about its own path became irrelevant. Today it has resumed and demonstrates precisely the very example in the dialogue of cultures that requires a thoughtful and conscious understanding of the value of mutual acceptance in order to preserve peace.
The concept of a dialogue of cultures has become extremely fashionable in modern reality, and in a variety of fields of knowledge - in cultural studies, in art history, in literary criticism as a borderline area between art criticism and philology, in linguistics, more precisely, in those sections of it that are related to the problem of “language and culture”, as well as in pedagogy related to the education of representatives of ethnic minorities or students who form multinational groups, and in schools and universities. This concept is embedded in the concept of educational development, in curricula and programs, and is voiced in lecture courses for students and trainees for advanced training of teaching staff. We will try to determine how realistically this concept is present in the educational process in some regions of the Russian Federation, what are the conditions for its implementation in the educational process and what actually takes place in modern Russian reality in the North and in the regions adjacent to the North, as well as in educational structures, serving the northern regions of Russia.
In order for the “dialogue of cultures” to be a dialogue, the presence of at least two cultures is necessary - in the case we are considering, this implies the presence of a certain state, or “Russian-speaking” culture - and the culture of an ethnic minority, that is, some ethnic group from the peoples of the North. Even the definition of the state form of culture here turns out to be far from unambiguous; as for the identification of the second participant in the dialogue, we have even more problems with him. In fact, it is impossible to separately establish Yakut, Russian-Evenki, Russian-Yukaghir, Russian-Chukchi dialogue of cultures in teaching (although in reality it is precisely this interaction of cultures that is observed in most uluses of Yakutia and adjacent territories - Evenkia, Chukotka, etc.). If we understand the dialogue of cultures as a certain contact between the bearers of state culture and the indigenous inhabitants of the North of the Russian Federation in general, then in such a “dialogue of cultures” the second participant, that is, the “culture of the peoples of the North,” will act either in the form of a scientific fiction, since the common Khanty-Yukaghir or Sami-Eskimo characteristics of culture are absent, or in the form of a mutant monster created from the meager knowledge of teachers about the ethnography of individual ethnic groups, each of which has a rich history and original cultural traditions. With an equal degree of internal wealth and equal adaptation to living conditions, a “dialogue” between such cultures in the educational process is not established due to the difference in the amount of knowledge about cultures.
We must also keep in mind that historically the dialogue we are talking about involved not some abstract cultures, but real subethnic cultures, and the “Russian” culture was represented not by its state form, but by the regional culture of the old-timer population, and in our days - a subculture of the visiting population of the North. Both subcultures have not been sufficiently studied, while the regional subculture of the Northern regions of the Russian Federation today and throughout the twentieth century, the carriers of which are the visiting population of the North and the national intelligentsia, was not the subject of any of the scientific disciplines, it had no place neither in ethnography nor in cultural studies. The territorial subcultures of the small peoples of the North of the Russian Federation are also heterogeneous even among individual ethnic groups (Evenks of Yakutia, Buryatia, Khabarovsk Territory and Sakhalin, Evens of western Yakutia, Evens of North-East Yakutia and Evens of Kamchatka, forest and tundra Yukaghirs, etc.) - taking into account all of these realities turns the concept of dialogue of cultures into a virtual entity, and its factual specificity makes the corresponding material unsuitable for study.
The next factor characterizing the “dialogue of cultures” in its pedagogical understanding is the social factor. Who carries out a dialogue with whom - a village engineer with a reindeer herder, a St. Petersburg teacher with an Evenki craftswoman, a professor-culturologist with a sea hunter, or a State Duma deputy from some autonomous district with students - second-generation St. Petersburg residents? It is clear that social differences on both sides cannot be ignored both in the scientific study of the problem and in solving practical educational problems. In reality, the “dialogue of cultures” takes place between the indigenous and visiting populations of national villages, equally representing different social groups, and only in this area do we have contacts between culture carriers that do not have social markings or neutralize social markings. At the same time, representatives of the intelligentsia and creative environment from the peoples of the North are in contact with different social groups of the “Russian-speaking” population in their regions, as well as in the places where they live - in administrative centers. Students and teachers represent not only a specific social group, even if they belong to the peoples of the North, but they form the least typical of the groups of bearers of ethnic cultures - while the values and life intentions of these groups often aim to distance themselves as much as possible from their own ethnic culture, to obtain a non-traditional for an ethnic group, a profession, move to a big city, find a marriage partner not from among one’s own people, etc. These social environments view belonging to an ethnic group primarily as a source of increasing social status, promising in the long term a certain prosperity, while for reindeer herders, For sea hunters and other representatives of traditional professions, belonging to a small people often psychologically lowers their social status.
Finally, no less important for characterizing the “dialogue of cultures” is an objective assessment of the type of interaction and the degree of interaction of those entities that are called cultures. In fact, in the current state, in each case we should be talking about different territorial subcultures, which also have special social manifestations. It is impossible to imagine such a “dialogue of cultures”, the participants of which are modern associate professors-teachers and Chukchi students, who are presented with the culture of the Chukchi of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, or who are considered as bearers of a special mentality characteristic of the Chukchi of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, - and it’s even worse when in the educational process or methodological developments there is a search for a special ethnic mentality (it is clear that in its absence the concept of a dialogue of cultures loses its meaning). The dialogue of cultures belonging to different time periods is a metaphor that is good for studying the art of modernity, which feeds on ethnographic materials, or the same regional modernity, which grows from regional subcultures on ethnic grounds. But in the educational process, the participants of which coexist over time, and even more so in the education of the younger generation, which will witness a change in the cultural paradigm, this concept becomes meaningless. In ethnic villages, there are usually several different communities - the visiting population and one or more communities of the indigenous population of different ethnic groups, if the indigenous population in one or another village is mixed. Under these conditions, the “dialogue of cultures” is imaginary, since all communities tend to be mutually isolated rather than integrated. If in a particular region there is acculturation or assimilation of one ethnic group by another, larger and more “prestigious” one, then, of course, there is no need to talk about “dialogue” in such cases: a very authoritarian “monologue” takes place here.
Accordingly, in relation to the contingent of students and especially university students from among the peoples of the North, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that these students are also no longer carriers of their traditional ethnic culture, and in 20-30 years they may lose those signs of ethnic or regional culture, which they currently have. This means that in this case we actually have a cultural monologue instead of dialogue.
The concept of dialogue of cultures is often used, including in education, with one pragmatic goal - to create tolerance in interethnic relations. The usefulness of solving this problem is beyond doubt and cannot be disputed. However, the very solution to this problem is impossible without knowledge of specific ethnic cultures in all their diversity and history, without knowledge of the territorial and social variants of these cultures, as well as without clear and comprehensive ideas about the current state of ethnic cultures. The modern education system for the peoples of the North of the Russian Federation does not have such information and is unable to introduce all this material into the educational process in a methodologically correct form. The concept of dialogue of cultures in the educational process today looks like nothing more than an attractive sign, behind which there are often such ideas about ethnic culture that are the complete opposite of the humanities, be it cultural studies, ethnography, ethnosociology or ethnodemography.
a set of direct relationships and connections that develop between different relationships, as well as their results and mutual changes that arise in the course of these relationships. D.K. - one of the most significant forms of cultural communication for cultural dynamics. In the process D.K. changes occur in cultural patterns - forms of social organization and models of social action, value systems and types of worldviews, the formation of new forms of cultural creativity and lifestyle. This is precisely the fundamental difference between D.K. from simple forms of economic, cultural or political cooperation that do not involve significant transformations on either side.
The following levels of D.K. can be distinguished: a) personal, associated with the formation or transformation of the human personality under the influence of various cultural traditions “external” in relation to his natural cultural environment; b) ethnic, characteristic of relations between various local social communities, often within a single society; c) interethnic, associated with the diverse interaction of various state-political entities and their political elites; d) civilizational, based on the meeting of fundamentally different types of sociality, value systems and forms of cultural creativity. D.K. at this level it is the most dramatic, since it contributes to the “erosion” of traditional forms of cultural identity and, at the same time, is extremely productive from the point of view of innovation, creating a unique field of cross-cultural experiments. In addition, D.K. It is also possible as an interaction between the current type of culture and its own historically established cultural tradition. The post-Soviet path of Belarus and Russia in comparison with the similar development of the former socialist states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) is the best confirmation of the importance of the influence of cultural tradition (or cultural inertia) on the development of society, especially at turning points. In everyday practice, D.K., as a rule, is simultaneously implemented at all of these levels. It should also be noted that the real-life D.K. involves the participation of not two, but a significantly larger number of participants. This is due to the fundamental ethnic and cultural heterogeneity of any modern society, which inevitably involves D.K. both large and small nations, as well as various “fragments” of other ethnic groups, forming unique “cultural reservations”. Participants D.K. are initially in an unequal position, which is due not only to the difference in basic values, but also to the level of development of each culture, as well as the degree of its dynamism, demographic and geographical factors. A more numerous and active cultural community in the process of D. will be much more influential than a small ethnic group. In modern K. theory, it is customary to distinguish in the process of D.K.: K.-donor (which gives more than it receives) and K.-recipient (which acts as the receiving party). Over historically long periods of time, these roles may change depending on the pace and development trends of each of the participants in the D.K. The forms and principles of interaction between countries also differ - both peaceful, voluntary methods of interaction (most often involving partnership, mutually beneficial cooperation), and forced, colonial-military types (involving the implementation of one’s own tasks at the expense of the opposite side).
One of the forms of D.K. serve international relations. In addition to various international organizations such as the UN or UNESCO, a system of social institutions and mechanisms within the communities themselves is widely used for interstate cultural interaction. In these cases, borrowed cultural patterns become motivations for various forms of “local” social action. For example, in the real expression of D.K. may become a policy of modernization or, on the contrary, the resuscitation of authoritarian (traditional) forms of social structure, a change of course in state national and cultural policy using foreign “blanks”, trends in the development of local government structures, an increase or decrease in the number of public (including cultural-national ) associations and social initiatives. In each specific case, D.K. There are several stages or stages. The starting point here is considered to be the stage of “culture shock” or “zero” degree of compatibility of languages, behavioral scenarios and traditions of various participants in D.K. Further development of D.K. is determined by the specific characteristics of each of the types of K., their status in the process of specific intercultural contact ("aggressor" or "victim", "winner" or "defeated", "traditionalist" or "innovator", "honest partner" or "cynical pragmatist" ), the degree of compatibility of their basic values and current interests, and the ability to take into account the interests of the other party. Based on the above, D.K. can take place in both constructive and productive and conflict forms. In the latter case, culture shock develops into a cultural conflict - a critical stage of confrontation between the worldviews of different individuals, social groups, individuals and groups, individuals and society, cultural minorities and society as a whole, various societies or their coalitions. The basis of cultural conflict is the fundamental incompatibility of the languages of different cultures. The combination of incompatible things gives rise to a “semantic earthquake” that disrupts not only the course of intercultural communication, but also the normal existence of each of the participants in culture. Practical forms of cultural conflict can have a different scale and nature: from a private quarrel to interstate confrontation (the Cold War situation) and coalition wars. Typical examples of the most large-scale and brutal cultural conflicts are religious and civil wars, revolutionary and national liberation movements, genocide and “cultural revolutions,” forced conversion to the “true” faith and extermination of the national intelligentsia, political persecution of “dissidents,” etc. Cultural conflicts, as a rule, are particularly fierce and uncompromising, and in the case of the use of force, they pursue the goals not so much of conquest as of physical destruction of the bearers of alien values. People are not driven by common sense, but by deep psychological contamination with a specific type of cultural product, fixed at the level of pre-rational conviction in their own rightness. The most realistic and effective way out of a cultural conflict is not to bring the matter to it. Prevention of cultural conflicts is possible only on the basis of cultivating a non-dogmatic consciousness, for which the idea of cultural polymorphism (the fundamental polysemy of cultural space and the fundamental impossibility of the “only true” cultural canon) will be natural and obvious. The path to “cultural peace” lies in the renunciation of the monopoly on truth and the desire to forcibly bring the world to consensus. Overcoming the “era of cultural conflicts” will become possible to the extent that social violence in all its manifestations will no longer be considered as a lever of history.