The peculiarities of Russian national culture highlight specific features. Features of Russian culture

The formation and development of Russian culture is a long process. It is known that the roots and origins of any culture go back to such distant times that it is impossible to determine them with the accuracy necessary for knowledge.

The above applies to all cultures, and therefore each of the peoples strives to adhere to some initial historical date that is noteworthy for it, although conditional in the general flow of time. Thus, Nestor, the author of the famous “Tale of Bygone Years, Where the Russian Land Came From” in the longest (since the Creation of the World) series of millennia, the first “Russian date” named the year 6360 (852), when in the Byzantine chronicles the word “Rus” was named people.

And indeed. The 9th century is the time of the birth of the ancient Russian state with its center in Kiev, to which the name “Kievan Rus” gradually spread. The state has created favorable conditions for the development of culture. Proof of this is the dramatic rise of the culture of Kievan Rus, which during the first century reached a high European level.

Culture is created by people, and their worldview, worldview, feelings, tastes are formed in specific social, economic and public conditions. The emerging culture of any nation is influenced to a certain extent by the geographic environment, as well as customs, traditions, and the entire cultural heritage inherited from previous generations. Therefore, cultural history should be studied on the basis of and in connection with the historical process of a given country and its people.

The Eastern Slavs received from the primitive era a folk, basically pagan, culture, the art of buffoons, rich folklore - epics, fairy tales, ritual and lyrical songs.

With the formation of the Old Russian state, Old Russian culture simultaneously began to take shape - it reflected the life and way of life of the Slavic peoples, and was associated with the flourishing of trade and crafts, the development of interstate relations and trade ties. It was created on the basis of ancient Slavic culture - it was formed on the basis of traditions, customs, and the epic of the Eastern Slavs. It reflected the cultural traditions of individual Slavic tribes - Polyans, Vyatichi, Novgorodians, etc., as well as neighboring tribes - Utro-Finns, Balts, Scythians, Iranians. Various cultural influences and traditions merged and melted under the influence of general political and socio-economic relations.

Russian culture initially developed as a single culture, common to all East Slavic tribes. A significant role was played by the fact that the Eastern Slavs lived on an open plain and were simply “doomed” to contacts with other peoples and with each other.

From the very beginning, Byzantium had a huge influence on the development of the culture of Ancient Rus'. However, Rus' did not just blindly copy the cultural achievements of other countries and peoples, it adapted them to its cultural traditions, to its folk experience and understanding of the surrounding world that had come down from time immemorial. Therefore, it would be more correct to talk not about simple borrowing, but about processing, rethinking certain ideas, which eventually acquired an original form on Russian soil.

In the features of Russian culture, we are constantly faced not only with influences from outside, but with their sometimes significant spiritual processing, their constant refraction in an absolutely Russian style. If the influence of foreign cultural traditions was stronger in cities, which themselves were centers of culture, then the rural population was mainly the custodian of ancient cultural traditions associated with the depths of the historical memory of the people.

In villages and villages, life flowed at a slower pace; they were more conservative and more difficult to succumb to various cultural innovations. For many years, Russian culture - oral folk art, art, architecture, painting, artistic crafts - developed under the influence of pagan religion and pagan worldview.

The adoption of Christianity by Russia had a huge progressive influence on the development of Russian culture as a whole - on literature, architecture, painting. It was an important source of the formation of ancient Russian culture, as it contributed to the development of writing, education, literature, architecture, art, the humanization of the morals of the people, and the spiritual elevation of the individual. Christianity created the basis for the unification of ancient Russian society, the formation of a single people based on common spiritual and moral values. This is its progressive meaning.

First of all, the new religion claimed to change people’s worldview, their perception of all life, and therefore their ideas about beauty, artistic creativity, and aesthetic influence.

However, Christianity, having had a strong impact on Russian culture, especially in the field of literature, architecture, art, literacy development, school affairs, libraries - in those areas that were closely connected with the life of the church, with religion, was never able to overcome popular the origins of Russian culture.

Christianity and paganism are religions of different value orientations. Paganism was experienced by many peoples of the world. Everywhere it personified natural elements and forces, giving birth to many natural gods - polytheism. Unlike other peoples who survived paganism, the supreme gods of the Slavs were associated not with a priestly, not with a military, but with an economic and natural function.

Although the worldview of the Slavs, like all pagans, remained primitive, and their moral principles were quite cruel, yet the connection with nature had a beneficial effect on man and his culture. People have learned to see beauty in nature. It is no coincidence that the ambassadors of Prince Vladimir, when meeting with the rituals of the “Greek faith,” appreciated first of all its beauty, which to a certain extent contributed to the choice of faith.

But paganism, including Slavic, did not have the main thing - the concept of the human personality, the value of its soul. As is known, the ancient classics did not possess these qualities either.

The concept of personality, its value, manifested in its spirituality, aesthetics, humanism, etc., emerged only in the Middle Ages and is reflected in monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. The transition to Christianity meant the transition of Rus' to higher valuable humanistic and moral ideals.

It is important to note that the change of faith in Rus' took place without foreign interference. The adoption of Christianity was an internal need of the population of a large country, its readiness to accept new spiritual values. If we were faced with a country with a completely undeveloped artistic consciousness, knowing nothing but idols, no religion with its higher value guidelines could establish itself.

Christianity, as a symbol of spiritual values, contains the idea of the need for constant development and improvement of society and people. It is no coincidence that this type of civilization is called Christian.

Dual faith persisted in Rus' for many years: the official religion, which prevailed in the cities, and paganism, which went into the shadows, but still existed in remote parts of Rus', especially in the northeast, retained its position in rural areas, the development of Russian culture reflected this duality in the spiritual life of society, in folk life.

Pagan spiritual traditions, folk at their core, had a profound impact on the entire development of Russian culture in the early Middle Ages.

Under the influence of folk traditions, foundations, habits, under the influence of the people's worldview, church culture itself and religious ideology were filled with new content.

The harsh ascetic Christianity of Byzantium on Russian pagan soil with its cult of nature, worship of the sun, light, wind, with its love of life and deep humanity was significantly transformed, which was reflected in all those areas of culture where Byzantine influence was especially great. It is no coincidence that in many church cultural monuments (for example, the works of church authors) we see secular reasoning and reflection of purely worldly passions.

And it is no coincidence that the pinnacle of spiritual achievement of Ancient Rus' - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - is all permeated with pagan motifs. Using pagan symbols and folklore imagery, the author reflected the diverse hopes and aspirations of the Russian people of a specific historical era. An excited, fiery call for the unity of the Russian land, its protection from external enemies is combined with the author’s deep reflections on the place of Rus' in world history, its connection with surrounding peoples, and the desire to live in peace with them.

This monument of ancient Russian culture most clearly reflected the characteristic features of the literature of that era: a living connection with historical reality, high citizenship, sincere patriotism.

This openness of ancient Russian culture, its powerful reliance on folk origins and the popular perception of the Eastern Slavs, the interweaving of Christian and folk-pagan influences led to what in world history is called the phenomenon of Russian culture. Its characteristic features are

the desire for monumentality, scale, imagery in chronicle writing;

nationality, integrity and simplicity in art;

grace, a deeply humanistic principle in architecture;

gentleness, love of life, kindness in painting;

the constant presence of doubt and passion in literature.

And all this was dominated by the great unity of the creator of cultural values with nature, his sense of belonging to all of humanity, worries about people, their pain and misfortunes. It is no coincidence that, again, one of the favorite images of the Russian church and culture was the image of Saints Boris and Gleb, lovers of mankind, who suffered for the unity of the country, who accepted torment for the sake of people.

The stone structures of Rus' fully reflected the traditions of ancient Russian wooden architecture, namely: multiple domes, pyramidal structures, the presence of various galleries, organic fusion, harmony of architectural structures with the surrounding landscape, and others. Thus, the architecture with its picturesque stone carvings was reminiscent of the unsurpassed skill of Russian woodworkers.

In icon painting, Russian masters also surpassed their Greek teachers. The spiritual ideal created in ancient Russian icons was so lofty, possessed such power of plastic embodiment, such stability and vitality that it was destined to determine the path of development of Russian culture in the 14th-15th centuries. The harsh canons of church Byzantine art in Rus' underwent changes, images of saints became more worldly and humane.

These features and characteristic features of the culture of Ancient Rus' did not appear immediately. In their basic guises they developed over the centuries. But then, having already formed into more or less established forms, they retained their strength for a long time and everywhere.

Introduction

Discussion about Russian culture has been and remains relevant for modern society.

Throughout all the centuries of its formation, national culture is inextricably linked with the history of Russia. Our cultural heritage took shape in the process of formation and development of national self-awareness, and was constantly enriched by our own and world cultural experience. It gave the world the pinnacle of artistic achievements and became an integral part of world culture. The attitude of world cultural figures towards Russian culture has always been ambiguous and contradictory. One hundred and fifty years ago it was already felt so clearly that one of the most educated poets in Russia and familiar with European culture, Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev, formulated this attitude and its reasons in a quatrain:

You can't understand Russia with your mind,

The general arshin cannot be measured:

She's going to be special

You can only believe in Russia,

Tyutchev considered this attitude towards Russia and its culture to be primordial, irrational, accessible only to faith and arising from misunderstanding. Even earlier, in 1831, Pushkin wrote even more harshly in the poem “To the Slanderers of Russia”:

Leave us alone: you haven’t read these bloody tablets...

Senselessly seduces you

Fighting desperate courage -

And you hate us...

Pushkin saw the reason in the still-uncooled flame of the Napoleonic wars. But in the two world wars of the 20th century, Russia was an ally of France and England, and was also an ally of the United States, and in the disputes between intellectuals of Russia and the West the same familiar notes are heard.

Russian world culture

The concept of Russian culture, its characteristics and peculiarities

Russian culture world national

The concepts of “Russian culture”, “Russian national culture”, “culture of Russia” can be considered as synonyms, or as independent phenomena. They reflect different states and components of our culture. It seems that when studying Russian culture, the focus should be on culture itself, the cultural traditions of the Eastern Slavs as a union of tribes, Russians, Russians. The culture of other peoples in this case is of interest as the result and process of mutual influence, borrowing, and dialogue of cultures. In this case, the concept of “Russian culture” is synonymous with the concept of “Russian national culture”. The concept of “Russian culture” is broader, since it includes the history of the formation and development of the culture of the Old Russian state, individual principalities, multinational state associations - the Moscow State, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation. In this context, Russian culture acts as the main system-forming element of the culture of a multinational state. The multinational culture of Russia can be typologized on various grounds: confessional (Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.); according to the economic structure (agricultural culture, cattle breeding, hunting), etc. Ignoring the multinational nature of the culture of our state, as well as the role of Russian culture in this state, is very unproductive. Interest in the cultural features of different peoples of Russia is shown to a greater extent by ethnographers and to a lesser extent by cultural scientists. The simultaneous existence of different cultures, mixed marriages, divergent traditions within the same family, village, city require the careful attention of researchers. Good relations in the country and the successful solution of tasks for the development of Russian culture largely depend on the harmonization of these relations and mutual knowledge.

Studying national culture is not only an educational task. It is closely connected with another - no less important - to raise carriers of Russian culture, successors of its traditions, which will contribute to its preservation as part of world culture, expanding the boundaries of Russian culture, and the dialogue of cultures.

“Oh, bright and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are famous for many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak groves, clean fields, wondrous animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious decrees, monastery gardens, temples of God and formidable princes, boyars honest, many nobles. You are filled with everything, Russian land, oh true Christian faith!

These lines, imbued with deep love for their land, can be considered an epigraph to this text. They form the beginning of the ancient literary monument “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land.” Unfortunately, only a fragment has survived, which was discovered as part of another work - “The Tale of the Life of Alexander Nevsky”. The time when “The Lay” was written was 1237 - early 1246. Each national culture is a form of self-expression of the people. It reveals the peculiarities of national character, worldview, and mentality. Any culture is unique and goes through its own unique path of development. This fully applies to Russian culture. It can be compared with Western cultures only to the extent that they interact with it, influence its genesis and evolution, and are connected with Russian culture by a common destiny.

Attempts to understand domestic culture, to determine its place and role in the circle of other cultures are fraught with certain difficulties. They can be divided into the following: a strong tendency of researchers towards a comparative approach, a constant attempt at a comparative analysis of our culture and the culture of Western Europe and almost always not in favor of the first; ideologization of specific cultural and historical material and its interpretation from one point or another, during which some facts are brought to the fore, and those that do not fit into the author’s concept are ignored.

When considering the cultural and historical process in Russia, three main approaches are clearly visible.

The first approach is represented by supporters of the unilinear model of world history. According to this concept, all of Russia's problems can be solved by overcoming the civilizational, cultural lag or modernization.

Proponents of the second proceed from the concept of multilinear historical development, according to which the history of mankind consists of the history of a number of distinctive civilizations, one of which includes Russian (Slavic - N.Ya. Danilevsky or Orthodox Christian - A. Toynbee) civilization. Moreover, the main features or “soul” of each civilization cannot be perceived or deeply understood by representatives of another civilization or culture, i.e. is unknowable and not reproducible.

The third group of authors tries to reconcile both approaches. These include the famous researcher of Russian culture, author of the multi-volume work “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” P.N. Miliukov, who defined his position as a synthesis of two opposing constructions of Russian history, “of which one brought forward the similarity of the Russian process with the European one, bringing this similarity to identity, and the other proved Russian originality, to the point of complete incomparability and exclusivity.” Miliukov took a conciliatory position and built the Russian historical process on the synthesis of both features, similarity and originality, emphasizing the features of originality “somewhat more sharply than the features of similarity.” It should be noted that Miliukov identified at the beginning of the 20th century. approaches to the study of the cultural and historical process of Russia retained, with some modifications, their main features until the end of our century.

Most authors who diverge in their assessments and prospects for the cultural and historical development of Russia, nevertheless, identify a number of common factors (conditions, reasons) that determine the features (backwardness, delay, originality, originality) of Russian history and culture. Among them: natural and climatic, geopolitical, confessional, ethnic, features of the social and state organization of Russian society.

In the Russian philosophical and cultural tradition, in all known typologies, Russia is usually considered separately. At the same time, they proceed from the recognition of its exclusivity, the impossibility of reducing it to either the Western or the Eastern type, and from here they draw a conclusion about its special path of development and special mission in the history and culture of mankind. Mostly Russian philosophers wrote about this, starting with the Slavophiles. The topic of the “Russian idea” was very important for and. The result of these reflections on the fate of Russia was summed up in philosophical and historical concepts of Eurasianism.

Prerequisites for the formation of Russian national character

Typically, Eurasians proceed from Russia’s middle position between Europe and Asia, which they consider to be the reason for the combination of features of Eastern and Western civilizations in Russian culture. A similar idea was once expressed by V.O. Klyuchevsky. In the “Course of Russian History” he argued that the character of the Russian people was shaped by the location of Rus' on the border of forest and steppe - elements that are opposite in all respects. This dichotomy between the forest and the steppe was overcome by the Russian people’s love for the river, which was both a nurse, a road, and a teacher of a sense of order and public spirit among the people. The spirit of entrepreneurship and the habit of joint action were cultivated on the river, scattered parts of the population came closer together, people learned to feel part of society.

The opposite effect was exerted by the endless Russian plain, characterized by desolation and monotony. The man on the plain was overcome by a feeling of imperturbable peace, loneliness and sad contemplation. According to many researchers, this is the reason for such properties of Russian spirituality as spiritual gentleness and modesty, semantic uncertainty and timidity, imperturbable calm and painful despondency, lack of clear thought and a predisposition to spiritual sleep, asceticism of desert living and pointlessness of creativity.

The economic and everyday life of Russian people became an indirect reflection of the Russian landscape. Klyuchevsky also noted that Russian peasant settlements, with their primitiveness and lack of the simplest amenities of life, give the impression of temporary, random sites of nomads. This is due both to the long period of nomadic life in ancient times and to the numerous fires that destroyed Russian villages and cities. The result was the rootlessness of the Russian person, manifested in indifference to home improvement and everyday amenities. It also led to a careless and careless attitude towards nature and its riches.

Developing Klyuchevsky's ideas, Berdyaev wrote that the landscape of the Russian soul corresponds to the landscape of the Russian land. Therefore, despite all the complexities of the relationship between Russian people and Russian nature, its cult was so important that it found a very unique reflection in the ethnonym (self-name) of the Russian ethnos. Representatives of various countries and peoples are called by nouns in Russian - Frenchman, German, Georgian, Mongolian, etc., and only Russians call themselves by adjectives. This can be interpreted as the embodiment of one’s belonging to something higher and more valuable than people (people). This is the highest for a Russian person - Rus', the Russian land, and every person is a part of this whole. Rus' (land) is primary, people are secondary.

Its eastern (Byzantine) version played a huge role in the formation of Russian mentality and culture. The result of the baptism of Rus' was not only its entry into the then civilized world, the growth of international authority, the strengthening of diplomatic, trade, political and cultural ties with other Christian countries, not only the creation of the artistic culture of Kievan Rus. From this moment on, the geopolitical position of Russia between the West and the East, its enemies and allies, and its orientation to the East were determined, and therefore the further expansion of the Russian state took place in an eastern direction.

However, this choice also had a downside: the adoption of Byzantine Christianity contributed to the alienation of Russia from Western Europe. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 cemented in the Russian consciousness the idea of its own specialness, the idea of the Russian people as God-bearers, the only bearer of the true Orthodox faith, which predetermined the historical path of Russia. This is largely due to the ideal of Orthodoxy, which combines unity and freedom, embodied in the conciliar unity of people. Moreover, each person is an individual, but not self-sufficient, but manifested only in a conciliar unity, the interests of which are higher than the interests of the individual.

This combination of opposites gave rise to instability and could explode into conflict at any moment. In particular, the basis of all Russian culture lies a number of insoluble contradictions: collectivity and authoritarianism, universal consent and despotic arbitrariness, self-government of peasant communities and strict centralization of power associated with the Asian mode of production.

The inconsistency of Russian culture was also generated by specific for Russia mobilization type of development, when material and human resources are used through their over-concentration and over-tension, in conditions of a shortage of necessary resources (financial, intellectual, time, foreign policy, etc.), often with the immaturity of internal development factors. As a result, the idea of priority of political factors of development over all other and a contradiction arose between the tasks of the state and the capabilities of the population according to their decision, when the security and development of the state was ensured by any means, at the expense of the interests and goals of individual people through non-economic, forceful coercion, as a result of which the state became authoritarian, even totalitarian, the repressive apparatus was disproportionately strengthened as an instrument of coercion and violence. This largely explains the Russian people’s dislike for and at the same time awareness of the need to protect him and, accordingly, the endless patience of the people and their almost resigned submission to power.

Another consequence of the mobilization type of development in Russia was the primacy of the social, communal principle, which is expressed in the tradition of subordinating personal interest to the tasks of society. Slavery was dictated not by the whim of the rulers, but by a new national task - the creation of an empire on a meager economic basis.

All these features formed such features of Russian culture, as the absence of a solid core, led to its ambiguity, binary, duality, constant desire to combine incongruous things - European and Asian, pagan and Christian, nomadic and sedentary, freedom and despotism. Therefore, the main form of the dynamics of Russian culture has become inversion - a change like a pendulum swing - from one pole of cultural meaning to another.

Due to the constant desire to keep up with their neighbors, to jump above their heads, old and new elements coexisted in Russian culture all the time, the future came when there were no conditions for it yet, and the past was in no hurry to leave, clinging to traditions and customs. At the same time, something new often appeared as a result of a leap, an explosion. This feature of historical development explains the catastrophic type of development of Russia, which consists in the constant violent destruction of the old in order to make way for the new, and then find out that this new is not at all as good as it seemed.

At the same time, the dichotomy and binary nature of Russian culture has become the reason for its exceptional flexibility and ability to adapt to extremely difficult conditions of survival during periods of national catastrophes and socio-historical upheavals, comparable in scale to natural disasters and geological disasters.

Main features of the Russian national character

All these moments formed a specific Russian national character, which cannot be assessed unambiguously.

Among positive qualities usually called kindness and its manifestation in relation to people - goodwill, cordiality, sincerity, responsiveness, cordiality, mercy, generosity, compassion and empathy. They also note simplicity, openness, honesty, and tolerance. But this list does not include pride and self-confidence - qualities that reflect a person’s attitude towards himself, which indicates the characteristic attitude of Russians towards “others”, their collectivism.

Russian attitude to work very peculiar. Russian people are hardworking, efficient and resilient, but much more often they are lazy, careless, careless and irresponsible, they are characterized by disregard and sloppiness. The hard work of Russians is manifested in the honest and responsible performance of their work duties, but does not imply initiative, independence, or the desire to stand out from the team. Sloppiness and carelessness are associated with the vast expanses of the Russian land, the inexhaustibility of its riches, which will be enough not only for us, but also for our descendants. And since we have a lot of everything, we don’t feel sorry for anything.

"Faith in a good king" - a mental feature of Russians, reflecting the long-standing attitude of the Russian person who did not want to deal with officials or landowners, but preferred to write petitions to the tsar (general secretary, president), sincerely believing that evil officials are deceiving the good tsar, but as soon as you tell him the truth, how the weight will immediately become good. The excitement around the presidential elections over the past 20 years proves that the belief is still alive that if you choose a good president, Russia will immediately become a prosperous state.

Passion for political myths - another characteristic feature of the Russian person, inextricably linked with the Russian idea, the idea of the special mission of Russia and the Russian people in history. The belief that the Russian people are destined to show the whole world the right path (regardless of what this path should be - true Orthodoxy, the communist or Eurasian idea) was combined with the desire to make any sacrifices (including their own death) in the name of achieving set goal. In search of an idea, people easily rushed to extremes: they went to the people, made a world revolution, built communism, socialism “with a human face,” and restored previously destroyed churches. Myths may change, but the morbid fascination with them remains. Therefore, among the typical national qualities is gullibility.

Calculation on the chance - a very Russian trait. It permeates the national character, the life of the Russian person, and manifests itself in politics and economics. “Maybe” is expressed in the fact that inaction, passivity and lack of will (also named among the characteristics of the Russian character) are replaced by reckless behavior. Moreover, it will come to this at the very last moment: “Until the thunder strikes, the man will not cross himself.”

The flip side of the Russian “maybe” is the breadth of the Russian soul. As noted by F.M. Dostoevsky, “the Russian soul is bruised by the vastness,” but behind its breadth, generated by the vast spaces of our country, hide both prowess, youth, merchant scope, and the absence of a deep rational calculation of the everyday or political situation.

Values of Russian culture

The Russian peasant community played the most important role in the history of our country and in the formation of Russian culture, and the values of Russian culture are to a large extent the values of the Russian community.

Herself community, "world" as the basis and prerequisite for the existence of any individual, it is the most ancient and most important value. For the sake of “peace” he must sacrifice everything, including his life. This is explained by the fact that Russia lived a significant part of its history in conditions of a besieged military camp, when only the subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the community allowed the Russian people to survive as an independent ethnic group.

Interests of the team In Russian culture, the interests of the individual are always higher, which is why personal plans, goals and interests are so easily suppressed. But in return, the Russian person counts on the support of the “world” when he has to face everyday adversity (a kind of mutual responsibility). As a result, the Russian person puts aside his personal affairs without displeasure for the sake of some common cause from which he will not benefit, and this is where his attractiveness lies. The Russian person is firmly convinced that he must first arrange the affairs of the social whole, more important than his own, and then this whole will begin to act in his favor at its own discretion. The Russian people are collectivists who can only exist together with society. He suits him, worries about him, for which he, in turn, surrounds him with warmth, attention and support. To become, a Russian person must become a conciliar personality.

Justice- another value of Russian culture, important for life in a team. It was originally understood as the social equality of people and was based on economic equality (of men) in relation to the land. This value is instrumental, but in the Russian community it has become a target value. Members of the community had the right to their own, equal to everyone else, share of the land and all its wealth that the “world” owned. Such justice was the Truth for which the Russian people lived and strived. In the famous dispute between truth-truth and truth-justice, it was justice that prevailed. For a Russian person, it is not so important how it actually was or is; much more important is what should be. The nominal positions of eternal truths (for Russia these truths were truth and justice) were assessed by the thoughts and actions of people. Only they are important, otherwise no result, no benefit can justify them. If nothing comes of what was planned, don’t worry, because the goal was good.

Lack of individual freedom was determined by the fact that in the Russian community, with its equal allotments, periodically carried out redistribution of land, striping, it was simply impossible for individualism to manifest itself. Man was not the owner of the land, did not have the right to sell it, and was not even free in the timing of sowing, harvesting, or in choosing what could be cultivated on the land. In such a situation, it was impossible to demonstrate individual skill. which in Rus' was not valued at all. It is no coincidence that they were ready to accept Lefty in England, but he died in complete poverty in Russia.

The habit of emergency mass activity(suffering) was brought up by the same lack of individual freedom. Here, hard work and a festive mood were combined in a strange way. Perhaps the festive atmosphere was a kind of compensatory means that made it easier to carry a heavy load and give up excellent freedom in economic activity.

Wealth could not become a value in a situation of dominance of the idea of equality and justice. It is no coincidence that the proverb is so well known in Russia: “You cannot build stone chambers with righteous labor.” The desire to increase wealth was considered a sin. Thus, in the Russian northern village, traders who artificially slowed down trade turnover were respected.

Labor itself was also not a value in Rus' (unlike, for example, in Protestant countries). Of course, work is not rejected, its usefulness is recognized everywhere, but it is not considered a means that automatically ensures the fulfillment of a person’s earthly calling and the correct structure of his soul. Therefore, in the system of Russian values, labor occupies a subordinate place: “Work is not a wolf, it will not run away into the forest.”

Life, not oriented towards work, gave the Russian person freedom of spirit (partly illusory). This has always stimulated creativity in a person. It could not be expressed in constant, painstaking work aimed at accumulating wealth, but was easily transformed into eccentricity or work that surprised others (the invention of wings, a wooden bicycle, a perpetual motion machine, etc.), i.e. actions were taken that had no meaning for the economy. On the contrary, the economy often turned out to be subordinate to this idea.

Community respect could not be earned simply by becoming rich. But only a feat, a sacrifice in the name of “peace” could bring glory.

Patience and suffering in the name of “peace”(but not personal heroism) is another value of Russian culture, in other words, the goal of the feat being performed could not be personal, it must always be outside the person. The Russian proverb is widely known: “God endured, and He commanded us too.” It is no coincidence that the first canonized Russian saints were princes Boris and Gleb; They accepted martyrdom, but did not resist their brother, Prince Svyatopolk, who wanted to kill them. Death for the Motherland, death “for one’s friends” brought immortal glory to the hero. It is no coincidence that in Tsarist Russia the words were minted on awards (medals): “Not for us, not for us, but for Your name.”

Patience and suffering- the most important fundamental values for a Russian person, along with consistent abstinence, self-restraint, and constant sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of another. Without this, there is no personality, no status, no respect from others. From here stems the eternal desire for Russian people to suffer - this is the desire for self-actualization, to win the inner freedom necessary to do good in the world, to win freedom of spirit. In general, the world exists and moves only through sacrifice, patience, and self-restraint. This is the reason for the long-suffering characteristic of Russian people. He can endure a lot (especially material difficulties) if he knows why it is necessary.

The values of Russian culture constantly point to its aspiration towards some higher, transcendental meaning. For a Russian person there is nothing more exciting than the search for this meaning. For this, you can leave home, family, become a hermit or holy fool (both of them were highly revered in Rus').

On the day of Russian culture as a whole, this meaning becomes the Russian idea, to the implementation of which the Russian person subordinates his entire way of life. Therefore, researchers talk about the inherent features of religious fundamentalism in the consciousness of Russian people. The idea could change (Moscow is the third Rome, the imperial idea, communist, Eurasian, etc.), but its place in the structure of values remained unchanged. The crisis that Russia is experiencing today is largely due to the fact that the idea that united the Russian people has disappeared; it has become unclear in the name of what we should suffer and humiliate ourselves. The key to Russia's exit from the crisis is the acquisition of a new fundamental idea.

The listed values are contradictory. Therefore, a Russian could simultaneously be a brave man on the battlefield and a coward in civilian life, he could be personally devoted to the sovereign and at the same time rob the royal treasury (like Prince Menshikov in the era of Peter the Great), leave his home and go to war to free the Balkan Slavs. High patriotism and mercy were manifested as sacrifice or beneficence (but it could well become a “disservice”). Obviously, this allowed all researchers to talk about the “mysterious Russian soul”, the breadth of Russian character, that “ You can't understand Russia with your mind».

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

AUTONOMOUS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"Eurasian Open Institute"

Kolomna branch

Test

on the cultural studies course

on the topic: Peculiarities of Russian culture

2nd year student 24MV group

Kozlov Oleg Vladimirovich

Head Kruchinkina N.V.

Kolomna, 2010

Introduction

The culture of Russian civilization, its formation

Russian culture as an object of research

Significant features of Russian national culture

General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

History of Russian culture, its values, role and place in world culture in the early 90s. XX century aroused great interest both as a subject of scientific study and as a training course. A lot of scientific and educational literature has appeared covering our history and culture. Its understanding was mainly based on the works of Russian thinkers Spiritual Renaissance late XIX - first quarter of the XX century. However, by the end of the 90s. this interest began to wane. Partly because the sense of novelty of previously forbidden ideas has been exhausted, and a modern, original reading of our cultural history has not yet appeared.

The purpose of the work is to study the features of Russian culture.

Job objectives:

Study the formation of Russian culture;

Reveal the basic concepts;

Highlight the features of Russian national culture;

Study the development of Russian culture at the present stage.

The culture of Russian civilization, its formation

Our culture began to stand out as a special type within the framework of Christian civilization in the 9th-11th centuries. during the formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs and their introduction to Orthodoxy.

The formation of this type of culture was greatly influenced by the geopolitical factor - Russia's middle position between the civilizations of the West and the East, which served as the basis for its marginalization, i.e. the emergence of such border cultural areas and layers, which, on the one hand, were not adjacent to any of the known cultures, and on the other, represented a favorable environment for diverse cultural development.

The most frequently identified features of Russian civilization include the autocratic form of state power or, as historian M. Dovnar-Zapolsky defined this type of power, a “patrimonial state”; collectivist mentality; subordination of society to the state" (or "dualism of society and state power"), an insignificant amount of economic freedom.

As for the stages of development of Russian civilization, there are different points of view. Some scientists believe that from the 9th century. and to this day, in the area called Russia, there has been one civilization. In its development, several stages can be distinguished, distinguished by special typological features, which allows us to qualify them as independent historical and cultural communities: Ancient Rus' (IX-XIII centuries), Muscovy (XIV-XVII centuries), Imperial Russia (from the 18th century . and to this day).

Other researchers believe that by the 13th century. there was one “Russian-European” or “Slavic-European” civilization, and from the 14th century. - another: “Eurasian” or “Russian”.

The dominant form of integration of the “Russian-European” civilization was (as in Europe - Catholicism) Orthodoxy, which, although it was accepted and spread in Rus' by the state, was largely autonomous in relation to it.

The Russian Orthodox Church was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople for a long time, and only in the middle of the 15th century. gained actual independence.

The ancient Russian state itself was a confederation of fairly independent state formations, politically consolidated only by the unity of the princely family, after the collapse of which at the beginning of the 12th century. they acquired full state sovereignty.

Orthodoxy set a common normative and value order for Rus', the only symbolic form of expression of which was the Old Russian language.

The Kyiv princes could not rely, like the Roman or Chinese emperors, on a powerful military-bureaucratic system or, like the Achaemenid shahs, on a numerically and culturally dominant ethnic group. They found support in Orthodoxy and carried out the construction of statehood to a large extent as a missionary task of converting pagans.

In the first centuries of Old Russian statehood, due to many formal-cultural and value-orientation features, it can be considered as a “daughter” zone of Byzantine culture. However, in most essential forms of socio-political structure and life activity, Old Russian civilization was closer to Europe, especially Eastern Europe.

It had a number of common features with the traditional societies of Europe at that time: the urban character of the “titular” culture that marks society as a whole; the predominance of agricultural production; “military-democratic” nature of the genesis of state power; absence of the servile complex syndrome (universal slavery) when the individual comes into contact with the state.

At the same time, Ancient Rus' had a number of common features with traditional societies of the Asian type:

the absence in the European sense of private property and economic classes;

the dominance of the principle of centralized redistribution, in which power gave birth to property;

the autonomy of communities in relation to the state, which generated significant opportunities for socio-cultural regeneration;

evolutionary nature of social development.

In general, Old Russian civilization, on a Slavic-pagan basis, synthesized some features of European socio-political and production-technological realities, Byzantine mystical reflections and canons, as well as Asian principles of centralized redistribution.

Geopolitical as well as economic factors predetermined the emergence of several subcultures in ancient Russian civilization - southern, northern and northeastern.

The southern subculture was focused on the Asian “steppe”. The Kyiv princes even preferred to form a squadron of guards from mercenaries of the tribal association “black hoods”, the remnants of the Turkic nomads - the Pechenegs, Torks, Berendeys, who settled on the Ros River. During the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the Kiev subculture ceased to exist.

The Novgorod subculture was aimed at partners in the Hanseatic League, representing the trading islands of European civilization. If the Novgorodians resorted to mercenaries, then, as a rule, they were the Varangians. The Novgorod subculture, which survived during the Tatar-Mongol yoke and strengthened its European identity, degraded after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow in the 15th century.

Russian culture as an object of research

Concepts Russian culture , Russian national culture , Russian culture - can be considered as synonyms, or as independent phenomena. They reflect different states and components of our culture. It seems that when studying Russian culture, the focus should be on culture itself, the cultural traditions of the Eastern Slavs as a union of tribes, Russians, Russians. The culture of other peoples in this case is of interest as the result and process of mutual influence, borrowing, and dialogue of cultures. In this case, the concept Russian culture synonymous with the concept Russian national culture . Concept Russian culture broader, since it includes the history of the formation and development of the culture of the Old Russian state, individual principalities, multinational state associations - the Moscow State, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation. In this context, Russian culture acts as the main system-forming element of the culture of a multinational state. The multinational culture of Russia can be typologized on various grounds: confessional (Orthodox, Old Believers, Catholics, Muslims, etc.); according to the economic structure (agricultural culture, cattle breeding, hunting), etc. Ignoring the multinational nature of the culture of our state, as well as the role of Russian culture in this state, is very unproductive.

Oh, bright and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are famous for many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak forests, clean fields, wondrous animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious commands, monastery gardens, temples of God and terrible princes, boyars honest, many nobles. You are filled with everything, Russian land, O Orthodox Christian Faith!

These lines, imbued with deep love for their land, constitute the beginning of an ancient literary monument A word about the destruction of the Russian land . Unfortunately, only a fragment has survived, which was discovered as part of another work - Stories about the life of Alexander Nevsky . Time of writing Words - 1237 - beginning of 1246

Each national culture is a form of self-expression of the people. It reveals the peculiarities of national character, worldview, and mentality. Any culture is unique and goes through its own unique path of development. This fully applies to Russian culture. It can be compared with the cultures of the East and West only to the extent that they interact with it, influence its genesis and evolution, and are connected with Russian culture by a common destiny.

When considering the cultural and historical process in Russia, three main approaches are clearly visible.

Proponents of the second proceed from the concept of multilinear historical development, according to which the history of mankind consists of the history of a number of distinctive civilizations, one of which includes Russian (Slavic - N.Ya. Danilevsky or Orthodox Christian - A. Toynbee) civilization. Moreover, the main features or soul each civilization cannot be perceived or deeply understood by representatives of another civilization or culture, i.e. is unknowable and not reproducible.

The third group of authors tries to reconcile both approaches. These include the famous researcher of Russian culture, the author of a multi-volume work Essays on the history of Russian culture P.N. Miliukov, who defined his position as a synthesis of two opposing constructions of Russian history, of which one brought forward the similarity of the Russian process with the European one, bringing this similarity to identity, and the other proved Russian originality, to the point of complete incomparability and exclusivity . Miliukov occupied a conciliatory position and built the Russian historical process on the synthesis of both features, similarity and originality, emphasizing the features of originality somewhat more sharply than the similarities . It should be noted that Miliukov identified at the beginning of the 20th century. approaches to the study of the cultural and historical process of Russia retained, with some modifications, their main features until the end of our century.

Significant features of Russian national culture

Specific features of Russian culture from ancient times to the 20th century are identified:

Russian culture is a historical and multifaceted concept. It includes facts, processes, trends that indicate a long and complex development both in geographical space and in historical time. The remarkable representative of the European Renaissance, Maxim the Greek, who moved to our country at the turn of the 16th century, has an image of Russia that is striking in its depth and fidelity. He writes about her as a woman in a black dress, sitting thoughtfully “by the road.” Russian culture is also “on the road”; it is formed and developed in constant search. History bears witness to this.

Most of the territory of Russia was settled later than those regions of the world in which the main centers of world culture developed. In this sense, Russian culture is a relatively young phenomenon. Moreover, Rus' did not know the period of slavery: the Eastern Slavs moved directly to feudalism from communal-patriarchal relations. Due to its historical youth, Russian culture faced the need for intensive historical development. Of course, Russian culture developed under the influence of various cultures of Western and Eastern countries that were historically ahead of Russia. But by perceiving and assimilating the cultural heritage of other peoples, Russian writers and artists, sculptors and architects, scientists and philosophers solved their problems, formed and developed domestic traditions, never limiting themselves to copying other people's models.

A long period of development of Russian culture was determined by the Christian-Orthodox religion. For many centuries, the leading cultural genres were church building, icon painting, and church literature. Until the 18th century, Russia made a significant contribution to the world artistic treasury through spiritual activities related to Christianity.

The specific features of Russian culture are determined to a large extent by what researchers called the “character of the Russian people”; all researchers of the “Russian idea” wrote about this; faith was called the main feature of this character. The alternative “faith-knowledge”, “faith-reason” was resolved in Russia in specific historical periods in different ways, but most often in favor of faith.

General trends and features of the development of modern global culture and Russian culture

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

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

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

If we talk about modern culture itself, then it is embodied in a huge variety of created material and spiritual phenomena. These are new means of labor, and new food products, and new elements of the material infrastructure of everyday life, production, and new scientific ideas, ideological concepts, religious beliefs, moral ideals and regulators, works of all types of art, etc. At the same time, the sphere of modern culture, upon closer examination, is heterogeneous, because each of its constituent cultures has common boundaries, both geographical and chronological, with other cultures and eras.

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

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

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

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

In Russia, the beginning of the 90s of the last century is characterized by the accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, for which not only the values of the common culture of the USSR, but also each other’s cultural traditions turned out to be unacceptable. The sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in cultural tension and caused the collapse of a single socio-cultural space.

The culture of modern Russia, organically connected with previous periods of the country's history, found itself in a completely new political and economic situation, which radically changed many things, first of all, the relationship between culture and power. The state stopped dictating its demands to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.

Since the common core of cultural life as a centralized management system and a unified cultural policy has disappeared, determining the paths of further cultural development has become a matter for society itself and a subject of sharp disagreement. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western models to an apology for isolationism. The absence of a unifying cultural idea is perceived by part of society as a manifestation of the deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself at the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.

If, on the one hand, the elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture, then, on the other hand, the economic crisis experienced by the country and the difficult transition to market relations increased the danger of the commercialization of culture and the loss of national traits in the course of its further development. The spiritual sphere in general was experiencing an acute crisis in the mid-90s. The desire to direct the country towards market development has led to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively require state support.

At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between youth and the older generation continued to deepen. All these processes are unfolding against the backdrop of a rapid and sharp increase in uneven access to the consumption of not only material, but cultural goods.

Due to the above reasons, the first place in culture began to be occupied by the media, called the “fourth estate”.

In modern Russian culture, incompatible values and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, egoism, enormous and often deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc.

If it is quite obvious that one of the most important conditions for the renewal of society as a whole is the revival of culture, then specific movements along this path continue to be the subject of heated debate. In particular, the subject of dispute is the role of the state in regulating culture: whether the state should intervene in cultural affairs, or whether culture itself will find the means for its survival. Here, apparently, the following point of view has been formed: ensuring freedom of culture, the right to cultural identity, the state takes upon itself the development of strategic tasks of cultural construction and responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support of cultural values. However, the specific implementation of these provisions remains in question. The state, apparently, is not fully aware that culture cannot be left to business; its support, including education and science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation. Despite all the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow separation from its cultural heritage. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation.

Various opinions are also expressed regarding the ways of cultural development in modern Russia. On the one hand, it is possible to strengthen cultural and political conservatism, as well as stabilize the situation based on ideas about the identity of Russia and its special path in history. However, this is fraught with a return to the nationalization of culture. If in this case there is automatic support for cultural heritage and traditional forms of creativity, then, on the other hand, foreign influence on culture will inevitably be limited, which will greatly complicate any aesthetic innovations.

On the other hand, in the conditions of Russia’s integration under external influence into the world system of economy and culture and its transformation into a “province” in relation to global centers can lead to the dominance of alien trends in domestic culture, although the cultural life of society in this case will also be more stable for account of commercial self-regulation of culture.

In any case, the key problem remains the preservation of the original national culture, its international influence and the integration of cultural heritage into the life of society; integration of Russia into the system of universal human culture as an equal participant in world artistic processes. Here, state intervention in the cultural life of the country is necessary, since only with institutional regulation is it possible to fully utilize the cultural potential, radically reorient state cultural policy, and ensure the accelerated development of the domestic cultural industry within the country.

In modern Russian culture, numerous and very contradictory trends are manifested, partially outlined above. In general, the current period of development of national culture is still transitional, although it can be stated that certain ways out of the cultural crisis have emerged.

Conclusion

Russian national culture

Russian culture is undoubtedly a great European culture. It is an independent and distinctive national culture, the custodian of national traditions, values, and a reflection of the characteristics of the national character. Russian culture, in the process of its formation and development, was influenced by many cultures, absorbed some elements of these cultures, processed and rethought them, they became part of our culture as its organic component.

Russian culture is neither the culture of the East nor the culture of the West. We can say that it represents an independent type of culture. As a result of various reasons, Russian culture has not fully realized its capabilities and potential.

Unfortunately, the experience of various transformations in Russia is complicated by the fact that any changes were made by force or by a sharp breakdown, replacement, negation, or rejection of the existing cultural tradition. The cultural history of the country has repeatedly confirmed in practice the disastrousness of such an approach, which caused not only the destruction of the previous culture, but also led to a conflict of generations, a conflict of supporters new and antiquity. Another important task is to overcome the inferiority complex that a part of our society has formed in relation to their country and culture. It also doesn't help you move forward. The response to it is manifestations of nationalism and a sharp denial of any borrowing.

Russian culture testifies: with all the different interpretations of the Russian soul and Russian character, it is difficult not to agree with the famous lines of F. Tyutchev: “Russia cannot be understood with the mind, nor can it be measured with a common yardstick: it has become something special - one can only believe in Russia.”

Russian culture has accumulated great values. The task of current generations is to preserve and increase them.

List of used literature

1.Literature of Ancient Rus'. Reader. M., 2005.

2.Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture: In 3 volumes. M., 2003. Vol. 1.

.Polishchuk V.I. Culturology: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2007. indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The Russian people, and with them their culture, were born on the vast expanse of the East European Plain. This led to the constant influence of the geographical factor on the development of many elements of Russian culture. At the very beginning of the emergence of Russian culture, it was strongly influenced by Byzantine and Scandinavian cultural traditions. The first passed on the highest spiritual traditions to Rus', the second – political and military culture, the Rurik family. However, a complete merger of these two cultures never happened. Hence the inconsistency of Russian culture as a whole, the clashes between spiritual power and political power. The Russian people never wanted to give up their traditions and the people reacted to any attempts by the authorities to introduce any changes with bursts of uprisings and mass discontent. Conservatism is one of the main features of the culture of our country. Conservatism, in my opinion, characterizes one of the negative sides of a person, namely, the habit of following the path of least resistance, fear of what you do not know, and, consequently, the inability to transform and progress. This largely explains the lag of the state at various stages of historical development. If change is inevitable, then another side of the thinking of the Russian person was included, oriented toward maximalism, a radical revolution and the reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time. But this, as we know from history, did not lead to anything good.

Another feature of our people is deep faith. One of the fundamental factors of Russian culture has always been the concept of “model”. The Russian people have long lived according to Christian laws. A person was completely dependent on the church; everyday life had to be built according to the model and be guided by it in choosing forms, relationships, in finding one’s place in the world among other people. There was a strong belief that “people imitate monks, monks imitate angels, angels imitate God.” The entire Russian culture in all its manifestations was based on Christian laws.

Spiritual culture created models for everyday everyday culture. The house was built in the image and likeness of a temple, “Domostroy” dictated an ideal picture of a person’s daily life. Church and state were inseparable concepts. People depended on the authorities in every possible way and worked for the most part only for the benefit of the state. A stable division between the elite and the common people, between those who dictate the laws and those who must strictly follow them, has remained to this day in our country.

A special attitude towards work, Russian culture is characterized by utopianism (hope for the impossible, “maybe”), and communalism.

34/Social regulation as a way of society influencing the individual.

Personal behavior is externally observable actions, actions of individuals, their certain sequence, one way or another affecting the interests of other people, their groups, and the whole society. Human behavior acquires social meaning and becomes personal when it is involved in communication with other people. We are talking, first of all, about meaningful behavior, about the implementation in actions and deeds of such connections and relationships in which the subject of behavior participates as a rational being, consciously relating to his actions.

Social behavior is a system of socially determined actions by language and other sign-semantic formations, through which an individual or a social group participates in social relations and interacts with the social environment. Social behavior includes a person’s actions in relation to society, other people and the objective world. These actions are regulated by public norms of morality and law.

social regulation of individual behavior

IN In its everyday meaning, the concept of “regulation” means ordering, arranging something in accordance with certain rules, developing something with the aim of bringing it into a system, proportioning, establishing order. Personal behavior is included in a broad system of social regulation. The functions of social regulation are: formation, evaluation, maintenance, protection and reproduction norms, rules, mechanisms, and means necessary for the subjects of regulation to ensure the existence and reproduction of the type of interaction, relationships, communication, activity, consciousness and behavior of the individual as a member of society. The subjects of regulation of the social behavior of an individual in the broad sense of the word are society, small groups and the individual himself.

External factors of behavior regulation.

The individual is included in a complex system of social relations. All types of relations: industrial, moral, legal, political, religious, ideological determine the real, objective, proper and dependent relations of people and groups in society. To implement these relations, there are various types of regulators.

A wide class of external regulators is occupied by all social phenomena with the definition “social”, “public”. These include:

· social production, · social relations (the broad social context of an individual's life), · social movements, · public opinion, · social needs, · public interests, · public sentiment, · public consciousness, · social tension, · socio-economic situation.

In the sphere of spiritual life of society, the regulators of individual behavior are morality, ethics, mentality, culture, subculture, archetype, ideal, values, education, ideology, media, worldview, religion. In the sphere of politics - power, bureaucracy, social movements. In the sphere of legal relations – law, law.

Universal human regulators are: sign, language, symbol, traditions, rituals, customs, habits, prejudices, stereotypes, media, standards, labor, sports, social values, environmental situation, ethnicity, social attitudes, everyday life, family

35 social control

social control - methods and strategies. determining the behavior of people within society

types: formal and informal

Called formal control by social institutions of society - the state, the judiciary, prosecutorial supervision, police, authorities, the church.

Informal control- this is control exercised by public opinion, especially the opinion of the immediate environment - the primary group. Historically, informal control appeared much earlier than formal control (the process of mutual control of participants in any process, for example, buyers and sellers, members of the production team, as well as various forms of public opinion reaction to people’s behavior (condemnation, refusal of contacts, etc.).

36 Social deviations

social deviations are violations of social norms that are characterized by a certain mass, stability and prevalence. This refers to such negative mass social phenomena as drunkenness, crime, bureaucracy, religious and ideological fanaticism, totalitarianism, etc.

Social deviations have the following characteristics: historical determinism, negative consequences for society, relatively massive and relatively stable over time. Social deviations are characterized by direction and content. Society opposes social deviations with organized ways to combat them: legal, economic, moral sanctions. In some cases, social deviations are transitory. Examples of transient social deviations: material speculation, arranged marriage, dissidence. In parallel with this, measures of public influence in relation to social deviations are changing. Thus, according to the laws of pre-revolutionary Russia, religious moral and legal sanctions against drunkenness, drug addiction, suicide. In case of suicide, the traditional church burial rite was prohibited; the deceased was not buried in a common cemetery, e His expression of will (testament) was recognized as legally invalid, and in case of an unsuccessful suicide attempt, the suicider faced imprisonment.

37.concept of anomie

a concept introduced into scientific circulation by Emile Durkheim to explain deviant behavior (suicidal tendencies, apathy, disappointment, illegal behavior).

Durheim came up with the idea Anomie- a social condition that is characterized by the decomposition of the value system due to the crisis of the entire society and its social institutions, the contradiction between the declared goals and the impossibility of their implementation for the majority.

anomie is a state of society in which decomposition, disintegration and collapse of the system of values and norms that guarantee social order occur. A necessary condition for the emergence of anomie in society is the discrepancy between the needs and interests of some of its members, on the one hand, and the possibilities of satisfying them, on the other. It manifests itself in the form of the following violations:

1) vagueness, instability and inconsistency of value-normative prescriptions and orientations, in particular, the discrepancy between the norms defining the goals of activity and the norms regulating the means of achieving them; 2) the low degree of influence of social norms on individuals and their weak effectiveness as a means of normative regulation of behavior; 3) partial or complete absence of normative regulation in crisis, transitional situations, when the old value system is destroyed, and the new one has not taken shape or has not become established as generally accepted.

Further development of the concept of anomie is associated with the name of Robert Merton.

38Deviations and development of society.

In all societies, human behavior sometimes goes beyond what is acceptable by norms. Norms only indicate what a person should do and what he should not do; but they are not a reflection of actual behavior. The actual actions of some people often go beyond what others consider acceptable behavior. Social life is characterized not only by conformism, but also by deviation.

Deviation is a deviation from the norm, considered by most members of society as reprehensible and unacceptable.

Deviation cannot be said to be inherent in certain forms of behavior; rather, it is an evaluative definition imposed on specific behaviors by different social groups. In everyday life, a person makes judgments about the desirability or undesirability of a particular style of behavior. Society translates such judgments into positive or negative consequences for those who follow or do not follow such behavior patterns. In this sense, we can say that deviation is what society considers to be a deviation.

Characteristics of deviation (V.I. Dobrenkov):

1. Relativity of deviation.

Comparison of different cultures shows that the same actions are approved in some societies and unacceptable in others. The definition of behavior as deviant depends on the time, place and group of people. Example: If ordinary people break into crypts, they are branded as desecrators of ashes, but if archaeologists do it, then they are spoken of with approval as scientists pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Nevertheless, in both cases, strangers invade the burial sites and remove some objects from there.

2. Mechanism for securing definitions.

People have different definitions of what should and should not be considered deviant. Example: In 1776, the British branded George Washington a traitor; 20 years later he became President of the United States. In the 1940s British authorities in Palestine called Menachem Begin a terrorist; 30 years later, he headed the state of Israel and enjoyed great popularity. Who and what is defined as disruptive and deviant depends largely on who made the definition and who has the power to enforce it. In recent years, styles of behavior such as homosexuality, alcoholism, and drug use, traditionally considered deviant in Russia and defined in terms of the criminal code, have been revised. There is an increasingly widespread belief that such behavior styles are medical problems and people are admitted to medical care. institutions where they receive treatment.

3. Zone of acceptable variations.

Norms can be represented not as a fixed point, but rather as a certain zone. Example: It is believed that a university professor is supposed to behave formally with students. But one professor at a large university has a habit of climbing up onto the lectern or sitting on its lid during a lecture. Many students laugh at the teacher at first, but then he wins over the entire audience. Then the students said that his behavior was part of an effective teaching technique.

In general, no one behavior style is a deviation in itself; deviation is a subject of social definitions.

Add. Example: showing up to work drunk is not normal, but at a New Year's party it is normal.

Two types of deviations can be distinguished:

1) Individual deviations, when an individual rejects the norms of his subculture;

2) Group deviance, considered as conformal behavior of a member of a deviant group in relation to its subculture.

However, in real life, deviant individuals cannot be strictly divided into the two indicated types. Most often, these two types of deviations overlap.

In addition, primary and secondary deviations are distinguished. This concept was first formulated and developed in detail by X. Becker.

Primary deviation means deviant behavior of an individual, which generally corresponds to cultural norms accepted in society. For example, manifestations of eccentricity, “little pranks”

Secondary deviation is a deviation from existing norms in a group, which is socially defined as deviant. In this case, the person is identified as a deviant.

39 Social institution - a social structure or order of social structure that determines the behavior of a certain set of individuals in a particular society

social institution is a form of human activity based on a clearly developed ideology, a system of rules and norms as well as social control for their implementation

Structure

G. Spencer was the first to use the term “social.” Institute,” continued Comte’s ideas. Identified a factor in the development of social institutions of society - struggle with neighboring communities and the environment. environment for existence. In the process of evolution, the community The structure of the body becomes more complex and the need arises to form a coordinating subsystem. Social the body consists of 3 subsystems: regulatory, producing means of life, and distributive. Types of social institutions according to Spencer: kinship institutions, economic institutions, regulatory institutions. Thus, social the institution develops as a stable structure of social actions

The concept of a social institution presupposes:

· the presence of a need in society and its satisfaction by the mechanism of reproduction of social practices and relationships;

· these mechanisms, being supra-individual formations, act in the form of value-normative complexes that regulate social life as a whole or its separate sphere, but for the benefit of the whole;

Their structure includes:

· role models of behavior and statuses (instructions for their implementation);

· their justification (theoretical, ideological, religious, mythological) in the form of a categorical grid, defining a “natural” vision of the world;

· means of transmitting social experience (material, ideal and symbolic), as well as measures that stimulate one behavior and repress another, tools for maintaining institutional order;

· social positions - the institutions themselves represent a social position (“there are no empty” social positions, so the question of the subjects of social institutions disappears).

Functions inherent in all institutions:

·
The function of consolidating and reproducing social relations. Each institution has a set of norms and rules of behavior, fixed, standardizing the behavior of its participants and making this behavior predictable. Social control provides the order and framework within which the activities of each member of the institution should take place. Thus, the institution ensures the stability of the structure of society. The Code of the Family Institute assumes that members of society are divided into stable small groups - families. Social control ensures a state of stability for each family and limits the possibility of its disintegration.

· Regulatory function. It ensures the regulation of relationships between members of society through the development of patterns and patterns of behavior. A person’s entire life takes place with the participation of various social institutions, but each social institution regulates activities. Consequently, a person, with the help of social institutions, demonstrates predictability and standard behavior, fulfills role requirements and expectations.

· Integrative function. This function ensures cohesion, interdependence and mutual responsibility of members. This occurs under the influence of institutionalized norms, values, rules, a system of roles and sanctions. It streamlines the system of interactions, which leads to increased stability and integrity of the elements of the social structure.

· Broadcasting function. Society cannot develop without the transfer of social experience. Each institution for its normal functioning needs the arrival of new people who have mastered its rules. This happens by changing the social boundaries of the institution and changing generations. Consequently, each institution provides a mechanism for socialization to its values, norms, and roles.

· Communication functions. Information produced by an institution should be disseminated both within the institution (for the purpose of managing and monitoring compliance with social norms) and in interaction between institutions. This function has its own specifics - formal connections. This is the main function of the media institute. Scientific institutions actively absorb information.

40 table in the textbook

41. Institutionalization- this is the replacement of spontaneous, reflexive behavior with predictable behavior, which is expected, modeled, and regulated.

The process of institutionalization, as a result of which a social institution is formed, goes through several main stages:

The emergence of a need, the satisfaction of which requires joint organized action. This need must concern the establishment of order in a certain area of human activity;
the formation of common goals that should be pursued by a significant number of members of human society;

The emergence of social norms and rules in the course of spontaneous social interaction carried out by trial and error. Such norms are informal and extremely short-lived;
the emergence of procedures associated with norms and rules, which are ways to achieve group goals;
institutionalization of norms and rules of behavior, as well as institutional procedures, which is: a necessary condition for their consolidation in the behavior of members of society;
establishing a system of formalized sanctions to maintain norms and rules, their differentiation depending on individual social groups of society and application depending on various situations developing in society;
creation of a system of statuses and roles that should cover all members of a social institution without exception.

The process of institutionalization thus includes a number of aspects.

· One of the necessary conditions for the emergence of social institutions is a corresponding social need. Institutions are called upon to organize the joint activities of people in order to satisfy certain social needs. Thus, the institution of the family satisfies the need for the reproduction of the human race and raising children, implements relations between the sexes, generations, etc. The Institute of Higher Education provides training for the workforce, allows a person to develop his abilities in order to realize them in subsequent activities and provide for his existence, etc. The emergence of certain social needs, as well as the conditions for their satisfaction, are the first necessary moments of institutionalization.

· A social institution is formed on the basis of social connections, interactions and relationships of specific individuals, social groups and communities. But it, like other social systems, cannot be reduced to the sum of these individuals and their interactions. Social institutions are supra-individual in nature and have their own systemic quality. Consequently, a social institution is an independent social entity that has its own logic of development. From this point of view, social institutions can be considered as organized social systems, characterized by the stability of the structure, the integration of their elements and a certain variability of their functions.

· The third most important element of institutionalization is the organizational design of a social institution. Externally, a social institution is a set of organizations, institutions, individuals, equipped with certain material resources and performing a certain social function. Thus, an institute of higher education is operated by a social corps of teachers, service personnel, officials who operate within the framework of institutions such as universities, the ministry or the State Committee for Higher Education, etc., which for their activities have certain material assets (buildings, finances, etc.).

42. Traditional and modern social institutions.

Each social institution is characterized by the presence of a goal for its activity, specific functions that ensure the achievement of such a goal, a set of social positions and roles typical for a given institution, as well as a system of sanctions that ensure the encouragement of desired behavior and the suppression of deviant behavior.

The history of the evolution of social institutions is the history of the gradual transformation of institutions of the traditional type into institutions of the modern type. Traditional institutions are characterized primarily by the fact that they are based on rules of behavior strictly prescribed by ritual and custom and on family ties. The clan and large family community are the dominant institutions of primitive society.

As they develop, institutions become increasingly specialized in function. Some of them occupy a dominant position in the system of social institutions. In developed societies of modern times, values that affirm success and achievement are increasingly being developed. The dominant ones include the institutions of religion, economics, marriage, politics, science and mass higher education, which ensure the reproduction and dissemination of the values of competence, independence, personal responsibility and rationality, without the presence of which in the motivational structure of the individual the functioning of modern social institutions is impossible. A distinctive feature of the institutions of modern times is also their relatively greater independence from the degree of moral prescriptions; the choice of modes of behavior and acceptance or rejection of certain institutions becomes the subject of freer moral and emotional choice of individuals.

43 family - a social group whose members are related by marriage or adoption and live together, cooperating economically and caring for children. The family is one of the most ancient institutions. It arose much earlier than the religion of the state, etc.

family functions

1) reproductive (biological continuation)

2) educational (preparing the younger generation for life in society

3) economical housekeeping

4) spiritual, emotional, personal development, spiritual, mutual enrichment, support, friendly attitude

5) leisure organization of normal leisure and recreation

6)sexual satisfaction of sex needs

structural needs of a person according to Maslow 1) physiological and sexual 2) for the safety of one’s existence 3) social needs for communication 4) prestigious for recognition) 5) spiritual for self-realization

44. Factors of social influence on family and marriage.

The main motives for divorce can be divided into three types:

1 - motives due to the influence of socio-economic factors: financial calculation at the time of marriage, frequent business trips of one of the spouses, dissatisfaction with housing and living conditions, conviction of the spouse with long-term imprisonment;

2 -motives determined by socio-psychological factors: differences in needs, interests, goals, interference of third parties, dissimilarity of characters, unreasonable jealousy, new love, betrayal;

3 - motives of a socio-biological nature: drunkenness and alcoholism of the spouse, adultery, illness, mental illness, inability or unwillingness of one of the spouses to have children, large age difference, real and imaginary sexual incompatibility.

Note that women are often the main reason for divorce consider material difficulties and drunkenness, and men - a new hobby, incompatibility and monotony of family life. Young people more often see the reason for divorce in the incompatibility of characters, the emergence of new love, betrayal and the everyday life of family life.

Divorce as a social phenomenon leads to complex and numerous consequences and manifestations of deformation in the life of the family. However, an equally important problem for socio-psychological analysis is the study of the situation before divorce. On the one hand, it is characterized by an increase in conflict in relationships, a decrease in satisfaction with family life, and a weakening of family cohesion; on the other hand, it is characterized by an increase in the family’s efforts aimed at preserving family life.

During its life cycle, a family constantly encounters various difficulties, unfavorable conditions, and problems. From a methodological point of view, researchers focus on two main areas of analysis on this topic.

The first is the study of families in difficult conditions, which arose due to the unfavorable influence of general large-scale social processes: wars, economic crises, natural disasters.

The second is the study of “normative stress”, i.e. those difficulties that occur in the lives of families in everyday conditions. These difficulties are associated with the passage of a family through the main stages of the life cycle. As well as problems that arise in cases where external factors lead to disruption of the functioning mechanism of the family institution: long separation, divorce, serious illness.

Let us consider the main points present in the occurrence and identification of family deformations.

Factors causing family deformations. We are talking about a fairly wide range of circumstances, features of the social environment, living conditions of the family, changes in the personality of one of the spouses, which can complicate the functioning of the family. All the numerous problems that arise for a family can be divided according to the strength and duration of their impact. Two groups of family problems are of particular importance. Examples of the former include the death of one of the spouses, news of adultery, sudden changes in life and social status (for example, a sudden and serious illness). The second group of problems includes excessive physical and mental stress in everyday life, at work, difficulties in solving a housing problem, long-term and persistent conflict between family members, etc...

The following classification of problems faced by families can be given. There are two types: problems associated with a sharp change in the family's lifestyle (life stereotype) - for example, marriage, the beginning of family life, the birth of a child. And problems associated with cumulative labor, i.e. their overlap - for example, the need to make decisions on a number of problems after the birth of a child in the family, namely the completion of education, mastering a specialty, solving life problems, caring for a child, etc..

The so-called “normative stressors” pass through all stages of the family cycle, that is, those problems that are experienced to varying degrees by all families: those associated with mutual

housing problem, caring for and raising a child, etc. . The combination of the above problems at certain points in the family life cycle can lead to family crises.

Related information.

The peculiarities of Russian national culture highlight specific features. Features of Russian culture

Introduction

The concept of Russian culture, its characteristics and peculiarities

Prerequisites for the formation of Russian national character

Main features of the Russian national character

Values ​​of Russian culture

Values of Russian culture