Culture (from Latin cultura – cultivation, education, education, development, veneration) is a system of historically developing supra-biological programs of human life (activity, behavior and communication) that ensure the reproduction and change of social life in all its basic manifestations.
Programs of activity, behavior and communication are represented by a variety of knowledge, norms, skills, ideals, patterns of activity and behavior, ideas, hypotheses, beliefs, goals, value orientations, etc. In their totality and dynamics, they form a historically accumulated social experience. Culture stores translates this experience (transmits it from generation to generation). It also generates new programs of activity, behavior and communication, which, realizing in the appropriate forms and forms of human activity, generate real changes in the life of society.
The concept of “culture” developed historically. In the beginning, this term denoted the cultivation of man by the earth. Then there was an expansion of the meaning of the term. They began to denote the processes and results of cultivation of materials of nature in various crafts, and then the processes of education and training rights. In this expanded sense, the term “culture” was first used in the work of the ancient Roman orator and philosopher Mark Tullius Cicero “Tusculan manuscripts” (45 BC). The concept of everyday language, indicating the cultivation of the soil, Cicero used in a figurative sense as the cultivation of the human mind in the process of education and upbringing. Considering that a deep mind arises from philosophical reasoning, he characterized philosophy as a culture of the mind. Further development of the concept of “culture” was associated with its spread to all artificially created, created by man in contrast to natural, natural. In this sense, the term was used in the works of the German philosopher-educator and jurist S.Pufendorf. In his work On the Law of the Natural (1684), he defined culture as an opposition to the “natural state“, like all that is produced.
Starting with the 2nd part 18 century the term “culture” has become widely used in European philosophy and historical science. At that time, culture began to be regarded as the most important aspect of society’s life, connected with the way of carrying out human activity, which distinguishes human existence from animal existence. There were several lines in the development of the problems of culture. In the first of them, culture appeared as a process of development of the human mind and rational forms of life, opposing the savagery and barbarity of the primitive being of mankind (French enlighteners). As the historical development of human spirituality – the evolution of the moral, aesthetic, religious, philosophical, scientific, legal and political consciousness, ensuring the progress of mankind (German classical idealism – I. Kant, I. G. Fichte, F.V.Shelling, G. VF Geegel, German Romanticism – F. Schiller, F. Schlegel, German Enlightenment – G. Lessing, I. G. Herder). The second line focused not on the progressive historical development of culture, but on its characteristics in different types of society, treating different cultures as autonomous systems of values and ideas that determine the type of social organization (Neo-Kantianism – G.Rickert, E.Cassirer, M.Veber). Later, this line was continued by N.Ya. Danilevsky, P.A. Sorokin, A.Toynby, O.Spengler. At the same time, the understanding of culture was expanded by including in it all the wealth of material culture, ethnic customs, the diversity of languages and symbolic systems.
In the end 19 and 1 st part 20 century in the study of the problems of culture, the achievements of anthropology, ethnology, systems theory, semiotics and information theory (cultural anthropology – EB Taylor, F. Boas, A. Creber, R. Redfield, social anthropology and structural functionalism – B. Malinovsky, A. Radcliffe-Brown, R.Merton, T.Parsons, structural anthropology and structuralism – K.Levi-Strauss, M.Fuko, R.Bart, neo-Freudianism, postmodernism, etc.).
In the historical development of the concept of “culture” had its internal logic. The movement of thought proceeded from the identification of culture with everything that was created by man, to the analysis of human activity (activity, behavior and communication), through which a supernatural sphere of human existence is created, artificial as opposed to the natural.
At each of these stages, different definitions of culture were introduced (American culturists A.Creber and C.Clachkhon counted about three hundred such definitions). Many of them were not definitions in a strictly logical sense, but, rather, were metaphorical utterances, fixing certain characteristics of culture. However, a lot of wording and definitions did not mean their equivalence. In principle, the analysis of the relationship between culture and activity already included, as a first approximation, all the definitions related to “culture-nature” oppositions, but considerably concretized them. The following concretization was connected with the notions of culture as a way of regulating and realizing human activity, and therefore as a special aspect of social life, which consists in generating and transmitting (transmitting from generation to generation) the biochemical programs of activity, behavior and communication of people. Within the framework of this approach, the prerequisites for solving one of the cardinal problems of philosophy and the theory of culture were formed: the distinctions between the concepts “culture” and “society”. On the one hand, culture is not the same as society, but is only a special aspect of social life (otherwise there would be no need for two terms to refer to the same reality). On the other hand, culture permeates all the states of social life without exception, and there is not a single social phenomenon that is isolated from the influence of culture, not bears the stamp of its impact.
The seeming contradiction between these statements is removed if the culture is considered as a system of information codes fixing the historically accumulated social experience, which acts with various types of activity, behavior and communication (and, consequently, all the structures and states of social life that they generate) programs.
From the theory of systems, complex historically developing organic integrity must contain within itself special information structures that ensure the management of the system, its self-regulation. These structures are represented by codes, according to which the organization of the system as a whole and the features of its basic reactions to the external environment are reproduced. In biological organisms, this role is played by genetic codes (DNA, RNA). In society, as an integral social organism, culture is analogous to genetic codes. Just as a metabolism controlled by the genetic code reproduces the cells and organs of complex organisms, the various activities of behavior and communication of people regulated by cultural codes ensure the reproduction and development of elements, subsystems of society and their connections, characteristic of each historically specific type of social organization (inherent in it, artificially created object environment – the “second nature”, social communities and institutions, types of personalities peculiar to a given society, etc.).
Thus, along with the biological, genetic code that fixes and transmits biological programs from generation to generation, a person has one more coding system – a social code through which is transmitted from person to person, from generation to generation, an evolving array of social experiences.
The condition for the storage and translation of this experience is its fixation in a special sign form, the functioning of its constituent elements as semiotic systems. Culture appears as a complexly organized and evolving set of such systems (see Sign, Symbol).
Keeping and broadcasting in the culture of the diversity of the supra-biological programs of human life activity presuppose a variety of iconic structures that consolidate and transmit updated continuously social experience. One of the most ancient ways of coding this experience is the functioning of subjects of behavior, communication and activity as semiotic systems when their actions and actions become models for others. Master – a teacher who demonstrates the student some of the techniques of work; Individuals and social groups that act as imitation objects for other people and groups; an adult, whose actions are copied by a child, all of them acquire the function of sign systems that broadcast programs of behavior, communication and activity.
Signs of the human body: poses, gestures, facial expressions, etc., can serve as a sign system, programming actions and actions of people. And the meanings and meanings that they express can be different in different cultures. For example, the handshake of many peoples has a symbol of friendly disposition, but in traditional Japan, it was believed that touching the interlocutor means aggression and disrespect. In modern Japan, a handshake is rarely used, mostly in communication with foreigners.
The most important kind of sociocode regulating human life activity is natural language. It not only allows us to describe the human experience but also generates new involvement in the process of communication. The structure of language sets a particular image of the world, a way of fragmentation and synthesis of its objects. Simultaneously, the language expresses the person’s value-emotional attitude toward the world, programming the experience of people of certain events described and the reaction to them. Along with natural languagesas a means of generating and transmitting social experience, the languagesof art (painting, music, dance, architecture, cinema, etc.), the language of science, as well as various conventional sets of signals and symbols that govern actions, play a huge role in social life and actions of people. All of them can be considered as individual semiotic systems that ensure the reproduction and development of society.
The objects of a second nature created by man can also function as signs that fix the accumulated social experience, expressing a particular way of behavior and activity in the objective world. In this sense, sometimes they talk about the tools of labor, technology, everyday objects as material culture, opposing them to the phenomena of spiritual culture, referring to works of art, philosophical, ethical, political teachings, scientific knowledge, religious ideas, etc. (see Material and Spiritual Culture). However, this opposition is relative, because any cultural phenomenon is semiotic. The objects of material culture fulfill a dual role in human life: on the one hand, they serve practical purposes, and on the other hand they serve as means of storing and transmitting meanings and valuesthat regulate activity, behavior and communication. Only in their second function, they act as cultural phenomena (Yu. Lotman).
The development of culture also appears as the development of new meanings and meanings that regulate the activities, behavior and communication of people, and how the formation of new code systems that consolidate and translate these meanings. The accumulation of new experience and the increase of its array sooner or later pose the problem of information capacity of the subject (M.K. Petrov), which requires new ways of fragmentation and pooling of accumulated experience that the individual must absorb. In turn, this need stimulates the development and application of new types of coding that ensure the differentiation and integration of programs of activity, behavior and communication, their transmission from generation to generation (M.K. Petrov).
The Canadian researcher M.Maklyuen, emphasizing the connection between the development of coding systems of social experience and the stages of civilizational progress, singled out pre-literate societies, writing, printing, the emergence of radio and television as special stages. Continuing this series, we should single out as a special stage the computer stage of the development of civilization.
The emergence of new methods of coding fixes changes like communications and ways of including the individual in social relations, and therefore participates in determining the boundaries in which various forms of social behavior and activity vary. For example, outside of the appearance of writing, it would be impossible to have legal proceedings based on codes of law; the emergence of a “computer letter” led to a sharp increase in the amount of “social memory” available to an individual, and the computer network of the Internet generated new, previously unknown forms of communication.
The development of society is always associated with the formation of new types of activities, behavior and communication, which in turn implies the appearance of appropriate new programs represented by culture codes. In the process of this development, there is a differentiation of previously syncretic programs; there is a complex coordination and subordination of new and traditional programs.
Separation of independent areas of spiritual activity led to the generation of new meanings and meanings that began to act as mediating and generating structures in relation to programs of specific types of practice (valuesthat authorize one or another type of activity, goals as preliminary ideal images of products of activity, knowledge, skills and abilities, which the subject must master, in order to influence the object being transformed, to obtain a product corresponding to the goal in view). Historically, there are various, relatively independent spheres of spiritual culture – religion, art, morality, science, political and legal consciousness, etc., which interact with each other and exert a regulatory influence on people’s daily lives.
Thus, in the course of the historical development of society, a complex hierarchy of programs of activity, behavior and communication, represented by various social codes, which directly or indirectly control the actions and actions of people are gradually being formed.
In a complex historically evolving the variety of over-biological programs, three levels can be distinguished. The first is relic programs, fragments of past cultures that live in the modern world, having a certain impact on a person. People often unconsciously act by the behavioral programs that developed back in the primitive epoch and which have lost their value as a regulator ensuring the success of practical actions.
The second level is a layer of programs of behavior, activity, communication, which provide today’s reproduction of this or that type of society. And finally, the third level of cultural phenomena form the programs of social life, addressed to the future. Their culture generates through the internal operation of sign systems.
Examples of the programs of future activity as a prerequisite for changing existing forms of social life can be the theoretical knowledge developed in science that causes upheavals in technology and technology of subsequent eras; ideals of the future social order, which have not yet become the dominant ideology; new moral principles arising within the framework of philosophical and ethical teachings and often outstripping their own, etc. The more dynamic the society, the more valuable this level of cultural creativity, addressed to the future, acquires. In modern societies, its dynamics is largely ensured by the activity of a special social stratum of people – the creative intelligentsia, which, according to its social purpose, must constantly generate cultural innovations.
In the course of the historical development of society and culture, individual elements and “projects” of future programs of activity can be specified, modified and moved from the third to the second level of cultural entities, becoming real direct regulators of new activities, behavior and communication, generating corresponding changes in society. In turn, second-level programs may lose their social value and turn into relic entities, or even fall out of the flow of cultural broadcast. The diversity of cultural phenomena of all levels, despite their dynamism and relative independence, is organized into an integral system. Their system-forming factor is the ultimate basis of each historically specific culture. They are represented by world outlook universals (categories of culture), which in their interaction create a holistic generalized image of the human world.
World-view universals are categories that accumulate historically accumulated social experience and in the system of which a person of a certain culture evaluates, comprehends and experiences the world, reduces all the phenomena of reality falling into the sphere of his experience. Categorial structures that provide for the classification and systematization of human experience have long been studied by philosophy. But she explores them in a specific way, as the ultimate general concepts. In real life of culture, they act not only as forms of rational thinking but also as schematisms that determine the human perception of the world, its understanding, and experience. They should not be identified with the philosophical categories that arise as a result of reflection on the universals of culture. But world outlook universals can function and develop outside of philosophical reflection. They were inherent in those cultures in which there were no more or less developed forms of philosophical knowledge (Ancient Egypt, Babylon, etc.).
It is possible to single out two large and interconnected blocks of universal universes of culture. The first include categories that capture the most common, attributive characteristics of objects included in human activity. They act as the basic structures of human consciousness and are universal in nature, since any objects (natural and social), incl. and symbolic objects of thought, can become objects of activity. Their attributive characteristics are fixed in categories: “space”, “time”, “movement”, “thing”, “attitude”, “quantity”, “quality”, “measure“, “content”, “causality,” “chance”, “Necessity”, etc. But apart from them, special types of categories are formed and function in the historical development of culture, through which the definitions of the person as the subject of activity, the structure of his communication, his relation to other people and society as a whole, to the goals and valuesof social life are expressed. They form the second block of universals of culture, which include categories: “man”, “society”, “consciousness”, “good”, “evil”, “beauty”, “faith”, “hope”, “duty”, “conscience” “,” Justice “,” freedom “, etc. These categories record in the most general form the historically accumulated experience of including the individual in the system of social relations and communications. Between these blocks of universals of culture there is always a mutual correlation, which expresses the connections between subject-object and subject-subject relations of human life activity. Therefore the universals of culture arise, develop and function as an integral system, where each element is directly or indirectly related to others. In the system of universal universes, the most general ideas about the main components and aspects of human life are expressed: the place of man in the world, the social relations, the spiritual life and valuesof the human world, the nature and organization of its objects, etc. These representations act as a kind of deep programs of social life that predetermine the cohesion, reproduction, and variations of the whole variety of more specific programs of behavior, communication and activities characteristic of a particular type of social organization.
In the universal worldviews of culture it is possible to single out a invariant, some abstract universal content that is characteristic of different types of cultures and forms deep structures of human consciousness. But this layer of content does not exist in its pure form by itself. It is always connected with the specific meanings inherent in the culture of a historically specific type of society, which express the features of the ways of communication and the activities of people, the storage and transfer of social experience, the peculiarities of the scale of valuesadopted in it.
It is these meanings that characterize the national and ethnic characteristics of each culture, its inherent understanding of space and time, good and evil, life and death, and its relation to nature, work, personality, etc. They determine the specificity of different cultures. In its turn, historically special in universal universes of culture is always concretized in a huge variety of group and individual worldviews and world experiences.
As the historical development of society can change not only the meaning of universal culture, but also their collection, organized in an integrated system. The emergence of new types of activity, behavior and communication can lead to the splitting of primary universals and the formation of new categories that take root in culture. Specific types of culture differ in their bases and it is not always possible to find an isomorphism between systems of universals of different cultures. Universals of culture simultaneously perform at least three interrelated functions in human life. First, they provide a kind of quantification and sorting of a diverse, historically variable social experience. This experience is assessed and classified according to the meanings of the universals of culture and is pulled together into distinctive clusters. Thanks to this “categorical packaging,” it is included in the translation process and transmitted from person to person, from one generation to another. Secondly, the universals of culture are the basic structure of human consciousness in every concrete historical epoch. Thirdly, the interrelationship of universals forms a generalized picture of the human world, what is commonly called the worldview of the age. This picture, expressing general ideas about man and the world, introduces a certain scale of valuesadopted in this type of culture and therefore determines not only the comprehension but also the emotional experience of the world by man.
The meanings of universal culture in the process of socialization are assimilated by the individual, defining the contours of his individual understanding of the world, his actions and actions. At the level of the group and individual consciousness, the meanings of the universals of culture are concretized taking into account group and individual values. And even in stable states of social life, the universals of culture can admit a very wide range of specifics, be supplemented by the values of opposing social groups and do not lose their basic meanings. In turn, the stereotypes of group consciousness are specifically refracted in the consciousness of each individual. People always invest their personal meaning in the universal of culture according to the accumulated life experience. As a result, in their minds, the picture of the human world acquires a personal color and acts as an individual worldview. There are a huge number of modifications that are inherent in every system of worldviews dominating in culture. Basic beliefs and ideas can be combined, and often in a contradictory manner, with strictly personal orientations and values, and the whole complex of individual beliefs can change throughout the life of the individual.
The fundamental status of universal culture in human existence was captured by many philosophical teachings of the past. The world of Plato’s ideas, the Kantian concept of a priori forms of consciousness, Hegel’s doctrine of categories as stages in the development of an absolute idea can all be interpreted as unique milestones in understanding the properties and connections of universal universes of culture. The emphasis of the European cultural tradition on rational ways of comprehending the world was expressed here in the form of a kind of reduction of world outlook universals to their logical-conceptual aspect. In the further development of Western philosophy, this one-sidedness was overcome by including in the philosophical analysis the understanding and experience of the world as the fundamental characteristics of categorial structures of consciousness (F. Nietzsche, S. Kierkegaard, M. Heidegger).
For a person formed by a corresponding culture, the meanings of her worldview universals most often act as a matter of course, as presumptions, in accordance with which he builds his life activity. The meanings of the universal universes of culture, which form the categorical model of the world in their connections, are found in all cultural fields of a particular historical type-in everyday language, phenomena of moral consciousness, in philosophy, religion, artistic mastery of the world, the functioning of technology, in legal awareness and political culture and m. This feature was revealed, albeit in an inadequate form, in a number of systems of objective idealism. For example, in the Hegelian system, categories that act as stages in the development of the absolute spirit are then seen as defining the logic of the development of all areas of the spiritual life of society – religion, philosophy, art, science, morality, legal consciousness, etc.
Later on the system-forming function of culture universals was encountered by researchers when they discovered the organic integrity of culture. For example, Spengler on numerous samples of various cultures noted a link that he called physiognomy and style of culture, emphasizing that this style manifests itself in any cultural phenomenon: architecture, ornament, writing, the nature of political and economic activity, in religious cults and science, in music and unwritten rules of communication, etc. Malinovsky and Radcliffe-Brown developed a similar concept of the organic integrity of cultures.
Philosophers, culturologists, historians in the analysis of synchronous sections of various stages in the development of science, art, political and moral consciousness, etc. noted the resonance of various spheres of culture in the period of the formation of new ideas that have worldview meaning. This resonance can be traced both in traditional cultures and in modern, where different areas of culture have relative independence. It is possible, for example, to establish a peculiar resonance between the ideas of the theory of relativity in science and the ideas of the linguistic avant-garde of the 70’s and 80’s 19th century (J. Winteler, etc.), the formation of a new artistic concept of the world in impressionism and post-impressionism, ways of describing and understanding human situations (eg, M. Bakhtin’s features of F.Dostoyevsky’s “polyphonic novel”, when the author’s consciousness, his spiritual the world and the ideological concept do not stand over the spiritual worlds of its heroes, as if from the outside, from the absolute coordinate system describing them, but coexist with these worlds and enter into an equal dialogue with them).
The transformation of society and the type of civilizational development always involves a change in the profound vital meanings and values enshrined in the universals of culture. The reorganization of society is always associated with a revolution in minds, with criticism of previously prevailing ideological orientations and the development of new values. No major social change is possible without a change in culture. As a social individual, man is the creation of culture. He becomes a person only through the assimilation of the social experience broadcast in the culture. This assimilation is carried out in the process of socialization, education and upbringing. In this process, there is a complex alignment of biological programs that characterize individual heredity, and of supra-biological communication programs, behavior and activities that constitute a kind of “social heredity.”
The action of biological programs (instincts of nutrition, self-preservation, sexual instinct, etc.) in a person who has undergone the process of socialization and upbringing is carried out in the forms prescribed by a particular culture. Many possible manifestations of biological programs are prohibited by culture. These prohibitions have varying degrees of severity and can be accompanied by different repressive sanctions. Culture as it were “taboo” many desires and motives associated with the free manifestation of animal instincts, educating and shaping a person from early childhood. Complexities of matching the biological and social programs of human life generate numerous problems of socialization and upbringing. In the concept of Z. Freud, and in general in psychoanalysis, a special area of such problems was identified, connected with the possibility of the appearance under the influence of cultural prohibitions of mental traumas, subconscious complexes, etc., which are then manifested in people’s actions and actions.
In the process of mastering the culture of an individual and the formation of his personality, the meanings and meanings represented by the social codes are only partially realized by the person, and in part he perceives the accumulated social experience unconsciously, guided by the patterns of actions and actions of other people, at social roles presented to him by upbringing. Culture is not limited only to the states of social and individual consciousness associated with acts of self-consciousness, but includes in its composition also a socially unconscious, which belongs not to biological, but to social inheritance.
There are quite a few specific regulators of behavior and communication, not realized by people, but acting as cultural phenomena. For example, in human communication a special cultural code is realized-the spatial distance between communicating individuals. In different cultures it is different. For Colombians and Mexicans, the most comfortable distance between two individuals in the process of communication is about half a meter, for Europeans and North Americans it is twice as large. Sometimes when communicating with representatives of European and South American cultures there are misunderstandings: one moves away to find a comfortable distance of communication, the other perceives this as a manifestation of arrogance.
Unconscious can be not only individual specific programs of behavior and communication, but also the basic meanings and values expressed by the system of world outlook universals. Different understandings of good and evil, justice and freedom, etc. can lead to different and even polar unconscious reactions to the same events in representatives of different cultures.
K. Jung characterized the unconscious components of the fundamental values of culture as archetypes (unconscious collective experiences) that can exist for a long time as transpersonal mental entities that control the individual psyche. Programming the culture of the individual psyche has a different degree of coercion in different types of culture. In archaic and traditional societies, most programs of activity, behavior and communication act as a ritual and a rigid rule that has the mandatory nature of the injunction. In societies belonging to anthropogenic civilization, culture includes a significantly greater number of regulators (see Civilizational development types) that allow for the variability of the actions and actions of individuals, their freedom to make decisions, outlining only the general framework in which variations of activity are carried out. The exception is the culture of totalitarian regimes that encourage certain technical and technological innovations and scientific developments (what distinguishes them from traditional societies), but in conjunction with strict control by the state of social behavior of individuals. In this aspect, the culture of totalitarian societies often reproduces traditionalist and even archaic rituals aimed at suppressing individual freedoms.
The type of culture, its basic values determine what forms of solidarity of individuals and their collective ties exist and are reproduced in public life. The basic values represented by the universals of culture, and the diversity of patterns of behavior, social roles, knowledge, norms, etc., based on them, when they are mastered by a person, determine its self-identification, its self-esteem as belonging to some social community. In the era when the old system of basic values changes, the problem of identification arises (questions arise: “Who are we?”, “What unites us?”, Etc.).
The assimilation of meanings and meanings of codes of culture is always connected with the activity of individuals. In the process of learning, they constantly correlate the programs of activity, behavior and communication with the accumulated individual experience broadcast in culture and often vary these programs and make changes to them. Being involved in these or those kinds of activities and solving social problems, a person is able to invent new patterns, norms, ideas, beliefs, etc. that can correspond to social needs. In this case, they can enter the culture and start programming the activities of other people. Individual experience turns into a social one, and new states and phenomena that reinforce this experience appear in culture. Any changes in culture arise only through the creative activity of the individual. Man, being the creation of culture, at the same time is also its creator.
Culture is not a frozen education. It is changeable in nature. But in different cultures the possibilities of innovation and creativity are different. In traditional societies, they are significantly less than in technogenic civilization, where in the system of ideological universals the categories of novelty and progress have priority value. Creativity, associated with the generation of innovations that violate tradition, is limited in all traditional cultures, but is encouraged in the modern. In principle, both opposing processes, tradition and innovation, reproduction and creativity, are equally important for the existence of culture and society, as heredity and variability for the existence of biological organisms are important. Culture is not only creativity that changes life, but also the reproduction of social life on certain sustainable grounds. In the historical development of mankind, different types of societies (civilizations) emerged, with which original cultures were inherent. In an era when only traditional civilizations existed, their interaction was associated with a slow cultural exchange (the diffusion of cultures), when the borrowing of individual achievements (knowledge, samples) did not affect the core of each culture represented by the system of meanings of its worldview universals. With the emergence of the technogenic type of civilizational development and its cultural genotype – the new European cultural tradition – the interaction of cultures has become more intensive. The modernization processes associated with the borrowing of new technologies, science, and the education system have generated a transformation of the fundamental values of traditional cultures. On this way there were not only costs, but also achievements.
In 19 and especially in the 20 century the culture of the western technogenic civilization had an active one-sided effect on traditional cultures. In the self-consciousness of this civilization, it finds the rationale in the idea of progress, the idea of its values as a higher stage of development. The reverse influence of traditional cultures on it was insignificant. Accelerated rates of development of the western technogenic civilization, especially after its entry into the stage of industrialism, were associated with changes in the appearance of its culture. Elite spheres of culture, high culture, previously supported by the aristocratic estate, became the object of market relations and at the same time a kind of polygon of supported innovations, where the accelerated search for new means of expression, forms and styles is constantly going on (which, however, did not lead to the disappearance of high samples of professional creativity and the great works of culture that gave mankind all the preceding times and the 19th and 20th centuries, including).
The culture of the masses was radically changed, which the aristocracy usually regarded as low in comparison with the elite culture (but which constantly fed high art). In the era of industrialism was born, and in the 20 century. Mass culture was rapidly developing, connected with the transformations of everyday life, caused by urbanization, the destruction of class relations and community ties, the formation of civil society, the spread of education. Mass production of goods, the standardization of production and consumption, the emergence of the industry of children’s upbringing, medical care, leisure has transformed mass culture into a real regulator of everyday life of the broad masses, largely unifying this life.
Criticism of the western technogenic civilization and changes in culture that occurred during its development gave rise to the thesis of the opposition of culture and civilization. In this thesis different meanings were put. One of the first was put forward by the German sociologist F.Tennis. He noted that the industrial society destroys the traditionalist relations of people based on family-clan ties, spiritual inclination, empathy, replacing them with material relations and utilitarian calculation. Traditional ties were regarded by the tennis as spiritual, and the spiritual was defined as a culture, opposing its civilization.
Spengler defended a similar position, defining culture as an organic, creative spiritual in opposition to civilization as utilitarian, technological, material. In a somewhat different aspect, G. Marcuse developed this point of view. Criticizing modern civilization for increasing scales of alienation, manipulation of consciousness and the generation of a “one-dimensional man” of mass culture, he distinguished culture and civilization. He counterposed culture as a “spiritual holiday” to civilization as a “dull everyday”, oriented toward material gain and achieving material comfort. The opposition of civilization and culture in all these concepts is based on a narrow understanding of culture as a set of values of higher spiritual creativity and on a narrow understanding of civilization as a system of various technologies that enhance people’s material well-being. But in a broader sense, when considering civilizations as different types of society, culture and civilization are inseparable. Each civilization is characterized by its own type of culture and its inherent system of basic values. Modern technogenic civilization is not an exception here.
Contradiction of culture and civilization had that positive aspect that it is focused on criticizing the negative features of the technogenic civilization and its culture. A critical analysis of the basic values of this culture is of particular importance in our days in connection with the search for ways to overcome the global crises created by the progress of the technogenic civilization in the 20th century.
In the development of new meaningful landmarks and the search for new strategies for civilizational development, an important role can be played by the dialogue of cultures, the use by modern culture of the achievements of traditional cultures. The diversity of cultures and their interaction is a condition for their development. Unification and destruction of cultural diversity can lead to the degeneration of cultures.