Трансгрессивное пространство культуры в современной цивилизации
Лобовикова Елена Александровна,
кандидат социологических наук, доцент, зав.кафедрой рекламы и PR-технологий Луганской государственной академии культуры и искусств им. М. Матусовского.
Transgersitive space of culture in modern civilization
Lоbovikova Еlеnа Aleksandrovna,
Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Advertising and PR - technologies, Luhansk State Academy of Culture and Art named after M. Matusovsky.
The modern civilizationis concerned about the complexity of the world and man and the search for a correspondence between these levels of complexity. Mastering the world, we rethink its cultural images. Thinkers of different epochs considered important problems: the search for the meaning of life, the meaning of the existence of man and all mankind; self-determination and self-assertion and self-realization in the movement towards the absolute, thereby acquiring spirituality, spiritual potential and the experience of value self-determination, which is embodied in the values of culture and religious and mythological cults. These problems have a philosophical-anthropological meaning.
The problem of the crisis that has engulfed all spheres of culture is becoming one of the key problems of humanitarian knowledge and is being raised in a huge number of works of scientists since the end of the XIX century: R. Guenon (on the crisis of the modern world as a whole), O. Spengler (on the crisis of European culture), A. Schweitzer (on the worldview crisis), A. Toynbee (about the crisis of the Western European Christian civilization). In the works of P. Sorokin, the axiological concept of culture was investigated; E. Taylor formulated the anthropological concept of culture; E.S. Markaryan, M.S. Kagan developed an activity approach to culture; A.Mol presented an information-semiotic approach to culture; J. Hasing interpreted culture as a game. When considering the structure of culture there is a need to pay attention to the work of MS. Kagan; when studying the functions of culture - on the research of V. Nosov and A. Flier.
Today, in the understanding of modern man, culture is so broad that it loses its own ontological boundaries. Postmodern claims in their time helped transform and deconstruct the cultural space and sowed the ideas of pluralism, relativism and multiculturalism in the mind of a person: the system of assessing values and understanding of life changed. For example, according to G. Zimmel, only man can be an object of culture, since it is the only being possessing an initial and immanent impulse to self-development. He proposed to distinguish between objective and subjective culture. In the first case we are talking about those things that lead to the self-development of the soul, that is, about the means for this. And subjective culture is the ultimate goal.
We are interested in A. Bukin's research, in which the author shows that space and time determine the coordinates of culture, reveal its temporary purpose and spatial perception. The existence of culture in time must be represented through the system «past - present - future», which reveals the meaning of cultural continuity [1]. If the characteristic of culture «in time» has its own historical realities, then the spatial characteristic is only implied. Spatial perception forms «spaces of culture», in particular, and «cultural space», as a whole, through images presented in linguistic facts. If the temporal characteristic of a culture makes it possible to consider it, for example, through the ratio of primitive, archaic, ancient cultures, then the spatial characteristic reveals the level and degree of interpenetration of different cultures, which is relevant in the era of information processes that transform cultural manifestations. Investigating the functioning of the cultural space A. Bukin shows that «... continuing the development of the conceptual approach to the concepts of culture», «cultural space», «models of cultural space », it should be noted that the relation between space andculture is a set of all events in the human world, the space of culture is thought to be the repository and source of human life (cultural as opposed to biological) for a society that unites not only a physical but also a symbolic beginning. Cultural space combines the whole complex of tangential and interacting spaces of culture (real - virtual) acting as a regulator of their interaction» [1, p.58 – 64].
It is necessary to take into account that one of the terms reflecting the complex and contradictory unity of the structure and dynamics of culture is the notion of a «cultural paradigm». It is the emergence of the concept of «cultural paradigm» and its active functioning that testify to the actualization of the need to rationalize, within the framework of the philosophy of culture, that part of reality that reflects some semantic unity of culture over a specific period of time, and the specific structure of culture during relatively small periods of the cultural process. Philosophical comprehension of the concept of «cultural paradigm» is determined by two important factors. The first cause of difficulties is the polyvariance of the term, its multidimensionality, which is expressed in the existence of many ways of understanding and interpreting this concept in various texts. The second difficulty is to use the concept of «cultural paradigm» in the narrow sense. The study of the concept of the «cultural paradigm» as a philosophical concept from the point of view of the phenomenon’s place in human life will allow us to consider the «cultural paradigm» not simply as a concept, a semantic unit that reflects the desired and expected reality, but as a phenomenon of objective cultural reality, a really existing phenomenon of the synchronous integrity of cultural objects, and can also help the successful solution of a number of theoretical problems in the philosophy of culture. Indetermining the content of the concept of «cultural paradigm» as a phenomenon of the philosophy of culture integrity of civilization, various interpretations played an important role: the unity of the historical and cultural process is represented in the works of M. Weber, E. Husserl, V. Dilthey, G. Simmel, O. Spengler, as well as the position of researchers in the field of the theory of mentalities, such as F.Brodel, J. Le Goff, A. Gurevich, and others. The works of T. Veblen, T. Parsons, P. Sorokin were of great importance in studying the features of the structure and functioning of the cultural paradigm. An important basis for the study of the nature of cultural paradigms and for the definition of different types of subjects of the cultural paradigm are the works of H. Ortega y Gasset, who, from the standpoint of existential philosophy, considers and singles out the generation of people as the leading subject of cultural creativity, and also develops the notion of «crisis in history».
To fully understand the modern cultural space it is necessary to pay attention to some approaches to the classification and study of culture: evolutionism (A. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, E. Taylor); difuzionizm (cultural centers and areas: L. Frobenius); philosophical and historical (N. Danilevsky, K. Leontiev, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee); philosophical-anthropological (V. Mezhuyev); structural, or structuralist (V. Propp, R. Jakobson); structural-anthropological (K. Levi-Strauss); structural-semiotic (Yu. Lotman, R. Bart, V. Ivanov); axiological (L. Stolovich); dialogical (M. Bakhtin, M. Buber); hermeneutic (F. Schleiermacher, G. Gadamer).
Using in our study the proposed paradigm for analyzing the processes of human existence in the contemporary cultural space of information civilization, we have revealed that in this paradigm, virtual being is clearly manifested as an equilibrium between two alternative worlds: the world of a single unique, the domination of the personally-individual, and the world of the social with its inherent laws, that is, two hypostases of man in culture, two substantial planes of human existence. It should be noted that in modern sciences, studying cultural space of a person, cultural identity is defined as the correspondence of a person to a certain image of cultural objectification, links to specific patterns and to criteria for distinction and recognition, for constituting from symbols and choosing between cultural alternatives. Cultural identification acts as the creative power of symbolizing activity, as the structural basis of culture, as a form of identifying and expressing its cultural alternatives. The eternal and endless disputes of researchers about whether «subjective» or «objective» culture is, must be ended by the transition to another basis of its interpretation. Culture has a social character: it exists in someone's head, although it is ideational; it is not a secret occupation, although it has no physical substance. The question of whether a culture is a paternal behavior, or a mood of the spirit, or both, becomes meaningless. Accordingly, it does not make sense to be interested in the ontological status of symbolic actions, which basically represent human behavior as a cultural interaction, because it is the same as that of rocks or our hopes, these are all phenomena of our world. It is necessary to be interested in their meaning, in the content of what is transmitted with their help.
Modern analysis of social, political, economic transformations of society is impossible without systematic studies of cultural space. The epoch of postmodernism, where a person does not stand the pressure of the world and becomes a posthuman, gave impetus to the deconstruction of culture and to the formation of its various parts, which receive their own vector of further development. It should be noted that such a purposeful «vector» of segmentation of culture causes certain structural changes in the direction of culture relatively to its classical understanding. Individual segments acquire increasing autonomy and begin to create certain behavioral stereotypes that shape a person's ideological orientations. Therefore, deconstruction as depersonalization becomes the cause of a new culture. Speaking about the structure of culture, it must be borne in mind that it is a system that ensures the unity of the elements formed by it.
The interest in the examination of the essence and structure of culture is increasing today mainly due to deconstructiveness of culture, the plurality of values and the absence of any semantic reference points in it. Though the notion of «culture» is central to cultural studies, it’s not so easy to investigate it. Unfortunately, despite the great history of the formation and development of the phenomenon of culture in human life, there is still no consensus on its definition, structure and essence. Our research is not limited to the selection of existing options or the formulation of the best, most meaningful definition of culture that would meet modern requirements. V.K. Suhantseva in her work «The Metaphysics of Culture» writes: «... when we can not name the structure of culture clearly, then it is necessary to name the elements, without which culture can not exist (the foundations of culture), which will make its existence impossible (memory, historical otherness, transcendence of the world of things, dialectic of symbol and meaning). So the above-mentioned foundations of culture are interrelated and, in our opinion, must be taken into account in the constructing of any typology of culture, so we will dwell on some of them in more detail. Mankind, understood as a genus, can be aware of itself in time; but the individual, clearly feeling the horror of biological extinction, must enter the space in which all the living things are not just alive, but continue to exist » [3, p.26-27].
This hope is realized through memory, it overcomes historical time. Thus, culture and memory have a multidimensional reality, this approach enables to determine the second basis of culture, namely, historical otherness, in which «the generic memory of a man is located and never exhausted» [3, p.26]. We emphasize that this historical otherness, which is the space of culture, of all its masterpieces, which for some reason do not experience evolution: «... there is a specific branch in which progress is not observed, where there is not and can not be any increase: Hegel is hardly more progressive than Plato; Dante does not show obvious backwardness in relation to Shakespeare, and Nefertiti with Gioconda are in some strange dimension» [3, p.26]. We believe that the following subsystems of culture (the transcendence of the world of things and the dialectic of symbol and meaning) arise from the eternal metaphysical problem of the thing and the Whole.
Information factors that influence the formation of modern culture provide impetus and coordinate the structural elements of development. Information culture became the most important factor in the development of postmodernism, which led to the transition from the production of things (modernism) to the development of signs, symbols, and information. M. Zakovich, S. Povtoreva, M. Foucault and other representatives of the structural approach to the analysis of culture make it possible to disclose each of its parts’ specifics and to show its role in the development of society. We believe that such an approach, especially in modern conditions, can better clarify the structural changes in the value orientations of the postmodern culture as a new type of information culture. Today, there is every reason to talk about the formation of an information society, and therefore, of a new information culture, which can become a weighty factor in the worldview of modern man. Information factors that influence the modern culture formation, have nodal associations that impulse and coordinate development to a certain direction. Today a person lives not in a mechanical environment, but spends more of his working and free time in the information field, where he communicates with people and symbols.
In the foreign researchers’ works the information space of culture is considered, first of all, within the framework of the paradigm of the postindustrial society, the paradigmatic grounds for researching the information society are proposed, however, specific definitions of the notion of «information culture» are not offered. For example, F. Webster turned to the study of ontological characteristics of the cultural space of the information society; the process of information culture forming they understood as a general trend of the modern sociocultural systems movement and as transformations in the cultural sphere. At the same time, the role of culture as a basis that forms creative, spiritual qualities of a person and thus counteracts the technogenic processes alienating a person from his cultural and anthropological identity, is growing significantly. But, in our opinion, the matter is not as simple as it seems at first glance.
Modern dynamics of culture shows that it can not develop otherwise than a culture of technological achievements. In the proposed study, culture is viewed from the point of view of a systematic approach, namely, as a subsystem of society, together with the economy and politics. This situation determines the new information civilization’s need for a rapid way of revising norms and standards that construct cultural changes in accordance with the dynamics and evolution of civilization and culture. Culture, politics, economics in the conditions of modern information space oblige modern researchers to rethink the prospects for the development of culture, and also make it necessary to adequately assess the possibilities of a new type of information space and create the necessary conditions for the realization of its positive potential. The information society is characterized by a high level of industrialization. As A. Toynbee points out: «The task of the industrial system is to maximize its productive capacity, processing raw materials into certain products by man-made means» [4, p.13]. Unlike the industrial society, the emerging information society transforms the aims of production, its culture.
In a certain sense in the information society a «new person» is formed, which means, thatthe person's way of thinking, his world view change and his culture transforms. The formation of the «information person» occurs - he is a virtuality operator, and his actions are aimed at information and communication; in fact, it's about trying all the possibilities of the program, just as a player tries all the possibilities of the game. Thus, along with informatization the role of game elements in culture is strengthening. It should be noted that it is in the process of information activities that a person develops and improves the culture of handling information, methods for obtaining, processing, storing and timely issuing it. Today's information, which has great value at the moment, may already be completely depreciated tomorrow, so timely information acquisition increases its relevance and practical significance. M. Castells argues that «... we are experiencing one of the rare moments. This moment is characterized by the transformation of our «material culture» through the work of a new technological paradigm built around information technology » [2, p.90]. It should also be noted that in a modern information environment, the practices of mass culture are increasingly virtualized. But virtual communication is not able to replace the real communication of people, offering only different kinds of simulations. In the course of informatization of the society and its culture, the status of artistic culture is transformed: its role in public life is increasing, its sphere of operation is expanding, and the number of people engaged in creative activity is increasing, too. The diversity of information and communication means leads to the creation of an individual information system, which becomes the real basis for the demassification of modern culture. As a result of the information culture functioning, it acquires a dialectically contradictory character, including the unity of two opposite tendencies of masification and demassification. In this process, two opposite tendencies merge and complement each other: masification and demassification. The first provides a level of mutual understanding. The second works on the identity and individual self-worth of a man, makes it interesting and attractive to another person, another individual. These trends in the formation of information culture have the same material basis, the powerful information and communication tools that promote the development of the media.
However, the transgression taking place in the information space of modern culture confirm the strengthening of its various forms in society. A new organization of sociocultural systems is being built, a different cultural paradigm is formed in the society taking place in the information space of modern culture confirm the strengthening of its various forms in society.
The culture of virtual reality is one of such forms of information culture. Change in the ways of communication, their virtualization, mediation of everyday communication practices, informatization practically of all spheres of human activity these are the modern cultural transformations that modify the forms of transmission of social experience and at the same time exclude a number of cultural practices, which are traditional for the emergence of personality. Therefore the cardinal changes in cultural life lead to the need to solve the problems of human adaptation to new realities of life, and at the same time to the formation of a new understanding of the vital world and the construction of their own prospects for inculturation in the context of ongoing sociocultural changes.
Thus, on the basis of the analysis of the transgression nature and transgression of culture in the information society, we have proved that the cultural paradigm as a phenomenon of life reality is a lifestyle, way of life of people as subjects of cultural creation, subjects of meaning. In this regard, we consider life problems, or problems as a basic element that shapes people's way of life in a concrete cultural and historical time. Against this background, we clarified the concept of research, in particular: by the paradigm we mean a scientifically approved concept that has a certain period of sustainable development, which is characterized by the evolution of internal processes. The concept of «cultural paradigm» personifies the borderline of the generalization of the entire cultural process of the modern information space formation. Changes related to the processes of informatization, technologization, virtualization and mediatization of the cultural space, expand the ways of transferring socio-cultural experience. New global information technologies open up unprecedented opportunities for human development, and at the same time put before the mankind and its culture complex problems of a philosophical nature associated with the dehumanization of culture, the rationalization of thinking, the technological quality of life. Under conditions of the modern information space, a special type of culture, the information culture, is being formed and proclaimed as the main element of cultural transformation. The formation of an information culture leads to a change in the pictures of the modern world that are manifested in the remote transmission of information in modern civilization.
Литература
1. Букин А.Г. Культурное пространство и пространство культур / А.Г.Букин // Современные проблемы философии, социологии, психологии, экологии. – Ставрополь: Изд-во РАСН – СтГТУ, 1996. – Вып. IV. – С. 58 – 64.
2. Кастельс М. Информационная эпоха: экономика, общество и культура / М.Кастельс. – М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2000. – С.31– 90.
3. Суханцева В.К. Метафизика культуры / В.К. Суханцева. – К.: Факт, 2006. – С. 26 – 27.
4. Тойнби А. Дж. Постижение истории / А.Дж. Тойнби. – М.: Прогресс,1996. – С.13.
Поступила в редакцию 26.03.2018 г.