Cultural diversity in modern information and communication global media space

V. N. Goncharov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences,

assistant professor

North Caucasus Federal University,

Stavropol, Russia


The topic of cultural diversity, cultural dialogue and cultural contacts in the context of globalization is widely discussed both at the state and social and political level, in the scientific sphere [7, р. 139–144]. It is interesting to look at this problem in the context of modernization if we consider it as a global process of information society formation. At the same time the structure of transferring of sociocultural experience changes respectively [5]. Terms “globalism” and “globalization” have become widely used in the most different scientific research lately. However the essence of this concept and the phenomenon designated by it didn't become clearer. Conflicting judgments are usually exercised concerning globalization; this situation promotes too ideology-driven and politically motivated interpretation of this phenomenon [13, р. 266–271].

Global processes shouldn't be considered covering all countries and regions of the world. That is why concerns of reduction of cultural diversity are sometimes unreasonable. Moreover, it is possible to allocate a number of problems created by them in most societies both in advanced and developing [19, р. 82–89]. First of all plurality and heterogeneous of the events should be noted which are taking place in the world simultaneously, messages on which are broadcasted by mass media. Such variety is unavailable to individual fixation and streamlining.

The modern sociocultural situation is characterized by high degree of uncertainty [1, р. 83–86]. The statement that the variety of cultures and subcultures, including professional and political, ethnic, causes difficulties in cross-cultural communications has already become widely used [6, с. 28–34]. They are found not only in the field of international relations, but also in structure of interaction in the same society. In this case it possible to say that increase of variety generates crisis of cultural identity [4, р. 16–27].

Cultural mechanisms, maintaining dynamic balance between a variety and homogeneity of the world, are incorporated into the difficult system of integration contacts and relations in the sphere of economy, policy, information technologies, communications constituting essence of globalization processes [12, р. 17–20]. In this regard it is necessary to see those benefits of sociocultural development which are connected with integration tendencies. Though it is impossible to ignore the contradictory nature of modern globalization process [14, р. 130–134].

Formation of global cultural space, dynamic and freely transformed, demonstrates that coherence of the world is shown in the most different scales. Modern person, existing in pluralistic culture, forms certain sociocultural stereotypes because everyone obtains approximately the same set of information through television, computer channels, the Internet and other mass media.

Researchers allocate a set of types of originality in the modern world. It is an originality in the conditions of openness which is connected with removal of tough borders in case of implementation of the communications leading to mitigation of logic of conflicts. Other aims are pursued by originality carriers as closeness forms: protection of the natural and sociocultural space, opposition of somebodies values to another [8, р. 18–22]. The most perspective originality is directed in future, creating bases for forming of civil society and carrying out policy of cultural pluralism.

The sociocultural reality of the globalized world reduces chances of formation of the ethnocultural identity as subjectively established both for those who live in the native environment, and who exist beyond its limits [9, р. 123–128].

In the context of globalization forming of new identity as semantic basis of existence of the personality in the unstable world trying to overcome split between a universal instrumentalism and historically implanted partcular identity brings to bipolar opposition between network and personality [16, р. 282–284]. Speaking about sociocultural heterogeneity of ethnos, manifestation of different types of identification models should be noted. Two most widespread in the globalized world models are complicated ethno national identification and marginalization as dissolution of ethnocultural identity [3, р. 142–145]. Both models take place in different ethnoses. As they act as a consequence of adaptation to a situation of openness and innovative activity of certain representatives of ethnos and community in general, in the first case complexity doesn’t exceed admissible limits, and in the second – simplification doesn’t lead to destruction, and marginality [11, р. 33–36]. Ethnocultural marginalization is characterized by loss of the person of communication with the culture, his readiness to fit into any context irrespective of style, and the technicism shown by the person demonstrates superficial development of sociocultural space [17, р. 102–107].

Change of dynamics of cultural interactions is connected with forming of global infrastructures promoting penetration through national borders, development of the industry of the cultures differentiating cultural flows and emergence of multinational corporations for production and distribution of cultural goods and services. Mass media and communication technologies become key sectors providing density of cultural contacts. New information and communicative systems expand opportunities and a sphere of influence on the world of mass and transnational culture [15, р. 396–402].

Thus, modern information and communication system (television, radio, personal computers and computer networks, satellite broadcasting, on-line and the Internet), which becomes the main channel of broadcast of transnational culture, affects greatly process and results of interaction of cultures.

Development of information and communication space is considered as additional channel for preserving and distribution of cultural heritage as strategic objective of cultural policy of different communities [2, р. 95–100].

Lack of an entry into world level, of representation of national and regional cultures at the global level causes damage to development of cultural diversity [18, р. 39–44]. The interrelation of foreign policy with tasks of internal development is in that case very complicated. In Russian culture in the context of social transformations the orientation to the future assuming that traditions of the past are implemented without loss on a new, innovative basis really matters [10, р. 113–117]. It is important that all those who is responsible for a condition of domestic culture, could consider specifics of a transition period, creating conditions for self-development of cultural processes.



  1. Бакланов И. С. Социокультурное и коммуникативное наполнение понятия рациональности в современной социальной философии // Вестник Северо-Кавказского федерального университета. – 2011. – № 5. – С. 83–86.
  2. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С., Ерохин А. М. Методологические конструкты исследования социальности современного общества // Историческая и социально-образовательная мысль. – 2016. – Т. 8. – № 3-1. – С. 95–100.
  3. Бакланова О. А. Методологические измерения социальности в современной социально-теоретической рефлексии // Вестник Северо-Осетинского государственного университета имени Коста Левановича Хетагурова. – 2013. – № 2. – С. 142–145.
  4. Бакланова О. А. Проблема конституирования социокультурной идентичности в современном обществе // В сборнике: Высшая школа – региону : сборник научных статей. – Пятигорск, 2013. – С. 16–27.
  5. Говердовская Е. В., Антюхина А. В., Шульженко В. И. Актуальные проблемы духовной жизни личности и общества: региональный аспект. – Волгоград, 2014.
  6. Говердовская Е. В. Социокультурные и этнологические особенности региона – основа модернизации высшего образования на Северном Кавказе // Ученые записки университета им. П. Ф. Лесгафта. – 2007. – № 7. – С. 28–34.
  7. Деркачев Г. И., Бакланов И. С. Проблемы и истоки легитимации власти в современной России // Социально-гуманитарные знания. – 2009. – № 9. – С. 139–144.
  8. Ерохин А. М. Религиозное сознание в контексте общественных отношений // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 2 (81). – С. 18–22.
  9. Ерохин А. М. Научно-информационный аспект исследования социокультурного развития общества в области культуры и искусства // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2015. – № 2. – С. 123–128.
  10. Камалова О. Н. Развитие представлений об интуиции в русской философии конца XIX – начала XX в // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2012. – № 1. – С. 113–117.
  11. Камалова О. Н. Особенности понимания интуиции в философии С. Л. Франка // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2011. – № 1. – С. 33–36.
  12. Колосова О. Ю. Синергетические аспекты развития современного общества // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2012. – № 4. – С. 17–20.
  13. Колосова О. Ю. Трансформационные социальные процессы в контексте глобализации // Научные проблемы гуманитарных исследований. – 2012. – № 4. – С. 266–271.
  14. Колосова О. Ю. Социально-философские аспекты глобализации // Сборники конференций НИЦ Социосфера. – 2014. – № 45. – С. 130–134.
  15. Колосова О. Ю. Информация в системе управления: социальный аспект // European Social Science Journal. – 2013. – № 12-2 (39). – С. 396–402.
  16. Лобейко Ю. А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal. – 2014. – №7-2 (46). – С. 282–284.
  17. Лобейко Ю. А. Педагогическая деятельность и педагогическое сознание: социальный аспект // Фундаментальные и прикладные исследования: проблемы и результаты. – 2014. – № 13. – С. 102–107.
  18. Матяш Т. П., Несмеянов Е. Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 3 (82). – С. 39–44.
  19. Месхи Б. Ч., Несмеянов Е. Е. Теология или лженаука: что на самом деле разрушает отечественное образование // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. – 2014. – № 4. – С. 82–89.


Ваш ник:
Ваш email:
Текст комментария: