Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- Features of modern culture in the context of society development

V. N. Goncharov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences,

associate professor

North Caucasus Federal University,

Stavropol, Stavropol Territory, Russia

Since antiquity various researchers try to solve a mystery of culture. It was always obvious to scientists that culture is essentially irreducible to both its external manifestations of a standard order and leisure realities [5, p. 6–9]. Nowadays the number of definition of culture is measured by four figures which reflect both importance, and extreme complexity of comprehension of this phenomenon. Such statistics forms not the need for new definitions but obliges to depict accurately the social background where they arise. Historically maturing mankind is a good example. Each of its representatives is a being who unlike animals feels inconveniently in the natural environment and therefore he is forced to form for social life artificial environment, in other words, culture [12, p. 73–78]. The last decades of the 20th century in many respects transformed cardinally a global society. Culture was an engine of this transformation. Perhaps, for the first time in human history general influence of culture extended to all civilized population [1, p. 95–100]. Due to this culturologists can declare: a society was replaced by culture. Culture, in comparison with previous eras, certainly, changed, having incorporated all those classical parameters which created it throughout two millennia as a complete and harmonious mechanism. Cultural universalism of a modern era changed beyond recognition [14, p. 10–16].

What are new culture contours and what does it give to a personality and a society? The phenomenon of modern culture can be rather successfully described in two measurements: post-industrial and postmodern [6, p. 136–143]. Culture develops as a result of interaction of these two global approaches to transformation and reality assessment. At the same time it turns out that the first directly regulates ways of formation of modern social and technological realities. The second creates and shows values arising in modern culture [13, p. 39–44].

Post-industrial society can be treated as a structure based on knowledge. However, what does knowledge mean for modern culture? In post-industrial coordinates knowledge is, first of all, information having practical value and serving for obtaining concrete results [11, p. 282–284]. Such total practicality acts as one of basic characteristics of modern culture.

The role of a post-industrial vector of evolution nevertheless is stronger than power of postmodern at all their mutual complementarity because there is more and more information and less sense in the world [8, p. 87–93].

A post-industrial society makes their rules to postmodern mentality in subject and information worlds, forming information world in its new quality. Influence of postmodern proves more likely in the ways of understanding of the post-industrial direction of social development, than in real opportunities of steps for its change. Postmodern perception of the world focuses on passive acceptance of post-industrial processes, abandoning attempts of their adjustments, both individuals, and society in general [9, p. 78–82].

Culture is inseparable from history. However cultural construction itself has various stages. In any culture, after blossoming and thinning depletion of creative power begins, there is a fading process. All directions of culture change. It goes to practical implementation of power, practical organization of spirit towards its increasing expansion. This practical spiritual organization gradually distances culture from its essence, leveling its spiritual beginning and turning into a civilization [7, p. 123–128]. Certainly, all products of culture including material have a spiritual basis. When culture is churned out, regenerating into a civilization, it inevitably comes to a stage of crisis development. This stage never proceeds evolutionarily. The cultural revolutions, destroying the systems of traditional cultural wealth and turning harmonious whole into separate fragments of the past, imply a presage of a new cultural sense [4, p. 118–124].

In such a case, however, there are no bases for statements that cultural innovations mean total oblivion of traditions of the past. More likely, a new type of culture forms itself through a polemic with the previous type, and through its revival in a new quality. So the Middle Ages built the cultural space on a polemic with Antiquity, however the last during this era was not only an object of criticism, but also a basis of theoretical creation of medieval theology. Voices of modern culturologists sound even more intriguingly when in relation to a present era note that the Middle Ages have already begun. Thus, it is possible to claim that crises in culture are a factor of updating of social memory of mankind [2, p. 168–177].

Even in ancient times they managed to understand that culture is spiritual clamps of society without which neither a person, nor his formation in history and development in the society is impossible. It unites people in the society and provides connection between generations [3, p. 80–85]. And what forms a society by means of culture? Starting with Plato, researchers of various eras answered this question differently. It, however, did not prevent researchers of the latest time to classify all developed theoretical ideas of culture by four main directions fixing the following levels of this phenomenon: development and continuation of nature, or divine plan; unity of the values created by mankind; accumulation and transfer of the social experience; process of production of vital styles.

For this consideration three current representations are the most significant. They give a chance to retrace process of transition from modern to post-modern society. Culture as a way of production of vital styles which is impossible without accumulation and transfer of past social experience acts as a source of this transformation. Though thinkers practically of all eras brought specifications into this basic interpretation of culture, its essence remains invariable and means social memory of generations and also ways, norms and values of perception of the world by human community [10, p. 57–62].

The given set of definitions substantially explains why nowadays when science and technology show realities of information period, culture is late, reproducing industrial standards, of which main is its property of mass. This is hardly surprising, the vital style of industrial society still is reproduced in mass scales and time is required to accumulate the formed information realities in everyday life.

Bibliography

1. 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.

2. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С. Современная российская социальность в контексте социального конструкционизма // Вопросы социальной теории. – 2015. – Т. 7. – № 1–2. – С. 168–177.

3. Болховской А. Л., Говердовская Е. В., Ивченко А. В. Образование в глобализирующемся мире: философский взгляд // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2013. – № 5. – С. 80–85.

4. Говердовская Е. В., Добычина Н. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. – 2014. – № 7. – С. 118–124.

5. Daraganova Yu. S. Философия науки // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2011. – № 4. – С. 6–9.

6. Джиоева Д. А., Камалова О. Н. Значение сенсорных технологий в жизнедеятельности человека // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2011. – № 1. – С. 136–143.

7. 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.

8. Камалова О. Н., Карпун А. Б. Основные структурные элементы политической власти // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 87–93.

9. Колосова О. Ю. Социальная информация в системе управления обществом: философский анализ // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2016. – № 1. – С. 78–82.

10. Колосова О. Ю. Теоретико-методологические аспекты экологической безопасности социально-экологических систем в контексте общественного развития // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2014. – № 3. – С. 57–62.

11. Лобейко Ю. А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal. – 2014. – № 7-2 (46). – С. 282–284.

12. Лобейко Ю. А. Социально-психологические проблемы общения в контексте межличностных общественных отношений// Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. – 2015. – № 4. – С. 73–78.

13. Матяш Т. П., Несмеянов Е. Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 3 (82). – С. 39–44.

14. Матяш Т. П., Матяш Д. В., Несмеянов Е. Е. «Науки о природе» и «науки о духе»: судьба старой дилеммы // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. – 2015. – № 1 (80). – С. 10–16.